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

[Nila Aella]

They took a buccal swab from him at his arrest; it's on the evidence list, I believe.

MOO

LE served two warrants for BKs person.
One in PA
One in Idaho

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Person-in-PA.pdf

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Person-in-ID.pdf

jmo

 

[Boxer]

MOO
There was a
Lot of light in the living room from the neon "good times" sign.
It is my thinking he walked from the neon lit livingroomroom into the sark hall hall where DMs door was on his way to the kitchen, but his vision was momentarily diminished in the hall from looking toward the sign, which was to the right of the door to the hall.
So MOO he missed seeing DM's door being open an inch as she peered out.

 

[sunshineray]

It doesn't say the VICTIM has to be in fear of death or bodily injury. It says "a reasonable person" would be in fear of death or bodily injury.

This is how they charge people with stalking after a murder and/or even if the victim doesn't come forward. The behavior of the perpetrator would cause "a reasonable person to be in fear for their life".

It's basically saying that the behavior was alarming enough that although the victim didn't know/didn't report it, if she had known, she would have been in fear for her life. MOO

If a person doesn't know they're being watched they wouldn't be "in" fear. MO We obviously disagree about that simple concept and that's ok. I agree to disagree with you.

 

[sunshineray]

The garbage was taken before arrest.

Yes that's what I understood also.

 

[foreverlennon]

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.

And then NOT to be there AT ALL the days following.

 

[MassGuy]

The argument is not about the experts bios being missing. It is about the complete lack of information about the subject matter of what 20 of the prosecution experts are going to testify to.

Idaho does not permit trial by surprise. The prosecution IS supposed to provide this information to the defense. The prosecution had a 2 year period of time to collect this information and were given a date to turn it over to the defense. They did not do that. Moreover, the prosecutions own document states that experts will be testifying to information gathered by other experts who, apparently may not be on the prosecution expert list anymore.

All JMO.

It's standard for experts to testify to information gathered by others. In cases I've followed, CAST experts for instance didn't perform the extractions themselves, and are testifying to what the person who did the extracting produced.

Do you have a link to this document handy?

 

[Nila Aella]

It's standard for experts to testify to information gathered by others. In cases I've followed, CAST experts for instance didn't perform the extractions themselves, and are testifying to what the person who did the extracting produced.

Do you have a link to this document handy?

MTC and Sanctions

On December 18, 2024 the State disclosed twentyfive (25) experts. Of those, only five (5) include actual expert reports. Notably, not a single DNA expert opinion or report was produced. Instead, the State’s disclosures refer to bates numbered pages and say:

“This disclosure is provided as an aid; it does not encompass all findings, impressions, conclusion, or materials related to this expert’s involvement in this case. It further does not in any way limit the scope of the expert’s testimony. Further, this expert may testify about findings, impressions, and/or conclusions that he/she drew from the work of other experts who previously examined or handled the evidence in question.”

At least three digital forensic experts are disclosed with lists of sixty-seven (67) electronic devices or third-party data bases examined. Not a single report of what the three experts will opine related to any specific device or data is disclosed.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/122724-Motion-Compel-ICT-16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

ETA ICR 16
(7) Expert Witnesses. On written request of the defendant, the prosecutor must provide a written summary or report of any testimony that the state intends to introduce at trial or at a hearing pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Idaho Rules of Evidence. The summary provided must describe the witness’s opinions, the facts and data for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications. Disclosure of expert opinions regarding mental health must also comply with the requirements of Idaho Code § 18-207. The prosecution is not required to produce any materials not subject to disclosure under subsection (g) of this Rule. This subsection does not require disclosure of expert witnesses, their opinions, the facts and data for those opinions, or the witness's qualifications, intended only to rebut evidence or theories that have not been disclosed under this Rule prior to trial.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiHhPyFuN2KAxWqD1kFHZagJc0QFnoECBUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fisc.idaho.gov%2Ficr16&usg=AOvVaw1hP5u11pI4ds817oq8yDuo&opi=89978449

 

[LinasK]

A person in the legal sense, it seems, has to be aware. A being in the layman's term of stalking, as in the actions of any animal predator, usually doesn't realize the danger of being singled out/stalked until the attack happens. The former is how I see it happening in the Idaho case ergo probably the reason why BK is not charged with stalking but why it may come in at trial for motive. Trial will tell. AJMO

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, a person does NOT need to be aware that they are stalked for it to happen. Actress Rebecca Shaeffer was stalked and killed by a crazed fan. He had written her letters, but she did not realize that he was stalking her.

 

[LinasK]

In addition to the garbage recovered DNA?

Usually both are done to corroborate.

 

[LinasK]

The argument is not about the experts bios being missing. It is about the complete lack of information about the subject matter of what 20 of the prosecution experts are going to testify to.

Idaho does not permit trial by surprise. The prosecution IS supposed to provide this information to the defense. The prosecution had a 2 year period of time to collect this information and were given a date to turn it over to the defense. They did not do that. Moreover, the prosecutions own document states that experts will be testifying to information gathered by other experts who, apparently may not be on the prosecution expert list anymore.

All JMO.

No state does. All prosecution evidence is turned over to the defense in a process called "Discovery".

 

[jepop]

Wait..are you telling us that LE did not have a Pennsylvania search warrant before entering his parent's Pennsylvania home and arresting him in the middle of the night???? Unbelievable (IMO)!

