4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #89

[maskedwoman]

This doesn't surprise me at all. As someone who has worked in education, it is exactly what I would expect. If you document it, then, at some point, you may be held liable, have to answer for what you've written, be challenged, etc. So, instead, they just pass the student down the line. The new school doesn't know what happened, and the cycle continues. This happens ALL THE TIME with employees too.

It happens outside of education as well. Getting fired (not laid off) used to be the kiss of death for your career. Now, all anyone gives is date hired and date departed because they don't want to be sued. Unless your tenure was surprisingly short, everyone is left to assume the person quit when they might have been justifiable terminated for breaking every policy in the book.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

It happens outside of education as well. Getting fired (not laid off) used to be the kiss of death for your career. Now, all anyone gives is date hired and date departed because they don't want to be sued. Unless your tenure was surprisingly short, everyone is left to assume the person quit when they might have been justifiable terminated for breaking every policy in the book.

Also realising that BOTH parents employed by local education dept - I’d think that perhaps more favorable treatment / outcomes as parents were part of the system.

 

[MeadowMuffin]

This doesn't surprise me at all. As someone who has worked in education, it is exactly what I would expect. If you document it, then, at some point, you may be held liable, have to answer for what you've written, be challenged, etc. So, instead, they just pass the student down the line. The new school doesn't know what happened, and the cycle continues. This happens ALL THE TIME with employees too.

I was an RN in a large teaching hospital in NJ while serial killer RN Charles Cullen worked in a smaller one the next county over, and the murders he committed there were what led to his arrest. It's estimated he killed well over 100 patients. He went from hospital to hospital on his killing spree, and none of the hospitals ever gave it a second thought to check him out, although some of the hospitals were aware of his egregious behavior. Nurses in at least one hospital were suspicious of him and voiced concerns, but nothing was ever done about it. When finally caught, the health care system looked at their SOP and things changed up a bit. Now health care workers have to be fingerprinted and have a background check and this is repeated I think every 2 years. Although I moved to MN, I still kept up my NJ license, and I was required to have my fingerprints taken and pay for the background check.

 

[twall]

Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings and Withdrawing Order Staying Time for Speedy Trial

 

[katydid23]

Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings and Withdrawing Order Staying Time for Speedy Trial

As articulated on the record, the issues raised in Kohberger’s Second Motion to Stay Proceedings do not constitute a substantial failure to comply with the procedures for selecting a grand
jury. The issues raised either fall outside the purview of Idaho Code Title 2. Chapter 2. jury selection and service, or are typical problems seen routinely in selecting juries (i.e., individuals called for jury duty failing to appear thereby reducing the number of potential jurors in the jury pool).

 

[katydid23]

As articulated on the record, the issues raised in Kohberger’s Second Motion to Stay Proceedings do not constitute a substantial failure to comply with the procedures for selecting a grand
jury. The issues raised either fall outside the purview of Idaho Code Title 2. Chapter 2. jury selection and service, or are typical problems seen routinely in selecting juries (i.e., individuals called for jury duty failing to appear thereby reducing the number of potential jurors in the jury pool).

I love the wording the judge used: The issues raised either fall outside the purview of Idaho Code Title 2. Chapter 2. jury selection and service, or are typical problems seen routinely in selecting juries...

I think back to the long, detailed list of alleged egregious, astounding, horrid missteps according to the defense team. And the judge sums them up in a few words calling them 'typical and routinely seen' in jury selection. lol

 

[girlhasnoname]

Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings and Withdrawing Order Staying Time for Speedy Trial

Thank you Judge Judge.

 

[maskedwoman]

Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings and Withdrawing Order Staying Time for Speedy Trial

Oh, wow, the Defense team sure spent a lot of billable hours on that colossal failure! Judge Judge is my hero of the day! So does that mean we're back to an early trial? Not October probably, but not 2 or 3 years from now either?

