4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #90

[155etta]

Hate to drag this into the weeds, LOL, but details matter, so wanted to clarify that Mad Greek isn’t a vegan restaurant, pizza or otherwise.

Mad Greek does, however, have vegetarian & vegan options, as do most non-fast food places here.

Here’s a link so folks can see for themselves:
Mad Greek - Menu

HTH!

My son dated my daughter-in-law for 4 years in Moscow. She was vegetarian. They had no problem.

 

[Swansee]

BK's lawyers are using any and everything they can to vigorously defend their client: that's their job.
Their client apparently felt slighted by the prosecution's resort to a grand jury when his team had been gearing up for a PH. So they are trying to undo that, and pave the way for a future appeal if necessary. There's nothing ridiculous about it. It's just their job to defend him zealously.

I asked earlier in the thread if it was known how many grand jurors were convened for this GJ. The reason is because I was very surprised to hear that six grand jurors felt they needed more information to make a decision. If it was only the requisite minimum 16 members, then 6 undecided is quite a high proportion. This is with the prosecution speaking unchallenged. The number of undecideds could very well be even higher at trial, when the defense team will be picking apart everything the prosecution presents, and possibly presenting exculpatory tidbits of their own.
In my opinion, the six undecideds also tends to hint against the often heard notion that the prosecution has sooo much more than what we've seen in the PCA.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

very surprised to hear that six grand jurors felt they needed more information to make a decision. If it was only the requisite minimum 16 members, then 6 undecided is quite a high proportion.

Where did you hear this? Can you provide a link?

 

[girlhasnoname]

BK's lawyers are using any and everything they can to vigorously defend their client: that's their job.
Their client apparently felt slighted by the prosecution's resort to a grand jury when his team had been gearing up for a PH. So they are trying to undo that, and pave the way for a future appeal if necessary. There's nothing ridiculous about it. It's just their job to defend him zealously.

I asked earlier in the thread if it was known how many grand jurors were convened for this GJ. The reason is because I was very surprised to hear that six grand jurors felt they needed more information to make a decision. If it was only the requisite minimum 16 members, then 6 undecided is quite a high proportion. This is with the prosecution speaking unchallenged. The number of undecideds could very well be even higher at trial, when the defense team will be picking apart everything the prosecution presents, and possibly presenting exculpatory tidbits of their own.
In my opinion, the six undecideds also tends to hint against the often heard notion that the prosecution has sooo much more than what we've seen in the PCA.

Regardless of the numbers, the Grand Jury found enough probable cause to bind BK over to trial. The Judge agreed, that's really all that matters at this point.

With the gag order in place it looks like we'll have to wait and see just how strong the State's case is. I'm sure BK and AT & Company feel slighted, they wanted a chance to see the State's summary case and challenge the witnesses. Judge J noped that right out. Maybe Logsdon can start working on his plea to the ISC to change probable case to beyond a reasonable doubt now. He does love to pontificate.

The fact that they've put the DP on the table tells me it's stronger than not. Just the evidence we do know from the PCA and what is known so far, I wouldn't want to be sitting in BK's shoes.

jmo

 

[Swansee]

Where did you hear this? Can you provide a link?

Logsdon said it while making his arguments at the hearing, you will hear it if you watch the CourtTV video of the hearing. Sorry to refer you to that lengthy speech, I know it's tedious to listen to!

Edit: I re-watched to find a timestamp. Logsdon mentioned the GJ shortly after the 19:15 mark in the video.
Exact quote is:
"We know, from the grand jurors, that at least six of them, wanted to hear more, until they were essentially cut off and told probable cause is the standard".

 

[girlhasnoname]

Logsdon said it while making his arguments at the hearing, you will hear it if you watch the CourtTV video of the hearing. Sorry to refer you to that lengthy speech, I know it's tedious to listen to!

Edit: I re-watched to find a timestamp. Logsdon mentioned the GJ shortly after the 19:15 mark in the video.
Exact quote is:
"We know, from the grand jurors, that at least six of them, wanted to hear more, until they were essentially cut off and told probable cause is the standard".

