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

[Boxer]

Without a paper trail, it's like a student turning in math homework showing the answers only, not how the student arrived at the answers or a scientist conducting an experiment and showing the results only, not how the experiment was done. DNA and IGG can and should have replicable results. Without the details as to how it was all done, there is no way to check the results. Because of that, this entire situation looks highly questionable by any standard. If everything was done correctly there is no reason at all for the entire process not to be documented in full detail. For me "take our word for it" is simply not enough and not acceptable and I'm certain that there will be more than one juror who questions this type of evidence in the same way I do, if it is not ruled out prior to trial.

No one is taking anyone's word for it. BKs DNA is a match.
It's the car on camera and phone pings that brought BK into focus.

 

[jepop]

New Supplemetal Response by State to Defense's 3rd Motion to Compel (IGG info). Motion to Temporarily Seal that response pending hearing. Order to Seal filed.

Filed 30th August.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/083023-Motion-to-Temp-Seal-States-Supp-Response-to-Defs-3rd-Motn.pdf

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/083023-Temporary-Order-Sealing-States-Supp-Resp-to-Defs-3rd-Motion.pdf

 

[NextSprint]

I'm an executive at the single biggest software company in it's category (public or private) ...in the world (Mods are more than welcome to reach out so we can get this verified). I assure you that there's very little documentation for the 'entire process'. Agile and Lean methodology (borrowed from Toyota, the car company) which most modern/progressive software and assembly line product companies adopt are ANTI documentation. Instead it calls for moving fast, getting immediate results, learning from said results, and iterating quickly. And repeating that cycle over and over again. And documentation largely slows things down and gets in the way.

Of course things that do need to be documented like Go to Market efforts (help desk documentation, sales, marketing, etc) do get documented. But the learn/build cycle has very little. So it sounds a lot like what LE is doing in this case. Moving fast to get a murderer off the street and not documenting where there's no need to document. And documenting where there's a need to as set forth by guidelines/rules. Just had to put that on record.

My daughter is a software engineer, so I love that the world of true crime and software engineering has now overlapped for me

Point taken re Agile, surely though something as critical as the software that runs the car itself would be very thoroughly documented and "unit tested" though right? A bit like the constitution (can't believe I'm comparing software development to the constitution but hey it's early!).

 

[girlhasnoname]

Right. And this is not directed to you, but it appears to me because of IGG and the Defense questioning it (strategy) some are discrediting the entire investigation. This is frustrating because I want to believe that they're doing everything they can in this case to get the right person, document it properly, and pursue the murderer. IGG information would have been used to confirm what they already knew not be a separate data point.

Between waiting for the trial and the gag order, the speculation seems to assume not only that the Defense might be successful but that they are right, and there is not enough evidence to prosecute BK. I believe that there is and a lot of this is just spin.

I don't expect the gag order to go away anytime soon but I would like some transparency to reveal evidence that could counter the Defense. We know so little. JMOO

I have no doubt the State has a solid case against BK, we just haven't been privy to all the facts yet. I think it will be shocking when all is revealed.

The Defense is in their 'spin mode' and that's their job, so have it. Just because they believe or feel like something is suspect or shady doesn't make it true. I look forward to the State's response to their Motion to Dismiss.

MOO

 

[arielilane]

Lawyers for Idaho quadruple-murder suspect Bryan Kohberger recently argued that cameras in court are focusing too much on their client's crotch and should be removed from future hearings.

Last week, lawyers for Kohberger filed a motion in court for the removal, citing several issues with past camera footage, including a claim that some cameras have been targeting his "fly."

Bryan Kohberger's attorneys fight over footage of his crotch

Earlier this month, Kohberger appeared in court for a status hearing where he decided to waive his right to a speedy trial.

www.newsweek.com

8/31/23 AT 5:59 PM EDT

I'd rather listen to U2's The Fly. moo

 

[Sleuth2010]

IMO, MOO

Spot on to ChloeGirl... parts of the gag-order need to be lifted and more transparency. The murderer is where he belongs and there he will stay, for all eternity of his own life. He who thinks he has the right to take another's life?
Chief Fry, and his outstanding team, coast to coast, know they have their killer. We are eternally thankful to them. This case deserves the strongest form of justice.

