4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #97

[sunshineray]

The survey was constructed to guage what the public heard though the MSM/SM. Whether media reports (true or false) biased the jury pool.
jmo

IMO LE would have checked BKs SM as soon as they had his name, before it was public, before fake accounts appeared.
jmo

That's what the defense says the survey was constructed for, not sure I buy that explanation as the only truth of it.

I believe, according to the links in my OP, those numerous BK accounts were seen by KG's family and screenshot immediately after BK's arrest. It was after that accounts started to be closed/disappear, mostly likely due to LE investigations. AJMO

 

[MassGuy]

RBBM & JMHO I get where you're coming from but you're framing opinions as if they are facts. FWIW I'm not siding with the defendant. JMO.

I'd also like to correct my previous post about criminal harassment because editing timed out. My experience is based on Canadian laws which are phrased in a similar manner.

This is the Canadian version: " in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them. "

Criminal Code

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Idaho State Law: Section 18-7906 – Idaho State Legislature

" A person commits the crime of stalking in the second degree if the person knowingly and maliciously:
(a) Engages in a course of conduct that seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the victim and is such as would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress; or ..."

Of course it's my opinion, and I think we'll be learning a hell of a lot more about him in that regard. I know you're not siding with him.

 

[sunshineray]

I look forward to seeing what comes out during the trial. If it's live streams or released at a later time.

Yes there is a gag order that that's for outside of the court hearings and court documents based on commentary that I heard from a lawyer. So it doesn't cover the hearings and the court documents but some point last year in 2023 both sides have agreed to limit what they put in court documents and limit what they speak about during court hearings which is really interesting. IMO.

BBM
Do you have a link for this please. I'd not heard about such an agreement and it would seem an unusual thing IMO, considering the filings that may be needed in a quadruple homicide case, IMO.

 

[PinkParis2052]

BBM
Do you have a link for this please. I'd not heard about such an agreement and it would seem an unusual thing IMO, considering the filings that may be needed in a quadruple homicide case, IMO.

I'm not a lawyer.

but I've noticed that both sides of this case usually agree to file documents under a Stipulation or just under seal and it looks like this "most" of the time:


This has been going on with court documents for awhile now.

go to timestamp 22 minutes and 30 seconds Anne starts talking and Anne did state that she understand documents being filed under seal since there are names and other information in them.

timestamps 25 minutes is when JJJ starts talking about why he thinks that the hearing should be closed to the pubic.

 

[Cool Cats]

BBM
Do you have a link for this please. I'd not heard about such an agreement and it would seem an unusual thing IMO, considering the filings that may be needed in a quadruple homicide case, IMO.

Judge agrees to narrow but not lift gag order in University of Idaho student slayings case​

Judge agrees to narrow but not lift gag order in University of Idaho student slayings case

An Idaho judge has denied a request from roughly two dozen news organizations to lift a gag order in the criminal case of a man accused of stabbing four University of Idaho students to death.

apnews.com

The new gag order — formally called a “nondissemination order” — prohibits any attorneys representing parties, victims or witnesses in the case from making statements that could have a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing or otherwise influencing the outcome of the case.”

The attorneys are allowed to comment about things like procedural issues, scheduling and make statements that a lawyer would reasonably believe is required to protect their client from substantial prejudicial effects of recent publicity — for instance, they can likely make public comments correcting misinformation about their client.

They cannot express opinions about the guilt or innocence of a defendant outside of the courtroom, and they can’t share information that they know wouldn’t be allowed in court. They also can’t talk about the character of a witness, expected testimony, the likelihood of a plea deal or other case-related matters.

The judge also denied a gag order-related request from an attorney representing one of the victims’ families. Shanon Gray, who represents the Goncalves family, asked to be excluded from the gag order so that he could talk to the press on the family’s behalf.


In the ruling, Judge noted that as an attorney, Gray could have access to confidential information about the case that would be prejudicial if it was released to the public.