RBBM
How did I know it was automatically going to be Logsdon speaking? Hah

That is the standard in the State of Idaho and the 47 States that use GJ's to indict in the United States.
<snipped>

48 States, Washington D.C Use Grand Juries for Indictments​

According to the University of Dayton Law School of Law, all but two states, plus the District of Columbia, use grand juries for criminal indictments in at least some cases. Connecticut and Pennsylvania have both abolished the use of grand juries for criminal indictments. But both of these states still make use of grand juries for investigations of criminal activity.

In 23 states, indictments are required for certain serious crimes. These states are: Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/which-states-use-criminal-grand-juries/

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

"Logsdon said the Idaho Legislature set the higher standard for grand jury indictments, but the Idaho Supreme Court effectively lowered the standard and “never tested the constitutionality of its own rule.”" https://www.chron.com/news/article/idaho-judge-upholds-indictment-against-man-18452732.php

Would you be so kind as to add a quote/link to the actual Idaho Constitution where it states that fact? Found and perused it, but maybe help me out with where it actually states that.
You keep quoting/posting comments made by someone else. Just because Logsdon stated it, a fact it does not make.
I think we've all read his very passionate beliefs, yet utilizing some creative writing skills, in his motions.
Just my opinions and suggestions.

 

[Swansee]

@girlhasnoname
Yes, I understand that, but it has nothing to do with my point.
What is concerning to me is the aspect I outlined in my previous post #124. Which I will rephrase below:
The prosecution was unopposed during the grand jury, and what is more, they could lay it all out in total secrecy. Yet six of the jurors said we want more. This tells me the prosecution didn't have anything to show them that was of slam dunk "he's guilty" quality. It tells me they don't have much more than what's in the PCA.
The grand jurors were then told the standard is probable cause not BARD, and then they agreed to indict. What this means is these six jurors felt that what they were shown would not have been enough to indict if the standard were higher. Six out of 16 is not a negligible number.
At trial, the standard will be higher, and the prosecution won't be unopposed: the defense will undermine each and every piece of evidence, cross examine witnesses, bring in their own exculpatory elements etc. So it is going to be a lot more difficult for the prosecution, and we now see they were already struggling when it was easy at the grand jury.
We have been led to believe from the beginning that although we aren't privy to it, the prosecution has a lot more than what's in the PCA, but it would appear this is a bluff. This trial is not going to be the cakewalk for the prosecution that some people seem to think it is.
MOO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

@girlhasnoname
Yes, I understand that, but it has nothing to do with my point.
What is concerning to me is the aspect I outlined in my previous post #124. Which I will rephrase below:
The prosecution was unopposed during the grand jury, and what is more, they could lay it all out in total secrecy. Yet six of the jurors said we want more. This tells me the prosecution didn't have anything to show them that was of slam dunk "he's guilty" quality. It tells me they don't have much more than what's in the PCA.
The grand jurors were then told the standard is probable cause not BARD, and then they agreed to indict. What this means is these six jurors felt that what they were shown would not have been enough to indict if the standard were higher. Six out of 16 is not a negligible number.
At trial, the standard will be higher, and the prosecution won't be unopposed: the defense will undermine each and every piece of evidence, cross examine witnesses, bring in their own exculpatory elements etc. So it is going to be a lot more difficult for the prosecution, and we now see they were already struggling when it was easy at the grand jury.
We have been led to believe from the beginning that although we aren't privy to it, the prosecution has a lot more than what's in the PCA, but it would appear this is a bluff. This trial is not going to be the cakewalk for the prosecution that some people seem to think it is.
MOO.

BBM - Do we know for sure there was 16 jurors and 6 stated that verbatim?

The prosecution is always unopposed by the Defense and held in secret in a GJ hearing. That's not just this particular case. The GJ were told the standard is probable cause because that is what it is. There was no deception by the State.

I never said it was going to be a cakewalk for a conviction, but I believe based on what I know even now, BK will be found guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

BBM - Do we know for sure there was 16 jurors and 6 stated that verbatim?

The prosecution is always unopposed by the Defense and held in secret in a GJ hearing. That's not just this particular case. The GJ were told the standard is probable cause because that is what it is. There was no deception by the State.

