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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #901
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.
Innocent until proven guilty, right to counsel, and right to a fair trial are foundational bedrock principles of our constitution and society- if accused are presumed guilty and treated accordingly- we all have reason to fear- as we’d all be one false accusation and corrupt arrest away from prison- our freedoms as citizens are protected by protecting the rights of the accused- moo
 
  • #902
Innocent until proven guilty, right to counsel, and right to a fair trial are foundational bedrock principles of our constitution and society- if accused are presumed guilty and treated accordingly- we all have reason to fear- as we’d all be one false accusation and corrupt arrest away from prison- our freedoms as citizens are protected by protecting the rights of the accused- moo
Harriet_Eva put this beautifully, appreciating that it is very difficult to stomach, right? Good and moral people watch it unfold, and find it gross! They aren’t wrong! I chalk it up as intellectual autopsy. In the same way that watching a physical autopsy would disgust many people who would agree on its necessity … a trial is an intellectual autopsy.
 
  • #903
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.
One thing I really take issue with, a la Delphi, is zealous defense lawyers being able to, with no repercussions at all, publically by accusation and no evidence, call someone else a murderer in court filings open to the public. Has BK's defense done that with their FMs?
 
  • #904
Harriet_Eva put this beautifully, appreciating that it is very difficult to stomach, right? Good and moral people watch it unfold, and find it gross! They aren’t wrong! I chalk it up as intellectual autopsy. In the same way that watching a physical autopsy would disgust many people who would agree on its necessity … a trial is an intellectual autopsy.
And not all defense attorneys or PD’s slime snakes in the grass who are just trying to get their clients off at all costs - are some, probably and there are likely prosecutors who would convict at all costs in railroad trials - it’s not the norm-

A fair trial with competent counsel by the state if needed, is necessary to protect citizens and the accused from the state who has a lot more power and resources-

A fair trial is supposed to be just that, the state presents their case by the books and the accused has the opportunity to mounting a defense and having due process- innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is fundamental and foundational to our society…

It’s difficult, and hard- but I’d want the those protections for myself and my family… and BK is entitled to the same … moo
 
  • #905
One thing I really take issue with, a la Delphi, is zealous defense lawyers being able to, with no repercussions at all, publically by accusation and no evidence, call someone else a murderer in court filings open to the public. Has BK's defense done that with their FMs?
It’s a valid objection and observation. I’d console with: we are a system of checks and balances. A zealous defense lawyer is supposed to go all the way to the wall, all the way to the perimeter of what he is allowed to do legally. A zealous prosecutor is supposed to intellectually showcase the absurdity of the argument at the wall. This system works on the principle of bounded creativity and rigorous logic. I compare it to football: by design we are supposed to see some 4th and longs, some 1st and inches, some wild plays, some coldly perfect kicks. All of that gets us to best possible outcome, usually unchallenged.
 
  • #906
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
Well, that's quite a reach.

I certainly don't think it would be a better world if investigators were legally denied the ability to use GG to solve cold cases and Unidentified remains.

THAT is BK's DNA. It does not matter if they took a buccal swab first or later on, imo. They traced it to him in a legal fashion. His constitutional rights were not assaulted in any way. AT is just wishing on a star, imo.
 
  • #907
Well, that's quite a reach.

I certainly don't think it would be a better world if investigators were legally denied the ability to use GG to solve cold cases and Unidentified remains.

THAT is BK's DNA. It does not matter if they took a buccal swab first or later on, imo. They traced it to him in a legal fashion. His constitutional rights were not assaulted in any way. AT is just wishing on a star, imo.
It’s a reach but it’s all she’s got. This case hasn’t left her with much. I respect the effort. I don’t predict it will net with much.
 
  • #908
It’s a valid objection and observation. I’d console with: we are a system of checks and balances. A zealous defense lawyer is supposed to go all the way to the wall, all the way to the perimeter of what he is allowed to do legally. A zealous prosecutor is supposed to intellectually showcase the absurdity of the argument at the wall. This system works on the principle of bounded creativity and rigorous logic. I compare it to football: by design we are supposed to see some 4th and longs, some 1st and inches, some wild plays, some coldly perfect kicks. All of that gets us to best possible outcome, usually unchallenged.
And in this day and age of SM madness, it's ok to publically label any inmocent person a murderer because you have the right and protection to be zealous for your client, who's actually been arrested and charged for said crime. The worse kind of slander against you plastered all over the plethora of medias and you cannot legally fight back. I think that needs rethinking, JMO
 
  • #909
And in this day and age of SM madness, it's ok to publically label any inmocent person a murderer because you have the right and protection to be zealous for your client, who's actually been arrested and charged for said crime. The worse kind of slander against you plastered all over the plethora of medias and you cannot legally fight back. I think that needs rethinking, JMO
Is this related to the Idaho case? I must have missed something- who labeled an innocent person a murderer? And how does social media relate? TIA
 
  • #910
What do WSers think about BK having perpetrated other violent crimes prior his arrest? I'd be quite amazed if his (alleged) killing spree started and stopped with this wholesale slaughter of four young people.

If other serious crimes have now been tied to BK, or if many people have come forward to report incidents, would we the public know about it? If that had happened, would it be used in court for this case?
 
  • #911
What do WSers think about BK having perpetrated other violent crimes prior his arrest? I'd be quite amazed if his (alleged) killing spree started and stopped with this wholesale slaughter of four young people.

If other serious crimes have now been tied to BK, or if many people have come forward to report incidents, would we the public know about it? If that had happened, would it be used in court for this case?

I may be in the minority, but I think this was his first crime/murder.

As far as the possibility of people filing delayed reports against him for any other crimes or reasons, we probably wouldn’t hear about pending investiations yet anyway. If such reports exist, they could potentially be brought in during this upcoming trial if they relate to patterns of behavior or crimes, especially during sentencing if he’s convicted.

