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

[AcousticViper]

Linda Lane was surprisingly busy that night.

The only way to make such an assessment is to view hundreds of hours of Linda Lane recordings from prior nights and weekends (paired samples). Did you actually do that?

 

[Boxer]

Watching the Linda Lane footage shows BK's Elantra making his preperation loops.
Of course the D will be challenging it.

MOO BK will be convicted unless relevant evidence is successfully (but wrongly) suppressed.

 

[Megnut]

IMO the document speaks for itself. AT has no table to pound.

JMO

From Page 8 of the Arrest Affidavit, embedded in the Idaho Statesman article, linked below.

"Law enforcement officers provided video footage of Suspect Vehicle I to forensic examiners with the Federal Bureau of Investigation that regularly utilize surveillance footage to identify the year, make, and model of an unknown vehicle that is observed by one or more cameras during the commission of a criminal offense. The Forensic Examiner has approximately 35 years law enforcement experience with twelve years at the FBL His specific training includes identifuing unique characteristics of vehicles, and he uses a database that gives visual clues of vehicles across states to identify differences between vehicles.

After reviewing the numerous observations of Suspect Vehicle 1, the forensic examiner initially believed that Suspect Vehicle 1 was a20ll-2013 Hyundai Elantra. Upon further review, he indicated it could also be a2011-2016 Hyundai Elantra. As a result, investigators have been reviewing information on persons in possession of a vehicle that is a 201 1-2016 white Hyundai Elantra."

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article270826997.html

 

[TallCoolOne]

Well, they can always pound sand.......

 

[Balthazar]

Before BK became a POI, LE had a suspect video. The expert identified it by make and model, older years.

Enough to ask the public for help, and a campus officer did just that Noticed an older white Elantra, newer tha 2013 but still an older model, belonging to BK.

Does that make the FBI car expert wrong? No. Off. We know NOTHING about the quality of the video he reviewed.

There were multiple videos/photos from Pullman street cameras, then 1102 - the house next to 1122, Linda Lane, some house on Indian Hills Dr.

IMO AT is trying to stir up dirt. Where there is none.

There must be some proof in the emails she sent to the Judge of what she is alleging.

No missing emails.

No one has mentioned any missing emails.

No one lied in the PCA.

Unknown at this point and with a 10-15% rate of cases being dismissed after a Franks Hearing, I would say, it COULD happen in this case. Unfortunately mistakes and/or mis-representations are made in all kinds of criminal cases. This one is no different than any other criminal case from that standpoint.

Why would the FBI expert even be needed at that point?

Because the FBI expert IS the expert witness who determined what kind of car was involved. The prosecution will need to call him as a witness during the trial (if there ever is a trial) so the expert can identify the vehicle and explain to the jury HOW he identified the vehicle in the first place. This is why we have expert witnesses so they can state facts based upon their expertise to the jury. IF he NEVER said it could be a 2015 Elantra, or said it was NOT a 2015 Elantra, that is significant and he should not have been represented in the PCA as saying it could be a 2015 Elantra.

His best guess led to good tips and that advanced the investigation, widening the range of years.

That's how it works. Active investigation.

JMO

No, that is NOT how this works. A police officer CANNOT lie in a PCA under any circumstances. A PCA is a court document. Lying or guessing in the PCA is the surest way to get a case thrown out. If the email chain shows the FBI expert said it was not a 2015 and the PCA says the opposite, then there is good cause for a Franks hearing. The PCA is the document from which all the warrants for BK sprang. If the PCA contains one or more lies then ALL of the warrants were gotten under false pretenses and the case will have to be dismissed. That is how our laws work.

All JMO.

 

[snooptroop88]

There were multiple videos/photos from Pullman street cameras, then 1102 - the house next to 1122, Linda Lane, some house on Indian Hills Dr.

There must be some proof in the emails she sent to the Judge of what she is alleging.

No one has mentioned any missing emails.

