4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #91

[al66pine]

From my post Saturday re Jury Views
".... Welcoming correction esp'ly by our legal professionals like you, @Nila Aella."

4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #91

SBM to focus on Thompsons email statement about the jury view vs Faro Scan #2: Genuinely curious Will the second Faro Scan be admissable? The FBI Faro scan was done on October 31, 2023 when the condition of the premesis were substantially different than at the time of the homicides. MOO Just...

www.websleuths.com

Just for clarity and new posters
IANAL. I do not work in the legal profession nor am I in a profession involved in any way with the legal profession or this case or any case. I love reading/learning about the laws and procedures of our Judicial system and enjoy reading/learning from all those who post here.
This is truth, not opinion.

snipped for focus. @Nila Aella. Thank you very much for your response.
Seems I confused you or your user name w someone else here & apologize.

Like you, I enjoy reading about cases in our judicial system along w info & opinions from many posters. Including yours.

Hoping that you were not offended by mistakenly being identified as one of our legal professionals.

I'm sorry for any confusion my post caused.

 

[Colorado303]

I understand family members' grief. But I really really wish someone from the prosecution would sit down with them and explain the rules regarding jury visits.

Like the fact that jury visit requests must come from the prosecution or the defense team--not the jury itself.

Or the fact that while the jury may make observations while they are there, they can NOT do "experiments" to test evidence or theories. Given that they are not allowed to talk during the visit, all the claims of "but they would then be able to see if you could hear the sounds of a struggle in DM's room or BF's room or X talking or K talking or the dog..." are moot. The most they could possibly assess is whether you could hear footsteps of people who aren't trying to be sneaky--and that's only if the jury is allowed to split up and some of them be on the 1st floor or 2nd floor level while some are on the 3rd floor or X's room.

And while they can walk through and get a more visceral image of the layout and spacing, they can't time themselves walking through rapidly while pretending to do the murders to see if they were possible in the proposed time frame.

I suspect the prosecution determined long ago talking to SG about anything would be counter-productive and possibly damaging to the case. I don’t blame them. SG brought a lot of the silence he complains about on himself IMO.

 

[al66pine]

Talking or Silence at a Jury View? ID Law.

Tho a jury view of 1122 King Rd interior is now beyond the realm of possibilities, posting this to corroborate what other posters said about jury views being silent.

Under ID. statute (my paraphrasing here,w full section below)* "when, in the opinion of the court, that the jury should view the place" the trial court "may order" that the sheriff transport the jury to the scene to view, w the sheriff -
- not to speak to or communicate w jury,
- not to allow anyone else to speak or communicate w jury.

imo
___________________________________
*
ID statute "19-2124. VIEW OF PREMISES BY JURY. When, in the opinion of the court, it is proper that the jury should view the place in which the offense is charged to have been committed, or in which any other material fact occurred, it may order the jury to be conducted in a body, in the custody of the sheriff, to the place, which must shown to them by a person appointed by the court for that purpose; and the sheriff must be sworn to suffer no person to speak or communicate with the jury, nor to do so himself, on any subject connected with the trial, and to return them into court without unnecessary delay, or at a specified time."

Section 19-2124 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

 

[Cool Cats]

I understand family members' grief. But I really really wish someone from the prosecution would sit down with them and explain the rules regarding jury visits.

Like the fact that jury visit requests must come from the prosecution or the defense team--not the jury itself.

Or the fact that while the jury may make observations while they are there, they can NOT do "experiments" to test evidence or theories. Given that they are not allowed to talk during the visit, all the claims of "but they would then be able to see if you could hear the sounds of a struggle in DM's room or BF's room or X talking or K talking or the dog..." are moot. The most they could possibly assess is whether you could hear footsteps of people who aren't trying to be sneaky--and that's only if the jury is allowed to split up and some of them be on the 1st floor or 2nd floor level while some are on the 3rd floor or X's room.

And while they can walk through and get a more visceral image of the layout and spacing, they can't time themselves walking through rapidly while pretending to do the murders to see if they were possible in the proposed time frame.

The person who is suppose to talk to the families is the person they hired....Their Attorney.

What attorney lets their clients believe misinformation? Your points are misinformation that their attorney is allowing them to believe......It seems like to me....2 Cents

I suspect the prosecution determined long ago talking to SG about anything would be counter-productive and possibly damaging to the case. I don’t blame them. SG brought a lot of the silence he complains about on himself IMO.

