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

[arielilane]

@kfixler



Update: Judge in #Idaho4 #BryanKohberger murder case revised court hearing rules. Cellphones/laptops still permitted, but phones must be off and laptops for notes only. No more live-tweeting — live-Xing ? — allowed. No coming or going, late arrivals either https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/010524-AMENDED-Order-Governing-Courthouse-Courtroom-Conduct.pdf

 

[arielilane]

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger​

Latah County CR29-22-2805

Case Summary (Updated 01/08/24)

• 01/02/2024 Order Media Request (KXLY)
• 01/05/2024 Amended Order Governing Courthouse and Courtroom Conduct
• 01/05/2024 Motion to Temporarily Seal Objection
• 01/05/2024 Temporary Order sealing Objection to Defendant's Motion

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

 

[ktm44]

For all we know, BK brought his gun that night unloaded & could have used it for intimidation to keep the housemates quiet. JMO

Anything is possible but it's a bit of a reach for me. It seems overly complicated to carry an unloaded firearm to control victims when he already had a weapon capable of doing that.

 

[NyxNY]

@alcaprari23

Just learned that Judge Judge will NOT allow live-tweeting in the courtroom for all future #BryanKohberger hearings.In a change from previous orders, laptops and similar devices may be used for note-taking in the courtroom, but cannot be used "to email, chat, record, or transmit audio, images, or written accounts of the proceedings to platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, YouTube, blogs, or other similar platforms or websites while inside of the courtroom," the new order states.

View attachment 473135

4:55 PM · Jan 8, 2024

Thank God (or whomever)!

 

[Swansee]

@kfixler



Update: Judge in #Idaho4 #BryanKohberger murder case revised court hearing rules. Cellphones/laptops still permitted, but phones must be off and laptops for notes only. No more live-tweeting — live-Xing ? — allowed. No coming or going, late arrivals either https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/010524-AMENDED-Order-Governing-Courthouse-Courtroom-Conduct.pdf

View attachment 473137

I don't get it.
I mean I understand no photos or video. But what's the benefit of banning live-tweeting?
What's the difference between if a reporter live tweets what's being said in the court room as it happens vs if the journalist only gets to note what is said in the courtroom, only to tweet that note an hour later when the hearing is over?
I don't see the benefit. It's just delaying. Why bother?

 

[Dotta]

Yep.
How strange.

I have recently followed a few UK trials on WS
(L Letby, B Ghey's murderers, and others) and live tweets were the norm.

Although no pictures - the public got artist's sketches.

What is so special about this future trial?

JMO

 

[maskedwoman]

I don't get it.
I mean I understand no photos or video. But what's the benefit of banning live-tweeting?
What's the difference between if a reporter live tweets what's being said in the court room as it happens vs if the journalist only gets to note what is said in the courtroom, only to tweet that note an hour later when the hearing is over?
I don't see the benefit. It's just delaying. Why bother?

I think it's a good idea. At one of the hearings, a journalist tweeted (x'd ?) the exact opposite of what was actually said on an issue. By live-streaming the whole thing from one source, I would think the best approach would be for news outlets to live blog the trial as it goes across the camera feed. I would think that's easier to control and make corrections, since you can't edit tweets. MOOooo

 

[Balthazar]

IME, they may of course have been the exception... I live on a college campus. I frequently walk my dog between midnight and dawn. At least 9/10 student houses have common space lights on all night, every night. Kitchens, living rooms, etc.

In the book "While Idaho Slept" by J Reuben Appelman, the house is described as being dark the 3 times DM opens her bedroom door. (Chapter 4). After DM heard noises upstairs: "She opened her bedroom door and looked toward a nearby stairwell that led to the third floor, where she saw nothing. In the dark, there were only shadows." Then his account of the 3rd time DM opened her door: "He was walking toward Dylan in the dark..."

Did the author get this wrong? IDK.

JMO.

 

[Balthazar]

@alcaprari23

Just learned that Judge Judge will NOT allow live-tweeting in the courtroom for all future #BryanKohberger hearings.In a change from previous orders, laptops and similar devices may be used for note-taking in the courtroom, but cannot be used "to email, chat, record, or transmit audio, images, or written accounts of the proceedings to platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, YouTube, blogs, or other similar platforms or websites while inside of the courtroom," the new order states.

View attachment 473135

4:55 PM · Jan 8, 2024

IMO, it will be noisy with a lot of people typing on laptops.

 

[iamshadow21]

In the book "While Idaho Slept" by J Reuben Appelman, the house is described as being dark the 3 times DM opens her bedroom door. (Chapter 4). After DM heard noises upstairs: "She opened her bedroom door and looked toward a nearby stairwell that led to the third floor, where she saw nothing. In the dark, there were only shadows." Then his account of the 3rd time DM opened her door: "He was walking toward Dylan in the dark..."

Did the author get this wrong? IDK.

JMO.

I haven't read the book, but unless he was quoting from D's account precisely, it's entirely possible he was doing what writers do - setting the scene with with plenty of atmosphere but some vagarity where it comes to the literal facts.

MOO

 

[NyxNY]

I don't get it.
I mean I understand no photos or video. But what's the benefit of banning live-tweeting?
What's the difference between if a reporter live tweets what's being said in the court room as it happens vs if the journalist only gets to note what is said in the courtroom, only to tweet that note an hour later when the hearing is over?
I don't see the benefit. It's just delaying. Why bother?

