4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #88

[steeltowngirl]

Bryan Kohberger's trial postponed after he waived right to speedy trial - Internewscast Journal

MOSCOW, Idaho — The trial for a man accused of stabbing four University of Idaho students to death late last year will not happen as scheduled on Oct. 2.

internewscast.com

Something seems different with his expression... can't put my finger on it.....From August 23rd, 2023
View attachment 442670

Above, he appears indignant.
In this photo, I see a smug smirk.

DNA, genetic genealogy focus of Bryan Kohberger hearing in Idaho Four murders

DNA and investigative genetic genealogy took center stage Friday during a motions hearing in Bryan Kohberger’s quadruple murder case in Idaho.

lawandcrime.com

 

[TL4S]

Above, he appears indignant.
In this photo, I see a smug smirk.

View attachment 442679

DNA, genetic genealogy focus of Bryan Kohberger hearing in Idaho Four murders

DNA and investigative genetic genealogy took center stage Friday during a motions hearing in Bryan Kohberger’s quadruple murder case in Idaho.

lawandcrime.com

I think almost every expression we see is forced, unnatural, and doesn't represent what he's feeling inside. I'm not sure any of us could ever really understand what he's feeling inside. Nor would we want to. Jmo.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I think almost every expression we see is forced, unnatural, and doesn't represent what he's feeling inside. I'm not sure any of us could ever really understand what he's feeling inside. Nor would we want to. Jmo.

I wouldn’t want to. But maybe BK did.

He took his study of how to get inside the mind of a killer to the next level.

The ultimate example of immersive learning.

jmo

 

[TL4S]

I wouldn’t want to. But maybe BK did.

He took his study of how to get inside the mind of a killer to the next level.

The ultimate example of immersive learning.

jmo

That's a likely possibility, imo. Maybe immersing himself was the only way he could feel anything at all. Who knows. It's scary as hell.

 

[jepop]

In regard to Motion to Dismiss, why does the D mention that they have another pending motion (supposedly on prejudice the defendant has been subjected to) in their Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (filed 22 Aug)? It's like the D is using in its arguments for dismissal another motion not yet filed that is separate from the Motion to dismiss (they are not referring to Motion to Strike DP).

The state's never seen this motion -- either it does not yet exist or hasn't yet been filed. How can the D use this pending motion to support their argument for dismissal? I assume the Judge would not be able to take into account this part of the D's arguments (as made below) because the Motion referred to is a pending, separate motion seen neither by the State or the Judge. Or if filed shortly before Sept 1, filed too late for the State to adequately consider and address as it relates to the D's arguments for dismissal?

So I think the Judge would have to exclude this part of the D's arguments when he is considering the MtD after Sept 1 hearing? Moo

"Second, Mr. Kohberger will demonstrate in a separate motion the prejudice that resulted from the erroneous instruction in this matter"

P 11 From

REPLY TO STATE’S OBJECTION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS GRAND JURY
ON GROUNDS OF ERROR IN GRAND JURY INSTRUCTIONS

"First, Mr. Kohberger disagrees. Yes,the cases Counsel cited are for trial juries. However,there is simply no credible argument to be made that the State may mislead a grand jury as to thestandard of proof and rely on the Indictment it procures. Additionally, it makes little sense that adefendant deprived of his right to counsel for a preliminary hearing will doom his eventualconviction, but a defendant given a grand jury told it may indict a “ham sandwich” has no recourse.See, Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970). To deprive the accused of a fundamental right has natural consequences. Second, Mr. Kohberger will demonstrate in a separate motion the prejudice that resulted from the erroneous instruction in this matter"

 

[jepop]

I think almost every expression we see is forced, unnatural, and doesn't represent what he's feeling inside. I'm not sure any of us could ever really understand what he's feeling inside. Nor would we want to. Jmo.

I do agree with that - he is wearing a mask Imo.

 

[girlhasnoname]

In regard to Motion to Dismiss, why does the D mention that they have another pending motion (supposedly on prejudice the defendant has been subjected to) in their Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (filed 22 Aug)? It's like the D is using in its arguments for dismissal another motion not yet filed that is separate from the Motion to dismiss (they are not referring to Motion to Strike DP).

The state's never seen this motion -- either it does not yet exist or hasn't yet been filed. How can the D use this pending motion to support their argument for dismissal? I assume the Judge would not be able to take into account this part of the D's arguments (as made below) because the Motion referred to is a pending, separate motion seen neither by the State or the Judge. Or if filed shortly before Sept 1, filed too late for the State to adequately consider and address as it relates to the D's arguments for dismissal?