Their attorney is suppose to help them navigate the court system. Gag order brought silence. Not Mr G
..........2 Cents
____________________________________________________ Shannon Gray

NewsNation

U.S. News

www.newsnationnow.com

 

[cottonweaver]

The layout of the house is complicated for lack of a better word. If I were a juror i would absolutely feel like it would be necessary for me to go in in order to fully GRASP what happened. Who could have heard what when. What EXACT sounds are we hearing from that ring camera? I would need to wrap my mind around the distances of the rooms, the neighbor’s homes and their locations, the entrances, where he parked, the windows, the stairs, and the layout. I would want to hear what could be heard from upstairs. I would NEED to understand. It’s a WEIRD case.

I can visualize 3D pretty well. I make CADs for interior design, but I STILL can’t tell when looking at some CADs if the distance is as sufficient as I want it to be from say shower to counter or toilet to wall. & I need to go to the site and measure. There are standard acceptable minimum distances, but I have to get in a client’s head, so each job is different. What seems absurdly spacious to me is just right to some, so when I see it on a CAD, it sometimes looks foreign - I’m not sure how it big or small the distance will FEEL or what you can DO in it. If that makes sense. Of course if i measure and process oh ok i can put a yoga mat there blah blah blah. But it’s faster and more efficient and more SURE/ DOUBTPROOF to simply be IN the actual space.
JMO

TBH the possibility of a jury visit wasn't foremost in my mind when I posted that clip where the attorney outlines a future scenario of a convicted BK and his appeals exploiting IAC.

I also found Mr G's attorney to be a pain in the proverbial from the outset and said so at the time, although it wasn't a very popular view on WS back then.
The case was riven with misinformation from the outset and it's only gotten worse since then.

This is a heinous crime which already drew massive amounts of media attention. Now, the way the university has gone about this demo just inflames tensions and further fuels conspiracy & misinfo.
Personally, I would have just erected construction boards around the house and held off demolition for another 6-9 months ( Trial expected to conclude summer- Fall 2024 - ish?) It's not long to wait, it doesn't really inconvenience anybody if the property's plot was construction boarded and secured.

Even though I've personally found many of the things Mr G has said objectionable over the last 12 mos or so, he's still a victim and once the university had it confirmed that a couple of parents objected I would've paused to rethink my plan, if I'd been in the university's shoes. I would've realised that I was unlikely to achieve my objective if my plan just stoked more controversy and bad press.

 

[girlhasnoname]

The jury was never going to be granted a visit to that awful, evil dwelling IMO. It would have served no purpose. It wouldn't have looked even remotely like it did that night, it wouldn't have sounded remotely like it did that night do to the spatial differences. It was a health hazard, on and on. The technology available today will show them far better how things appeared than that gutted property.

Jury walk throughs at a crime scene are rare. Very rare. Both the State and Defense agreed they had all the information they needed to proceed without the house. How rare is it that the P&D agree on anything?

I'm sorry the G's are grieving it being torn down. I don't dare judge them for feeling this way, I cannot fathom what I would do or say in their position. My heart breaks for them. I just hope this case can move forward without continuous extraneous Motions being filed by AT & Co. and have a trial date set. Then and only then will real justice begin to be served.

MOO

 

[maskedwoman]

You can't buy something if it isn't for sale tho... especially a house.

People DID oppose it, there was a petition.

And not that it matters what I think but yes I do think it would be in poor taste if the owner sold it to the families. IMO wrong to make money off a sale like that and I have no doubt the owner would have made a profit seeing as how the house had been rented out for a number of years. It was likely an income property in the first place.

Who cares if they lost their investment. 4 people died. Too bad if the school didn't want it. Nobody asked for what happened. I'm not directing this at anyone, I'm just saying FWIW.

My heart hurts so much for the families, but I can't imagine becoming owners of the place where my children were murdered and having to make decisions on it as a group going forward. Making those decisions would be another awful burden, and would be fraught with emotion and likely conflict. I have to think it could have become an unending nightmare.

It did seem early to demolish the place, but I have way too much on my plate right now, and not enough knowledge, to feel like I can disagree with the decisions that have been made. I'm not criticizing anyone. That's just the place I'm personally in right now.

