4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #96

[Chloegirl]

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger​

Ada County CR01-24-31665 / Latah County CR29-22-2805

Case Summary (Updated 11/15/24)

• 11/13/2024 Defendants 6th Motion to Compel
• 11/13/2024 Defendants 19th Supplemental Request for Discovery
• 11/13/2024 Defendants Exhibit List for Death Penalty Motion RE: Grounds of Arbitrariness
• 11/13/2024 Defendants Motion for Leave
• 11/14/2024 Motion for Franks hearing
• 11/14/2024 Motion to Suppress - Genetic Info
• 11/14/2024 Motion to Suppress and Memorandum In Support - Amazon
• 11/14/2024 Motion to Suppress and Memorandum In Support - Apartment
• 11/14/2024 Motion to Suppress and Memorandum In Support - Apple
• 11/14/2024 Motion to Suppress and Memorandum In Support - Arrest Warrant
• 11/14/2024 Motion to Suppress and Memorandum In Support - ATT First Warrant
• 11/14/2024 Motion to Suppress and Memorandum In Support - Cellphone Data
• 11/14/2024 Motion to Suppress and Memorandum In Support - Google
• 11/14/2024 Motion to Suppress and Memorandum In Support - Pen Trap Trace Device
• 11/14/2024 Motion to Suppress and Memorandum In Support - Person in ID
• 11/14/2024 Motion to Suppress and Memorandum In Support - Person in PA
• 11/14/2024 Motion to Suppress and Memorandum In Support - White Hyundai
• 11/14/2024 Motion to Suppress and Memorandum In Support - 119 Lamsden Statements (Redacted)
• 11/15/2024 Order Denying Motion for Leave

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

A YouTuber suggests that MANY documents were accidently unsealed by the ICourt website, possibly (even temporarily) unsealing information. Do you, or does anyone (who has had the time to look at the documents) know if this is accurate? I hope this doesn't completely mess up the case, if so. JMOO

 

[ilovewings]

From my perspective she appears desperate because she knows things dont
Look good for her client---I understand she is doing her job, but she is bssically
Asking the judge to throw out evidence that is the basis for the prosecution's case

 

[LinasK]

She is going after the genetic genealogy as being the poison tree, from which all the other evidence is the fruit from that tree, so everything from his phone and the data on that, to the SW at his parents and his campus home, to the data relating to his car and cell tower evidence,
She has made individual challenges for each piece of evidence as her argument is it all comes from the genetic genealogy work that was done which she argued is unconstitutional, which is why she kept asking the court to make the state give her all the information and evidence they have relating to GG

Why would Genetic Genealogy be unconstitutional? It's the gold standard of LE work these days. DNA wasn't discovered when the Constitution was written, neither were assault weapons for that matter.

 

[MassGuy]

A YouTuber suggests that MANY documents were accidently unsealed by the ICourt website, possibly (even temporarily) unsealing information. Do you, or does anyone (who has had the time to look at the documents) know if this is accurate? I hope this doesn't completely mess up the case, if so. JMOO

I can't find anything to this effect, and I wonder if this YouTuber is misinterpreting what was released yesterday as a leak.

In any event, unless the documents were intentionally released by a party to the case, it's no big deal. We've seen cases on here where things have been related when they shouldn't have (via leak or court mistake), and nothing tends to come of it as far as damaging the case.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

Why would Genetic Genealogy be unconstitutional? It's the gold standard of LE work these days. DNA wasn't discovered when the Constitution was written, neither were assault weapons for that matter.

I think it's kind of a grey area really. The difficulty being that if a family member has uploaded their DNA profile and opted in for LE, that's their choice and they are consenting to giving up their reasonable expectation of privacy, but they can't consent to that for a family member, so does that family member still have a reasonable right to privacy because they haven't consented? Though technically it doesn't count because their genetic material wasn't uploaded, so nobody has breached their privacy, and I would guess that the argument would be that no, they didn't consent, but the DNA that partially matched wasn't theirs, so they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, but they also left their own discarded sample in public, at a crime scene, and that expectation of privacy is now forfeit.
This is just my attempt at trying to get my head around it, so apologies for the rambling and bonus points to anyone who even remotely followed this post and understands what I mean

 

[gremlin444]

Have we ever seen any filings/warrants for the Albertson's that he was seen at the day after the murders?