I never said it was going to be a cakewalk for a conviction, but I believe based on what I know even now, BK will be found guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

MOO

Replying to my own post to clear up the first question. That remark was stated by Logsdon, which the Judge then told him to cut that. He carries on about how probable cause isn't the threshold a GJ should indict on, well, I'm sorry but that is what the law of the State of Idaho says it is.

Only 12 votes are required, so those numbers quoted previously aren't as accurate. 75% voted for an indictment and the remaining 25% voted for it after having it explained that is was probable cause vs BARD. I feel good about those numbers.

I hope Logsdon lobbies for reform of that after this case is over if he is as passionate as he 'appears' to be.

EBM - Added numbers
MOO

 

[Balthazar]

@girlhasnoname
Yes, I understand that, but it has nothing to do with my point.
What is concerning to me is the aspect I outlined in my previous post #124. Which I will rephrase below:
The prosecution was unopposed during the grand jury, and what is more, they could lay it all out in total secrecy. Yet six of the jurors said we want more. This tells me the prosecution didn't have anything to show them that was of slam dunk "he's guilty" quality. It tells me they don't have much more than what's in the PCA.
The grand jurors were then told the standard is probable cause not BARD, and then they agreed to indict. What this means is these six jurors felt that what they were shown would not have been enough to indict if the standard were higher. Six out of 16 is not a negligible number.
At trial, the standard will be higher, and the prosecution won't be unopposed: the defense will undermine each and every piece of evidence, cross examine witnesses, bring in their own exculpatory elements etc. So it is going to be a lot more difficult for the prosecution, and we now see they were already struggling when it was easy at the grand jury.
We have been led to believe from the beginning that although we aren't privy to it, the prosecution has a lot more than what's in the PCA, but it would appear this is a bluff. This trial is not going to be the cakewalk for the prosecution that some people seem to think it is.
MOO.

Swansee, I agree. Grand Juries in Idaho are 16 to 23 jurors. 6 of 16 is 37.5% and 6 of 23 is 26.08%. This is not an insignificant number of jurors who felt the evidence they heard was insufficient.

 

[Odeto BJ]

@girlhasnoname

The prosecution was unopposed during the grand jury, and what is more, they could lay it all out in total secrecy. Yet six of the jurors said we want more. This tells me the prosecution didn't have anything to show them that was of slam dunk "he's guilty" quality. It tells me they don't have much more than what's in the PCA.
The grand jurors were then told the standard is probable cause not BARD, and then they agreed to indict. What this means is these six jurors felt that what they were shown would not have been enough to indict if the standard were higher. Six out of 16 is not a negligible number.
At trial, the standard will be higher, and the prosecution won't be unopposed: the defense will undermine each and every piece of evidence, cross examine witnesses, bring in their own exculpatory elements etc. So it is going to be a lot more difficult for the prosecution, and we now see they were already struggling when it was easy at the grand jury.
We have been led to believe from the beginning that although we aren't privy to it, the prosecution has a lot more than what's in the PCA, but it would appear this is a bluff. This trial is not going to be the cakewalk for the prosecution that some people seem to think it is.
MOO.

I don't actively disagree with you because I have no idea what the difference in terms of incontrovertible evidence, between the PCA and the Prosecution's evidence at the date of the Grand Jury's bill (May 16)...But its quite easy to turn the argument around. In GJ session: The prosecutors are the lawyers in the room; they know Probable Cause is the standard to achieve; they know that what was issued prior to arrest (the PCA) is public; they know that the gag order is in place; they know that there will be a transcript of the GJ proceedings forwarded to the Defense; they know what evidence they have that is additional to the PCA and what is essentially confirmation or embellishment of the PCA contents.
With that in mind, why would you reveal anything more to the GJ and why would you make demonstrative presentations to the GJ? You are telling the Defense more about your case than you really want them to know, especially considering the whole Speedy Trial disposition was still in place at that time. So they spoon fed the contents of the PCA and very little more....IMO not at all surprising.

Any good poker player will tell you: If you got the nuts, you don't raise during the early rounds of betting. You only raise on the last round.