As for the owners losing their investment, respectfully, are people supposed to part with their possessions at a loss, or write them off as a 100% loss, because someone else committed a crime? That hardly seems fair. The owners found themselves in this situation just as unwillingly as anyone else. Yes, they donated the place to the school, but I'm sure they offset that with a tax deduction and I have no problem with that. They didn't do anything wrong.

Do we know if the petition was a local, physical one or an online petition? I don't think I ever heard. If it was online, those are often signed by people who live nowhere near the place being affected, who know absolutely no one directly involved, and may never be closer that 500 miles from the issue at hand. I often think of how people give their opinion without much thought, and are shocked by the major concerned they didn't take into consideration in their decision. I have certainly done that myself. Then I imagine how many people 'sign' online petitions after giving the issue at hand about a nanosecond of thought. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but I don't think everyone has the right for their opinion to count equally in all situations. Oh my, I'm just full of heresy this morning. I'd better stop before I start claiming the earth is flat.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Thinking about BK's DNA found at the scene, eyewitness testimony, etc. I found a very interesting article on how evidence is perceived and ranked by Attorneys, jurors, etc. done by the NIH's National Library of Medicine and results from documented Mock juries. It's very interesting (to me) if you have the time to check it out. It's about 5 years old so I'd imagine these results have changed since then, but it was still interesting.

Here's a snippet:
The present research explores how important different trial evidence is to mock jurors’ decisions. Study 1 surveys legal professionals to determine what evidence is common at homicide trials. Study 2 utilizes the list of evidence generated in Study 1 to ask mock jurors to report how important each piece of evidence would be in deciding their verdicts. The results indicate that DNA is most important to mock jurors, followed by fingerprints, the weapon, video records, crime-scene photos, gunshot residue, bodily secretions, video confession, testimony from a forensic expert, and eyewitness testimony. Study 3 utilizes a different methodology wherein mock jurors were presented with folders labeled with different evidence and asked to choose the piece of evidence they wanted to learn more about first, second, and so on. The results from Study 3 indicate again that DNA evidence is most important to mock jurors, followed by video confession evidence, eyewitness testimony, and fingerprint evidence. Implications are discussed.

What Evidence Matters to Jurors? The Prevalence and Importance of Different Homicide Trial Evidence to Mock Jurors

 

[maskedwoman]

Apparently, there wasn't enough of a health hazard in that house to make this man wear protective clothing or even a mask right in the middle of the demolition debris and dust. That jumped out at me.

View attachment 471013


A Moscow jury will likely be shown 3D imaging of the home where 4 UI students were killed. Here's how it works

I have no idea what all they used inside, much less what is in those compounds, but I did wonder if it might be a situation where fumes remaining inside could be harmful, but wouldn't be a problem outside.

 

[Justice101]

That was good information on the types of evidence. Amazed that people are that selective... and selective in the right areas. Gives me hope for humanity.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Apparently, there wasn't enough of a health hazard in that house to make this man wear protective clothing or even a mask right in the middle of the demolition debris and dust. That jumped out at me.

View attachment 471013


A Moscow jury will likely be shown 3D imaging of the home where 4 UI students were killed. Here's how it works

That man walking about in the open air, even though not protecting himself from dirty air, is not a comparison to an enclosed airspace which can have a concentration of bacteria/mold/mildew etc. There is no concentration of anything harmful in the open air, that came from within that house once a roof or exterior was was removed.

 

[Sundog]

TBH the possibility of a jury visit wasn't foremost in my mind when I posted that clip where the attorney outlines a future scenario of a convicted BK and his appeals exploiting IAC.

I also found Mr G's attorney to be a pain in the proverbial from the outset and said so at the time, although it wasn't a very popular view on WS back then.
The case was riven with misinformation from the outset and it's only gotten worse since then.

This is a heinous crime which already drew massive amounts of media attention. Now, the way the university has gone about this demo just inflames tensions and further fuels conspiracy & misinfo.
Personally, I would have just erected construction boards around the house and held off demolition for another 6-9 months ( Trial expected to conclude summer- Fall 2024 - ish?) It's not long to wait, it doesn't really inconvenience anybody if the property's plot was construction boarded and secured.