 

[LinasK]

I think it's kind of a grey area really. The difficulty being that if a family member has uploaded their DNA profile and opted in for LE, that's their choice and they are consenting to giving up their reasonable expectation of privacy, but they can't consent to that for a family member, so does that family member still have a reasonable right to privacy because they haven't consented? Though technically it doesn't count because their genetic material wasn't uploaded, so nobody has breached their privacy, and I would guess that the argument would be that no, they didn't consent, but the DNA that partially matched wasn't theirs, so they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, but they also left their own discarded sample in public, at a crime scene, and that expectation of privacy is now forfeit.
This is just my attempt at trying to get my head around it, so apologies for the rambling and bonus points to anyone who even remotely followed this post and understands what I mean

My cousin's murderer tried to argue that they didn't have a right to his DNA match from a beer glass to match the Genetic Genealogy ID, however that argument was foiled because they matched it from a cheek swab that he gave.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

My cousin's murderer tried to argue that they didn't have a right to his DNA match from a beer glass to match the Genetic Genealogy ID, however that argument was foiled because they matched it from a cheek swab that he gave.

I think that's the same thing that will happen here. I'm hopeful the defence is just reaching!.

 

[LinasK]

I think it's kind of a grey area really. The difficulty being that if a family member has uploaded their DNA profile and opted in for LE, that's their choice and they are consenting to giving up their reasonable expectation of privacy, but they can't consent to that for a family member, so does that family member still have a reasonable right to privacy because they haven't consented? Though technically it doesn't count because their genetic material wasn't uploaded, so nobody has breached their privacy, and I would guess that the argument would be that no, they didn't consent, but the DNA that partially matched wasn't theirs, so they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, but they also left their own discarded sample in public, at a crime scene, and that expectation of privacy is now forfeit.
This is just my attempt at trying to get my head around it, so apologies for the rambling and bonus points to anyone who even remotely followed this post and understands what I mean

My understanding is that when families upload their DNA to these databases that are available to LE, that they are informed that it can be used if a criminal if found in their family, kinda like giving Miranda rights...

 

[MassGuy]

My understanding is that when families upload their DNA to these databases that are available to LE, that they are informed that it can be used if a criminal if found in their family, kinda like giving Miranda rights...

Yes. The privacy policy of GED match changed a few years ago. Previously they could just use any DNA that had been uploaded there to build a family tree. Now you have to opt in to allow law enforcement to access your DNA.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

Things I can’t believe-
— that it’s been 2 years already
— that they are still bickering about discovery
— anyone thinks that their Amazon, Walmart and/or Home Depot history won’t be both fair game and most likely incriminating, even if I didn’t do it (same for internet such history)
—AT is actually trying to get basically the whole case thrown out… because…

— We spent ALL DAY watching his plane fly across the country… waiting for him to land in Idaho…

moo

 

[MeadowMuffin]

I think it's kind of a grey area really. The difficulty being that if a family member has uploaded their DNA profile and opted in for LE, that's their choice and they are consenting to giving up their reasonable expectation of privacy, but they can't consent to that for a family member, so does that family member still have a reasonable right to privacy because they haven't consented? Though technically it doesn't count because their genetic material wasn't uploaded, so nobody has breached their privacy, and I would guess that the argument would be that no, they didn't consent, but the DNA that partially matched wasn't theirs, so they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, but they also left their own discarded sample in public, at a crime scene, and that expectation of privacy is now forfeit.
This is just my attempt at trying to get my head around it, so apologies for the rambling and bonus points to anyone who even remotely followed this post and understands what I mean

And I believe that after a match is made to a relative, that the investigators use birth certificates, death, marriage and divorce records, census, real estate records, to narrow down a person if interest. These records are in the public domain so there is no right to privacy.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

My understanding is that when families upload their DNA to these databases that are available to LE, that they are informed that it can be used if a criminal if found in their family, kinda like giving Miranda rights...

