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

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Snip from the camera motion made me lol!-

Similarly, Mr. Kohberger is entitled to defend himself against capital criminal charges without cameras focused on his fly.

While I have no sympathy for BK, even I have to agree with this.

I worry about the person behind the camera. Was this the same one that kept turning the view back on BK so much - instead of the people who were speaking?

Not a good perspective - on sooo many levels.

 

[Jurisprudence]

While I have no sympathy for BK, even I have to agree with this.

I worry about the person behind the camera. Was this the same one that kept turning the view back on BK so much - instead of the people who were speaking?

Not a good perspective - on sooo many levels.

If I understand this correctly, I don't think it was the person filming. I think an ordinary person viewing the picture noticed it, zoomed, cropped, and posted it. But she just stated in a sworn paper to the court it was the media's fault that he didn't zip it up? (I didn't read it all) If so, this is another AT whirl in the spin cycle machine. Her veracity is already concerning to me.

jmo

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

If I understand this correctly, I don't think it was the person filming. I think an ordinary person viewing the picture noticed it, zoomed, cropped, and posted it. But she just stated in a sworn paper to the court it was the media's fault that he didn't zip it up? (I didn't read it all) If so, this is another AT whirl in the spin cycle machine. Her veracity is already concerning to me.

jmo

Ah, then this is totally different!

 

[maskedwoman]

Oh for heaven's sake. They are using a court decision from 1965 as the basis for their request to ban cameras from the court room. I do believe the world has changed a bit in the last 58 years. ETA: written by Mr. Logsdon - of course. I would have known even without him being identified, just from the purple prose.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Oh for heaven's sake. They are using a court decision from 1965 as the basis for their request to ban cameras from the court room. I do believe the world has changed a bit in the last 58 years.

The drama is too much. Drama, exasperation, great offense, repeated allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and LE and Feds framing going back to the very beginning continuing thru the first motion to compel (I think she's on her 6th motion to compel) to now, racheting it up more and more with each filing. It's a bit much.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Oh for heaven's sake. They are using a court decision from 1965 as the basis for their request to ban cameras from the court room. I do believe the world has changed a bit in the last 58 years. ETA: written by Mr. Logsdon - of course. I would have known even without him being identified, just from the purple prose.

Considering they go back to 1864 and 1887 in making their arguments for the first motion to dismiss they must think 1965 is like yesterday. (I wonder what they think would have happened to BK if he had stood accused in 1864).

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/072523-PUBLIC-Motion-to-Dismiss-Indictment-on-Grounds-of-Error-GJ-Inst-Alt-Remand.pdf

 

[Megnut]

Snip from the camera motion made me lol!-

Similarly, Mr. Kohberger is entitled to defend himself against capital criminal charges without cameras focused on his fly.

Well, IMO, now we have confirmation she reads here.

>>>waving<<<< hi ya

Judge can settle that tizzy with a single stream, wide angle, no close ups.

Yawn. I'm getting bored with the motions.

JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

dbm

 

[Boxer]

The drama is too much. Drama, exasperation, great offense, repeated allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and LE and Feds framing going back to the very beginning continuing thru the first motion to compel (I think she's on her 6th motion to compel) to now, racheting it up more and more with each filing. It's a bit much.

jmo

No facts for the defense to work with = flurries and drama.

 

[girlhasnoname]

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

You're right, State just filed a Motion for a new date to address the second Motion Sept 20 something IIRC. The Defense even agreed to it.

I'm glad the State is taking extra time in order to respond, it's going to be important.

moo

 

[jepop]

I think they are possibly talking about the 3 male unknown DNA samples and/or the alleged statement by the downstair roommate, about seeing a naked man running past.

Who alleged the statement about the Naked man? Imoo it began and ended with the Daily Mirror.

Here is the incorrect and false statement Moo in the article that was published. No other Msm ever published this story independently. It was repeated and expanded in sm and elsewhere and grew its own legs. Moo. The Affidavit referred to (by BF's lawyer) is a public document in which no such thing is stated.

Daily Mirror reported:
"According to the affidavit, she allegedly witnessed a naked man run through a rear sliding door. She lived on the first-floor of the home and came face-to-face with the alleged killer."