So I think the Judge would have to exclude this part of the D's arguments when he is considering the MtD after Sept 1 hearing? Moo

"Second, Mr. Kohberger will demonstrate in a separate motion the prejudice that resulted from the erroneous instruction in this matter"

P 11 From

REPLY TO STATE’S OBJECTION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS GRAND JURY
ON GROUNDS OF ERROR IN GRAND JURY INSTRUCTIONS

"First, Mr. Kohberger disagrees. Yes,the cases Cou nsel cited are for trial juries. However,there is simply no credible argument to be made that the State may mislead a grand jury as to thestandard of proof and rely on the Indictment it procures. Additionally, it makes little sense that adefendant deprived of his right to counsel for a preliminary hearing will doom his eventualconviction, but a defendant given a grand jury told it may indict a “ham sandwich” has no recourse.See, Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970). To deprive the accused of a fundamental right has natural consequences. Second, Mr. Kohberger will demonstrate in a separate motion the prejudice that resulted from the erroneous instruction in this matter"

Thanks for pointing this out jepop, I've not noticed that sentence before. Off to do some digging hah. Come pull me out of the rabbit hole if I'm not back in a few days.

I wonder if the Defense wants to do the separate motion ex parte'?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Every single article I read, quite a few, states that the law requires probable cause. After hearing evidence and witness testimony they find that there is probable cause that the Defendant committed the crime. It does not mean the defendant is found guilty, just that there is enough evidence to move forward to trial. The State then has the burden to prove BaRD at trial that the Defendant is guilty.

<snipped> Just one of many articles on the subject

A grand jury indictment is the product of sworn witness testimony and/or physical evidence, analyzed by a grand jury made up of local citizens. The grand jury's role is to determine whether there is in fact probable cause for criminal charges, which generally carries much more weight than a simple criminal complaint. Grand juries are convened in secrecy and usually don't involve judges or defense lawyers. If a grand jury does find probable cause, the prosecutor will file criminal charges. Under no circumstances does a grand jury indictment mean that someone is guilty of a crime, however. The defendant still has the right to argue their case at trial. In order to be found guilty, the prosecution must prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt" - a much higher standard than probable cause.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/what-is-an-indictment.html

MOO

 

[twall]

Bryan Kohberger's trial postponed after he waived right to speedy trial - Internewscast Journal

MOSCOW, Idaho — The trial for a man accused of stabbing four University of Idaho students to death late last year will not happen as scheduled on Oct. 2.

internewscast.com

Something seems different with his expression... can't put my finger on it.....From August 23rd, 2023
View attachment 442670

This photo is from last Friday's hearing. Yesterday's hearing he was not wearing a jacket.

 

[maskedwoman]

It makes me wonder how AT works with him. He is known to be creepy around women. Now he is counting on a woman's expertise to defend him.

I've wondered that, too. She's in a position of power over his life, so it's in his best interests to stay on her good side but we haven't seen a lot of evidence that he can do that. And it can be very difficult for people not to be who they are. I'm sure she's a pretty tough cookie, but the vibe between them seems off. I can't decide if it really is strange or just seems that way because I'm more interested in this attorney/client relationship. Do they ever speak? Or communicate in any way at the defense table? I have not watched all the hearings, but it seems pretty frosty between them in the portions I've watched. It's possible some interesting things may come out once the trial is over.

 

[maskedwoman]

[…]

Taylor also said her team will be filing a motion to strike the death penalty, which has remained on the table since June 27.
"It places Mr. Kohberger in a position where he has to choose his rights," Taylor said. She told the court she believed her client would have to choose between a speedy trial and effective assistance of counsel. She also put the court on notice that the judge should expect an additional motion to ban cameras in the courtroom.
Later in the hearing, in an unexpected twist, Judge said he was summoned for jury duty in the case.
"It's odd," Judge said, referring to being selected. He asked both the defense and prosecution if they were comfortable with him declining jury duty and continuing to preside over the case. Both agreed.
Kohberger's next hearing is Sept. 1, where the defense will fight to dismiss his grand jury indictment. A new trial date will be set following that hearing.

[…]

Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger waives right to speedy trial

Kohberger's defense plans on asking the court to strike the death penalty and ban cameras in the courtroom.

www.ktvb.com

I certainly don't see this motion going anywhere. It could single-handedly ban the death penalty.

EBM, used wrong word

 

[maskedwoman]

The fact that at least a few people on this thread see this point differently suggests a jury of twelve might also…

The jury will have evidence presented to them, as opposed to reviewing and comparing various documents. In testimony, and any pictures of it entered into evidence, the exact location of the sheath will be quite clear.

 

[ArianeEmory]

I guess I would never have known that judges might be summoned for jury duty. Interesting, if not relevant to the case at hand.

