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

[seasideForest]

Additionally, it's difficult and sometimes imprecise to be typing something you heard a minute ago while trying to listen to the current dialog.

Yes, agree with that. It's likely to be almost as strenuous intellectually as working as a court-interpreter, which is a much more difficult profession than people might think. When your brain gets tired, your work gets imprecise. OMO based on my professional experience however.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

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's too easy to make a mistake, leave out a word like "no" or "not," make a typo that changes the meaning. Waiting is a good thing if journalists check their work.

 

[AmandaSkis]

A few people here on WS have argued that the house should have been left standing for, oh say, another year. Why 12 months? Why not 6 months? Or 22 months? We have NO WAY of knowing when this will actually go to trial. If this case actually goes to trial in one year (which would be two years after the murders), then I will be shocked. In the meantime, the house would be at risk to vandals, attention seekers, etc.

 

[Cool Cats]

A few people here on WS have argued that the house should have been left standing for, oh say, another year. Why 12 months? Why not 6 months? Or 22 months? We have NO WAY of knowing when this will actually go to trial. If this case actually goes to trial in one year (which would be two years after the murders), then I will be shocked. In the meantime, the house would be at risk to vandals, attention seekers, etc.

I believe people meant the house should stay up until after the trial because of the Facebook statement the Goncalves wrote. That they felt it should stay up until after trial.

It wasn't reasonable to expect the university to keep it up that long when it wasn't going to be used for trial
so I'm glad it is gone.

It was $700 a day just for the security and that is too much money to keep a house that cannot legally be used for trial. Then as you say, there were a lot of "attention seekers" driving there taking photos and selfies etc...So the university would need liability insurance unless the policy they already have was covering the house.

2 Cents

 

[Swansee]

Three points about the live-tweets.
1: yes, you can edit tweets (X's) for up to an hour after posting. After that you can always either delete or quote your post with a correction.
2: banning live tweeting is NOT going to stop the distraction of people being on their devices during hearings, because the devices themselves and their use during hearings are not banned. Reporters will still be typing what they hear as notes, and will post these notes as soon as the hearing ends. They are not banned from texting either, so you can imagine they will still be getting and sending text messages albeit perhaps not about the trial. So this is a moot point.
As much as I am supportive of not having media cameras in the courtroom, because they have proven to disregard JJJ's instructions, I think this last rule goes too far, and is pointless.
I am glad there will be a live stream on JJJ's YouTube, but this is really the only thing that remains, and it can be taken away at any time. If that happens the public will be completely in the dark.
3: banning live tweets is not going to stop online speculation about this case at all. On the contrary, it only serves to fuel all kinds conspiracy theories.
Still don't see the benefit. All MOO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Three points about the live-tweets.
1: yes, you can edit tweets (X's) for up to an hour after posting. After that you can always either delete or quote your post with a correction.
2: banning live tweeting is NOT going to stop the distraction of people being on their devices during hearings, because the devices themselves and their use during hearings are not banned. Reporters will still be typing what they hear as notes, and will post these notes as soon as the hearing ends. They are not banned from texting either, so you can imagine they will still be getting and sending text messages albeit perhaps not about the trial. So this is a moot point.
As much as I am supportive of not having media cameras in the courtroom, because they have proven to disregard JJJ's instructions, I think this last rule goes too far, and is pointless.
I am glad there will be a live stream on JJJ's YouTube, but this is really the only thing that remains, and it can be taken away at any time. If that happens the public will be completely in the dark.
3: banning live tweets is not going to stop online speculation about this case at all. On the contrary, it only serves to fuel all kinds conspiracy theories.
Still don't see the benefit. All MOO.

Their phones must be turned off according to the new Order and electronics on a pretty tight rope:

1. Cell Phones
   Cell phones are permitted inside the courthouse but, MUST BE TURNED OFF and stowed
   OUT OF VIEW during the proceedings and any court recess' while inside the courtroom. Cell phones SHALL NOT be used for texting, emailing, recording. or transmitting 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. Cell phones may only be used outside of the courtroom. Violation of this rule may result in confiscation of the phone by the Court, a bailiff, or other court personnel.
2. Other Electronic Devices
   Computers, laptops, and other similar devices are permitted in the courtroom FOR NOTE TAKING ONI.Y and may only be used in a manner that does not interfere with the court proceedings. Cameras and microphones on electronic devices must be disabled while inside the courtroom. Electronic devices SHALL NOT 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. Violation of this rule may result in confiscation of the device by the Court, a bailiff, or other court personnel