Surviving roommate in university stabbings begs to not face 'killer' in court

Suspect Bryan Kohberger, 28, has been charged with four counts of first-degree murder and burglary after four University of Idaho students were stabbed to death on November 13, 2022

www.mirror.co.uk

The Affidavit referred to is that of Richard Bitonti, BF's lawyer, and is exhibit 3 in Docs below.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/bethany-funke-material-witness-warrant/43954cdb14544969/full.pdf

 

[jepop]

While I have no sympathy for BK, even I have to agree with this.

I worry about the person behind the camera. Was this the same one that kept turning the view back on BK so much - instead of the people who were speaking?

Not a good perspective - on sooo many levels.

Who ever did the over-focussing using the pool camera on August 18th needs to be disciplined and I believe that occurred by the Judge himself at one point after lunch (?) at that hearing. If there was over-focus again of the pool camera on August 23rd then I'm lost for words (haven't watched that hearing yet). A pool camera need not be banned Imo, but there should be particular attention paid to the operators who if necessary should be trained and made to understand perhaps in a contract that over-focussing is not acceptable and there will be consequences if this occurs. Over-focussing to be clearly defined. Moo.

Imo it is over the top for the D to push for a complete camera ban on the basis of some pool camera operators behaving badly. There are other solutions. I hope and believe the Judge will consider them. Moo

 

[maconrich]

If I understand this correctly, I don't think it was the person filming. I think an ordinary person viewing the picture noticed it, zoomed, cropped, and posted it. But she just stated in a sworn paper to the court it was the media's fault that he didn't zip it up? (I didn't read it all) If so, this is another AT whirl in the spin cycle machine. Her veracity is already concerning to me.

jmo

Source please.

I did see reporter tweets that day (shared on here) that the bailiff got onto the video camera operator for continuing to zoom in and focus on BK instead of following Judge Judge's orders. The camera that day was from Law and Crime. People on here even noted the way they were filming could lead to cameras being banned from the courtroom. That was clearly the media's fault, or specifically the fault of the person controlling the camera from Law and Crime. IMO.

I don't believe the Judge warned the media to back off or he'll consider banning videos from the courtroom just for fun. As in, in the summer 2023, Judge Judge issued his order and repeated his warning once already. IMO, if the media continues to disregard his order and warnings, videos shouldn't be allowed inside the courtroom. I feel he was extremely clear, and so was the decision of the media to ignore the Judge. MOO.

<modsnip>

Personally I think that whoever did it was extremely tactless and might as well have been working for any tabloid that thrives on pushing sensationalized BS.

MOO.

 

[Boxer]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1611527609644617728

The sheath was being discussed here on WS on Nov 16. The Papa Roger post was 11/30.

 

[Boxer]

Who ever did the over-focussing using the pool camera on August 18th needs to be disciplined and I believe that occurred by the Judge himself at one point after lunch (?) at that hearing. If there was over-focus again of the pool camera on August 23rd then I'm lost for words (haven't watched that hearing yet). A pool camera need not be banned Imo, but there should be particular attention paid to the operators who if necessary should be trained and made to understand perhaps in a contract that over-focussing is not acceptable and there will be consequences if this occurs. Over-focussing to be clearly defined. Moo.

Imo it is over the top for the D to push for a complete camera ban on the basis of some pool camera operators behaving badly. There are other solutions. I hope and believe the Judge will consider them. Moo

Court TV cameraman got into argument with a bailiff. Needs supervision.

 

[jepop]

Source please.

I don't believe the Judge warned the media to back off or he'll consider banning videos from the courtroom just for fun. As in, in the summer 2023, Judge Judge issued his order and repeated his warning once already. IMO, if the media continues to disregard his order and warnings, videos shouldn't be allowed inside the courtroom. I feel he was extremely clear, and so was the decision of the media to ignore the Judge. MOO.

<modsnip>

Personally I think that whoever did it was extremely tactless and might as well have been working for any tabloid that thrives on pushing sensationalized BS.

MOO.