 

[10ofRods]

As articulated on the record, the issues raised in Kohberger’s Second Motion to Stay Proceedings do not constitute a substantial failure to comply with the procedures for selecting a grand
jury. The issues raised either fall outside the purview of Idaho Code Title 2. Chapter 2. jury selection and service, or are typical problems seen routinely in selecting juries (i.e., individuals called for jury duty failing to appear thereby reducing the number of potential jurors in the jury pool).

I'm glad that Judge Judge has a good grasp of the meaning of the word "substantial."

This is very good news. I feel we just got off the wild ride and back onto the course for Justice. Thank you, Judge Judge.

 

[Cool Cats]

I don't understand any of this, his speedy trial was already waived so what exactly does this defense motion - and judge ruling countering the defense motion - mean?

Brain Glitch Effect Royalty Free Stock Photography | CartoonDealer.com #94014239

Download Brain Glitch Effect Royalty Free Stock Photography via CartoonDealer. Brain Glitch Effect White 3d Rendering. Zoom into our collection of high-resolution cartoons, stock photos and vector illustrations. Image: 94014239

cartoondealer.com

 

[10ofRods]

I don't understand any of this, his speedy trial was already waived so what exactly does this defense motion - and judge ruling countering the defense motion - mean?

View attachment 452088

Brain Glitch Effect Royalty Free Stock Photography | CartoonDealer.com #94014239

Download Brain Glitch Effect Royalty Free Stock Photography via CartoonDealer. Brain Glitch Effect White 3d Rendering. Zoom into our collection of high-resolution cartoons, stock photos and vector illustrations. Image: 94014239

cartoondealer.com

I think this is the answer: the defendant can't just waive his right to a speedy trial. He has to bring a motion for delay to the Court (which constitutes a one time waiver - he was given 37 days). If it were the case that every defendant could just keep delaying trials, not sure the system would work. IOW, it was never entirely up to the defendant (not much is entirely up to just one side in a legal battle).

At any rate, the defense had to give a reason for the delay and they said, "We need to study this Grand Jury matter." That was granted, the discovery was turned over, the judge decided how long that should take. Then, the defense filed its motion to dismiss based on the GJ study.

Judge then denied that motion and reversed his decision on the extension of time (even though it was granted, he now finds no reason to have granted it). IOW, the defense found *nothing* so their reasoning for a delay and dismissal is now abandoned.

The motion to delay is vacated and the defense will have to find another way to delay. The judge is signaling that he will follow the letter of the law on these delays and that this first delay was basically unwarranted. That is now documented and the judge will proceed accordingly.

I do expect the defense to try this again (motion for extended time). But each time, this case will inch closer to trial. The judge may expect a better argument in the next motion.

IMO. We could certainly use input from a lawyer, particularly an Idaho lawyer. Or perhaps a view from a local.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I don't understand any of this, his speedy trial was already waived so what exactly does this defense motion - and judge ruling countering the defense motion - mean?

View attachment 452088

Brain Glitch Effect Royalty Free Stock Photography | CartoonDealer.com #94014239

Download Brain Glitch Effect Royalty Free Stock Photography via CartoonDealer. Brain Glitch Effect White 3d Rendering. Zoom into our collection of high-resolution cartoons, stock photos and vector illustrations. Image: 94014239

cartoondealer.com

This appears to me like simple housekeeping (official court records by the Judge Judge) from the hearing on 8/18 IIRC denying the D's Motion to Stay and granted the P's Motion to Order Staying Time on Speedy Trial.

They still have the hearing for IGG and GJ on 10/26 IIRC and maybe cameras?

MOO

 

[Jurisprudence]

I don't understand any of this, his speedy trial was already waived so what exactly does this defense motion - and judge ruling countering the defense motion - mean?

[sbm]

All that follows, jmo

The judge’s order relates to this (Second Motion to Stay Proceedings), filed 7/25/2023.

