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

[girlhasnoname]

Also his hair looks lighter to match

To me too. I bet the State will have plenty of photos depicting an accurate color for BK's hair and his bushy eyebrows through his Drivers License and booking photos at least.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I believe he did use them to abuse his power and luckily each time someone stopped him before he was allowed to work with LE.

Thank goodness then, can you imagine the power of Position of Authority over other he would have had an LE?

MOO

 

[al66pine]

Whoops. In earlier post, forgot to insert the link.
Excluding/Sequestering Witnesses.

Excluding Witnesses.
"Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 615. Excluding witnesses"
is relatively short & sweet.

For anyone who wants further rationale or explanation, below is a link to 4 page article from a law journal.

Excerpt: "The rule on sequestration (exclusion) of witnesses is designed to avoid fabrication and collusion.... Special rules apply regarding expert witnesses and “support persons.” The contours of such special rules are explored within the Federal Rules of Evidence, state rules of evidence, state appellate and supreme court decisions, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions." (sbm)
__________________________
"Sequestration of Lay Witnesses
and Experts"
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 32:447–50, 2004

My apologies. Here it is.

https://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/32/4/447.full.pdf

 

[Chloegirl]

Respectfully, I don't think that's a fair assessment of what was said. Nor do I believe we have any proof of the FBI doing that. Only that the witness herself admitted to doing it and that it is possible.

It might be an overstatement of terms but I saw this more as potential perjury?! IDK JMOO

 

[x_files]

Thank goodness then, can you imagine the power of Position of Authority over other he would have had an LE?

MOO

terrifying!
I'm glad people complained and those listened!
Otherwise, he may have had a long career of god knows what.

 

[QB2022]

I don't know how to link but motion to dismiss indictment with the memorandum under seal. They mention 24 issues with the grand jury indictment are listed in said memorandum. That's a lot! Are they likely to be successful?

 

[katydid23]

I don't know how to link but motion to dismiss indictment with the memorandum under seal. They mention 24 issues with the grand jury indictment are listed in said memorandum. That's a lot! Are they likely to be successful?

They gave the judge their initial list already, and he said it seemed vague and he dismissed their motion to dismiss grand jury indictment last Friday. So where did these other 'issues' come from?

 

[maskedwoman]

I don't know how to link but motion to dismiss indictment with the memorandum under seal. They mention 24 issues with the grand jury indictment are listed in said memorandum. That's a lot! Are they likely to be successful?

Their motion is very interesting because one reason they ask for the indictment to be dismissed was that inadmissible evidence was presented to the grand jury. As far as I know, no evidence has been ruled inadmissible to this point.

I was also curious about the assertion of prosecutorial misconduct (clearly the gloves are off) in not presenting exculpatory evidence. When I googled the rules about exculpatory evidence and grand juries for ID (linked below), what I got was that the prosecutor is required to share "substantial evidence which directly negates guilt". I'm sure Judge Judge will allow the defense some latitude on interpreting "substantial" but I also can't imagine Mr. Thompson making that kind of mistake on such a huge case. We shall see.

I.C.R. 6.1. Formation of the Grand Jury | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

 

[katydid23]

Their motion is very interesting because one reason they ask for the indictment to be dismissed was that inadmissible evidence was presented to the grand jury. As far as I know, no evidence has been ruled inadmissible to this point.

I was also curious about the assertion of prosecutorial misconduct (clearly the gloves are off) in not presenting exculpatory evidence. When I googled the rules about exculpatory evidence and grand juries for ID (linked below), what I got was that the prosecutor is required to share "substantial evidence which directly negates guilt". I'm sure Judge Judge will allow the defense some latitude on interpreting "substantial" but I also can't imagine Mr. Thompson making that kind of mistake on such a huge case. We shall see.

I.C.R. 6.1. Formation of the Grand Jury | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

Is there any "substantial evidence which directly negates guilt". I interpret that as being a strong alibi or someone else confessing or the like.

And if the state had direct substantial evidence that negated guilt, would they be pressing charges?

I guess they may be referring to the alleged rumours of the downstairs roommate seeing a naked man run by?

 

[maskedwoman]

Is there any "substantial evidence which directly negates guilt". I interpret that as being a strong alibi or someone else confessing or the like.

And if the state had direct substantial evidence that negated guilt, would they be pressing charges?

I guess they may be referring to the alleged rumours of the downstairs roommate seeing a naked man run by?