<modsnip - quoted post and response removed>: If you're talking about the unzipped photo, it could be from a shot that was snapped outside the Court if its origin is a still shot, because I don't think still photographers were allowed in Court? If it is sourced from the pool camera which filmed BK after he entered Court then either the pool camera focussed on his zip or, as has been suggested, an outlet later made a still and then focussed in. Moo The easiest way to resolve is to watch the hearing and see if the pool camera focussed in on his zipper after he walked into Court (I admit to having my doubts that this was the case). Am looking for footage that shows this. Unless the pool camera focussed in on his zippper then it is not a court camera problem. In this instance.Moo

Sure it is still a media/tabloid problem if some media make a still from pool camera normal footage or take the photo when defendant is walking towards the door. The judge cannot control that though. I agree it's a reflection on bad media. Given the tabloids exist, I'm sure BK's counsel have advised him to check his zipper in future. Moo

RBBM your para 1: The judge's only area of control is what the pool camera does in court. Imo, the best solution is to issue a more specific order including consequences for over focussing (maybe contempt of court?) and clarity of what over-focussing entails. For instance; ok for the camera to follow defendant walking through court to his place etc; not ok to hone in on defendant whilst others are addressing court - which is something I saw occur once (in one instance) at Aug 18th hearing. Definition of over-focus to be clear. Moo

EBM for clarity

ETA: to cut a long story short - camera operators need to be professional.

 

[maconrich]

<modsnip> If you're talking about the unzipped photo, it could be from a shot that was snapped outside the Court if its origin is a still shot, because I don't think still photographers were allowed in Court? If it is sourced from the pool camera which filmed BK after he entered Court then either the pool camera focussed on his zip or, as has been suggested, an outlet later made a still and then focussed in. Moo The easiest way to resolve is to watch the hearing and see if the pool camera focussed in on his zipper after he walked into Court (I admit to having my doubts that this was the case). Am looking for footage that shows this. Unless the pool camera focussed in on his zippper then it is not a court camera problem. In this instance.Moo

Sure it is still a media/tabloid problem if some media make a still from pool camera normal footage or take the photo when defendant is walking towards the door. The judge cannot control that though. I agree it's a reflection on bad media. Given the tabloids exist, I'm sure BK's counsel have advised him to check his zipper in future. Moo

RBBM your para 1: The judge's only area of control is what the pool camera does in court. Imo, the best solution is to issue a more specific order including consequences for over focussing (maybe contempt of court?) and clarity of what over-focussing entails. For instance; ok for the camera to follow defendant walking through court to his place etc; not ok to hone in on defendant whilst others are addressing court - which is something I saw occur once (in one instance) at Aug 18th hearing. Definition of over-focus to be clear. Moo

EBM for clarity

ETA: to cut a long story short - camera operators need to be professional.

IMHO the photo was captured from the video (as in a screen shot). Since the jail is in the basement of the same building, BK wouldn't have been outside. It seems unlikely photographers would be allowed in the enter / exit section of the building (the route prisoners take to and from the courtroom). If they are, jail employees or the judge should make sure the area is clear (of media). So that leads back to the Law and Crime video (as they were the ones in charge of filming that day).

I'd think the judge is going to end up having to respond: either by imposing and enforcing consequences or banning video / cameras in the courtroom. It seems clear the media hasn't been adhering to the judge's orders. IMO.

Personally I thought the judge was very clear about what's allowed and what isn't. I do agree that the camera operators need to be professional and responsible - but that's not what's happening. MOO.

Edited to change sentence structure.

 

[jepop]

IMHO the photo was captured from the video (as in a screen shot). Since the jail is in the basement of the same building, BK wouldn't have been outside. It seems unlikely photographers would be allowed in the enter / exit section of the building (the route prisoners take to and from the courtroom). If they are, jail employees or the judge should make sure the area is clear (of media). So that leads back to the Law and Crime video (as they were the ones in charge of filming that day).

I'd think the judge is going to have to respond: either by imposing and enforcing consequences or banning video / cameras in the courtroom. It seems clear the media isn't going to restrain itself or abide by the judge's orders. IMO.

Personally I thought the judge was very clear about what's allowed and what isn't. I do agree that the camera operators need to be professional and responsible - but that's not what's happening. MOO.

