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

[Baby baby Jane]

"Idaho Code § 19-519​

Current through the 2023 Regular Legislative Session
Section 19-519 - NOTICE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI(1) At any time after arraignment before a magistrate upon a complaint and upon written demand of the prosecuting attorney, the defendant shall serve, within ten (10) days or at such different time as the court may direct, upon the prosecuting attorney, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi."


MOO BK did not supply any detail with his claim of having been "driving around" as an alibi because if he claimed a drive anywhere else besides where he was, circling 1122, cameras along the way would verify.
Would the defense miss that opportunity to possibly exhonerate him? No.

MOO AT intends to agree BK was driving around the 1122 but explain his presence there as trying to buy drugs nearby from a no show dealer and challenge the timeline.

However, that someone planted a trace sample of BKs DNA into a hidden part of the murder weapon sheath is not believable. So this defense strategy is a what if. As in "what if we got the DNA suppressed."

His defense is challenge to procedure.

If he was in the area to buy drugs, there will be at least phone contacts - doubtful BK would expect to see a dealer on the street - maybe maybe looking for particular dealer’s car but that is unlikely and he would need to be able to give a description of vehicle & dealer. (Where he would say he entered car, picked up sheath from passenger seat, fidgeted with the stealth, scored drugs and left vehicle). But he’s not saying any of that.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Meh, Judge Judge could have said no to any cameras, as is his right. I think it's a good compromise and far more favorable than the 'Trial by Tweet' which has caused more confusion and chaos IMO.

Yes. He could have. There was no only trial by Tweet though. He initially issued an order allowing a pool camera to stream the proceedings. He says in the hearing that he hasn't reduced it to writing yet and I guess he never did. In the interim he was obviously persuaded to change his mind. It is from that oral order he said he would be issuing that he changed so I'm not sure where the no camera and only trial by tweet came from but in the end it doesn't matter. The important thing is that we will at least get something that we can each independently review and consider instead of us being told what happened by a media recap. And, that's the important part I suppose.

jmo

“I’m not going to ban cameras in the courtroom, but I need more control over what cameras are doing,” Judge told attendees Thursday afternoon. “I know I can only control so much, and that’s why I continue to urge people to be patient and have some dignity and some restraint.”

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article279302584.html#storylink=cpy

 

[girlhasnoname]

Yes. He could have. There was no trial by Tweet. He initially issued an order allowing a pool camera to stream the proceedings. It is this order that he changed. I'm not sure where the no camera came from?

The Judge has the right to decide or to change his decision on allowing any camera or none, or pool, or whatever. It's his Court.

There are 'Trials by tweet' all the time, that is a term used often around here when there are no cameras allowed and SM and news people feeds information out by tweets. Which leads to misquotes and wrong information being passed along and then trying to be corrected. It's like herding cats, not gonna go well.

MOO

 

[Boxer]

If he was in the area to buy drugs, there will be at least phone contacts - doubtful BK would expect to see a dealer on the street - maybe maybe looking for particular dealer’s car but that is unlikely and he would need to be able to give a description of vehicle & dealer. (Where he would say he entered car, picked up sheath from passenger seat, fidgeted with the stealth, scored drugs and left vehicle). But he’s not saying any of that.

Good points. Also phone would be on.

 

[katydid23]

Or they legitimately don't know where he was at the time of the murders because he was "driving around."

My response was to a poster who stated that EVERYONE who isn't guilty of a crime has an alibi. I was on the road yesterday into this morning for the holiday. If someone asked where I was at 2:35 am, I'd have no earthly idea other than maybe the state. I guarantee some crime happened in that state. Does the fact that I can't tell you exactly where I was mean that I must not be innocent of the crime? This is teh logic that poster was arguing.

I think you are misunderstanding what that poster was saying. They are essentially saying that if you were not at the crime scene, then you were someplace else, which means you have that other place, as your alibi.

So your alibi yesterday was that you were driving to Thanksgiving holiday, from your home to that holiday dinner event.