 

[maskedwoman]

Three points about the live-tweets.
1: yes, you can edit tweets (X's) for up to an hour after posting. After that you can always either delete or quote your post with a correction.
2: banning live tweeting is NOT going to stop the distraction of people being on their devices during hearings, because the devices themselves and their use during hearings are not banned. Reporters will still be typing what they hear as notes, and will post these notes as soon as the hearing ends. They are not banned from texting either, so you can imagine they will still be getting and sending text messages albeit perhaps not about the trial. So this is a moot point.
As much as I am supportive of not having media cameras in the courtroom, because they have proven to disregard JJJ's instructions, I think this last rule goes too far, and is pointless.
I am glad there will be a live stream on JJJ's YouTube, but this is really the only thing that remains, and it can be taken away at any time. If that happens the public will be completely in the dark.
3: banning live tweets is not going to stop online speculation about this case at all. On the contrary, it only serves to fuel all kinds conspiracy theories.
Still don't see the benefit. All MOO.

You can only edit tweets if you have X Premium. I just sent a test tweet and immediately tried to edit. In the context menu "edit with premium" was the only option related to edit. To be fair, most journalists will probably have premium, but since the Judges order says no live tweeting, I guess that's that.

 

[ilovewings]

I believe Gray Hughes is allowed here?
He put up a fascinating video discussing the possibility that the sheath may have been placed intentionally by BK.
In his hypothesis, BK thought the sheath was clean. The sheath does not match the murder weapon, and a different knife was used for the murders. BK left the sheath intentionally, either as a calling card or as an attempt to throw off investigators.
One question he raises is, why is the sheath so clean aside from that one bit of touch? If he had intended to keep it with him, he wouldn't have cared about fingerprints or dna on it. The only reason for a quasi-pristine sheath is if it's meant to be left there.
I had never considered this, and I find it really interesting, so I am sharing it here.

Sorry- people are over-thinking here- No killer is going to purposely leave any piece of evidence behind- including a knife sheath----

 

[Betty P]

Three points about the live-tweets.
1: yes, you can edit tweets (X's) for up to an hour after posting. After that you can always either delete or quote your post with a correction.
2: banning live tweeting is NOT going to stop the distraction of people being on their devices during hearings, because the devices themselves and their use during hearings are not banned. Reporters will still be typing what they hear as notes, and will post these notes as soon as the hearing ends. They are not banned from texting either, so you can imagine they will still be getting and sending text messages albeit perhaps not about the trial. So this is a moot point.
As much as I am supportive of not having media cameras in the courtroom, because they have proven to disregard JJJ's instructions, I think this last rule goes too far, and is pointless.
I am glad there will be a live stream on JJJ's YouTube, but this is really the only thing that remains, and it can be taken away at any time. If that happens the public will be completely in the dark.
3: banning live tweets is not going to stop online speculation about this case at all. On the contrary, it only serves to fuel all kinds conspiracy theories.
Still don't see the benefit. All MOO.

The reporters can still take notes, right? That's an ok alternative. There are many breaks during trials when they can also go outside of the courtroom to send tweets from their notes. This seems to work ok with other trials.

Remember, not that long ago reporters took notes then, during breaks, would rush outside to the closest pay phone to call in their news reports.

 

[Valen2]

Similar rules were in place for the Paul Flores trial, and it worked out fine. There wasn't even a video feed for that one.

 

[Justice101]

Sorry- people are over-thinking here- No killer is going to purposely leave any piece of evidence behind- including a knife sheath----

It's definitely happened before. Usually when a gun is stolen or in the old days when the serial number could be ground off.

If BK wiped the sheath down beforehand (which he probably did.... otherwise there would be LOTS of his touch DNA all over the sheath) and he wore gloves at the crime scene, and being a criminology student.....then that is a reasonable conclusion.

We won't know unless he fully confesses.. which he won't.,

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Sorry- people are over-thinking here- No killer is going to purposely leave any piece of evidence behind- including a knife sheath----

Unless they were directly trying to frame a different person or leave an erroneous 'clue' to throw the scent off themselves? If they'd thought it through and planned it like a really horrible game.