Yeah, I know that they changed the rules a few years ago so that you specifically have to opt in, whereas before I think you had to opt out.
I still think the defence is trying to push the fact though, that you can't give consent if you haven't uploaded your DNA. But is it a breach of your constitutional right to privacy (apologies if that's the wrong wording) if you have left your DNA in a public place and it happens to be a familial match to someone who has uploaded their own DNA and given consent for LE access?.
I personally would say no, because your DNA has not been accessed without consent, and if you didn't want to take the chance of it being matched by IGG then you shouldn't have left it lying around!.
I'm hoping this is the courts interpretation too!.

 

[LinasK]

I still think the defence is trying to push the fact though, that you can't give consent if you haven't uploaded your DNA. But is it a breach of your constitutional right to privacy (apologies if that's the wrong wording) if you have left your DNA in a public place and it happens to be a familial match to someone who has uploaded their own DNA and given consent for LE access?.

This is exactly the argument that Christopher Lovrien tried. But it was a moot point in his case.

 

[sunshineray]

Things I can’t believe-
— that it’s been 2 years already
— that they are still bickering about discovery
— anyone thinks that their Amazon, Walmart and/or Home Depot history won’t be both fair game and most likely incriminating, even if I didn’t do it (same for internet such history)
—AT is actually trying to get basically the whole case thrown out… because…

— We spent ALL DAY watching his plane fly across the country… waiting for him to land in Idaho…

moo

Think his online buying and searching is totally fair game and will be admitted. MO

 

[caradana]

It strikes me that he has quality counsel (I am glad)
They are fighting the legal fight in all avenues (good thing, insulates from future appeals)

MOO: He was sexually obsessed with Maddie, and it was really that cold and simple;
MOO: The biological evidence, what happened with the knife and what subsequently was revealed with genealogic DNA, is going to have the jury returning this case inside a day;
MOO: The state of Idaho is doing a very solid job with this case.

 

[angelainwi]

Things I can’t believe-
— that it’s been 2 years already
— that they are still bickering about discovery
— anyone thinks that their Amazon, Walmart and/or Home Depot history won’t be both fair game and most likely incriminating, even if I didn’t do it (same for internet such history)
—AT is actually trying to get basically the whole case thrown out… because…

— We spent ALL DAY watching his plane fly across the country… waiting for him to land in Idaho…

moo

I was just remembering watching his plane fly...it was quite the adventure. God, we are weird. But I love it.

 

[sunspun]

I know she's doing her a job, a formidable (and despicable) job, but I find it personally hard to stomach.

I also know justice isn't about the victims, the crime is against the State and it's about BK's rights and what is required in order to strip them away.

Still, I find it a bitter pill that AT is arguing about an arrest in the dead of night, arguing to  excise evidence (in a quadruple slaying) and that, as a guest (in his parents' childhood home), BK should have been afforded the expectation of privacy.

That's gross to me. None of those things were a concern of his that early November morning in 2022.

Four victims who had the right to sleep through the dead of night and wake up in the morning. Three renters and a guest who had the expectation of privacy. That closing the door would protect them from unwelcome intrusion.

AT seems to think LE should have tapped BK on one of his dark-thirty runs, but never minding that we don't know how such a thing would have gone down, LE has some experience. There's a reason they do 3am arrests, catch individuals unaware.

Same reason BK chose his bewitching hour, just with profoundly more deadly results.

We will likely never know his intention. SA? Murder? Mass murder? All of the above?

As we watch his trial take shape, I find myself keenly aware of the inconcruity here -- his rights, defended rigorously (I know, as it should be) when he didn't care about theirs in the least.