Right, forgot he came up from below. So just on the question of the zipper photo my position is it's not something the judge can control if other outlets make stills after the fact. Tabloids will be tabloids outside the control of the court. Moo.

As to the question of banning camera pool all together for pre-trial hearings (and Bk's trial?), we can agree to disagree . Jmo -the judge has already accommodated many of the D's concerns up to the point of no live reporting. One bad pool camera operator does not a justified camera ban make Imo.

 

[maconrich]

Right, forgot he came up from below. So just on the question of the zipper photo my position is it's not something the judge can control if other outlets make stills after the fact. Tabloids will be tabloids outside the control of the court. Moo.

As to the question of banning camera pool all together for pre-trial hearings (and Bk's trial?), we can agree to disagree . Jmo -the judge has already accommodated many of the D's concerns up to the point of no live reporting. One bad pool camera operator does not a justified camera ban make Imo.

Tabloids being tabloids is why I requested a source: <modsnip>

If the media does their job responsibly, the judge won't have to ban delayed video. If they continue to refuse to do so, he made it clear that no video will be allowed, delayed or not, in the courtroom. Honestly we managed to keep up with trials for decades without having them live streamed or tweeted in real time. I'm all for transparency, but even the state agreed with the no video / cameras because they have witnesses they want to protect during trial. It's not coming from just the defense. But, yes, I'll agree to disagree.

All IMO

 

[I'm Nobody]

RBBM your para 2: If you're talking about the unzipped photo, it could be from a shot that was snapped outside the Court if its origin is a still shot, because I don't think still photographers were allowed in Court? If it is sourced from the pool camera which filmed BK after he entered Court then either the pool camera focussed on his zip or, as has been suggested, an outlet later made a still and then focussed in. Moo The easiest way to resolve is to watch the hearing and see if the pool camera focussed in on his zipper after he walked into Court (I admit to having my doubts that this was the case). Am looking for footage that shows this. Unless the pool camera focussed in on his zippper then it is not a court camera problem. In this instance.Moo

Sure it is still a media/tabloid problem if some media make a still from pool camera normal footage or take the photo when defendant is walking towards the door. The judge cannot control that though. I agree it's a reflection on bad media. Given the tabloids exist, I'm sure BK's counsel have advised him to check his zipper in future. Moo

RBBM your para 1: The judge's only area of control is what the pool camera does in court. Imo, the best solution is to issue a more specific order including consequences for over focussing (maybe contempt of court?) and clarity of what over-focussing entails. For instance; ok for the camera to follow defendant walking through court to his place etc; not ok to hone in on defendant whilst others are addressing court - which is something I saw occur once (in one instance) at Aug 18th hearing. Definition of over-focus to be clear. Moo

EBM for clarity

ETA: to cut a long story short - camera operators need to be professional.

Thank you @jepop My speculation only. I do believe the news camera operator(s) are professional & good at what they do.

IMO Any blowup/crops of that particular photo, with the not fully zipped zipper, were by individual readers, not professionals. I'm sorry to say myself included. I apologize for that. Again my opinion & I could be wrong but I have believed since I first saw the photo that BK, knowing the scrutiny of the readers, probably did that little minor zipper thing on purpose but couldn't figure out why. I wasn't as upset by the position of the zipper as I was that, for some reason, it felt like a dirty tick to me. I hope that makes sense. After reading the no-cameras-motion, I'm more convinced the minor zipper-thing wasn't an accident. Not sure if AT knew about it before the hearing. Did BK plan this on his own? I'm beginning to wonder if his "accidents" are actual mistakes or a part of his bigger plan. Either way, it gave his team more fuel for her no-cameras motion.

As far as I can figure out and from my files:
Original photo from LewistonTribune by August Frank/Tribune
Lots of debate; trial date unchanged

IMO. Later same photo was in a pool used by other news outlets.
Yahoo News by (August Frank/The Lewiston Tribune via AP, Pool)
Trial for Idaho college killings suspect Bryan Kohberger delayed indefinitely

IMO. More later it seems the photo may have been obtained (bought?) by Getty Images
(Photo by August Frank-Pool/Getty Images)

Speculation & my opinion only, IMO,JMO, MOO

Again my apologies for any part I played in zipper-gate.