 

[Chloegirl]

Bryan Kohberger's Friday hearing vacated

Kohberger's hearing on cameras in the courtroom was vacated due to multiple media outlets trying to fight the motion in court.

www.ktvb.com

 

[Dexter12]

Is there a hearing today?

 

[Sundog]

This entire process should have been completely and totally documented from beginning to end. Without such documentation, the entire process is immediately called into question.

<snipped for focus>

I agree, 100%. If the prosecution isn't able to work with the FBI to get the information, then they need to subpoena the FBI agent who was in charge and/or conducted the forensic genetic genealogy research. The judge has asked the state several times now to keep checking on this to see if they can get what the defense is requesting as part of discovery.

 

[10ofRods]

<snipped for focus>

I agree, 100%. If the prosecution isn't able to work with the FBI to get the information, then they need to subpoena the FBI agent who was in charge and/or conducted the forensic genetic genealogy research. The judge has asked the state several times now to keep checking on this to see if they can get what the defense is requesting as part of discovery.

Actually, the State cannot be compelled to subpoena someone they don't want to subpoena. If the Defense wants this information so badly, then they need to bring the issue to the Court.

Then, since the information involves someone who believed they would remain (medically) anonymous), the Judge will have to make a big decision about whether to issue that subpoena - to a person who is apparently completely unrelated to the case in any way other than having uploaded their DNA to Othram.

If the goal is simply to get the FBI to say which service they used (and what they sent), I believe that information has already been shared. But if the Defense wants something the State doesn't have, and the State says they don't have it, then it's up to the Defense to get the subpoena - not the State.

IMO. Several times the State has said they do not have this information and several times the Judge has asked the State to check again - and they say the FBI has it, not them.

If the FBI is subpoenaed, I assume the Boston Bar Association's assessment is useful: the FBI typically refuses all subpoenas from local courts to compel an investigator to testify. Here's their document on just how difficult it is to get a current FBI agent to come to court:

https://www.bostonbar.org/app/uploads/2022/06/PracticeTips2.pdf

That's why we see so many "ex-FBI" people testifying in court. It has to go through a different court than Latah County Superior Court - it has to go to the U.S. Attorney's office for the jurisdiction in question (Latah County). And that's just the start - try reading through the procedure. Defense can do this - but I suspect they know it would be a waste of time, so they are trying to get the State to admit it has something it does not have (FBI records).

The Judge will see the evidence that makes the Defense think that this evidence exists within the FBI. If it's either non-discoverable (FBI work product) or the Defense cannot convince the Judge that it exists, then it's over. Judge Judge cannot subpoena the FBI - but the Defense can go to Federal Court/U.S. Attorney General. I figure that'll add years to these proceedings, and I do not say that lightly. Do take a look at the above document for how hard it is to bring the FBI to the table. The State doesn't want to pursue this route - too long.

The Defense has its own path it can take, to get the FBI info. And it can take what will almost certainly an initial "NO" answer further - to Federal Courts. This is expensive. AT has to keep her eye on what Idaho's legislature and legal system can endure and what is likely to help the case. She could spend a few years and a lot of money - and still get nothing, if in fact, the FBI has no records (only personal communication) about this matter. The records produced could be identical to what has already been given.

But if AT's plan is to make this trial process last as long as possible, it would behoove her to go ahead and follow the route outlined by the Boston Bar Association (there are other guides, even longer than that one) .

IMO.

 

[Balthazar]

It was the real deal, in any case. Nothing like homework. And in the real world, professional mathematicians do not have t' "show their work" except in academic journals, new discoveries and rare situations.

This was standard "use DNA as a phone directory" kind of thing. Nothing is going to stop people from volunteering their DNA to forensic websites like Othram, the forensic side of GedMatch or Parabon (there are surely others).

Indeed, I've talked to people who specifically got their DNA done in order to upload it to a forensic database, hoping that a relative (of whom they were very suspicious) would be caught. I've known LE to suggest to people with certain concerns to do this, as well.

Your analogy is great - the FBI is like the parent/overseer of basic crime resources; the FBI is not like a kid in a classroom.

IMO.