Unknown at this point and with a 10-15% rate of cases being dismissed after a Franks Hearing, I would say, it COULD happen in this case. Unfortunately mistakes and/or mis-representations are made in all kinds of criminal cases. This one is no different than any other criminal case from that standpoint.

Because the FBI expert IS the expert witness who determined what kind of car was involved. The prosecution will need to call him as a witness during the trial (if there ever is a trial) so the expert can identify the vehicle and explain to the jury HOW he identified the vehicle in the first place. This is why we have expert witnesses so they can state facts based upon their expertise to the jury. IF he NEVER said it could be a 2015 Elantra, or said it was NOT a 2015 Elantra, that is significant and he should not have been represented in the PCA as saying it could be a 2015 Elantra.

No, that is NOT how this works. A police officer CANNOT lie in a PCA under any circumstances. A PCA is a court document. Lying or guessing in the PCA is the surest way to get a case thrown out. If the email chain shows the FBI expert said it was not a 2015 and the PCA says the opposite, then there is good cause for a Franks hearing. The PCA is the document from which all the warrants for BK sprang. If the PCA contains one or more lies then ALL of the warrants were gotten under false pretenses and the case will have to be dismissed. That is how our laws work.

All JMO.

Not necessarily. Look at the "alibi." Look how their DP quest ended. Just because a defense team claims something doesn't mean they can ultimately deliver. And I don't think this snippet I'm seeing (splashed all over MSM and already being widely discussed on here in terms of general idea) bodes well for the D team on this, Hippler:

"Accompanying the motion are 38 exhibits comprising over 2,000 pages. Unfortunately, Defendant's memorandum largely fails to identify with particularity the relevant portions of the exhibits, instead referring simply to the exhibit number without identifying the precise pages at issue," a written response from Judge Hippler read. "Thus, the Court is left with the unenviable task of sifting through pages and pages of largely irrelevant documents to ascertain what portion Defendant may be referring to. The Court is not required to search the record looking for evidence."

When you have the goods, there's no need to make the judge play "Where's Waldo?" JMO, he may have already seen enough already to know if they have the goods. My guess is this is going to be along the lines of the "alibi" in terms of substantive impact. Another empty suit that makes headlines and generates interest along the way.

By the end of this, no straw will remain ungrasped, MOO.

 

[Boxer]

There were multiple videos/photos from Pullman street cameras, then 1102 - the house next to 1122, Linda Lane, some house on Indian Hills Dr.

There must be some proof in the emails she sent to the Judge of what she is alleging.

No one has mentioned any missing emails.

Unknown at this point and with a 10-15% rate of cases being dismissed after a Franks Hearing, I would say, it COULD happen in this case. Unfortunately mistakes and/or mis-representations are made in all kinds of criminal cases. This one is no different than any other criminal case from that standpoint.

Because the FBI expert IS the expert witness who determined what kind of car was involved. The prosecution will need to call him as a witness during the trial (if there ever is a trial) so the expert can identify the vehicle and explain to the jury HOW he identified the vehicle in the first place. This is why we have expert witnesses so they can state facts based upon their expertise to the jury. IF he NEVER said it could be a 2015 Elantra, or said it was NOT a 2015 Elantra, that is significant and he should not have been represented in the PCA as saying it could be a 2015 Elantra.

No, that is NOT how this works. A police officer CANNOT lie in a PCA under any circumstances. A PCA is a court document. Lying or guessing in the PCA is the surest way to get a case thrown out. If the email chain shows the FBI expert said it was not a 2015 and the PCA says the opposite, then there is good cause for a Franks hearing. The PCA is the document from which all the warrants for BK sprang. If the PCA contains one or more lies then ALL of the warrants were gotten under false pretenses and the case will have to be dismissed. That is how our laws work.

All JMO.

It was a minor mistake.
MOO, it makes no difference.

