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

[Jurisprudence]

Oh yes, I agree. I'm just referring to the Motion to Dismiss hearing still schedued for Sept 1. In the D's latest filing for that they suggest another motion will be filed - why put that in a filing related to a Motion to Dismiss unless they intend to use it in support of the Motion to Dismiss? My point being that it's hardly fair and adeqauate if this new Motion is filed in the next few days with the intention that it is to support the D's case for dismissal to be heard Sept 1. When does the State get a chance to respond to this so far unnamed motion by Sept 1?

[BBM]

I believe it was filed simultaneously - just separately. She moved to have the arguments she's making and the "facts" upon which she's based them, filed under seal.

jmo

 

[jepop]

I haven't seen this mentioned. The defense motion to dismiss is on the following grounds:

BIASED GRAND JURY,
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE,
LACK OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE,
AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN WITHHOLDING EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

Unless the motion under seal will address the the standard of proof under the "Lack of Sufficient Evidence" it seems she might have abandoned this argument.

jmo

It was filed for the first time at 4.08 August 23rd. It is in addition to the original MtD which I do not think has been dropped (the D filed a Reply to State's Objection to that motion on 22nd Aug). The D filed this current and entirely new motion in terms of grounds with the least possible time for the P to respond by Sept 1. They filed an hour after the 23nd August Status Hearing and an hour after they asked for the hearing date to remain as Sept 1, which the state did not object to. It's a savvy move which forsome reason the State failed to anticipate Imo. It's expected and quite underhand but ofcourse strictly within the confines of the time limts set by the Judge. However as speedy trial is waived I think the P will definately be granted additional time to respond if they request that. Imoo the Hearing for Motion to Dismiss will be moved back.

 

[jepop]

[BBM]

I believe it was filed simultaneously - just separately. She moved to have the arguments she's making and the "facts" upon which she's based them, filed under seal.

jmo

Maybe. it is not the new Motion that was filed at 4.08pm on Augst 23rd. The D's Reply to the State refers to another Motion (re prejudice) so it is not any of the docs filed under seal on Aug 23rd at 4.09pm. Moo

Edited as responding to wrong post.
EBM clarity

 

[Jurisprudence]

It was filed for the first time at 4.08 August 23rd. It is in addition to the original MtD which I do not think has been dropped (the D filed a Reply to State's Objection to that motion on 22nd Aug). The D filed this current and entirely new motion in terms of grounds with the least possible time for the P to respond by Sept 1. They filed an hour after the 22nd August Status Hearing and an hour after they asked for the hearing date to remain as Sept 1, which the state did not object to. It's a savvy move which forsome reason the State failed to anticipate Imo. It's expected and quite underhand but ofcourse strictly within the confines of the time limts set by the Judge. However as speedy trial is waived I think the P will definately be granted additional time to respond if they request that. Imoo the Hearing for Motion to Dismiss will be moved back.

I think the motion was filed. Okay I think I misunderstood your post. I thought you were saying she still had not filed it at all so how can the state be expected to respond. My mistake.

This part leads me to believe it was already attached and held back simply awaiting a ruling to file it under seal. But I agree that by now some mention of the filing should be made of it on the docket.
"Mr. Kohberger raises twenty four (24) issues which are set forth in full in the Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Indictment and its attachments."

jmo

 

[jepop]

DBM

 

[jepop]

I think the motion was filed. Okay I think I misunderstood your post. I thought you were saying she still had not filed it at all so how can the state be expected to respond. My mistake.

jmo

No, she filed in time, just saying I think she did it at last possible moment and that was deliberate. Just standard tactics I know, but I think the State may have let down their guard for a moment and were not expecting a whole new motion. I see the filing of the D's Reply to the State's objection to the first MtD on 22nd Aug, as having hoodwinked the State into believing this was the additional filing the D had previously referred to. Moo

EBM to delete last sentence

 

[Jurisprudence]

Maybe. it is not the new Motion that was filed at 4.08pm on Augst 23rd. The D's Reply to the State refers to another Motion (re prejudice) so it is not any of the docs filed under seal on Aug 23rd at 4.09pm. Moo

Edited as responding to wrong post.
EBM clarity

I don't know how I forgot that she actually did file a motion to dismiss on July 25th on the grounds that the wrong standard was used. Because she came back with this new filing throwing in the kitchen sink I thought perhaps she abandoned it because it was such a loser argument. Alas, no. Instead she decided to come up with new grounds to challenge. She's completely burying them in paper. I can't even imagine how Thompson and his team feel. They have got to be beyond furious at this point. A feeling I have long suspected is her intended goal. "Want me to stop? Take the DP off the table"

jmo

ETA: I should add she is and has been doing this imoo, because she has nothing else.