I'm not sure what the defense is actually getting at with their oblique references insinuating the absence of a "local warrant" when BK was arrested in PA, but this is a totally misleading claim imo.

Linked below is detailed Press Conference by PA authorities on the day BK was arrested. The completely credible second speaker details the process by which authorities obtained the completely legal and above board Fugitive from Justice Warrant in order to arrest BK at his parents' home in Pennsylvania on Dec 30th 2022.

No doubt in my mind the appropriate warrant was executed in Pennsylvania in line with the law. I mean what the actual. .. what exactly is Mr Logsden hoping to gain for defense with his references to the contrary in the body of this MTS? Really?

No wonder the State in some of the unsealed objections to some of the MsTS, refers Hippler to defense exhibits to determine the facts rather than the 'facts' outlined in the actual written motions. Moo

If anyone has access to Pennsylvania law courts docs, maybe the Fugitive from Justice warrant which was executed for BK's LAWFUL arrest in PA is available for viewing or maybe it is sealed. I'm unable to access from my location. I tried, before searching for info on BK's arrest and finding this press conference. Moo

 

[foreverlennon]

All MOO and just curious.


Where did you hear BK he loaded his car with most of his belongings? If you've seen the video of him being pulled over it doesn't look like the car was loaded with items at all. For example wasn't one of the items LE found in his apartment a fire stick or whatever for streaming? That could fit in his pocket and wouldn't you think if he didn't plan on returning he'd take that with him? IMO, yes he would've taken that with him. He also left his computer tower in his apartment as well as his vacuum. Both of which LE seized.

Don't' you think he'd of taken his computer tower with him if wasn't planning on returning?

The storage locker was empty you say but how do we know? What if it was already pretty well empty?

IMO, there was nothing he did or took with him that would make you think he wasn't returning. If he had taken the computer tower and fire stick then I would agree with you.

All MOO

It has been suggested that the computer tower was Pullman’s. As for the vacuum , perhaps it was already in the apt in a closet when he got there . The fire stick is usually attached to the back of a TV , isn’t it? Maybe he forgot it?

 

[jepop]

No state does. All prosecution evidence is turned over to the defense in a process called "Discovery".

Agree! Precisely and correct. Jmo.

 

[jepop]

DBM double post.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I saw the word "or". How can someone be IN fear of death or bodily injured if they're oblivious to being surveilled/stalked? They can't. MO

I, too, was a bit perplexed on this matter. Respectfully, IANAL, but it appears the operating element is only someone exhibiting or engaging in conduct such that it cause fear….. to a reasonable person. And IIUC that means the target of it need not be aware. They need not be in fear; but rather, if later made aware of the conditions how might they react.

Citing the apparent statute from post #853 of @sunshineray as to the actions of the offender:

(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

(b) Engages in a course of conduct such as would cause a reasonable person to be in fear of death or physical injury, or in fear of the death or physical injury of a family or household member."

Of course none of this takes into account what or how an attorney or counsel might represent something. And IIUC, as there is a gag order in place in this case much will not be evident until court proceedings, evidence, and testimony are given in the case. MOO

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

The Court document linked in the article says this:

“On December 27, 2022, Pennsylvania Agents recovered the trash from the Kohberger family residence located in Albrightsville, PA.

jmo

Thank you for clarifying and information citation. Didn’t have that with the prior OP post. MOO

 

[jepop]

And then NOT to be there AT ALL the days following.

Yes, I keep forgetting about this. Per PCA, BK's phone utilised cellular resources utilised by 1122 King Road on at least twelve occasions prior to the murders, all but one occurring in late night or early AM hours of their respective days. (P16).

After Nov 14th 2022 BK's phone never again connected to any phone towers that provide service to Moscow ( PCA, p15).

In conjunction with other circumstances... suspect as. Moo

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/122922+Affidavit+-+Exhibit+A+-+Statement+of+Brett-Payne.pdf

 

[Balthazar]

No state does. All prosecution evidence is turned over to the defense in a process called "Discovery".

Exactly and that has allegedly not been done here, at least not in a complete way as required. So now we wait and see what Judge Hippler makes of the situation.

 

[jepop]

What other case do you know of where the person was arrested in one state under a warrant from another state with no supporting affidavit attached and without a warrant from the state in which the arrest occurred?

(Snipped)

JMO.

RSBMFF

BK was arrested in Pennsylvania with the appropriate and legal warrant imo (see link to PA presser I just posted immediately upthread, Speaker no. 2; No insinuations just statements of the facts around BK's arrest).

Mr Logsden's wording in that section of this MTS insinuates there was no lawful warrant, but stops short of staying so outright. He maybe does that kind of thing in his motions out of habit? Because I can't see what defense gains by such blatant misleading. Just wow. Section 42 (Fugitive of Justice Warrant) etc of relevant Pennsylvania law was complied with. Also note the PA authorities state the appropriate affidavits for said warrant were sealed at that time to protect defendant's constitutional right to fair trial.Moo

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

If a person doesn't know they're being watched they wouldn't be "in" fear. MO We obviously disagree about that simple concept and that's ok. I agree to disagree with you.

"(b) Engages in a course of conduct such as would cause a reasonable person to be in fear of death or physical injury, or in fear of the death or physical injury of a family or household member."

The word "would" instead of the word "did" is significantly important. The meaning is in the language.

MOO.