Documenting how they got to a solution is basic to professionalism in any field. I know and have worked extensively with thousands of mathematicians and they ALWAYS document how they got from point A to point B. DNA is no different, it must be documented to be perceived as accurate, especially when used for a trial. The FBI is not above being questioned by today's consumers - in this case a jury. If the FBI did the DNA right, then they have nothing to hide and providing documentation of everything that was done should be fundamental and basic to professionalism. Many members of the jury will expect that as a minimum requirement. This is no longer the 1950's where people don't question someone because they are allegedly an authority. Nowadays, consumers are savvier and they want to know exactly how did they get from point A to point B. In the case of DNA in this case, we already know that the defense is going to raise reasonable doubt about how BK was identified, so jurors are going to require this proof or the DNA must be thrown out, because if it is let in as things stand, where it is a mystery as to how the Kohberger family was found and no proof it was done accurately, at least some members of the jury are not going to accept that evidence and it will damage the State's case big time. If the Prosecution breaks the jury's trust, by refusing to provide the granular detail, their case will go down and that means an almost guaranteed not guilty verdict. There is no excuse for not providing detailed documentation. This is a straightforward process and I believe the FBI can still replicate what they did and and give that documentation to the prosecution. If not, strategically, I'd advise the prosecutor to completely ditch the DNA evidence because we all know Anne Taylor is 100% going there and it will cause the jury not to trust the prosecution and FBI results. That is a huge torpedo in the prosecution case because if the jury questions that, they are going to start questioning everything and then the prosecution case goes down the drain.

 

[Warwick7]

Actually, the State cannot be compelled to subpoena someone they don't want to subpoena. If the Defense wants this information so badly, then they need to bring the issue to the Court.

Then, since the information involves someone who believed they would remain (medically) anonymous), the Judge will have to make a big decision about whether to issue that subpoena - to a person who is apparently completely unrelated to the case in any way other than having uploaded their DNA to Othram.

If the goal is simply to get the FBI to say which service they used (and what they sent), I believe that information has already been shared. But if the Defense wants something the State doesn't have, and the State says they don't have it, then it's up to the Defense to get the subpoena - not the State.

IMO. Several times the State has said they do not have this information and several times the Judge has asked the State to check again - and they say the FBI has it, not them.

If the FBI is subpoenaed, I assume the Boston Bar Association's assessment is useful: the FBI typically refuses all subpoenas from local courts to compel an investigator to testify. Here's their document on just how difficult it is to get a current FBI agent to come to court:

https://www.bostonbar.org/app/uploads/2022/06/PracticeTips2.pdf

That's why we see so many "ex-FBI" people testifying in court. It has to go through a different court than Latah County Superior Court - it has to go to the U.S. Attorney's office for the jurisdiction in question (Latah County). And that's just the start - try reading through the procedure. Defense can do this - but I suspect they know it would be a waste of time, so they are trying to get the State to admit it has something it does not have (FBI records).

The Judge will see the evidence that makes the Defense think that this evidence exists within the FBI. If it's either non-discoverable (FBI work product) or the Defense cannot convince the Judge that it exists, then it's over. Judge Judge cannot subpoena the FBI - but the Defense can go to Federal Court/U.S. Attorney General. I figure that'll add years to these proceedings, and I do not say that lightly. Do take a look at the above document for how hard it is to bring the FBI to the table. The State doesn't want to pursue this route - too long.

The Defense has its own path it can take, to get the FBI info. And it can take what will almost certainly an initial "NO" answer further - to Federal Courts. This is expensive. AT has to keep her eye on what Idaho's legislature and legal system can endure and what is likely to help the case. She could spend a few years and a lot of money - and still get nothing, if in fact, the FBI has no records (only personal communication) about this matter. The records produced could be identical to what has already been given.

But if AT's plan is to make this trial process last as long as possible, it would behoove her to go ahead and follow the route outlined by the Boston Bar Association (there are other guides, even longer than that one) .

IMO.

BBM
Good!