Even though I've personally found many of the things Mr G has said objectionable over the last 12 mos or so, he's still a victim and once the university had it confirmed that a couple of parents objected I would've paused to rethink my plan, if I'd been in the university's shoes. I would've realised that I was unlikely to achieve my objective if my plan just stoked more controversy and bad press.

The university should have rejected the donation of the house from the owners. But they stepped in to help the community and have received no end of criticism, unfortunately.

 

[10ofRods]

Thinking about BK's DNA found at the scene, eyewitness testimony, etc. I found a very interesting article on how evidence is perceived and ranked by Attorneys, jurors, etc. done by the NIH's National Library of Medicine and results from documented Mock juries. It's very interesting (to me) if you have the time to check it out. It's about 5 years old so I'd imagine these results have changed since then, but it was still interesting.

Here's a snippet:
The present research explores how important different trial evidence is to mock jurors’ decisions. Study 1 surveys legal professionals to determine what evidence is common at homicide trials. Study 2 utilizes the list of evidence generated in Study 1 to ask mock jurors to report how important each piece of evidence would be in deciding their verdicts. The results indicate that DNA is most important to mock jurors, followed by fingerprints, the weapon, video records, crime-scene photos, gunshot residue, bodily secretions, video confession, testimony from a forensic expert, and eyewitness testimony. Study 3 utilizes a different methodology wherein mock jurors were presented with folders labeled with different evidence and asked to choose the piece of evidence they wanted to learn more about first, second, and so on. The results from Study 3 indicate again that DNA evidence is most important to mock jurors, followed by video confession evidence, eyewitness testimony, and fingerprint evidence. Implications are discussed.

What Evidence Matters to Jurors? The Prevalence and Importance of Different Homicide Trial Evidence to Mock Jurors

Wow - that's an excellent find!

So, let's see. BK's DNA on the sheath (probably halfway to conviction there). Videos of his car cruising the area, disappearing to a spot behind the house at the time of the murders, at which time he is seen by an eyewitness.

The Defense will of course try to claim it's not his car (FBI car expert will be convincing, I imagine). Defense will try to claim there's other DNA in the house (but only one person's on a component of the murder weapon!) Defense will try to discredit DM's testimony, but it will be emotional and convincing to the jurors.

 

[girlhasnoname]

The university should have rejected the donation of the house from the owners. But they stepped in to help the community and have received no end of criticism, unfortunately.

I don't necessarily agree that the U should have rejected a +-$1M donation. There can be any number of things replacing it in the future. Now the University will have the ultimate decision on what is erected (if anything) on that spot, which could be helpful to the University and the entire community. Not taking anything away from the victims here, just speaking in terms of a hypothetical future.

Most people criticizing the U, I think, are doing so from an emotional point of view, which I can understand, but at the end of the day it was a horrid murder house, with gawkers and true crime followers, SM podcasters, and just plain weirdo people wanting to be there causing disruption for the foreseeable future.

I think as the case moves through the Court system and justice is served, it will be become less of an emotional issue in the years going forward. At least I hope.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Wow - that's an excellent find!

So, let's see. BK's DNA on the sheath (probably halfway to conviction there). Videos of his car cruising the area, disappearing to a spot behind the house at the time of the murders, at which time he is seen by an eyewitness.

The Defense will of course try to claim it's not his car (FBI car expert will be convincing, I imagine). Defense will try to claim there's other DNA in the house (but only one person's on a component of the murder weapon!) Defense will try to discredit DM's testimony, but it will be emotional and convincing to the jurors.

@10ofRods I knew you'd like it in particular. NIH is a wealth of information, but I thought this was pertinent to this case. The rest of the paper is also very informative.

It looks to me like an average juror will have no trouble in finding BK guilty.

JMO

 

[Chloegirl]

I don't necessarily agree that the U should have rejected a +-$1M donation. There can be any number of things replacing it in the future. Now the University will have the ultimate decision on what is erected (if anything) on that spot, which could be helpful to the University and the entire community. Not taking anything away from the victims here, just speaking in terms of a hypothetical future.

Most people criticizing the U, I think, are doing so from an emotional point of view, which I can understand, but at the end of the day it was a horrid murder house, with and crime followers, SM podcasters, and just plain weirdo people wanting to be there causing disruption for the foreseeable future.

I think as the case moves through the Court system and justice is served, it will be become less of an emotional issue in the years going forward. At least I hope.