So you could map out your starting point to the destination and extrapolate where you were around 2:35 am. So your alibi would be 'I was in my car with my spouse as we drove to Aunt Emma's in Ukiah.'

IMO, it's a ridiculous generalization.

None of this speaks to BK's guilt or innocence on my part. I'm speaking about the generalization.

MOO.

If BK's alibi was he was out driving around, I bet he could estimate what general area he was in. Did he ever stop for gas or the bathroom or a soda? Did he stop to look at a view or talk to anyone in a diner or a convenience store?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Still, "driving around" is not an alibi.

'Driving around' could be an alibi if he was proven by technology and CCTV etc to be inside his car on various roads for the whole time period of the murders. It would seem that the prosecution have used same technology to prove the opposite.

 

[Cool Cats]

I think you are misunderstanding what that poster was saying. They are essentially saying that if you were not at the crime scene, then you were someplace else, which means you have that other place, as your alibi.

So your alibi yesterday was that you were driving to Thanksgiving holiday, from your home to that holiday dinner event.

So you could map out your starting point to the destination and extrapolate where you were around 2:35 am. So your alibi would be 'I was in my car with my spouse as we drove to Aunt Emma's in Ukiah.'


If BK's alibi was he was out driving around, I bet he could estimate what general area he was in. Did he ever stop for gas or the bathroom or a soda? Did he stop to look at a view or talk to anyone in a diner or a convenience store?

Thanks, I got tired of explaining this.

He has no alibi because he was at the crime scene committing the crime and was not somewhere else at the time....2 Cents

Sure BK was out driving - BEFORE AND AFTER he was at the crime scene committing the crimes...2 Cents

 

[Boxer]

'Driving around' could be an alibi if he was proven by technology and CCTV etc to be inside his car on various roads for the whole time period of the murders. It would seem that the prosecution have used same technology to prove the opposite.

Exactly.
MOO That is why he is not providing any detail, because AT/BK can't know where those cameras that would corroborate his "alibi" would be.
Stating any specific place would bring scrutiny.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Still, "driving around" is not an alibi.

If that's what someone's doing, it is.

 

[schooling]

Are we saying that if you're innocent there's a possibility that you just exist in a void?

Also, IMO, going "off the grid" or not having a provable alibi is a mental model we carry with us from 90s Friday Episodes of Dateline and 20/20 and Cold Case and Forensic File reruns.

Not having some sort of provable alibi nowadays is extremely difficult. In BKs case, SURELY there will be video footage of him driving anywhere but towards the house at the time of the murders. They should be able to find video of his car heading towards the edge of a technological void (like those backroads he took to dump the murder weapon). Devoid of electronic surveillance cameras.

If his defense can show us video of him heading in a direction with no cameras. And not being back in the area at the time of Prosecutors proposed timeline of the murders. Then that's an alibi.

But I'd imagine that LE has already canvased every square inch of Pullman and Moscow, all roads leading in and out. And they have the footage that proves otherwise.

MOO

 

[jepop]

Thanks, I got tired of explaining this.

He has no alibi because he was at the crime scene committing the crime and was not somewhere else at the time....2 Cents

Sure BK was out driving - BEFORE AND AFTER he was at the crime scene committing the crimes...2 Cents

Agreeing. I call the D's Notice Re alibi Defence a misnomer, an alibi that is not infact an alibi Moo. What is detailed is a general statement relating to driving around in the late eve hours of 12th Nov and early morn hours of 13th Nov. That's it. Before BK waived right to speedy trial, JJJ issued scheduling order, which included ordering D to either comply with relevant section of ICRs or risk losing right to call witnesses (besides BK) to support Albi defense at trial. The D had already requested and been granted one extension of time to comply, with no objection from the P. And what they produced on the day that first extension time limit expired and subsequently was a non-alibi Imo. Moo

9 June: D's Motion for extension of time to comply with ICR 19-519 (Alibi Defense).

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/060923+Motion+for+an+Exception+or+in+the+Alternative+to+Extend+Time+for+Compliance+with+IC+19-519.pdf