 

[Greggsmomanddad]

Documenting how they got to a solution is basic to professionalism in any field. I know and have worked extensively with thousands of mathematicians and they ALWAYS document how they got from point A to point B. DNA is no different, it must be documented to be perceived as accurate, especially when used for a trial. The FBI is not above being questioned by today's consumers - in this case a jury. If the FBI did the DNA right, then they have nothing to hide and providing documentation of everything that was done should be fundamental and basic to professionalism. Many members of the jury will expect that as a minimum requirement. This is no longer the 1950's where people don't question someone because they are allegedly an authority. Nowadays, consumers are savvier and they want to know exactly how did they get from point A to point B. In the case of DNA in this case, we already know that the defense is going to raise reasonable doubt about how BK was identified, so jurors are going to require this proof or the DNA must be thrown out, because if it is let in as things stand, where it is a mystery as to how the Kohberger family was found and no proof it was done accurately, at least some members of the jury are not going to accept that evidence and it will damage the State's case big time. If the Prosecution breaks the jury's trust, by refusing to provide the granular detail, their case will go down and that means an almost guaranteed not guilty verdict. There is no excuse for not providing detailed documentation. This is a straightforward process and I believe the FBI can still replicate what they did and and give that documentation to the prosecution. If not, strategically, I'd advise the prosecutor to completely ditch the DNA evidence because we all know Anne Taylor is 100% going there and it will cause the jury not to trust the prosecution and FBI results. That is a huge torpedo in the prosecution case because if the jury questions that, they are going to start questioning everything and then the prosecution case goes down the drain.

If I was a juror I would care less how they got his DNA only that it is his DNA and that it matches. Facts are facts Truth is truth JMO

 

[NextSprint]

Actually, the State cannot be compelled to subpoena someone they don't want to subpoena. If the Defense wants this information so badly, then they need to bring the issue to the Court.

Then, since the information involves someone who believed they would remain (medically) anonymous), the Judge will have to make a big decision about whether to issue that subpoena - to a person who is apparently completely unrelated to the case in any way other than having uploaded their DNA to Othram.

If the goal is simply to get the FBI to say which service they used (and what they sent), I believe that information has already been shared. But if the Defense wants something the State doesn't have, and the State says they don't have it, then it's up to the Defense to get the subpoena - not the State.

IMO. Several times the State has said they do not have this information and several times the Judge has asked the State to check again - and they say the FBI has it, not them.

If the FBI is subpoenaed, I assume the Boston Bar Association's assessment is useful: the FBI typically refuses all subpoenas from local courts to compel an investigator to testify. Here's their document on just how difficult it is to get a current FBI agent to come to court:

https://www.bostonbar.org/app/uploads/2022/06/PracticeTips2.pdf

That's why we see so many "ex-FBI" people testifying in court. It has to go through a different court than Latah County Superior Court - it has to go to the U.S. Attorney's office for the jurisdiction in question (Latah County). And that's just the start - try reading through the procedure. Defense can do this - but I suspect they know it would be a waste of time, so they are trying to get the State to admit it has something it does not have (FBI records).

The Judge will see the evidence that makes the Defense think that this evidence exists within the FBI. If it's either non-discoverable (FBI work product) or the Defense cannot convince the Judge that it exists, then it's over. Judge Judge cannot subpoena the FBI - but the Defense can go to Federal Court/U.S. Attorney General. I figure that'll add years to these proceedings, and I do not say that lightly. Do take a look at the above document for how hard it is to bring the FBI to the table. The State doesn't want to pursue this route - too long.

The Defense has its own path it can take, to get the FBI info. And it can take what will almost certainly an initial "NO" answer further - to Federal Courts. This is expensive. AT has to keep her eye on what Idaho's legislature and legal system can endure and what is likely to help the case. She could spend a few years and a lot of money - and still get nothing, if in fact, the FBI has no records (only personal communication) about this matter. The records produced could be identical to what has already been given.

But if AT's plan is to make this trial process last as long as possible, it would behoove her to go ahead and follow the route outlined by the Boston Bar Association (there are other guides, even longer than that one) .

IMO.

That Boston Bar piece you linked to is referring to civil cases, quoting from that piece's title: "Getting Uncle Sam To Talk: Obtaining Potentially Important Evidence from the FBI For Use in Civil Proceedings".

In criminal cases the Toughy rules still apply to an extent but the US Attorney considering the request has to give weight to the right of the defendant in a fair trial ("that the administration of justice requires disclosure", §1-6.440, DOJ Personnel as Witnesses: 1-6.000 - DOJ Personnel As Witnesses).

So it wouldn't be that complex IMO, they make the request, either get the green light on the basis of "the administration of justice requiring disclosure" from the US Attorney, or if no green light file a motion in Latah County for a subpoena (which wouldn't be invalid as long as they follow the first step).

