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

[Justice101]

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.

Agree. If your client admits to driving around at 3AM, has a car that matches the general description of a vehicle seen speeding away from the address at the time of the murders, and his DNA is on the murder weapon's sheath... unless you have STRONG EVIDENCE OF YOUR OWN that he was not there... you have a very weak defense.

This one, if it goes to trial, should be a straightforward conviction.

If BK has any sense at all, he will take the Alford or plead guilty to spare his life.. so he can read up on himself when someone writes a book about the murders.

 

[girlhasnoname]

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

The State's Prosecutor stood up addressing the Judge and does say that he was advised that GV had retracted some of her testimony in some form of SM and that he called investigators to make them aware of it. I heard that she was 'visited by agents', but I don't know if that meant LE or FBI.

He also said part of it was that she didn't fully understand what she signed? IDK, but not a good look for the Defense Expert Witness regardless.

MOO

 

[Jurisprudence]

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

I haven't been reading her filings in detail lately (only skimming) because I got tired of the "wah-wah" without basis imo. I have to run right now but I will look at this in an hour or so. From your post above it sounds to me like she's making an argument that maybe the Idaho S Ct only mentioned the proper standard of pc in dicta? That they never outright made a ruling on the issue? If this is the case she could have the power to really slow this down and appeal that issue all the way up (so I hope not). And, if the guess of the first part is right (dicta) that second part sounds like more of the same that weve been hearing from her. "You didn't use the right standard of beyond a reasonable doubt and bc of this my client was prejudiced. Oh, and you also engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by failing to introduce this evidence that we are looking at right here (given to us by you through your discovery production) that is potentially exonerating (that could be another thing that stops the process depending on whether the info came in b4 or after the indictment and if b4 whether the judge rules its omission was harmless). Oh, and the jurors were biased."

All jmo

 

[Balthazar]

Sounded like an admission to me---like a wink wink nod admission. She explained how it was done, step by step and why it was done. She sure does know how that shortcut works. JMO

This is a complete mischaracterization of what she said.

 

[ArianeEmory]

You can really see his new hair colour in this photo too. They lightened and thinned out his hair, trying to make him look less intense. This intense stare isn't helping any.

I noticed his thinning hair--assumed he was just losing it/balding (either due to stress or genetics).

 

[10ofRods]

The State's Prosecutor stood up addressing the Judge and does say that he was advised that GV had retracted some of her testimony in some form of SM and that he called investigators to make them aware of it. I heard that she was 'visited by agents', but I don't know if that meant LE or FBI.

He also said part of it was that she didn't fully understand what she signed? IDK, but not a good look for the Defense Expert Witness regardless.

MOO

Ridiculous, really. So the Defense wrote the thing for her and she signed without reading it? The information in it was irrelevant anyway, IMO. It would now seem that the main purpose of that was to get it into the public's mind that "sometimes LE and others make mistakes in investigations, esp in DNA handling." Pfft.

Looks to have backfired (good for that "expert" for attempting to polish her reputation a little after tarnishing it - she came clean, IOW).

If I were the Judge, I'd be annoyed.

IMO.

 

[al66pine]

dbm

 

[arielilane]

For anyone who hasn't seen the most recent hearing August 23, 2023. Video is just over 18 minutes. Court reporting/stenographer can be heard. Maybe it's me but courts really need to work on audio. moo

Idaho Student Murders: Bryan Kohberger Waives Right to Speedy Trial​

Bryan Kohberger appeared in court Wednesday for a status hearing and waived his right to a speedy trial. The accused killer effectively delayed his trial, which was originally scheduled for October 2. Kohberger’s attorney, Anne Taylor, claimed the defense needs more time to efficiently present their case. There was no new trial date set.

 

[Sleuth2010]

The State's Prosecutor stood up addressing the Judge and does say that he was advised that GV had retracted some of her testimony in some form of SM and that he called investigators to make them aware of it. I heard that she was 'visited by agents', but I don't know if that meant LE or FBI.

He also said part of it was that she didn't fully understand what she signed? IDK, but not a good look for the Defense Expert Witness regardless.

MOO

Also, Defense Expert Witness' background states she is, " self taught, " which is fodder for all kinds of questions .

And as the old saying goes, " coward the murderer, is where he belongs, and there he will stay. "

Law enforcement has their killer. Great job.

MOO IMO

 

[Boxer]

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

The FBI will want to know of any investigator breaking the procedures. If she knew of wrongdoing by an FBI investigator it needed to be addressed immediately.
MOO more likely the use of vague conspiratorial innuendo to make friends and influence people has just finally caught up with her.