13 June: Ps Response - non-objection to extension of time. 24th July requested as time limit.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/061323+States+Response+to+Defs+Motion+for+an+Exception+or+in+Alternative+to+Extend+Time+for+Compliance.pdf

24 July: D's Notice of Intention to seek Alibi Defense, but non-compliant with ICR 19-519.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/072423+Not

ice+of+Defendants+Response+to+States+Alibi+Demand.pdf

27 July: P's Motion to compel Notice of Albi Defense or alternatively bar certain evidence (ie Alibi Witness' at trial with insuffiient notice)

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/072723-Motion-to-Compel-Notice-of-Defense-Alibi-Alt-Bar-Certain-Evidence.pdf

2nd Aug: D Objection to P's Motion - driving around statements made, but does not comply with ICRs. Statement re alibi/non alibi. Moo

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/080223-Objection-to-States-Motion-to-Compel-Motive-of-Defense-of-Alibi-or-Alternatively-to-Bar-Certain.pdf

Post 18 Aug Hearing: Scheduling Order (22 Aug), item 7 addresses second and final extension of time for D to comply with ICRs re Notice of Alibi Defense.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/082223-Scheduling-Order.pdf

EBM to fix link

 

[Boxer]

If that's what someone's doing, it is.

This is an ailbi.

"the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi."

From the

Idaho Code § 19-519​

Current through the 2023 Regular Legislative Session
Section 19-519 - NOTICE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI(1) At any time after arraignment before a magistrate upon a complaint and upon written demand of the prosecuting attorney, the defendant shall serve, within ten (10) days or at such different time as the court may direct, upon the prosecuting attorney, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.

 

[whiterhino]

Still, "driving around" is not an alibi.

It could've been an alibi except BK was "driving around" in the neighbourhood of a crime scene where his DNA was found.

Technically, it still is an alibi except that his DNA was at the scene, his phone pinged in the area, an Elantra matching BKs was seen at the gas station several blocks from 1122 just before the crime occurred and an Elantra matching BKs was seen driving back and forth on 1122 several times again, around the time of the crime.

When did BK offer his alibi? IIRC BK was willing to speak with LE prior to obtaining a lawyer. AN innocent person would offer right away IMO so they can be cleared and free to go.

Do we know if LE asked BK about his alibi for the morning after the murders? How does this tie into the "buying drugs" theory? His dealer bailed at 3 am so he came back at 9?? Ok then.

 

[Boxer]

It could've been an alibi except BK was "driving around" in the neighbourhood of a crime scene where his DNA was found.

Technically, it still is an alibi except that his DNA was at the scene, his phone pinged in the area, an Elantra matching BKs was seen at the gas station several blocks from 1122 just before the crime occurred and an Elantra matching BKs was seen driving back and forth on 1122 several times again, around the time of the crime.

When did BK offer his alibi? IIRC BK was willing to speak with LE prior to obtaining a lawyer. AN innocent person would offer right away IMO so they can be cleared and free to go.

Do we know if LE asked BK about his alibi for the morning after the murders? How does this tie into the "buying drugs" theory? His dealer bailed at 3 am so he came back at 9?? Ok then.

AT stalled as long as possible before submitting a statement with no place and no witness or possibility for corroboration.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

This is an ailbi.

"the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi."

From the

Idaho Code § 19-519​

Current through the 2023 Regular Legislative Session
Section 19-519 - NOTICE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI(1) At any time after arraignment before a magistrate upon a complaint and upon written demand of the prosecuting attorney, the defendant shall serve, within ten (10) days or at such different time as the court may direct, upon the prosecuting attorney, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.

The words "to establish such alibi" are important. Something can be an alibi even when you don't have proof, witnesses, or even knowledge to establish it in the legal record.

JMO

 

[ktm44]

Or they legitimately don't know where he was at the time of the murders because he was "driving around."