JMO

That makes me mad that we have to so carefully safeguard his rights when he so blatantly disregarded his victims'. But I know I know, at this point, he is only accused, not yet convicted, I know, so has to be this way because we live in a civilized society, and sometimes innocent people are wrongly accused, so it has to be this way. Yes, I know all that, but there's a huge problem with that, that I always struggle with in many cases, every time we hear a dedicated defense team earnestly arguing for their client's rights, trying to suppress evidence, suggesting alternative perpetrators, spinning creative theories, constructing implausible alibis, deflecting, distracting, and derailing in every way they can. Just doing their job, we say. The defendant is lucky to have a lawyer working so hard for them. We say if I'm ever criminally accused, I hope to have such a dedicated lawyer.

But the problem with that is, that the defense attorney works just as hard for their guilty clients as they do for their innocent ones. That's their job. And they supposedly don't know, or even want to know, whether they're guilty or innocent. So they're (ideally) working equally hard for every client.

But we know some of these clients are, in fact, guilty. We may not know which ones, but in reality, some (if not most) defendants are guilty. So while the defense attorney is working so hard to protect his client, who is protecting the innocent citizens of that community? Because if the defense attorney is successful in his efforts, a guilty person is sometimes let loose back into the community. And if it was a violent crime of which they managed to get him acquitted, then a potentially violent, dangerous person is returned to the world.

That's why it's hard for me to not feel contempt for some defense attorneys in some cases. Because I know that the harder they work and the more successes they have in their efforts in some cases, the more likely it is that they're helping put a violent criminal back on the streets where they are very likely to victimize another innocent person. I don't see how they can justify that in their minds, to know that they could be responsible for that. But I also don't see how there's any way around it.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

I was just remembering watching his plane fly...it was quite the adventure. God, we are weird. But I love it.

Ha! Flight watching is a thing- coupled with true crime… it was an ALL day thing - the posts and threads were flying as well that day! Watching a green line cross the country hoping TMZ or DM might get us a picture…

But seriously relieved at the time that they had made an arrest in this terrible crime… moo

 

[caradana]

That makes me mad that we have to so carefully safeguard his rights when he so blatantly disregarded his victims'. But I know I know, at this point, he is only accused, not yet convicted, I know, so has to be this way because we live in a civilized society, and sometimes innocent people are wrongly accused, so it has to be this way. Yes, I know all that, but there's a huge problem with that, that I always struggle with in many cases, every time we hear a dedicated defense team earnestly arguing for their client's rights, trying to suppress evidence, suggesting alternative perpetrators, spinning creative theories, constructing implausible alibis, deflecting, distracting, and derailing in every way they can. Just doing their job, we say. The defendant is lucky to have a lawyer working so hard for them. We say if I'm ever criminally accused, I hope to have such a dedicated lawyer.

But the problem with that is, that the defense attorney works just as hard for their guilty clients as they do for their innocent ones. That's their job. And they supposedly don't know, or even want to know, whether they're guilty or innocent. So they're (ideally) working equally hard for every client.

But we know some of these clients are, in fact, guilty. We may not know which ones, but in reality, some (if not most) defendants are guilty. So while the defense attorney is working so hard to protect his client, who is protecting the innocent citizens of that community? Because if the defense attorney is successful in his efforts, a guilty person is sometimes let loose back into the community. And if it was a violent crime of which they managed to get him acquitted, then a potentially violent, dangerous person is returned to the world.

That's why it's hard for me to not feel contempt for some defense attorneys in some cases. Because I know that the harder they work and the more successes they have in their efforts in some cases, the more likely it is that they're helping put a violent criminal back on the streets where they are very likely to victimize another innocent person. I don't see how they can justify that in their minds, to know that they could be responsible for that. But I also don't see how there's any way around it.

I understand your perspective and respect your view. I ask myself, though:
isn’t it a champagne-beautiful thing —
to live in a nation that set up a system that equips with every.possible.way to defend —
So that when the verdicts are rendered, we feel confidence?
It’s not a perfect system, but as far as I can tell, no nation has come up with a better one.
Truly brilliant people take the podium at times when I believe they are personally disgusted with the cause they are defending.
MOO: that is among the beauties of America. Not a pretty one. But a necessary one.