 

[jepop]

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 don't think he'll hear the second motion to dismiss (filed 23rd August) on Sept 1. I think the Sept 1 hearing is for the original 25th July Motion to Dismiss only. The new motion is a new motion - the state is entitled to read, digest and make a response before it is heard Moo. Can't see how state can produce the lengthy brief required to respond to new motion by Aug 30th. Jmo

 

[Justice101]

Question:

I am was trying to remember how early in the case did LE mention the knife sheath??

Does anyone have a date or approximate one?

 

[Sundog]

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

So today would be seven days before the September 1 motion to dismiss hearing, and the prosecution asked for the motion at least seven days before the hearing. So maybe the defense will file something today.

On the other hand, in relation to the defense's statement in your post above -- ". . . Mr. Kohberger will demonstrate in a separate motion the prejudice that resulted from the erroneous instruction in this matter" -- maybe this will not be part of a motion to dismiss, but included in a different motion?

 

[jepop]

Question:

I am was trying to remember how early in the case did LE mention the knife sheath??

Does anyone have a date or approximate one?

Came out to the public with the PCA. So that was what?... about 4th or 5th January? As soon as BK arrived in Idaho after extradition from Pennsylvannia. Moo

 

[Justice101]

Came out to the public with the PCA. So that was what?... about 4th or 5th January? As soon as BK arrived in Idaho after extradition from Pennsylvannia. Moo

Ok, so just the mention of a knife back around the murders? Not the sheath itself until the new year, correct?

 

[ArianeEmory]

Question:

I am was trying to remember how early in the case did LE mention the knife sheath??

Does anyone have a date or approximate one?

As @jepop says, the PCA, which was on January 5th.

However, I was looking through a very early timeline post, and LE mentioned that the weapon was probably some kind of knife, as early as the Nov 15 2022 press conf:

ID - 4 University of Idaho Students Died in Apparent Homicide, Moscow, 13 Nov 2022 ****Media Thread**** NO DISCUSSION

***UPDATED NOV 16, NEW INFO IN RED*** VICTIMS: EC = Ethan Chapin [IG / FB], a 20-year-old from Conway, Washington [1]; freshman, member of Sigma Chi fraternity majoring in recreation, sport and tourism management in the College of Education, Health and Human Sciences. [7]; school indicates...

www.websleuths.com

And I don't have a link for this, but: at some point about 4 months ago maybe, I read all the discussion threads from this case (for the first time). People were speculating early on that a sheath must have been left behind, I think because at some relatively early point LE also mentioned the type of knife ("Ka-Bar")--the idea being, how do they know what type of knife if they don't have the weapon? They know because they found a sheath for that type of knife.

Hope this all make sense.

 

[Sundog]

I don't think he'll hear the second motion to dismiss (filed 23rd August) on Sept 1. I think the Sept 1 hearing is for the original 25th July Motion to Dismiss only. The new motion is a new motion - the state is entitled to read, digest and make a response before it is heard Moo. Can't see how state can produce the lengthy brief required to respond to new motion by Aug 30th. Jmo

IIRC, the prosecution asked to recieve the motion at least 7 days in advance, so if the defense filed their second motion on Augsut 23, then that would meet the prosecution's requested timeline to respond by the September 1 hearing.

Edited to add -- August 23 to August 30 is 7 days (not counting August 23)

 

[jepop]

Ok, so just the mention of a knife back around the murders? Not the sheath itself until the new year, correct?

Yes,the fact that LE was looking for a k-bar came out early. LE was at local stores asking re sales from memory and media found out I believe but Moo. Obviously public knew early on the murders were committed with an edged weopon of some sort but personally I think LE may have wanted to hold out a little longer on releasing the K bar angle to the public if not for the press finding out and publishing.Jmo

ETA: BBM - yes, as stated the sheath info was released through the PCA

 

[QB2022]

There was also a rumour re the sheath (from that papa Rodger IIRC) before which makes it feel like it has been known far longer. I suspect that was a lucky coincidence!

 

[m00c0w]

The FBI will want to know of any investigator breaking the procedures. If she knew of wrongdoing by an FBI investigator it needed to be addressed immediately.
MOO more likely the use of vague conspiratorial innuendo to make friends and influence people has just finally caught up with her.

Even more, they will probably want to take a second look at anything she has touched (I am not sure if she has provided services to the FBI or not) because she is attempting to introduce a lot of doubt about something she does as a career. In the future, she's going to have a very rough time in court for any prosecution because these words will be used and abused by defense to paint her work as dubious and untrustworthy. "But can you prove you didn't use these backdoor methods? You seem to know a lot about them; it seems like it would be to your benefit to do so and then backstop it with other routes after the fact. Why should we take any denial at face value?" I hope she was getting ready to move on from this field because she single-handedly sunk her own career.

JMO