 

[ilovewings]

Unless they were directly trying to frame a different person or leave an erroneous 'clue' to throw the scent off themselves? If they'd thought it through and planned it like a really horrible game.

Sorry, way too far-fetched for me- I tend to go with the most simple probability, instead of some one in a million occurrence.

 

[Megnut]

Sorry, way too far-fetched for me

It does seem far-fetched, especially at first blush. But (thankfully) we cannot get in his head. There are serial killer who leave a signature... we don't even know BK's motive... to kill as many as he could as fast as he could? To kill one? Or was he helping society, one seriously messed up injustice collector with a plan to save the male world from sorority girls they can't get? If X hadn't been awake, if K hadn't been in town, it's entirely possible this would have been a single murder, per intent. We don't know what he might have planned for 6 months, 6 years hence. M tragically might have only been #1.... it's not impossible that he wanted to become a BKE... known as the Marine, leaving a sheath as his calling card.

I can see it both ways.

JMO

 

[ilovewings]

It does seem far-fetched, especially at first blush. But we thankfully cannot get in his head. There are serial killer who leave a signature... we don't even know BK's motive... to kill as many as could as fat as he could? To kill one? Or was he helping society, one seriously messed up injustice collector with a plan to save the make world from sorority girls they can't get? If X hadn't been awake, if K hadn't been in town, it's entirely possible this would have been a single murder, per intent. We don't know what he might have planned for 6 months, 6 years hence. M tragically might have only been #1.... it's not impossible that he wanted to become a BKE... known as the Marine, leaving a sheath as his calling card.

I can see it both ways.

JMO

We will probably never know his motive- or what his intent was: My hope is that the prosecution has a strong case, and can prove he is the perp. I believe he is.

 

[Justice101]

Sorry, way too far-fetched for me- I tend to go with the most simple probability, instead of some one in a million occurrence.

No but remember.. he was fascinated with murder and thought he was smarter than everyone.

Not as far fetched when you take his personality into account.

Just my opinion.... if he wiped the knife and sheath down beforehand, then it was planned. This is the ONLY crazy theory that I buy into with him.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Sorry, way too far-fetched for me- I tend to go with the most simple probability, instead of some one in a million occurrence.

Well I agree but then the entire crime itself is a bit far fetched and furthermore *allegedly* perpetrated by a criminology grad who had one of his mentors / tutors convinced he was was 'exceptional'. Well. hm.

Did it occur to him that planting 'false evidence' (except it wasn't) in a crime scene would send LE into a tailspin?

Personally if I were going to do that I'd pick up some random dude's cigarette butt from the street and leave it in the doorway or something simple but possibly effective.

JMO MOO

 

[Megnut]

Well I agree but then the entire crime itself is a bit far fetched and furthermore *allegedly* perpetrated by a criminology grad who had one of his mentors / tutors convinced he was was 'exceptional'. Well. hm.

Did it occur to him that planting 'false evidence' (except it wasn't) in a crime scene would send LE into a tailspin?

Personally if I were going to do that I'd pick up some random dude's cigarette butt from the street and leave it in the doorway or something simple but possibly effective.

JMO MOO

Except IF he did leave it intentionally, IMO it wasn't to mislead. It was to boast.

JMO

 

[Auntie Cipation]

Sorry- people are over-thinking here- No killer is going to purposely leave any piece of evidence behind- including a knife sheath----

I would normally agree but BK seems to be playing some kind of psychological game. He was studying criminology and crimes and seemed to be needing to one-up everyone around him to show off him being smarter than everyone.

It doesn't seem at all far-fetched to me that he would try to stage a crime where he tries to taunt LE with "almost" evidence but then (in his plan) he escapes conviction because the evidence can't be tied to him.

Thankfully it didn't work.

MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I would normally agree but BK seems to be playing some kind of psychological game. He was studying criminology and crimes and seemed to be needing to one-up everyone around him to show off him being smarter than everyone.

It doesn't seem at all far-fetched to me that he would try to stage a crime where he tries to taunt LE with "almost" evidence but then (in his plan) he escapes conviction because the evidence can't be tied to him.

Thankfully it didn't work.

MOO

Terrifyingly, he hasn't been convicted yet! So this far out far fetched plan could still be a thing. :O