Before waiving his right to speedy trial, the defense tried (a number of times) to get the judge to extend the time period without BK technically waiving. (The state objected for a number of reasons discussed upthread, one of which was concern that the judge unilaterally extending the time without BK knowingly and voluntarily waiving speedy trial could ultimately cause them to run afoul of the speedy trial statute possibly requiring dismissal. In other words, they were concerned there might come a time where the "extensions" would extend the time for trial beyond the 6 month period without BK being on the record as formally waiving it -bc he didn't. They asked the "judge" to extend it without him waiving it. All of this occurred before he waived. The judge granted it anyway, and by the order that is the subject of this thread yesterday and today, he withdrew it.)

The defense second motion to dismiss (not "stay"), filed on 8/23/2023:

1. Dismiss Indictment on Grounds of Biased Grand Jury, Inadmissible Evidence, Lack of Sufficient Evidence, and Prosecutorial Misconduct in Withholding Exculpatory Evidence

and
2. Dismiss Indictment on Grounds of Error in Grand Jury Instructions or in the Alternative Remand for Preliminary Hearing

is still alive.

The parties agreed (stipulated) to move the hearing date from 9/22 to 10/26.

So, it's not over.

All jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

We know from this still redacted filing that the GJ proceeding lasted 3 days and contained a number of exhibits by the state. Once the hearing is held hopefully those exhibits will be unsealed (as stated here) and we’ll get to see some evidence but sealing might be extended considering they haven’t selected a jury yet.

Her reasons for filing the motion to dismiss are sealed. So, we don’t know what they are except that she’s claimed they raise 24 issues.

I *think* (this is a total guess) her prosecutorial misconduct claims surround the 3 unknown male DNA samples found (2 inside, 1 outside on that glove).

If it turns out that the state did not disclose to the GJ that there were 3 unknown samples, this is likely her misconduct claim and the reason she hopes the indictment will be set aside. If they did not present this evidence, hopefully this is found to be harmless error. There was probably countless DNA in and around that house – including DNA from past tenants.

Even though the documents were filed under seal, we were still able to hear some of the arguments – so this is how we know they have been bickering about this in court for some time with the judge well aware of it.

This passage from the attached article sums it up pretty good:

Anne Taylor, Kohberger's lawyer, specifically pointed to three unidentified male DNA samples taken from the murder scene that the defense has not received. Prosecutor Bill Thompson countered, arguing that the defense already possesses everything accessible to the state.

Thompson stated, "All I'm hearing is speculation that they wish there was something there. We can't respond to something that doesn't exist."

Thompson concluded that the three samples in question were not uploaded to a Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database due to ineligibility. He claimed that defense attorney Anne Taylor was informed of this by the lab.

All jmo

Bryan Kohberger's defense, state quarrel over DNA evidence

The judge stated that he saw no failure to disclose evidence on the part of the prosecution and the trial will go forward in October.

www.krem.com

 

[gremlin444]

Oh, wow, the Defense team sure spent a lot of billable hours on that colossal failure! Judge Judge is my hero of the day! So does that mean we're back to an early trial? Not October probably, but not 2 or 3 years from now either?

At the very bottom:

"SO ORDERED this day of October 2023, nunc pro tunc to August 18, 2023
*On August 23, 2023, Kohberger waived his right to speedy trial. Thus, the previous Order Staying Time for Speedy Trial entered on July 7, 2023, is also now moot."

Nunc pro tunc: Latin for "now for then," meaning to cause an order or judgment to apply to an earlier date.
Latin for "now for then," meaning to cause an order or judgment to apply to an earlier date.

I don't think we're back to speedy trial. I think this is a matter of official legal housekeeping. On Aug 23 he officially and explicitly waived his right, as opposed to unofficially waiving via means of repeated stays.

 

[Sundog]

I think this is the answer: the defendant can't just waive his right to a speedy trial. He has to bring a motion for delay to the Court (which constitutes a one time waiver - he was given 37 days). If it were the case that every defendant could just keep delaying trials, not sure the system would work. IOW, it was never entirely up to the defendant (not much is entirely up to just one side in a legal battle).