 

[girlhasnoname]

Is there a hearing today?

I think they postponed it didn't they?

EBM: Or is this just the media cameras scheduling hearing?

 

[m00c0w]

Actually, the State cannot be compelled to subpoena someone they don't want to subpoena. If the Defense wants this information so badly, then they need to bring the issue to the Court.

Then, since the information involves someone who believed they would remain (medically) anonymous), the Judge will have to make a big decision about whether to issue that subpoena - to a person who is apparently completely unrelated to the case in any way other than having uploaded their DNA to Othram.

If the goal is simply to get the FBI to say which service they used (and what they sent), I believe that information has already been shared. But if the Defense wants something the State doesn't have, and the State says they don't have it, then it's up to the Defense to get the subpoena - not the State.

IMO. Several times the State has said they do not have this information and several times the Judge has asked the State to check again - and they say the FBI has it, not them.

If the FBI is subpoenaed, I assume the Boston Bar Association's assessment is useful: the FBI typically refuses all subpoenas from local courts to compel an investigator to testify. Here's their document on just how difficult it is to get a current FBI agent to come to court:

https://www.bostonbar.org/app/uploads/2022/06/PracticeTips2.pdf

That's why we see so many "ex-FBI" people testifying in court. It has to go through a different court than Latah County Superior Court - it has to go to the U.S. Attorney's office for the jurisdiction in question (Latah County). And that's just the start - try reading through the procedure. Defense can do this - but I suspect they know it would be a waste of time, so they are trying to get the State to admit it has something it does not have (FBI records).

The Judge will see the evidence that makes the Defense think that this evidence exists within the FBI. If it's either non-discoverable (FBI work product) or the Defense cannot convince the Judge that it exists, then it's over. Judge Judge cannot subpoena the FBI - but the Defense can go to Federal Court/U.S. Attorney General. I figure that'll add years to these proceedings, and I do not say that lightly. Do take a look at the above document for how hard it is to bring the FBI to the table. The State doesn't want to pursue this route - too long.

The Defense has its own path it can take, to get the FBI info. And it can take what will almost certainly an initial "NO" answer further - to Federal Courts. This is expensive. AT has to keep her eye on what Idaho's legislature and legal system can endure and what is likely to help the case. She could spend a few years and a lot of money - and still get nothing, if in fact, the FBI has no records (only personal communication) about this matter. The records produced could be identical to what has already been given.

But if AT's plan is to make this trial process last as long as possible, it would behoove her to go ahead and follow the route outlined by the Boston Bar Association (there are other guides, even longer than that one) .

IMO.

Not to mention the state has readily said they will share whatever the court mandates they share, and requested an in-camera hearing if that is the case so the court can see exactly what the materials are and make any further decisions as warranted. If they were trying to be as sneaky and shady as some imply, they would 1) not have revealed IGG to begin with and 2) be a lot more unwilling to share the data.

JMO

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

I think they postponed it didn't they?

EBM: Or is this just the media cameras scheduling hearing?

Not sure if it’s already been posted:
https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...-to-Remove-Cam-Vacating-Trial- Sched-Ordr.pdf

 

[maskedwoman]

That Boston Bar piece you linked to is referring to civil cases, quoting from that piece's title: "Getting Uncle Sam To Talk: Obtaining Potentially Important Evidence from the FBI For Use in Civil Proceedings".

In criminal cases the Toughy rules still apply to an extent but the US Attorney considering the request has to give weight to the right of the defendant in a fair trial ("that the administration of justice requires disclosure", §1-6.440, DOJ Personnel as Witnesses: 1-6.000 - DOJ Personnel As Witnesses).

So it wouldn't be that complex IMO, they make the request, either get the green light on the basis of "the administration of justice requiring disclosure" from the US Attorney, or if no green light file a motion in Latah County for a subpoena (which wouldn't be invalid as long as they follow the first step).

So, in other words, there is a process for requesting information from the FBI. It certainly sounds like something AT would know as the head of the public defenders office. I did see where the FBI's procedure manuals are available under FOIA. If this process is something they have documented in a manual, I think think AT could easily request it that way.