 

[sunshineray]

I'm not a lawyer.

but I've noticed that both sides of this case usually agree to file documents under a Stipulation or just under seal and it looks like this "most" of the time:
View attachment 554393

This has been going on with court documents for awhile now.

go to timestamp 22 minutes and 30 seconds Anne starts talking and Anne did state that she understand documents being filed under seal since there are names and other information in them.

timestamps 25 minutes is when JJJ starts talking about why he thinks that the hearing should be closed to the pubic.

Thank you! What a refreshing situation after seeing the exact opposite in the Delphi case from the defense. I think it will greatly help in running a fair trial to limit what's released to the public beforehand. AJMO

 

[Balthazar]

RSBM for focus.

No. For the sake of accuracy; from your link
"...did not stalk one of the victims, attorneys on both sides of the capital murder case said Wednesday,...". (My emphasis).

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article287556325.html#storylink=cpy

IMO ONE of is what was said piecemeal at the relevant hearing. ONE of the victims. This is consistently misrepresented/conflated to any of the victims as if some sort of confirmed fact. For some reason. From piecemeal snippets at a pre trial hearing. And taken out of context jmo.

One big nothing burger with extras. He knew the house and was surveiling. Victims were unaware. Agree with recent posts suggesting as such. Imo and conjecture.

With respect, I must disagree.

Logic dictates that if BK did not stalk one of the victims, it cannot be said that he stalked ANY of the victims. The question on the survey asked specifically if BK stalked one of the victims. BT said this was false. BK did not stalk one victim, therefore he stalked no one. This statement cannot be twisted into meaning that BK stalked multiple victims because one victim would always be included in multiple victims, therefore the statement would be partially true. But BT said it is NOT true. Attorneys are precise in how they use language. If it were partially true, BT would have said as much.

I did do a little research and found that there are 2 sources of the stalking rumor. 1. The PCA where it said that his phone utilized the same tower used by 1122 King Rd 3 times BEFORE the murders, which, IMO indicates absolutely nothing since the cellular resources (tower) in question covers almost all of the UofI Moscow, plus many, many stores and restaurants. It is equally possible that his phone may have been handed off by the cell tower he was closest to because the one closest to him was too busy, and 2. When KG's parents went on TV and claimed that he was stalking KG, had touched 1122's internet and was reacting to photos on KG and MM's social media. These rumors of stalking from KG's parents have been spread by the media.

There is, so far, absolutely no proof BK was stalking anyone and it is notable that no stalking charges were filed against BK, which supports that BK was not stalking anyone.

JMO.

 

[schooling]

Thank you! What a refreshing situation after seeing the exact opposite in the Delphi case from the defense. I think it will greatly help in running a fair trial to limit what's released to the public beforehand. AJMO

IMO, BKs defense team is running the exact same playbook as the defense attorneys tried and failed with in Delphi.

They selectively 'leaked' (IMO, my interpretation) information through public court filings to build a conspiracy narrative. They fought for public hearings when the questioning would contain innuendo (IMO) of conspiracy and fought harder for private hearings to suppress anything that might be damaging to their client.

I called this out in the summer of 2023 when they egregiously (again, IMO) did this through court filings - questioning the car and the IGG by insinuating that BK is a patsy and a victim of conspiracy (my interpretation, MOO). Theories (nonsensical and laughable IMO) that funny enough (or not) mirrored what some of us were reading out there and what was reported by some major news outlets. JMO

And if anyone can listen to the public questioning of Payne and not hear a narrative being spun and a public being conditioned to accept conspiracy...then I guess we just have different opinions and interpretations of what we hear. JMO

I'll finish off by saying just take a look at Blum's book (an accepted source here). Read the chapter of how the defense was attempting to connect BK to the surviving roommates and trying to bring drugs into the fold. Theories straight out of the darker corners of online discourse IMO. Theories that went absolutely NOWHERE according to Blum.

It didn't work in Delph and IMO it won't work here. Some things are just better left on the web.

This is all MOO. I don't claim to have inside information nor do I claim to be an expert of any sort.

 

[PinkParis2052]

IMO, BKs defense team is running the exact same playbook as the defense attorneys tried and failed with in Delphi.

