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.
From my understand and please correct me if I'm wrong, the legal term "stalking" must include the victim knowing they were being stalked/surveilled, so could be why BK is not be charged with stalking. It's not a given that it never happened, IMO without the victim(s) knowing. We don't know the full discovery, whether BK was "stalking/surveilling" (in the layman's terms, not legal) one of the victims. That information from LE's investigating is not known yet. Trial will tell.
AJMO
From my understand and please correct me if I'm wrong, the legal term "stalking" must include the victim knowing they were being stalked/surveilled, so could be why BK is not be charged with stalking. It's not a given that it never happened, IMO without the victim(s) knowing. We don't know the full discovery, whether BK was "stalking/surveilling" (in the layman's terms, not legal) one of the victims. That information from LE's investigating is not known yet. Trial will tell.
AJMO
No.
Idaho Title 18 Chapter 79 Malicious harassment
18-7905 d
(d) At any time during the course of conduct constituting the offense, the defendant possessed a deadly weapon or instrument
Obviously the course of conduct was murder and the victims are deceased so they cannot tell us if they were in fear for their lives, but it is likely so."
If the stalking is related to the victim’s role as victim of (or witness to) some other criminal offense,
it should be viewed as a co-occurring crime and be prosecuted, if possible, in the same criminal proceedings as the original criminal offense. If it is not possible to include prosecution of the stalking/ witness intimidation in the original case, the prosecutor responsible for that original case should nevertheless address the stalking behavior within the context of that case by seeking and enforcing appropriate bail conditions related to witness safety, introducing evidence of the stalking/intimidation to provide the jury with an accurate picture of the relationship between the parties or as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and arguing the stalking/intimidation as an aggravating factor at sentencing.4 The criminal charges for stalking and/or witness intimidation can be prosecuted as a separate case, if necessary, but even then it is important to connect the behavior to the other crime, to provide context for the events as they unfold at both trials. Remember that when stalking or intimidation charges
are tried separately from the related crime, evidence to provide the necessary context will require a motion to admit evidence of “other bad acts” under Evid. R. 404(b) (or its equivalent)."
Debunked. The victim described the home invader on police body cam as "a gnome" who was 5'2" or shorter. BK is substantially taller than that - at least 6'.
<modsnip - quoted post was removed for no source>
The May 8th Amazon warrant relating to the MTS was for knives and accessories and items in cart, wish list, shopping basket, anything suggested by Amaz, reviews made or viewed, advertising data/cookies, devices used to access the account, all accounts linked.
The return has not been published. It could include anything on that list. Or not.
Sounds like AT & Company are really 'pounding the table' on their MTC and Sanctions from 12/27/24. She and the entire D Team probably had to work through the holidays to stay on the tight schedule Judge Hippler has put into place. Probably the State did as well.
I do wonder who the SDT 12/26/24 from the Defense is going out to? IGG/DNA related FBI or Othram Expert(s)?
I believe things are winding up, and it will be interesting to see how the Judge rules on these MTS and Franks.
"Pullman police tell ABC News that Kohberger is no longer a person of interest in the break-in, adding "We have no reason or evidence to believe he was involved in this burglary at this time." That case is now closed but remains unsolved."
Quote is the from the article linked below.
"Pullman police tell ABC News that Kohberger is no longer a person of interest in the break-in, adding "We have no reason or evidence to believe he was involved in this burglary at this time." That case is now closed but remains unsolved."
Quote is the from the article linked below.
Thank you @PinkParis2052 ….. this just tends to IMO confirm the ‘validity’, or actually the absence thereof, perhaps of Banfield? IMO it seems that source and reporter of late should be disallowed. At least here.
If someone argued that the individual had lost credibility. It would be difficult for me to disagree. MOO
No.
Idaho Title 18 Chapter 79 Malicious harassment
18-7905 d
(d) At any time during the course of conduct constituting the offense, the defendant possessed a deadly weapon or instrument
Obviously the course of conduct was murder and the victims are deceased so they cannot tell us if they were in fear for their lives, but it is likely so."
If the stalking is related to the victim’s role as victim of (or witness to) some other criminal offense,
it should be viewed as a co-occurring crime and be prosecuted, if possible, in the same criminal proceedings as the original criminal offense. If it is not possible to include prosecution of the stalking/ witness intimidation in the original case, the prosecutor responsible for that original case should nevertheless address the stalking behavior within the context of that case by seeking and enforcing appropriate bail conditions related to witness safety, introducing evidence of the stalking/intimidation to provide the jury with an accurate picture of the relationship between the parties or as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and arguing the stalking/intimidation as an aggravating factor at sentencing.4 The criminal charges for stalking and/or witness intimidation can be prosecuted as a separate case, if necessary, but even then it is important to connect the behavior to the other crime, to provide context for the events as they unfold at both trials. Remember that when stalking or intimidation charges
are tried separately from the related crime, evidence to provide the necessary context will require a motion to admit evidence of “other bad acts” under Evid. R. 404(b) (or its equivalent)."
No charge simply means the victims didn't know they were being stalked; they can't prove the elements of the crime. It does not mean that he didn't stalk the victims in some form, to include surveilling the house.
His phone data, and the way this crime was committed certainly indicates he put a lot of planning into this. I can't fathom he hadn't driven past that house before, at the very least.
It honestly wouldn't shock me if he had been even closer than that.
20 minutes ago — Police did not disclose the FBI's use of IGG in the probable cause affidavit for Kohberger's Dec. 30, 2022, arrest, which took place in ...
Depends on the definition of stalking.
I don't believe it is a crime to be near someone's house.
However, MOO it is very relevant to have been near someone's house prior to a murder and can viewed as evidence of preplanning and/or related to motivation.
Thank you @PinkParis2052 ….. this just tends to IMO confirm the ‘validity’, or actually the absence thereof, perhaps of Banfield? IMO it seems that source and reporter of late should be disallowed. At least here.
If someone argued that the individual had lost credibility. It would be difficult for me to disagree. MOO
Social media grifters - they’ll post anything for what boils down to attention (clicks, likes, subscribes). It’s the wild west & likely going to become worse before it gets better. I feel it’s completely unethical & old school journalists /reporters would be rolling in their graves if they observed the way things are handled today. Zero responsibility & zero accountability it seems. The Delphi trial was a perfect example of what’s occurring more & more frequently. It might tone down once someone gets sued. Unfortunately, money talks louder than morality in many instances.
"Pullman police tell ABC News that Kohberger is no longer a person of interest in the break-in, adding "We have no reason or evidence to believe he was involved in this burglary at this time." That case is now closed but remains unsolved."
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