Based on what has been said in public, regardless of opinions expressed here, it sounds like the prosecution does not have those details of what the FBI did. The question I have now is whether the defense can force the prosecution to request something they don't already have and call it discovery just because it might exist somewhere and they want it. I'm guessing the answer to that is no, they cannot.

Because as a layperson I'm beginning to think that AT decided the path of least resistance in obtaining something she hopes might, just maybe could be helpful to their case was by trying to convince the court to force the prosecution to request them rather than requesting them herself. MOOooo

 

[Balthazar]

What weak evidence? And why are you under the impression that there is no significant evidence proving he is the right suspect? Do you believe it's a massive coincidence that he matches the eyewitness' physical description, a car matching his car was seen on surveillance cameras in the area of the homicide, these sightings were corroborated with his cell phone data showing he was in the same location at the same time as the sequence of videos, his phone traveled towards the homicide scene and mysteriously turned off during the time of the murders and then turned back on as he was leaving the area, and ultimately that his DNA was found on the sheath underneath the body of one of his victims? I'm not sure what is weak about the prosecution's case, when taken as a whole... And none of this was a direct result of the IGG data. Everything was independently obtained and verified based on its own probable cause, as I've cited in previous posts.

I've said it a few times and I'll say it again - BK has to be experiencing Scott Peterson levels of worst-luck-in-the-world in order for all of these events to magically line up and pinpoint him as the killer, if he did not actually do it. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. It's going to be very hard to explain how you're in the area of the homicide and your DNA winds up underneath a homicide victim who was killed by someone fitting your description.

I guess it's possible that there is some massive conspiracy against BK and a ton of evidence was manufactured for some unknown reason to pin it all on him... but I don't find that probable, personally. And it's certainly not like the prosecution is turning in an incomplete piece of homework instead of a mountain of lawfully-obtained evidence and discovery regarding how they obtained that evidence...

JMO.

Have you read the PCA? I mean really critically read it and considered what it says? I admit, I thought it was really strong at first. But then I went back and really paid close attention the the alleged "facts" in it and I was shocked because there is literally no evidence in the PCA that proves BK committed these murders. It's all supposition and guessing on the part of the writer. It's really quite appalling. The white car disappears in Pullman only to magically reappear in a residential neighborhood on the far side of Moscow from Pullman, begging the question of if it is even the same car? At first there was a white Nissan Altima, then, there were 22,000 2011-2013 white Elantra's that LE were searching through, then they changed the date range to include 2015 - an estimated total of 33,000 Elantras. The cellphone pings that look so damning at first ONLY mean his car was within 25 miles of the cellphone tower that 1122 King Rd uses. The night of the murders, his cellphone goes off in Pullman and comes on hours later near Genesee. As far as I can tell, the vehicle may have been down there during the murders. The description of the man in black has him at 5'10" when it is obvious BK is considerably taller than that. The only evidence they really have is his DNA on a snap on the sheath. No other DNA of his in the rooms where the murders were committed. There is literally nothing in the PCA proves he was even in Moscow that night, much less that he is a murderer. And if it is touch DNA on the sheath, he doesn't even have to have ever touched the sheath to get his DNA on it. It could have been, he worked out at the gym and some guy used a machine or weights BK used and transferred the DNA onto the sheath or BK shook hands with someone or used the same doorknob or touchpad at the store. Now I REALLY hope that the prosecution has more evidence than what was in the PCA and I'm waiting until the trial, if there is one, to render judgement. But I'm really quite concerned about this entire situation.

 

[NextSprint]

So, in other words, there is a process for requesting information from the FBI. It certainly sounds like something AT would know as the head of the public defenders office. I did see where the FBI's procedure manuals are available under FOIA. If this process is something they have documented in a manual, I think think AT could easily request it that way.

Based on what has been said in public, regardless of opinions expressed here, it sounds like the prosecution does not have those details of what the FBI did. The question I have now is whether the defense can force the prosecution to request something they don't already have and call it discovery just because it might exist somewhere and they want it. I'm guessing the answer to that is no, they cannot.

Because as a layperson I'm beginning to think that AT decided the path of least resistance in obtaining something she hopes might, just maybe could be helpful to their case was by trying to convince the court to force the prosecution to request them rather than requesting them herself. MOOooo

Yeah I definitely don’t think the P can be compelled in that way, and she may have been hoping for a quick win! Also a big PR win on her part, FWIW. JMO.