They selectively 'leaked' (IMO, my interpretation) information through public court filings to build a conspiracy narrative. They fought for public hearings when the questioning would contain innuendo (IMO) of conspiracy and fought harder for private hearings to suppress anything that might be damaging to their client.

I called this out in the summer of 2023 when they egregiously (again, IMO) did this through court filings - questioning the car and the IGG by insinuating that BK is a patsy and a victim of conspiracy (my interpretation, MOO). Theories (nonsensical and laughable IMO) that funny enough (or not) mirrored what some of us were reading out there and what was reported by some major news outlets. JMO

And if anyone can listen to the public questioning of Payne and not hear a narrative being spun and a public being conditioned to accept conspiracy...then I guess we just have different opinions and interpretations of what we hear. JMO

I'll finish off by saying just take a look at Blum's book (an accepted source here). Read the chapter of how the defense was attempting to connect BK to the surviving roommates and trying to bring drugs into the fold. Theories straight out of the darker corners of online discourse IMO. Theories that went absolutely NOWHERE according to Blum.

It didn't work in Delph and IMO it won't work here. Some things are just better left on the web.

This is all MOO. I don't claim to have inside information nor do I claim to be an expert of any sort.

In reference to the bold print, I didn't know that Blum was an accepted source, good to know. Thank you so much.

I never followed the Delphi case. IMo.

 

[PinkParis2052]

..

 

[iamshadow21]

In reference to the bold print, I didn't know that Blum was an accepted source, good to know. Thank you so much.

I never followed the Delphi case. IMo.

Blum is accepted, I believe, but his facts have been called into question at times on the threads and I believe he attributed certain things as having come directly from victim family members which they flatly denied.

I certainly bear that in mind when reading his views on this case.

MOO

 

[sunshineray]

IMO, BKs defense team is running the exact same playbook as the defense attorneys tried and failed with in Delphi.

They selectively 'leaked' (IMO, my interpretation) information through public court filings to build a conspiracy narrative. They fought for public hearings when the questioning would contain innuendo (IMO) of conspiracy and fought harder for private hearings to suppress anything that might be damaging to their client.

I called this out in the summer of 2023 when they egregiously (again, IMO) did this through court filings - questioning the car and the IGG by insinuating that BK is a patsy and a victim of conspiracy (my interpretation, MOO). Theories (nonsensical and laughable IMO) that funny enough (or not) mirrored what some of us were reading out there and what was reported by some major news outlets. JMO

And if anyone can listen to the public questioning of Payne and not hear a narrative being spun and a public being conditioned to accept conspiracy...then I guess we just have different opinions and interpretations of what we hear. JMO

I'll finish off by saying just take a look at Blum's book (an accepted source here). Read the chapter of how the defense was attempting to connect BK to the surviving roommates and trying to bring drugs into the fold. Theories straight out of the darker corners of online discourse IMO. Theories that went absolutely NOWHERE according to Blum.

It didn't work in Delph and IMO it won't work here. Some things are just better left on the web.

This is all MOO. I don't claim to have inside information nor do I claim to be an expert of any sort.

They've still a long way to go to come close to the Delphi D's actions, MO. I hope the Judge stays firm and vigilant with both sides. The difference in the time frame of an arrest in the Idaho case will certainly bring forward different strategies for BK's defense but I think a jury will come to the right conclusion in this case also.
AJMO

 

[Boxer]

With respect, I must disagree.

Logic dictates that if BK did not stalk one of the victims, it cannot be said that he stalked ANY of the victims. The question on the survey asked specifically if BK stalked one of the victims. BT said this was false. BK did not stalk one victim, therefore he stalked no one. This statement cannot be twisted into meaning that BK stalked multiple victims because one victim would always be included in multiple victims, therefore the statement would be partially true. But BT said it is NOT true. Attorneys are precise in how they use language. If it were partially true, BT would have said as much.