So its just as easy to conclude: The prosecution got the nuts.

JMO if that's not obvious

 

[ktm44]

Playing devil's advocate here a bit, we really have no indication that BK also didn't go there.

MOO

The owner did publicly state that he had not patronized their place of business many months ago.

 

[Megnut]

The owner did publicly state that he had not patronized their place of business many months ago.

True that.

However, IMO it's not impossible that he loitered there at closing time and asked employees where they live. Creep factor, high alert, but not necessarily high enough to warrant telling one's manager...

I sense BK to be a loiterer. A watcher. Back corner of the bar. Every bar has one. Practically invisible.

JMO

 

[ktm44]

True that.

However, IMO it's not impossible that he loitered there at closing time and asked employees where they live. Creep factor, high alert, but not necessarily high enough to warrant telling one's manager...

I sense BK to be a loiterer. A watcher. Back corner of the bar. Every bar has one. Practically invisible.

JMO

He certainly could have loitered but are you certain the Mad Greek has a bar? I've not seen any indication that they are anything other than a licensed restaurant.

I can think of a couple reasons why the owner was adamant that he had not patronized their establishment. The first would be that he had actually not been there and the other would be because investigators asked him to make a statement but at this point, we have no way to prove or disprove his statement so I find it reasonable to accept that he's telling the truth.

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

@girlhasnoname
Yes, I understand that, but it has nothing to do with my point.
What is concerning to me is the aspect I outlined in my previous post #124. Which I will rephrase below:
The prosecution was unopposed during the grand jury, and what is more, they could lay it all out in total secrecy. Yet six of the jurors said we want more. This tells me the prosecution didn't have anything to show them that was of slam dunk "he's guilty" quality. It tells me they don't have much more than what's in the PCA.
The grand jurors were then told the standard is probable cause not BARD, and then they agreed to indict. What this means is these six jurors felt that what they were shown would not have been enough to indict if the standard were higher. Six out of 16 is not a negligible number.
At trial, the standard will be higher, and the prosecution won't be unopposed: the defense will undermine each and every piece of evidence, cross examine witnesses, bring in their own exculpatory elements etc. So it is going to be a lot more difficult for the prosecution, and we now see they were already struggling when it was easy at the grand jury.
We have been led to believe from the beginning that although we aren't privy to it, the prosecution has a lot more than what's in the PCA, but it would appear this is a bluff. This trial is not going to be the cakewalk for the prosecution that some people seem to think it is.
MOO.

Interesting interpretation — mine is the opposite.

Had I been on the GJ, as a member of this community, I have no doubt I would have wanted to know everything! The horrific murders of four of “our” treasured community members is something we’ll be healing from for a very long time. We all want to know why, to try to make sense of nonsense, MOO!

However, that’s not the purpose of the GJ, which we also know. The GJ’s task was to determine if there was sufficient PC to issue an indictment. That’s it, like it or not.

And the PA’s job is to present enough evidence to establish that: PC, not BARD. Evidence to meet BARD will be presented at trial, not to the GJ. That’s the way it works here. Indeed, it would arguably be an incompetent PA to present all evidence to a GJ, MOO, absent extraordinarily circumstances.

So, while as a grand juror I might have wanted all my own personal questions answered, not getting all the answers I wanted would not have prevented me from voting to indict if I thought sufficient evidence was presented to clearly establish PC.

Which it clearly was, based on the vote to indict.

Personally, I’m quite convinced there’s a crap ton of evidence we haven’t a clue about. I personally am very proud to live in a community where we recognize the importance of letting things play out as the law dictates, and almost a year into this horror, the lack of leaks by officials is strong evidence of how seriously we as a community take it.

We remain #VandalStrong

All MOO, as always.

 

[Megnut]

He certainly could have loitered but are you certain the Mad Greek has a bar? I've not seen any indication that they are anything other than a licensed restaurant.

I can think of a couple reasons why the owner was adamant that he had not patronized their establishment. The first would be that he had actually not been there and the other would be because investigators asked him to make a statement but at this point, we have no way to prove or disprove his statement so I find it reasonable to accept that he's telling the truth.

No! It's not a bar!

