4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #92

[Cool Cats]

Anne Taylor must have something up her sleeve in regards to negating the Kohberger DNA evidence.

She is saying she absolutely believes that he is not guilty. Not just going through the motions but she really believes it.

Or so she says.

2 Cents

 

[Boxer]

Anne Taylor must have something up her sleeve in regards to negating the Kohberger DNA evidence.

She is saying she absolutely believes that he is not guilty. Not just going through the motions but she really believes it.

Or so she says.

2 Cents

MOO she absolutely believes she can get that verdict.

 

[Balthazar]

Anne Taylor must have something up her sleeve in regards to negating the Kohberger DNA evidence.

She is saying she absolutely believes that he is not guilty. Not just going through the motions but she really believes it.

Or so she says.

2 Cents

Anne Taylor didn't say that, it was co-counsel Elisa Masooth.

"Our defense team firmly, and I mean firmly, believes in Mr. Kohberger's innocence, and right now he's being held to have a trial in a county that believes that he is guilty," Elisa Massoth, a Payette-based defense attorney who once attended the same school as the four victims.

Kohberger defense 'firmly believes' in suspect's innocence

Lawyers for the man accused of massacring four University of Idaho undergrads in a home invasion stabbing told the judge Wednesday that they "firmly" believe their client is innocent.

www.fox13seattle.com

JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

Anne Taylor didn't say that, it was co-counsel Elisa Masooth.

"Our defense team firmly, and I mean firmly, believes in Mr. Kohberger's innocence, and right now he's being held to have a trial in a county that believes that he is guilty," Elisa Massoth, a Payette-based defense attorney who once attended the same school as the four victims.

Kohberger defense 'firmly believes' in suspect's innocence

Lawyers for the man accused of massacring four University of Idaho undergrads in a home invasion stabbing told the judge Wednesday that they "firmly" believe their client is innocent.

www.fox13seattle.com

JMO

Regardless of who said it Anne Taylor believes it.

 

[sassyblue]

Hmmm I could swear I saw AT say it as I was watching it live yesterday. Will try to find the footage later. It was in the beginning of the hearing.

 

[snooptroop88]

1/3 Bryan Kohberber prosecutor says it is false that Kohberger stalked one of the victims.
This came up while the prosecutor was questioning a defense expert this afternoon who performed a telephone survey of Latah county residents to determine whether the jury pool is biased.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1778252811387429193

2/3 Prosecutor says the experts survey has "loaded questions and some are factually incorrect."
He says the defense expert should not "go around screwing the knowledge that prospective jurors may have or may not have."


3/3 Defense says they are conducting the survey to support their argument the trial should be moved to a different county. No decision has been made at this point.

WHOA, surprised by that. Most people following this case seem to have come to the conclusion that there was some kind of stalking. He was in the area of the residence multiple times. To my knowledge, he followed some of the victims on social media. How are they defining "stalking"? Is it going to end up where he targeted the house after all?? This was an early theory suggested. That he hadn't targeted so much the victims as he targeted the "party house" where he knew it would be easier for him to commit the crime and avoid detection. That's pretty wild they're saying "no stalking."

 

[Boxer]

They are aaying

WHOA, surprised by that. Most people following this case seem to have come to the conclusion that there was some kind of stalking. He was in the area of the residence multiple times. To my knowledge, he followed some of the victims on social media. How are they defining "stalking"? Is it going to end up where he targeted the house after all?? This was an early theory suggested. That he hadn't targeted so much the victims as he targeted the "party house" where he knew it would be easier for him to commit the crime and avoid detection. That's pretty wild they're saying "no stalking."

MOO they are saying "prove it"
i.e. they think there is enough play in the report to say he was near, but not confirmed there.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

Also, what is stalking? Here's what Idaho law says:

Section 18-7906 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

 

[Balthazar]

Regardless of who said it Anne Taylor believes it.

Agreed. The entire defense team believes this. These are not stupid or naive people. It is uncommon for a defense team to make such a statement.

 

[sunspun]

Referring to defense lawyer stating they "firmly" believe in BK's innocence, and as his lawyer said, unlike many in the county who have already decided he is guilty,

The entire defense team believes this.

Well, supposedly everyone on the case, no matter which side they're on, believes BK is innocent until proven guilty. So his lawyer can truthfully say they firmly believe in his innocence (until proven guilty), even if they think he did it... or even if they think the trial will prove he did it!

 

[Boxer]

Agreed. The entire defense team believes this. These are not stupid or naive people. It is uncommon for a defense team to make such a statement.

No one knows what they believe only what they say they believe.
Presenting that they believe he is innocent is strategically beneficial PR for the defense, but not a factor in his guilt or innocence.
IIRC Kohberger himself did not say he was innocent when asked by the court.

 

[vls12345]

Referring to defense lawyer stating they "firmly" believe in BK's innocence, and as his lawyer said, unlike many in the county who have already decided he is guilty,

Well, supposedly everyone on the case, no matter which side they're on, believes BK is innocent until proven guilty. So his lawyer can truthfully say they firmly believe in his innocence (until proven guilty), even if they think he did it... or even if they think the trial will prove he did it!

Yes, I think it's a very strategic quote for the defense to put out there. Technically, they can say that they really do firmly believe BK is innocent (because they, the law team, are upholding their belief in the system in which they work). By law, he is required to be believed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.

They could probably pass a lie detector saying it too. Even if they know he's not innocent.

IMO.

 

[schooling]

Agreed. The entire defense team believes this. These are not stupid or naive people. It is uncommon for a defense team to make such a statement.