JMO

That house was not valued that highly, must have looked nice on Zillow but frankly wasn't the property people assume it was. The value would be far less especially since there is no house and so it's just land and kind of a weird piece of it.

I know everyone wanted a healing garden there, and those plans have been moved to on campus. If you look at how overpopulated that little section of student housing is, it might just be best to create a parking lot for overflow with some really good lighting since it's dark, lots of students move through the area constantly and it could provide relief to those who live nearby. It's sort of the pragmatic solution, anything else would just draw more attention and I think what they need is a little space. JMOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

That house was not valued that highly, must have looked nice on Zillow but frankly wasn't the property people assume it was. The value would be far less especially since there is no house and so it's just land and kind of a weird piece of it.

I know everyone wanted a healing garden there, and those plans have been moved to on campus. If you look at how overpopulated that little section of student housing is, it might just be best to create a parking lot for overflow with some really good lighting since it's dark, lots of students move through the area constantly and it could provide relief to those who live nearby. It's sort of the pragmatic solution, anything else would just draw more attention and I think what they need is a little space. JMOO

The house with future rental value and land value in that location would have been easily $1M.

I think your idea of a parking lot is a really good idea, maybe it could be an offsite library, or health or wellness spot. Something that brings something good out of a bad situation is what my main point was.

MOO

 

[schooling]

...Defense will try to discredit DM's testimony, but it will be emotional and convincing to the jurors.

(snipped by me for focus)

I see a lot of people who think BK's innocent implying that breaking DM and/or BF on the stand is the key to a finding of Not Guilty.

I completely disagree.

I think any perceived 'bullying' is going to work against the defense. The defense has a delicate balancing act on their hands. The State's timeline and all of the evidence that hinges on it is largely dependent on what the two surviving roommates saw and heard.

 

[TL4S]

Here's my hangup with the whole house thing. That house and land is not needed for the functionality of the university right now. It wasn't even their property until it was donated.

It's easy for the public to say it's a horrible thing to look at, and to list all the reasons a jury will never be allowed in, and how SG and his lawyer simply don't understand the facts, etc. IMO, while all of that is logical to us on the outside, it is not acknowledging the fact that three of the four victims' families did not want the house taken down before trial. Period. I don't care what their reasons are, or, frankly, whether they are right or wrong. The university re-victimized those three families by being unwilling to wait until after the trial. I believe it likely hurt those families far worse to see the house come down than it would have hurt the university and the public to see the house up for one more year.

JMO.

 

[al66pine]

"Memorializing" Sites of Tragic Deaths.

Just a few thoughts about tragic deaths generally and not speaking to or criticizing any specific posts or posters here on WS or any others involved in the case.

Seems in aftermath of some homicides, some ppl say --- the prop. owner should DONATE the land & building, where crime occurred, to [uni, city, county, charity, who-ever]. A donation, i.e, as a gift, free, gratis, on-the-house, no charge.

As if any ol' prop owner is in financial position to transfer a major asset to another entity, w no thought as to whether there is a mortgage on the place, or whether the owner depends on rental income to pay the mortgage, ins, prop taxes, repairs, etc., or other considerations.

And some say the prop. should or MUST be transformed into a MEMORIAL, e.g. healing garden, a playground, etc. for the crime vic(s).

AS IF that's the only and universally the BEST WAY to honor the dead, the way that all victims, surviving fam & friends want.
When there are multiple deaths, who is to say what the deceased may have preferred, or if their families would all agree.

Seems some --- w no real life or even digital/ soc media connection like FB, to the victim, fam, friends or community (other than following news on the case, like in MSM on or a forum) --- see these situations as if they are voting online for a People's Choice Award at a talent show and are entitled to determine the outcome.

And there's the issue of what a donee-entity will/can do w the property. Is the donee-entity (uni/city/county, who-ev) in a position to spend $$$ to design, create, build, maintain a memorial, to carry liability & casualty ins., provide LE or private security patrols, etc?

Sometimes a prop. transferred as a gift can be a WHITE ELEPHANT to the donor. After receiving the prop. as a gift w no legally imposed conditions, if a public entity was to sell it, I can imagine loud, prolonged negative response from some quarters.

Again, this post is not directed to any posts or posters here specifically.

Holding my breath, but ready to dodge the rotten tomatoes. Hope they're not in cans.