 

[jepop]

While I do agree with that, and think he does have a mask hiding his true nature most of the time, I do think there are moments where his true emotions leak through.

When he entered court, and smirked at AT, I think his arrogance and confidence in his own superiority leaked through. I think he really feels like he has this all under control.

Yes you're right,no doubt re the smirk Moo. There are other occasions where he wears his mask perhaps not so well though on reflection.

 

[wendy44]

There's definitely an issue. But so far, she's not been charged with or convicted of "perjury" AFAIK. It's a really serious thing to lay on someone.

I don't know what "what went back on" means. I usually have about 4-5 different explanations that I can (if I'm lucky) rank according to my own standards, but if I'm not certain (which is most of the time, as I am a science-oriented person who wants proof), I might have mildly conflicting views. I am not alone.

Can anyone else know if I am within my own bounds of honesty? Or how many views I have and what percentage of reliability I give to each?

I'm certainly not trying to defend people who accept money for proffering one of their opinions to the exclusion of others - which is why, to me, there have so far been no real experts presented by the Defense. Or anyone else, for that matter.

So until a court rules it perjury, it's just "expert opinion," IMO. I will admit that I understand what it's like to used LinkedIn (the Tinder of Employment SM?) to find expert opinion.

I don't think, in this case, that it was perjury (need a ruling) and need more information before deciding whether she has now repudiated (gone back on?) her views or just has other views (like about one-third of us who have posted here, by my estimated.

IMO. And IME (including professional experience).

The video is really difficult in parts to understand, but, from what I can hear, after Vargas submitted her Declaration in Support of the Motion to Compel, and after she gave her sworn testimony in court about the contents of that declaration, she reneged on some of the testimony (we don't know what) in electronic communications with fellow genetic genealogists. The prosecution said she also admitted that some of what was in the declaration she inadvertently agreed to and/or signed without fully reading it. So there's a possibility this could fall under false statements/perjury, but not knowing what she's retracting that's just speculation.

What's kind of interesting to me is that the two things she's saying don't really add up. If she signed the declaration but hadn't really read it or didn't know all she was signing (which is possible if the defense prepared the declaration but still not a defense to submitting false statements), that doesn't really mesh with her then proceeding to testify to those things in court. Unless the false statements were about one thing and the retracted testimony another.

 

[jepop]

I don't know how I forgot that she actually did file a motion to dismiss on July 25th on the grounds that the wrong standard was used. Because she came back with this new filing throwing in the kitchen sink I thought perhaps she abandoned it because it was such a loser argument. Alas, no. Instead she decided to come up with new grounds to challenge. She's completely burying them in paper. I can't even imagine how Thompson and his team feel. They have got to be beyond furious at this point. A feeling I have long suspected is her intended goal. "Want me to stop? Take the DP off the table"

jmo

There are now two Motions to Dimiss out there. Either the Sept 1 hearing will only address the July 25th Motion - which was the understood intention of that hearing Imo, or the Sept 1 hearing will be delayed to a time when both MtDs will be addressed in the same hearing. Having thought more about it I don't think the Sept 1 hearing will hear this new Motion as that hearing is only set so as to hear the original Motion. Jmo.

ETA: that's not to say that the d are not trying to sneak this entirely new motion into the Sept 1 hearing - their filing the new one by the deadline previously set by Judge (for additional material related to the original motion Imo, not a new motion) and request that the Sept 1 date remain just an hour prior to filing suggest this as tactic Imo.

 

[jepop]

I don't know how I forgot that she actually did file a motion to dismiss on July 25th on the grounds that the wrong standard was used. Because she came back with this new filing throwing in the kitchen sink I thought perhaps she abandoned it because it was such a loser argument. Alas, no. Instead she decided to come up with new grounds to challenge. She's completely burying them in paper. I can't even imagine how Thompson and his team feel. They have got to be beyond furious at this point. A feeling I have long suspected is her intended goal. "Want me to stop? Take the DP off the table"

jmo

ETA: I should add she is and has been doing this imoo, because she has nothing else.

What do you make of this in the D's reply to the state's objection to the first (July 25th) Motion to Dismiss? Filed 22nd August.

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

"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"

I've taken the above out of its entire context as too long to post here.