I did do a little research and found that there are 2 sources of the stalking rumor. 1. The PCA where it said that his phone utilized the same tower used by 1122 King Rd 3 times BEFORE the murders, which, IMO indicates absolutely nothing since the cellular resources (tower) in question covers almost all of the UofI Moscow, plus many, many stores and restaurants. It is equally possible that his phone may have been handed off by the cell tower he was closest to because the one closest to him was too busy, and 2. When KG's parents went on TV and claimed that he was stalking KG, had touched 1122's internet and was reacting to photos on KG and MM's social media. These rumors of stalking from KG's parents have been spread by the media.

There is, so far, absolutely no proof BK was stalking anyone and it is notable that no stalking charges were filed against BK, which supports that BK was not stalking anyone.

JMO.

Stalking is a word with legal and general meanings.
The stalking in common use means hanging around, surveilling "haunting" somone or someplace.

Apparently the legal definition of "stalking" involves the person knowing they are being watched.

Any American woman is going to describe being surveilled by someone as "stalking" whether she knew the person was there or not.

Animals stalk silently watching for an opportunity to pounce. Not sure how the addtional meaning of "intimidating" got to the legal definition.

 

[whiterhino]

Stalking is a word with legal and general meanings.
The stalking in common use means hanging around, surveilling "haunting" somone or someplace.

Apparently the legal definition of "stalking" involves the person knowing they are being watched.

Any American woman is going to describe being surveilled by someone as "stalking" whether she knew the person was there or not.

Animals stalk silently watching for an opportunity to pounce. Not sure how the addtional meaning of "intimidating" got to the legal definition.

RBBM: The word intimidation doesn't appear at all. In Idaho, it's called Malicious Harassment. Section 18-7906 – Idaho State Legislature

 

[LinasK]

With respect, I must disagree.

Logic dictates that if BK did not stalk one of the victims, it cannot be said that he stalked ANY of the victims. The question on the survey asked specifically if BK stalked one of the victims. BT said this was false. BK did not stalk one victim, therefore he stalked no one. This statement cannot be twisted into meaning that BK stalked multiple victims because one victim would always be included in multiple victims, therefore the statement would be partially true. But BT said it is NOT true. Attorneys are precise in how they use language. If it were partially true, BT would have said as much.

I did do a little research and found that there are 2 sources of the stalking rumor. 1. The PCA where it said that his phone utilized the same tower used by 1122 King Rd 3 times BEFORE the murders, which, IMO indicates absolutely nothing since the cellular resources (tower) in question covers almost all of the UofI Moscow, plus many, many stores and restaurants. It is equally possible that his phone may have been handed off by the cell tower he was closest to because the one closest to him was too busy, and 2. When KG's parents went on TV and claimed that he was stalking KG, had touched 1122's internet and was reacting to photos on KG and MM's social media. These rumors of stalking from KG's parents have been spread by the media.

There is, so far, absolutely no proof BK was stalking anyone and it is notable that no stalking charges were filed against BK, which supports that BK was not stalking anyone.

JMO.

I think your logic is flawed. One doesn't mean zero. Whether or not the victim(s) knew of the stalking or knew the perp doesn't mean that it didn't happen. I strongly believe that one or more of the victims was stalked on social media. It doesn't mean that she was aware of it or knew her killer. And I think Kohlberger had a thing for blondes. They may not have had sufficient evidence to prove it, but I will always believe it to be the case.

 

[Gigiky]

I think your logic is flawed. One doesn't mean zero. Whether or not the victim(s) knew of the stalking or knew the perp doesn't mean that it didn't happen. I strongly believe that one or more of the victims was stalked on social media. It doesn't mean that she was aware of it or knew her killer. And I think Kohlberger had a thing for blondes. They may not have had sufficient evidence to prove it, but I will always believe it to be the case.

Agree!

 

[Balthazar]

I think your logic is flawed. One doesn't mean zero.

What I wrote is that if BK didn't stalk one victim, then, he stalked no victims. 1 could be any of the 4 or as many as all 4. But BT said that question was based upon FALSE information. In other words, BK stalked no one.

Whether or not the victim(s) knew of the stalking or knew the perp doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

That has nothing to do with whether or not he stalked anyone.

I strongly believe that one or more of the victims was stalked on social media. It doesn't mean that she was aware of it or knew her killer. And I think Kohlberger had a thing for blondes. They may not have had sufficient evidence to prove it, but I will always believe it to be the case.