JMO
 
  • #912
Is this related to the Idaho case? I must have missed something- who labeled an innocent person a murderer? And how does social media relate? TIA
My previous post briefly explained, just as a comparison case. It's happened that as a defense, others can be blamed with no actual proof/evidence, therefore slandering their reputations. All done by zealous lawyers defending their client. Since BK's lawyers were filing Franks, I was wondering if they were using this same tactic. MO
 
  • #913
My previous post briefly explained, just as a comparison case. It's happened that as a defense, others can be blamed with no actual proof/evidence, therefore slandering their reputations. All done by zealous lawyers defending their client. Since BK's lawyers were filing Franks, I was wondering if they were using this same tactic. MO
Ok thanks- I understand now- missed that part :)
 
  • #914
What do WSers think about BK having perpetrated other violent crimes prior his arrest? I'd be quite amazed if his (alleged) killing spree started and stopped with this wholesale slaughter of four young people.

If other serious crimes have now been tied to BK, or if many people have come forward to report incidents, would we the public know about it? If that had happened, would it be used in court for this case?
On the fence, but I think that if he’s responsible for this crime (innocent until proven guilty) that in my opinion his original plan probably wasn’t to murder 4 people, and whatever plan A was, it got interrupted due to unforeseen circumstances, 2 girls in one room, boyfriend staying over, or something- and turned into what happened-

If there were other crimes, I’m leaning towards much less violent vs killed 1, then 2-3 and worked his way up to 4… or SK flying under the radar or something like that- don’t know how strongly I feel about my opinions at this point- I do feel like the DNA on the snap want planted and was his and I don’t have a logical reason for how it got there other than he left it… moo
 
  • #915
Well, that's quite a reach.

I certainly don't think it would be a better world if investigators were legally denied the ability to use GG to solve cold cases and Unidentified remains.

THAT is BK's DNA. It does not matter if they took a buccal swab first or later on, imo. They traced it to him in a legal fashion. His constitutional rights were not assaulted in any way. AT is just wishing on a star, imo.
The judge will have to decide, I do think that the courts and defence attorneys are going to challenge the broad use of genetic genealogy as it relates to whether the people who placed there DNA into a website and whether they agreed to LE searching their DNA and what use they make of the DNA,
And his buccal swab matching to anything won't matter if the genetic genealogy is suppressed,
I doubt it will be, but his defence attorney is doing her job, all defendants should have the same diligence done by there attorneys
 
  • #916
Thank you mods for doing what you do!
 
  • #917
On the fence, but I think that if he’s responsible for this crime (innocent until proven guilty) that in my opinion his original plan probably wasn’t to murder 4 people, and whatever plan A was, it got interrupted due to unforeseen circumstances, 2 girls in one room, boyfriend staying over, or something- and turned into what happened-

If there were other crimes, I’m leaning towards much less violent vs killed 1, then 2-3 and worked his way up to 4… or SK flying under the radar or something like that- don’t know how strongly I feel about my opinions at this point- I do feel like the DNA on the snap want planted and was his and I don’t have a logical reason for how it got there other than he left it… moo
I myself have wondered if it was X who D heard say, somebody's here, as BK came back downstairs. She was up to get her doordash order. I think one or both of the girls upstairs may have been the target(s). X being up and seeing BK led to her and E being killed. That D is alive is such a miracle. I don't think BK saw her and it probably wasn't his plan to go in all the rooms and kill everyone. Idk, just some thoughts.
 
  • #918
I myself have wondered if it was X who D heard say, somebody's here, as BK came back downstairs. She was up to get her doordash order. I think one or both of the girls upstairs may have been the target(s). X being up and seeing BK led to her and E being killed. That D is alive is such a miracle. I don't think BK saw her and it probably wasn't his plan to go in all the rooms and kill everyone. Idk, just some thoughts.
I’m tracking down that path as well at the moment… moo
 
  • #919
On the fence, but I think that if he’s responsible for this crime (innocent until proven guilty) that in my opinion his original plan probably wasn’t to murder 4 people, and whatever plan A was, it got interrupted due to unforeseen circumstances, 2 girls in one room, boyfriend staying over, or something- and turned into what happened-

If there were other crimes, I’m leaning towards much less violent vs killed 1, then 2-3 and worked his way up to 4… or SK flying under the radar or something like that- don’t know how strongly I feel about my opinions at this point- I do feel like the DNA on the snap want planted and was his and I don’t have a logical reason for how it got there other than he left it… moo

DNA *wasn’t* planted- auto correct hates me
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #920
On the fence, but I think that if he’s responsible for this crime (innocent until proven guilty) that in my opinion his original plan probably wasn’t to murder 4 people, and whatever plan A was, it got interrupted due to unforeseen circumstances, 2 girls in one room, boyfriend staying over, or something- and turned into what happened-

If there were other crimes, I’m leaning towards much less violent vs killed 1, then 2-3 and worked his way up to 4… or SK flying under the radar or something like that- don’t know how strongly I feel about my opinions at this point- I do feel like the DNA on the snap want planted and was his and I don’t have a logical reason for how it got there other than he left it… moo

I agree. I lean towards him targeting MM, I believe he planned to rape her, and likely murder her and I don't think he expected KG to be at the house, let alone in the room.
That's why I think KG injuries were allegedly worse, he was angry that she ruined his carefully made plan, and then Xana and Ethan were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That's all just my theory though. Could be completely barking up the wrong tree, and I doubt we'll ever really know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
122
Guests online
3,632
Total visitors
3,754

Forum statistics

Threads
632,165
Messages
18,622,996
Members
243,041
Latest member
sawyerteam
Back
Top