 

[arielilane]

16 hr

Interesting tidbit: Judge Judge said he received a request to be a juror in this case. He had to make sure both sides were okay with him excusing himself to be a juror. There were no objections (obviously…)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1694469921345032194

https://twitter.com/naniigrant

 

[arielilane]

Bryan Kohberger's trial postponed after he waived right to speedy trial - Internewscast Journal

MOSCOW, Idaho — The trial for a man accused of stabbing four University of Idaho students to death late last year will not happen as scheduled on Oct. 2.

internewscast.com

Something seems different with his expression... can't put my finger on it.....From August 23rd, 2023
View attachment 442670

Here I notice much lighter eyebrows than previously. moo

 

[Sundog]

What's annoying to me is that this was filed Tuesday (22nd Aug) by the look of it, and the State now has a week to read, digest and respond to meet the deadline for the Sept 1 hearing. The hearing was originally set for Sept 1 because speedy trial was still in force. Now that it's not, why does the P still have to rush its response to this new and lengthy filing? I can see why the D wanted to keep the Sept 1 date for Motion to dismiss even though it was no longer strictly necessary. Imo, it is to their considerable advantage to do so and to the State's disadvantage. Once the State has read and considered this latest filing I wonder if they will move to have the hearing changed to a more reasonable date in order to be given fair time to respond. Moo

I would think the State will take note of quoted paragraph below which suggests there is yet more to be filed.

I don't understand how the suggestion of more to come makes sense. If yet another filing has not already been filed by the D (by 23rd Aug), yet it is referred to here, then either the D are planning to ask the Court to stave off on a decision on the basis of briefs filed for Sept 1 hearing in lieu of this material, or they will file it some time closer to Sept 1, giving the State no adequate time to respond. Moo

My emphasis

"First, Mr. Kohberger disagrees. Yes, the cases Counsel cited are for trial juries. However, there is simply no credible argument to be made that the State may mislead a grand jury as to the standard of proof and rely on the Indictment it procures. Additionally, it makes little sense that a defendant deprived of his right to counsel for a preliminary hearing will doom his eventual conviction, but a defendant given a grand jury told it may indict a “ham sandwich” has no recourse .See, Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970). To deprive the accused of a fundamental right has natural consequences. Second, Mr. Kohberger will demonstrate in a separate motion the prejudice that resulted from the erroneous instruction in this matter"

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/082223-Reply-to-States-Objection-to-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss-Grand-Jury.pdf

The timeline is tight for the hearing of the motion, but neither the D nor P asked the judge to adjust the timeline in light of the waiver of speedy trial. Either side could have done so if there was a concern.

 

[Sundog]

Yes and aren't we all?

I expect the defense to address many of these issues, especially in a death-eligible case. So no, we aren't all "tired" of the defense's representation of their client in this case.

 

[Sundog]

Possible it was taken with one of those horrific anti-stab digital pens… They’re not conducive to a nice signature at all!

Compared to his attorney's signature on the document, BK's signature looked pretty good.

 

[10ofRods]

Yes, sentence 3 was different because they each had slightly different experiences. The investigators were not attached to the hip. One apparently saw the bloody sheath at the crime scene later and the other was told about it later. I don't see that as a problem.

They were looking at two brutally stabbed young girls. I am sure it was bloody and gruesome. And there were 2 other dead bodies to take in as well that day. They may have processed the experience in slightly different ways.

Who cares if one says half under blanket /half under body and the others say 'under' the body? Both of the things can be true. Just wordedt differently.

And besides----there are many pictures that will show exactly how it was found. So the exact way one officer describes it vs another does not matter in the end. One mentions the blanket while another doesn't. I don't see the problem. Obviously there are going to be blankets, they were found in bed.

"Where exactly was the sheath when it was found and who found it?"

I think that has been answered pretty clearly. The sheath was found at the crime scene, in the bed where the 2 dead girls were found. It was right there, partly covered by a blanket and one of the bodies.

The crime scene investigators found it when they began processing the scene. At that point they likely pointed it out to which ever detectives were still on the scene at that time.

The way you asked it above, makes it sound like there is some huge discrepancy about it's location and its discovery. It's not like it was found when the family came to pick up the deceased's belongings or by the cleaning crew weeks later.

And investigators took lots and lots of pictures. I'm sure the jury will not be the least bit confused, plus the jury will hear the whole story, once again (in yet other words, as humans rarely utter exactly the same thing twice), when an investigator takes the stand.

Pictures are worth a lot. Ordinary operating procedure (and common sense) to thoroughly photograph the crime scene before moving anything, and to move things with a photographer immediately taking pictures. There's no other way to treat a crime scene, and it's just so basic to do it that way.

I figure the latent footprint would not even have been mentioned in the PCA (as one in a necessary series of bloody footprints), were it not for its support of DM's statements.

The total sum of what we know about this case is almost nothing, really. But we do know where they found the knife. And one person being slightly more specific in their language is completely normal and I'd be suspicious of the reports if the language wasn't individual.

IMO.

 

[Sundog]

What's annoying to me is that this was filed Tuesday (22nd Aug) by the look of it, and the State now has a week to read, digest and respond to meet the deadline for the Sept 1 hearing.

<snipped for focus>

At last Friday's hearing, the prosecution told the judge that they would need 7 days to review the motion in advance of a hearing. So if the defense filed their motion on August 22nd, then that would meet the timeline requested by the prosecution.