LE apparently has no proof that BK stalked anyone.

I don't think you understand what I wrote.

The survey question probably read something like this:

"Have you heard or read that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?"
( )Yes
( )No

Written in this manner, the question actually asks the respondents if they heard or saw information that BK stalked any of the 4 victims. So if the respondent read or heard that BK stalked one or more of the victims, the response is Yes. If you have followed this case in detail, early on there were allegations that KG was being stalked and then later allegations it was MM who was being stalked via instagram. However BT objected to this question because according to him, it could lead potential jurors to believe something false. In other words, BT was saying that stalking is a false allegation. Therefore, by BT's own comment, we can know that BK didn't stalk anyone. And what makes this even more apparent is that BK was NEVER charged with stalking AND LE would have charged BK with stalking IF he had stalked anyone. But there is no such charge. Therefore, it never happened.

JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

What I wrote is that if BK didn't stalk one victim, then, he stalked no victims. 1 could be any of the 4 or as many as all 4. But BT said that question was based upon FALSE information. In other words, BK stalked no one.


That has nothing to do with whether or not he stalked anyone.


LE apparently has no proof that BK stalked anyone.

I don't think you understand what I wrote.

The survey question probably read something like this:

"Have you heard or read that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?"
( )Yes
( )No

Written in this manner, the question actually asks the respondents if they heard or saw information that BK stalked any of the 4 victims. So if the respondent read or heard that BK stalked one or more of the victims, the response is Yes. If you have followed this case in detail, early on there were allegations that KG was being stalked and then later allegations it was MM who was being stalked via instagram. However BT objected to this question because according to him, it could lead potential jurors to believe something false. In other words, BT was saying that stalking is a false allegation. Therefore, by BT's own comment, we can know that BK didn't stalk anyone. And what makes this even more apparent is that BK was NEVER charged with stalking AND LE would have charged BK with stalking IF he had stalked anyone. But there is no such charge. Therefore, it never happened.

JMO

What you've written here makes perfect sense to me and IMO accurately reflects what happened in court.

Multiple posters have pointed out that attorneys tend to choose their words carefully and (when there's no gag order) may make misleading public statements for strategic reasons. One can easily argue that attorneys for opposing sides are ALWAYS speaking to potential jurors when they speak publicly pre-trial. Because of the gag order in this case, we don't see the attorneys involved holding press conferences or answering questions/making comments on the courthouse steps. But the implication of the posts described above is to suggest that BT might not have meant what he said in court about the lack of stalking. That we can't depend on BT's statement being truthful or accurate-- perhaps he knows there WAS stalking no matter what he said in court or perhaps he knows not only was there stalking, he knows the exact number of women stalked. But in each case BT simply didn't want to reveal his knowledge publicly at that point.

I would agree that (successful) attorneys parse their words carefully. But I doubt the legal strategies adopted by successful attorneys extend to making deliberately false statements to the judge during court proceedings. And if the situation was as is described above, that's what BT would have been doing.

To avoid revealing information to the public and/or to the opposing side in this case we've seen attorneys essentially say to the judge during hearings, "I don't want to answer that right now..." And we've seen requests for ex parte meetings with the judge, including requests that were granted. I don't think we've seen attorneys on either side lying to the judge under the guise of legal strategy (although there have been posts claiming AT routinely lies in court, posts I strongly disagree with.)
MOO

 

[Swansee]

I think what a lot of posters struggle with is that in a way, we want there to have been stalking, or some kind of prior contact, because that would make the senseless horror of these killings make just a little bit more sense.
Unfortunately the fact is that there has not been a single concrete element from an LE source to show stalking, or even actual prior contact whether IRL or online. Not one.
Please spare me Blum's drivel. It may be "allowed" here, but IMO it is completely irrelevant and has done nothing but promote inaccuracies, to put it mildly.
The PCA was worded ambiguously enough to leave the impression that pings showed prior visits by BK to the house. This was debunked by the Prosecution's own footnote mentioned in the posts above. He went to the general Moscow area 12 times, not to the specific neighborhood of the house.
Then there was the G family statement about social media contact, but that turned out to not actually be a true BK account: anyone looking at the Garrett Discovery report can easily see for themselves that this was a bot account.
The Mad Greek stuff was no more than rumor and conjecture and there is no reason to believe that an encounter there ever happened.
So we are left with nothing.
The lack of evidence of prior contact does not mean BK is innocent (extra bolded for those who seem to have trouble dissociating the two statements).
Sometimes a killer enters the home of complete strangers to murder them. The Bundy example has been given several times. IMO if BK is guilty it is one of those types of situations.