 

[Swansee]

I was recently introduced to the notion of "inevitable discovery", which I was unfamiliar with.
Per Wikipedia :
"Inevitable discovery is a doctrine in United States criminal procedure that permits admission of evidence that was obtained through illegal means if it would "inevitably" have been obtained regardless of the illegality. It is one of several exceptions to the exclusionary rule, or the related fruit-of-the-poisonous tree doctrine, which prevent evidence collected in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights from being admitted in court."
There is also the related "independent source" doctrine. If it is true that, as the Defense claims, multiple warrants were used for the same information, this would mean that investigators became aware that that a wrongdoing could cause problems down the line and requested the information again once they had a new, separate, legally solid basis to do so. See highlighted text below from the Defense's filings.

I believe this concept may come up during the Franks discussion we will see in January.
Supposing that the Defense can show that there was wrongdoing by the investigators, this does not mean the evidence would automatically get thrown out.
If the State can show that they still would have somehow inevitably arrived at BK as a suspect through other means, the fruit of the poisonous tree evidence could still be used.
This is going to be a very interesting hearing.

 

[Balthazar]

Not necessarily. Look at the "alibi." Look how their DP quest ended. Just because a defense team claims something doesn't mean they can ultimately deliver. And I don't think this snippet I'm seeing (splashed all over MSM and already being widely discussed on here in terms of general idea) bodes well for the D team on this, Hippler:

"Accompanying the motion are 38 exhibits comprising over 2,000 pages. Unfortunately, Defendant's memorandum largely fails to identify with particularity the relevant portions of the exhibits, instead referring simply to the exhibit number without identifying the precise pages at issue," a written response from Judge Hippler read. "Thus, the Court is left with the unenviable task of sifting through pages and pages of largely irrelevant documents to ascertain what portion Defendant may be referring to. The Court is not required to search the record looking for evidence."

When you have the goods, there's no need to make the judge play "Where's Waldo?" JMO, he may have already seen enough already to know if they have the goods. My guess is this is going to be along the lines of the "alibi" in terms of substantive impact. Another empty suit that makes headlines and generates interest along the way.

By the end of this, no straw will remain ungrasped, MOO.

The DP motions were pretty standard and procedural. I don't think the defense expected any of them to be upheld by Judge Hippler. They are done so that IF BK is convicted and received the DP, they could appeal on the grounds of each of those motions in the future to a higher court. That's why many of those motions were not appropriate for the district court to decide. However making those types of motions is pretty standard in DP cases these days and required for future appeals.

A Franks hearing is a whole other animal as it is decided by the judge at the District level. JH may have to make an incredibly unpopular decision if AT can prove BP lied in the PCA. No one likes to make unpopular decisions like this. Especially not an elected judge. We'll have to see what happens.

 

[Nila Aella]

The Linda Lane videos are available on Youtube from various vloggers. There is one white car on these videos which has a sunroof and another which does not. The white car with the sunroof is clearly not BK's car. BK's Elantra did not have a sunroof. There is a black SUV and 2 red cars in the video and several other cars passing in the far background on Taylor Ave. Some vehicles appear to be coming from Blake Ave. Linda Lane was surprisingly busy that night.

Taylor avenue cars are going into and out of the neighborhood all morning.
Timing of the highest activity of these cars and the direction these cars come from and what direction they head toward after exiting the neighborhood is interesting.
JMO

The only way to make such an assessment is to view hundreds of hours of Linda Lane recordings from prior nights and weekends (paired samples). Did you actually do that?

BP PCA
Based off of my experience as a Patrol Officer this is a residential neighborhood with a very limited number of vehicles that travel in the area during the early morning hours.
BBM

IMO the Linda Lane video does not support a very limited number of vehicles traveling in the area that morning.

 

[mrjitty]

Thanks again for posting:the latest. Judge Hippler is very timely.

Bouncing off:

Judge Hippler is totally on top of this case. Utterly impressed with the two orders just issued; the first regarding P motion to strike D's memorandum, the latter re Frank's motion. I love the clarity of reasons given. Moo

Re Franks motion, he's ordered defense to pare it down and get to the point ( in summary) and re-submit by 26 November if they want the court to even consider it. According to Hippler many of the thousands (!) of pages of exhibits are irrelevant and should also be removed from any resubmitted motion. Whoah. Jmo.