This is the separate motion pending (ie "will demontrate") I'm referring to - Imoo it has nothing to do with D's new 23rd August Motion to dismiss.. When the July 25th MtD is heard on Sept 1st, how can the judge take into account this part of D's argument made at least partially on the basis of a motion that is yet to be filed? And if it is to be filed as support for MtD number 1 prior to Sept 1, say on August 28th just by way of e.g., how would the judge deal with the lack of time for the State to respond? Moo

 

[schooling]

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

Jeepers creepers.

Yikes!

 

[girlhasnoname]

Well not surprising that AT & Company filed the 24 page Motion to Dismiss the GJ Indictment, but man they actually referenced Prosecutorial Misconduct. Yikes.

Criminal Rule 6.1( b) (1)

(b) Powers and Duties. The prosecuting attorney has the power and duty to:

(1) present to the grand jury evidence of any public offense, however, when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence which directly negates the guilt of the subject of the investigation the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose that evidence to the grand jury;

moo

 

[maskedwoman]

I think they already know the answer to this. I just think they made a deliberate choice not to let us know. I've always thought this. Time will tell.

jmo

Agreed. Thompson is highly experienced. If we can think of an issue, I'm sure his team has though of it, and will address it. So many things become clear in testimony that seem odd, dramatic or mysterious beforehand.

 

[Boxer]

Not that confident, stern look like usual to me. He seemed nervous to me for the first time in court today.

MOO

Agree, also kind odd and speedy, for instance after rising for the judge he abruptly sat before any one else.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I don't think there's a chance that the Defense will be successful in getting the GJ Indictment dismissed. But, in the worst case scenario they can turn right around and impanel another GJ or go the route of Preliminary Hearing. They have plenty of time as they aren't bound by BK's right to a speedy trial anymore.

BK isn't going anywhere. I wonder how he is getting along in jail? He's separated from other inmates, but does he prefer that solitude? I think he does.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

There are now two Motions to Dimiss out there. Either the Sept 1 hearing will only address the July 25th Motion - which was the understood intention of that hearing Imo, or the Sept 1 hearing will be delayed to a time when both MtDs will be addressed in the same hearing. Having thought more about it I don't think the Sept 1 hearing will hear this new Motion as that hearing is only set so as to hear the original Motion. Jmo.

ETA: that's not to say that the d are not trying to sneak this entirely new motion into the Sept 1 hearing - their filing the new one by the deadline previously set by Judge (for additional material related to the original motion Imo, not a new motion) and request that the Sept 1 date remain just an hour prior to filing suggest this as tactic Imo.

I think Judge JJ will hear the entire argument (Defense Motions & State Reply) on Sept 1st, even though he may not announce a decision at that time. I sure do wish we had access to the 24 pages that were sealed.

What is it that the Defense seems to be drilling down to as 'exculpatory evidence'?

MOO

EBM: Added sentence

 

[girlhasnoname]

I need to watch the whole thing (I started at the later point you indicated) but, well, it's not surprising that someone who is admitting to having violated rules and polices in a major case...gets visited by LE (I'm not sure really why this is federal - but, well, it seems to me this "expert" actually brags about breaking a US-wide contract).

And while the expert is already paid, that doesn't make them safe from investigation for breaking rules, does it? AT knew this as well. The expert may or may not have realized what they were getting into.

Being a paid expert is a hard gig - and in this case, I don't get a strong sense of lots of *legal* experience.

What is incredulous to me is that GV said in her signed CV document with the Defense that she 'knew of instances where LE/FBI used loopholes to access restricted data'. It was said on some form of SM that she retracted part(s) of her testimony.

I said the day she testified that I'd hate to be making such bold accusations against LE. It was absolutely no surprise to me that she was visited by investigators (LE or FBI) regarding her testimony. I'm glad the Prosecutor got that on the record, it'll work in their favor when they dispute the Defense's position on IGG. Along with the other real "Expert" witnesses who will show IGG is a tool, it doesn't supply them with a guilty party.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

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?

No, I don't believe so. The Defense is desperately throwing every single thing out there in hopes of gaining by some technical error by the State. The State's Prosecutor BT is highly experienced and knows with the DP on the table he would need to cross every t and dot every i.

JMO

 

[maskedwoman]

I think Judge JJ will hear the entire argument (Defense Motions & State Reply) on Sept 1st, even though he may not announce a decision at that time. I sure do wish we had access to the 24 pages that were sealed.

What is it that the Defense seems to be drilling down to as 'exculpatory evidence'?

MOO

EBM: Added sentence

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think it will include the car year change that we discussed at length, probably some things that might sound a bit promising only when presented out of context, and others that we may find ridiculous. I'm not expecting anything with any real substance.