The one tiny detail that continues to bother me is that little step in the hallway outside DM's bedroom. IMO in a darkened house, an intruder who is unfamiliar with the inner layout of the floor and especially if they suffer from VS, would probably have missed it and tripped up there. This wasn't mentioned by DM, at least in the snippet of her testimony relayed by Payne in the PCA.

 

[Balthazar]

What you've written here makes perfect sense to me and IMO accurately reflects what happened in court.

Multiple posters have pointed out that attorneys tend to choose their words carefully and (when there's no gag order) may make misleading public statements for strategic reasons. One can easily argue that attorneys for opposing sides are ALWAYS speaking to potential jurors when they speak publicly pre-trial. Because of the gag order in this case, we don't see the attorneys involved holding press conferences or answering questions/making comments on the courthouse steps. But the implication of the posts described above is to suggest that BT might not have meant what he said in court about the lack of stalking. That we can't depend on BT's statement being truthful or accurate-- perhaps he knows there WAS stalking no matter what he said in court or perhaps he knows not only was there stalking, he knows the exact number of women stalked. But in each case BT simply didn't want to reveal his knowledge publicly at that point.

I would agree that (successful) attorneys parse their words carefully. But I doubt the legal strategies adopted by successful attorneys extend to making deliberately false statements to the judge during court proceedings. And if the situation was as is described above, that's what BT would have been doing.

To avoid revealing information to the public and/or to the opposing side in this case we've seen attorneys essentially say to the judge during hearings, "I don't want to answer that right now..." And we've seen requests for ex parte meetings with the judge, including requests that were granted. I don't think we've seen attorneys on either side lying to the judge under the guise of legal strategy (although there have been posts claiming AT routinely lies in court, posts I strongly disagree with.)
MOO

I agree with you. There is a great difference between what an attorney says in public versus what they say in the courtroom during a hearing or trial. They are not permitted to lie in court any time the court is in session. If they are caught lying in court, the consequences can be being severe, such as being held in contempt of court and spending time in jail and/or sanctions by the Bar. If they do it more than once, they can be disbarred. Their entire career and reputation depend on them not lying in court. But if the defense or prosecution attorneys are doing a media interview, they can say whatever they want, but must always be mindful about how what they say can affect their case or any rebound effect from what they say which could turn up in court. A perfect example of the rebound effect was when BT did the press conference on 12/30/22 where BT told the media present that the PCA would be released and they should share it with their viewers which Dr. Edelman exposed during his testimony regarding the potential jury survey - at approximately 56:58, in the video of the hearing. Dr. Edelman's survey was based strictly on what has been released to the public and published publicly. If BT is unhappy about the information that has been released, he should look no further than himself as to the source because absolutely no new information came from Dr. Edelman's survey.

"Thompson was seeking to establish that the defense has been spreading false information about the case during a phone poll of 400 potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho, where the four students were stabbed to death."

Bryan Kohberger did not stalk Idaho victim before murder, court hears

The prosecutor was trying to establish that the defense has been spreading false information about the case during a phone poll of 400 potential jurors.

www.newsweek.com

But in that hearing it was BT who told us there was no stalking. And he also said that the question about contacting the victims over social media is false.

BTW, here are the exact questions as published in the Newsweek article cited above:

<modsnip - snipped for copyright>
8. Have you read, seen or heard that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?
9. Have you read, seen or heard that Byran Kohberger had followed one of the victims on social media?
In the hearing, BT stated questions 8 and 9 are both false breaking the gag order.

JMO