At any rate, the defense had to give a reason for the delay and they said, "We need to study this Grand Jury matter." That was granted, the discovery was turned over, the judge decided how long that should take. Then, the defense filed its motion to dismiss based on the GJ study.

Judge then denied that motion and reversed his decision on the extension of time (even though it was granted, he now finds no reason to have granted it). IOW, the defense found *nothing* so their reasoning for a delay and dismissal is now abandoned.

The motion to delay is vacated and the defense will have to find another way to delay. The judge is signaling that he will follow the letter of the law on these delays and that this first delay was basically unwarranted. That is now documented and the judge will proceed accordingly.

I do expect the defense to try this again (motion for extended time). But each time, this case will inch closer to trial. The judge may expect a better argument in the next motion.

IMO. We could certainly use input from a lawyer, particularly an Idaho lawyer. Or perhaps a view from a local.

Great clarification!
I wonder if the judge's ruling on this motion is open to appeal and, if so, if the defense will appeal or just move on to another motion to delay.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Does anyone have any idea where Newsweek is getting this information?

"Police speculate that the killer may have been startled to find two women in the bed and that Goncalves may have put up a fight, during which the killer was slightly injured, and dropped the knife sheath in the confusion."

The missing Bryan Kohberger evidence that could make or break the trial

The murder weapon has never been found but police are relying on other evidence

www.newsweek.com

ETA: I wonder if this is something they pulled out of their notes from the very beginning of the case when the investigation was in its infancy. Because there's been no indication that his DNA was found anywhere. IIRC I think Taylor made a stink about that. Maybe it's as simple as something like this? If so, it's misleading of them to say this though imo.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Does anyone have any idea where Newsweek is getting this information?

"Police speculate that the killer may have been startled to find two women in the bed and that Goncalves may have put up a fight, during which the killer was slightly injured, and dropped the knife sheath in the confusion."

The missing Bryan Kohberger evidence that could make or break the trial

The murder weapon has never been found but police are relying on other evidence

www.newsweek.com

ETA: I wonder if this is something they pulled out of their notes from the very beginning of the case before the gag order. Because there's been no indication that his DNA was found anywhere. IIRC I think Taylor made a stink about that. Maybe it's as simple as something like this? If so, it's misleading of them to say this though imo.

I never thought those back to back stops in 10 minutes were coincidental:

<snipped & BBM from quoted article>

In an incident that is still clouded in mystery, a traffic policeman stopped Kohberger's car and spoke to him briefly. The officer was wearing a body cam and Officer Payne was quickly able to review the video footage and establish that Kohberger had bushy eyebrows. It was important for police to see what he looked like in real life, and not simply rely on a driver's license photo. We still don't know if this was a genuine police stop or, given the speed with which the body cam footage was recovered, a police ploy to get a closer look at Kohberger.

 

[al66pine]

Thin Air?

Does anyone have any idea where Newsweek is getting this information?
"Police speculate that the killer may have been startled to find two women in the bed and that Goncalves may have put up a fight, during which the killer was slightly injured, and dropped the knife sheath in the confusion."

The missing Bryan Kohberger evidence that could make or break the trial

The murder weapon has never been found but police are relying on other evidence

www.newsweek.com

ETA: I wonder if this is something they pulled out of their notes from the very beginning of the case before the gag order. Because there's been no indication that his DNA was found anywhere. IIRC I think Taylor made a stink about that. Maybe it's as simple as something like this? It's misleading of them to say this though imo.

@Jurisprudence
Is it possible "Police speculate that..." actually means
Newsweek Reporter "SEAN O'DRISCOLL speculates that"?

Just a guess on my part.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Thin Air?

@Jurisprudence
Is it possible "Police speculate that..." actually means
Newsweek Reporter "SEAN O'DRISCOLL speculates that"?

Just a guess on my part.

That misleading thin air!

jmo