That's a mouthful isn't it? I haven't heard of anything meeting that threshold but we can't completely rule it out due to the gag order. I can't speak for Mr. Thompson but I certainly wouldn't have the death penalty on the table if I had exculpatory evidence on my hands.

 

[Bogbacal2]

I came across an article “Persistence of Touch DNA for Forensics” and it is an excellent read. Posting below if anyone wants to check it out. (More research type of article, however, very interesting).

https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/PDF/persistence-of-touch-DNA-for-forensic-analysis.pdf

 

[katydid23]

That's a mouthful isn't it? I haven't heard of anything meeting that threshold but we can't completely rule it out due to the gag order. I can't speak for Mr. Thompson but I certainly wouldn't have the death penalty on the table if I had exculpatory evidence on my hands.

I just keep thinking that if AT knew of some 'direct substantial evidence that negated guilt', she wouldn't be spending all her time and resources on the privacy concerns of the IGG, or the constitutionality of the Grand Jury proceedings. JMO

 

[Balthazar]

Respectfully, I don't think that's a fair assessment of what was said. Nor do I believe we have any proof of the FBI doing that. Only that the witness herself admitted to doing it and that it is possible.

I just rewatched her testimony in its entirety on Youtube. Vargas DID NOT admit to using the backdoors or loopholes when helping LE and specifically said it was the wrong thing to do but said that she is aware that some genetic genealogists do it believing they are helping LE. All she really admitted to was knowing that these different databases have backdoors and/or loopholes which permit viewing opted out from LE DNA profiles and describing what the backdoors and loopholes were by each specific database. She states that she is aware that some genetic genealogists use the backdoors and loopholes. She did not say how she knows this. However she may know this from publicly available information, for example, this article which was published the same day Vargas testified: Police Are Getting DNA Data From People Who Think They Opted Out

 

[10ofRods]

It might be an overstatement of terms but I saw this more as potential perjury?! IDK JMOO

On the part of whom?

 

[twall]

I don't know how to link but motion to dismiss indictment with the memorandum under seal. They mention 24 issues with the grand jury indictment are listed in said memorandum. That's a lot! Are they likely to be successful?

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/082323-Motion-to-Dismiss-Indictment-on-Grounds-of-Biased-Grand-Jury-Inadmissible-Evidence.pdf

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/082323-Motion-to-File-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-to-Dismiss-Indictment-Under-Seal.pdf

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/082323-Order-to-File-the-Memorandum-In-Support-of-Motion-to-Dismiss-Indictment.pdf

 

[Chloegirl]

On the part of whom?

Obviously expert witness Vargas, if that counts as perjury. IDK. JMOO.

 

[Chloegirl]

Just caught this; Did the FBI really go and see Ms Vargas after Friday's hearing where she provided expert testimony?

Are they worried about her telling the world about their backdoor into non-sanctioned privately-held DNA profiles?

Unbelievable.

Sorry 10ofRods, my comment about potential perjury was related to NextSpirit above quote. That got unnecessarily confusing.

Also, having a weird technical difficulty which I hope is temporary.

 

[10ofRods]

Obviously expert witness Vargas, if that counts as perjury. IDK. JMOO.

Well, that was my question. I don't find anything in this case "obvious." And saying that someone has perjured themselves is very serious.

So, what did Vargas say that "counts as perjury"? Has the Judge ruled on this or is it purely opinion?

If I thought it was obvious, I wouldn't have asked. It's not obvious to me. What makes it obvious to you?

IMO.

 

[Chloegirl]

Well, that was my question. I don't find anything in this case "obvious." And saying that someone has perjured themselves is very serious.

So, what did Vargas say that "counts as perjury"? Has the Judge ruled on this or is it purely opinion?

If I thought it was obvious, I wouldn't have asked. It's not obvious to me. What makes it obvious to you?

IMO.

There was a problem with my post (it uploaded mid-typing). I would not use the word perjury quickly that's why I said IDK.

I was referencing a previous post that expert witness Vargas went back on her testimony over the weekend and peers contacted Prosecution, and ultimately she was questioned. I do not know if that is technically perjury or if that is overstating it but there's an issue.

The court seems to be sorting it out and if you watch the video from yesterday, the audio is a little hard to hear. Sorry that got so messed up. Hopefully this posts properly and I don't have to bang my head.

 

[Chloegirl]

Apparently after Ms. Vargas' testimony she got a visit from 2 FBI agents! Around 14:00 in video of today's hearing.

This is the issue I was sending 10ofRods, again still having a technical difficulty so I hope this clarifies.