Re the over paged memorandum in support of x1 motion to suppress and Franks motion, Hippler acknowledges the State's raising of issue and agrees. However, given the importance of Motions to Suppress is using discretion to allow memoranda (sp?,) to stand as are. But will give State the same leeway in their responses ( due Dec 6th) ie. State can also submit lengthy responses. Judge notes this is a one off and in future parties must adhere to ICRs.
Perfect way to deal with the situation. Moo

I like that judge calls a spade a spade. Some of his comments in Franks order must be quite embarrassing for the defense. Judge is calling it as he sees it and in line with the law. Moo

Personally i am not surprised to see another Franks memo that makes big allegations not supported in the actual page and line references. good to see the Judge call out the game. MOO.

 

[mrjitty]

IMO the document speaks for itself. AT has no table to pound.

JMO

From Page 8 of the Arrest Affidavit, embedded in the Idaho Statesman article, linked below.

"Law enforcement officers provided video footage of Suspect Vehicle I to forensic examiners with the Federal Bureau of Investigation that regularly utilize surveillance footage to identify the year, make, and model of an unknown vehicle that is observed by one or more cameras during the commission of a criminal offense. The Forensic Examiner has approximately 35 years law enforcement experience with twelve years at the FBL His specific training includes identifuing unique characteristics of vehicles, and he uses a database that gives visual clues of vehicles across states to identify differences between vehicles.

After reviewing the numerous observations of Suspect Vehicle 1, the forensic examiner initially believed that Suspect Vehicle 1 was a20ll-2013 Hyundai Elantra. Upon further review, he indicated it could also be a2011-2016 Hyundai Elantra. As a result, investigators have been reviewing information on persons in possession of a vehicle that is a 201 1-2016 white Hyundai Elantra."

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article270826997.html

Let’s see if the D can particularise the claim that the broader year range was not in play. Suspicious to me they weren’t able to let the judge know where exactly in the emails this was said.

 

[mrjitty]

Not necessarily. Look at the "alibi." Look how their DP quest ended. Just because a defense team claims something doesn't mean they can ultimately deliver. And I don't think this snippet I'm seeing (splashed all over MSM and already being widely discussed on here in terms of general idea) bodes well for the D team on this, Hippler:

"Accompanying the motion are 38 exhibits comprising over 2,000 pages. Unfortunately, Defendant's memorandum largely fails to identify with particularity the relevant portions of the exhibits, instead referring simply to the exhibit number without identifying the precise pages at issue," a written response from Judge Hippler read. "Thus, the Court is left with the unenviable task of sifting through pages and pages of largely irrelevant documents to ascertain what portion Defendant may be referring to. The Court is not required to search the record looking for evidence."

When you have the goods, there's no need to make the judge play "Where's Waldo?" JMO, he may have already seen enough already to know if they have the goods. My guess is this is going to be along the lines of the "alibi" in terms of substantive impact. Another empty suit that makes headlines and generates interest along the way.

By the end of this, no straw will remain ungrasped, MOO.

I agree and many of us just went through a Franks fiasco in the Delphi trial where there were no less than four Franks memos, each more tenuous than the last.

Of course the defence will tend to make a Franks motion as it is one way to get the critical evidence tossed. But it isn't a good sign that a defence has to rely on non specific cites. It should be obvious where the FBI expert said one thing, and where the affiant intentionally misrepresented it.

Somehow they weren't able to show the Judge where that was. The exact thing happened in Delphi were the judge was asked to read 1000s of pages and watch hours of video. Judge Hippler has been smarter and just tossed it, requiring the defence to come up with the goods rather than alleging some kind of conspiracy in emails.

MOO

 

[Balthazar]

It was a minor mistake.
MOO, it makes no difference.