Every defense team believes, while in public, that their client is innocent of the charges. There's no way for us to know for sure what's going on in their head or what private conversations sound like.

She did it as part of an impassionate plea to the judge hoping to illicit a ruling in their favor.Of course she is going to say it with conviction and make you believe it.

The more you share that belief, the more the conviction in her voice comes across as geniune.

MOO, of course

 

[Swansee]

@Balthazar , thank you for explaining, I understand the defense's choice of COV argument better now.

On another note:
The full CAST report was due to be finalized on March 31st, and then sent to the parties and then digested by their experts. I wonder if that is what has changed things.

 

[NCWatcher]

No one knows what they believe only what they say they believe.
Presenting that they believe he is innocent is strategically beneficial PR for the defense, but not a factor in his guilt or innocence.
IIRC Kohberger himself did not say he was innocent when asked by the court.

BBM
I don't recall that BK was asked if he was innocent by the court. I'm pretty sure he was asked how he would plead (guilty/not guilty). If we are going to be exact about what was said, I don't think the word innocent was used by the court.
I know we had lots of discussion about why the
defense declined to state a plea when it happened so I won't go into that now.
MOO

 

[katydid23]

Now we know that BK did not stalk any of the victims nor was he on their social media. So much for the Incel theory that the media has been pushing. Any other theories of why this happened?

I don't think that has any bearing on whether he was an incel type guy or not. They don't all stalk their victims. Elliot Rodger shot many total strangers.

 

[katydid23]

Agreed. The entire defense team believes this. These are not stupid or naive people. It is uncommon for a defense team to make such a statement.

Is it uncommon for DT to make such a statement? The defense team for Chase Merritt, in McStay family case said their client was innocent. The defense team for Barry Morphew repeatedly stated as such. So does the DT for Richard Allen in Delphi case. I don't think it's all that uncommon. IMO

 

[Cool Cats]

Every defense team believes, while in public, that their client is innocent of the charges. There's no way for us to know for sure what's going on in their head or what private conversations sound like.

She did it as part of an impassionate plea to the judge hoping to illicit a ruling in their favor.Of course she is going to say it with conviction and make you believe it.

The more you share that belief, the more the conviction in her voice comes across as geniune.

MOO, of course

There's a danger of leading your client to death row.

Defense attorneys are suppose to keep their clients off of dearth row. I followed a case of a killer charged with 8 murders and he was up for the DP. His attorneys leveled with him that the overwhelming evidence against him would convict him then most likely his heinous crimes would send him to death row.

So he pled guilty in exchange for the DP being dropped. He got LWOP instead.

BK's DNA on the knife sheath plus phone, car, witness and no alibi for 4:00am looks overwhelming and if convicted he will end up on DR I believe.

AT isn't doing him any favors if she isn't being honest with him. Maybe she wants a trial. If he ends up on DR I will blame her.

2 Cents

 

[NCWatcher]

There's a danger of leading your client to death row.

Defense attorneys are suppose to keep their clients off of dearth row. I followed a case of a killer charged with 8 murders and he was up for the DP. His attorneys leveled with him that the overwhelming evidence against him would convict him then most likely his heinous crimes would send him to death row.

So he pled guilty in exchange for the DP being dropped. He got LWOP instead.

BK's DNA on the knife sheath plus phone, car, witness and no alibi for 4:00am looks overwhelming and if convicted he will end up on DR I believe.

AT isn't doing him any favors if she isn't being honest with him. Maybe she wants a trial. If he ends up on DR I will blame her.

2 Cents

None of us can know what AT has or hasn't said to BK. But I strongly doubt BK has been or ever will be offered a deal if he pleads guilty. While the DA's office has to do what that office feels is right (keeping in mind DAs are elected!), and despite some beliefs to the contrary, families of victims don't get to make trial decisions, I can't imagine the public outcry from some families in this case if it didn't go to trial. BK is in jail and has been there for over 15 months. Clearly he will not get out on bond (and he's not requested bond, I don't believe.) But the recent statement from some family members of the victims pretty much says they don't care if mistakes are made-- the trial needs to start because they can't begin to heal from their 2022 loss until the public trial occurs.

Families upset by delay in setting date for Kohberger trial

Four University of Idaho students, Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin, were killed in 2022.

www.newsnationnow.com

They would not welcome a plea IMO. Several family members have said they want BK put to death (and earlier they seemed to think the families should get to vote on whether the DP was sought.) Families in other cases might see a deal to avoid trial/take the DP off the table as a good thing if it means the killer will confess to where their loved one's body can be found, family members are worried about the portrayal of their loved one at trial, family members are saved from having to testify about difficult topics, the DA has told the families the case is somewhat weak, family members are strongly opposed to the DP, etc. None of that seems to be true here.

When a person is found guilty and/or receives a harsh sentence, his/her attorneys are sometimes blamed (especially by the client!) While there can be legitimate grounds to claim ineffective assistance of counsel, those situations aren't terribly commonplace and often involve failure to do the kinds of things AT has been roundly criticized here for doing! (Challenging evidence in advance of the trial, looking for exculpatory evidence, demanding discovery be furnished in a timely manner, recruiting consultants/experts, being a fierce advocate for the client and so forth.) So it is starting to sound like AT will be blamed no matter what.
MOO

 

[Swansee]

Now that stalking is officially out of the picture, what are the implications?
The police stated from the beginning: "this was a targeted attack". Was that also not true? Was it just stated to avoid panic in the community?
Another issue is: if BK is the killer but did not stalk any of them, yet this was a "targeted attack", how would he know which rooms to go to? Did he just go upstairs randomly?