My reference is too 'that guy' that lurks in the back corner of Any Bar, Every Town, USA....

Something about BK strikes me, that he hung out on the periphery of life.

FWIW I don't question the manager's statement at all. No record or recall of him ever ordering or being waited on. I trust the veracity of that.

I'm merely suggesting he may have lurked in the shadows, outside.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

Interesting interpretation — mine is the opposite.

Had I been on the GJ, as a member of this community, I have no doubt I would have wanted to know everything! The horrific murders of four of “our” treasured community members is something we’ll be healing from for a very long time. We all want to know why, to try to make sense of nonsense, MOO!

However, that’s not the purpose of the GJ, which we also know. The GJ’s task was to determine if there was sufficient PC to issue an indictment. That’s it, like it or not.

And the PA’s job is to present enough evidence to establish that: PC, not BARD. Evidence to meet BARD will be presented at trial, not to the GJ. That’s the way it works here. Indeed, it would arguably be an incompetent PA to present all evidence to a GJ, MOO, absent extraordinarily circumstances.

So, while as a grand juror I might have wanted all my own personal questions answered, not getting all the answers I wanted would not have prevented me from voting to indict if I thought sufficient evidence was presented to clearly establish PC.

Which it clearly was, based on the vote to indict.

Personally, I’m quite convinced there’s a crap ton of evidence we haven’t a clue about. I personally am very proud to live in a community where we recognize the importance of letting things play out as the law dictates, and almost a year into this horror, the lack of leaks by officials is strong evidence of how seriously we as a community take it.

We remain #VandalStrong

All MOO, as always.

Excellent points! We see this in trials too. The prosecution can present a rock solid case while not answering every question, plugging every hole. Often the one cardinal question gets left usaid, undone, unproven is the why. Even when a motive is suggested (albeit not required), it doesn't satisfy.

That's where BARD comes in IMO. The standard at trial is not beyond all doubt...

And the standard for preliminaries and grand juries, as I understand them, is the lower threshold -- probable cause, more or less likely.

IMO the indictment stands.

JMO

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

True that.

However, IMO it's not impossible that he loitered there at closing time and asked employees where they live. Creep factor, high alert, but not necessarily high enough to warrant telling one's manager...

I sense BK to be a loiterer. A watcher. Back corner of the bar. Every bar has one. Practically invisible.

JMO

I absolutely agree with your sense of adult BK as a loiterer.

However, MOO, all employees would have been questioned, likely more than once, about anything odd. We’ll have to wait for trial to find out if those interviews produced anything about BK, darn it.

Also, having been inside Mad Greek more than a few times <g>, I don’t think there’s any place he could have lurked inside, MOO. It’s a small restaurant. While I can’t provide a link, Maddie’s dad gave a touching interview there to a MSM outlet (that’s since been disallowed on WS) on the day of the UI memorial service that did a decent job of showing the interior of Mad Greek. Also, there are lots of user pics (associated with restaurant reviews) available on the Web — give a look to see what you think.

Anything is possible, tho!

All MOO, as always.

 

[Megnut]

I absolutely agree with your sense of adult BK as a loiterer.

However, MOO, all employees would have been questioned, likely more than once, about anything odd. We’ll have to wait for trial to find out if those interviews produced anything about BK, darn it.

Also, having been inside Mad Greek more than a few times <g>, I don’t think there’s any place he could have lurked inside, MOO. It’s a small restaurant. While I can’t provide a link, Maddie’s dad gave a touching interview there to a MSM outlet (that’s since been disallowed on WS) on the day of the UI memorial service that did a decent job of showing the interior of Mad Greek. Also, there are lots of user pics (associated with restaurant reviews) available on the Web — give a look to see what you think.

Anything is possible, tho!

All MOO, as always.

Agreed. For that reason, I think it is unlikely he ever stepped foot inside or loitered within. I'm speaking in general of other locations.

As for Mad Greek and interviewing employees, it's eerie to me that, if BK did have odd interactions with employees there, two of most likely to have maybe encountered him there are dead.

And IF they did encounter him and IF they told anyone, it might have been only to each other.

What might they say if we could interview them now?

JMO