Once a mis-tweet (X) is out there, the undoing of that misinformation is near impossible.

 

[Oregonmama]

I don't get it.
I mean I understand no photos or video. But what's the benefit of banning live-tweeting?
What's the difference between if a reporter live tweets what's being said in the court room as it happens vs if the journalist only gets to note what is said in the courtroom, only to tweet that note an hour later when the hearing is over?
I don't see the benefit. It's just delaying. Why bother?

I think it's to prevent any words being left out or misinterpret anything (personal bias) during the proceedings to swing the online conversation with false facts.

 

[Cool Cats]

I think it's to prevent any words being left out or misinterpret anything (personal bias) during the proceedings to swing the online conversation with false facts.

Yes, could be!

A good example of this is a journalist tweeted at the Vallow trial that the jurors were given barf bags. Not true.

I can't remember what it was but it wasn't barf bags. Anyway, it was a mess with the misinformation.

I only care that the trial will be televised. We are really lucky for that.

2 Cents

 

[schooling]

N

I haven't read the book, but unless he was quoting from D's account precisely, it's entirely possible he was doing what writers do - setting the scene with with plenty of atmosphere but some vagarity where it comes to the literal facts.

MOO

I’ve seen a few of the excerpts from the book and it reminds me of the information that was floating around on the official Moscow subreddit on the day of the murders. Before the mods there nuked it.

NewsNation and DailyMail repeatedly draw from that well so I honestly wouldn’t be surprised.

MOO

 

[Chloegirl]

I think it's to prevent any words being left out or misinterpret anything (personal bias) during the proceedings to swing the online conversation with false facts.

I agree with you on so many levels. I think they were going to put everything on a time delay and that's what the issue is, if I recall properly. JMOO

 

[Oregonmama]

I agree with you on so many levels. I think they were going to put everything on a time delay and that's what the issue is, if I recall properly. JMOO

Prevents a mistrial or possible appeals. The Delphi case is one example of online conversations that were false to hinder the case

 

[Odeto BJ]

With a single live stream, Judge Judge is in charge of what is transmitted; and we know that is not going to include any view of the jury or anything that appears on the screens of the Prosecution or the Defense. And J^3 is not a news producer, editor or even a cameraman. He is not going to be transmitting what those parties want to see, and it can be anticipated that he will not be changing the viewpoint as frequently as others would prefer. So the subject matter "chat" type commentary is going to be limited to the prevailing view and will not be capable of noting a juror's or a spectators reaction to a specific piece of evidence or testimony.
Summaries transmitted real time can in fact influence the proceedings, especially where an observer's comment during witness examination runs along the lines of "I wish they would ask about...." or "Juror Number 3 does not appear to be paying attention to..."
Summaries transmitted during breaks in the court proceedings carry less of that potential and of necessity will have to set the stage and establish the timing of any event causing a notable response from a witness, a counsel or the jury. Moreover: those making editorial type comments will have had opportunity to review to ensure that their reports are effective and relevant; possibly even adjusted as result of subsequent proceedings or testimony clarifying the real context.
Overall I believe the methods outlined for this upcoming trial will prove effective in maintaining the integrity of the trial and the dignity and decorum of the proceedings. We can feel guaranteed the news services and the journalists will complain about the stream and its "lack of drama" once the judge's filters are applied: but this is not Judge Judy here. There is just too much opportunity for contamination and distraction and grandstanding with a studio size camera and its logo in the courtroom. To reinforce that: How many of us would have so vivid an image of Judge Ito or Johnny Cochrane if that trial had never been televised, and we don't have to review the outcome of that circ...uh...proceeding.

JMO.

 

[LetsSolvIt]

Thank God (or whomever)!

I often find Tweets confusing or not totally understandable because one read alone can be taken out of context. Additionally, it's difficult and sometimes imprecise to be typing something you heard a minute ago while trying to listen to the current dialog.

An article written from the perspective of having attended and heard an entire court session allows the details to be presented within the overall narrative or as part of story development. OMO.

 

[whiterhino]

Anything is possible but it's a bit of a reach for me. It seems overly complicated to carry an unloaded firearm to control victims when he already had a weapon capable of doing that.

I agree & don't really believe BK brought his unloaded gun to the crime. It was more in reply to someone who I think was asking or suggesting a gun. BK did in fact have one but I don't think he brought it that night. JMO.

 

[10ofRods]

I don't get it.
I mean I understand no photos or video. But what's the benefit of banning live-tweeting?
What's the difference between if a reporter live tweets what's being said in the court room as it happens vs if the journalist only gets to note what is said in the courtroom, only to tweet that note an hour later when the hearing is over?
I don't see the benefit. It's just delaying. Why bother?

It is SO distracting to see people twiddling with phones while others are trying to conduct any sort of serious proceeding

Most schools ban them too. For good reason. People make peculiar faces relevant only to their own conversations. Tweeting looks identical to texting. SO annoying if one is trying to work. The Jydge has to watch all this typing and so forth.

I don’t know any doctor, judge or teacher who permits it while they are trying to get their work done. Believe it or not, the headspace of. judge is well occupied. And no one can tell if it is tweets or unpermitted recordings until later. That has been a problem in more than one trial.

Do texting (tweeting is a form of texting) on breaks. Not during any proceeding while judge and jury are working. Maybe people don’t realize how their fingers and faces are so distracting.

IMO. A strong opinion.