My response was to a poster who stated that EVERYONE who isn't guilty of a crime has an alibi. I was on the road yesterday into this morning for the holiday. If someone asked where I was at 2:35 am, I'd have no earthly idea other than maybe the state. I guarantee some crime happened in that state. Does the fact that I can't tell you exactly where I was mean that I must not be innocent of the crime? This is teh logic that poster was arguing.

IMO, it's a ridiculous generalization.

None of this speaks to BK's guilt or innocence on my part. I'm speaking about the generalization.

MOO.

I think the poster has clarified their point but in my opinion, your alibi could be verified. You would have an idea of your departure time, if you drove any great distance, you would have paid for fuel and a general arrival time at your destination and likely witnesses that you were attending a holiday dinner.

Beyond that, your vehicle would have shown up on various traffic cameras along the way.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I think the poster has clarified their point but in my opinion, your alibi could be verified. You would have an idea of your departure time, if you drove any great distance, you would have paid for fuel and a general arrival time at your destination and likely witnesses that you were attending a holiday dinner.

Beyond that, your vehicle would have shown up on various traffic cameras along the way.

To be clear, I'm not saying I'd have no alibi for any crime that happened anywhere else. Of course I would for the reasons you stated. I'm saying that if I'm driving through the woods of Mississppi at 2:30 am and a crime happened down the road from where I was driving, my alibi would be that I was driving in the area. Short of camera footage, I could not prove or disprove my exact coordinates or that I did not take a 5 min lapse in my journey to break a car window.

MOO

 

[maconrich]

Yes. He could have. There was no only trial by Tweet though. He initially issued an order allowing a pool camera to stream the proceedings. He says in the hearing that he hasn't reduced it to writing yet and I guess he never did. In the interim he was obviously persuaded to change his mind. It is from that oral order he said he would be issuing that he changed so I'm not sure where the no camera and only trial by tweet came from but in the end it doesn't matter. The important thing is that we will at least get something that we can each independently review and consider instead of us being told what happened by a media recap. And, that's the important part I suppose.

Respectfully SMB and RBBM

IMHO Rather than being "obviously persuaded", perhaps he based his decision on how the media handled themselves and if they complied with his warnings. Some did listen, but others seem to have continued to focus on sensationalizing - just as they've done all along -- all my opinion of course.

Personally I think JJ has been fair and unbiased. From what I've seen, he appears to be trying to make sure BK receives a fair trial - just as he should be IMO. And if he needs to ban cameras altogether for that to happen, then so be it.

He's pointed out media rights are not nearly as important as the constitutional right to a fair trial -- and same for the public. Sunshine is great, but not when it turns a death penalty case into a media / social media feeding frenzy. IMO.

 

[ktm44]

To be clear, I'm not saying I'd have no alibi for any crime that happened anywhere else. Of course I would for the reasons you stated. I'm saying that if I'm driving through the woods of Mississppi at 2:30 am and a crime happened down the road from where I was driving, my alibi would be that I was driving in the area. Short of camera footage, I could not prove or disprove my exact coordinates or that I did not take a 5 min lapse in my journey to break a car window.

MOO

I recently spent 4 days at a lake fairly close to home and I suspect I would have a hard time proving my presence. I bought no fuel, it's unlikely that I passed any traffic cameras, my phone was shut off for the duration and the people that may have seen me, were a couple of Korean fishermen who spoke very little English and not local.

 

[Boxer]

Respectfully SMB and RBBM

IMHO Rather than being "obviously persuaded", perhaps he based his decision on how the media handled themselves and if they complied with his warnings. Some did listen, but others seem to have continued to focus on sensationalizing - just as they've done all along -- all my opinion of course.

Personally I think JJ has been fair and unbiased. From what I've seen, he appears to be trying to make sure BK receives a fair trial - just as he should be IMO. And if he needs to ban cameras altogether for that to happen, then so be it.

He's pointed out media rights are not nearly as important as the constitutional right to a fair trial -- and same for the public. Sunshine is great, but not when it turns a death penalty case into a media / social media feeding frenzy. IMO.

And one camera operator actually wouldn't take direction from a bailiff and argued.