It is not a minor mistake because it is in a sworn legal document. If AT can show that BP knew about BK AND his 2015 Elantra AND the FBI agent told him 2011 - 2013 BUT BP put 2011 - 2016 because he knew he needed that date range for BK's 2015 car, or if BP is seen to be badgering the FBI expert to include 2015 in the emails or telling him he needs 2015, then the Judge is going to have to dismiss the PCA and therefore the whole case. Falsifying evidence never goes well for a police officer if they are caught and can, unfortunately destroy the whole case.

 

[mrjitty]

It is not a minor mistake because it is in a sworn legal document. If AT can show that BP knew about BK AND his 2015 Elantra AND the FBI agent told him 2011 - 2013 BUT BP put 2011 - 2016 because he knew he needed that date range for BK's 2015 car, or if BP is seen to be badgering the FBI expert to include 2015 in the emails or telling him he needs 2015, then the Judge is going to have to dismiss the PCA and therefore the whole case. Falsifying evidence never goes well for a police officer if they are caught and can, unfortunately destroy the whole case.

While it is true that the State should deservedly have its search warrants tossed where it lies/misrepresents in the PCA, it's typically hard for the defence to achieve in my opinion. A mere mistake or immaterial misrepresentation is not going to cut it.

I am further sceptical that a discrepancy over year is going to matter, even if it can be proven the affiant intentionally lied about that to deceive the judge. The cars look similar enough if my opinion.

YMMV, but personally I will be waiting to see if the defence can even prove any misrepresentation occurred before I would even begin evaluating whether such misrepresentation would justify tossing the evidence.

Like I am pretty sure this warrant would be granted even if the affiant hadn't said this.

IMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Agree….. and with some of the grainy evening-time video IIRC that was shown early in this case, also virtually indistinguishable. The vehicles in those model year spans are nearly identical and equal when viewed from a distance or while traveling. Years prior and years post that time expanse are a different matter perhaps. MOO

Plus the fog on that night was very noticeable. JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Before BK became a POI, LE had a suspect video. The expert identified it by make and model, older years.

Enough to ask the public for help, and a campus officer did just that Noticed an older white Elantra, newer tha 2013 but still an older model, belonging to BK.

Does that make the FBI car expert wrong? No. Off. We know NOTHING about the quality of the video he reviewed.

IMO AT is trying to stir up dirt. Where there is none.

No missing emails.

No one lied in the PCA.

Why would the FBI expert even be needed at that point?

His best guess led to good tips and that advanced the investigation, widening the range of years.

That's how it works. Active investigation.

JMO

Exactly, it's not like LE said they were looking for a bright yellow clown car in connection to the case. JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Let's not forget also that the white Elantra only had a rear license plate, no front plate as required in WA. BK was using his PA tags which only require a rear tag.

So in all of Latah County that particular night, at that time, that model of car was seen passing by King Road residence not once, twice or even three times, but FOUR times at approx. 4:00 am in the morning during the time Maddie, Haylee, Xana and Eric were brutally stabbed to death and that just's a coincidence???

Ummmm, no, nope, nopers. That dog won't hunt IMO.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

Let's not forget also that the white Elantra only had a rear license plate, no front plate as required in WA. BK was using his PA tags which only require a rear tag.

So in all of Latah County that particular night, at that time, that model of car was seen passing by King Road residence not once, twice or even three times, but FOUR times at approx. 4:00 am in the morning during the time Maddie, Haylee, Xana and Eric were brutally stabbed to death and that just's a coincidence???

Ummmm, no, nope, nopers. That dog won't hunt IMO.

JMO

I’m like a horse with a rattlesnake when it comes to Franks these days.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I’m like a horse with a rattlesnake when it comes to Franks these days.

We were schooled by the worst FM writers of all time. LOL Judge Hippler is going on record and making his ruling against their FM that leaves little doubt he is not happy with the way it was submitted. I like his detailed response.

JMO