4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #99

[mrjitty]

You can see why AT plays this game. It seems to generate fans. I guess she can hope one ends up on the jury.

 

[INfisherman]

You can see why AT plays this game. It seems to generate fans. I guess she can hope one ends up on the jury.

She could probably use the other kind of fan to help spread what she’s attempting to throw into it.

 

[INfisherman]

@mrjitty @Megnut @jepop @MassGuy (anyone else that’s followed hundreds of murder cases, apologies if your name/s were not included):

Was there any particular case that any of you noticed which started the trend we currently see with defense teams trying to both garner sympathy for their client AND taint potential jurors? I’m just curious because the Delphi trial was "my first time" <blushes> closely following a case/trial.

Is it something new or just a result of the world getting smaller (news, stories, rumors & comments spread in minutes & hours versus the days of traditional news outlets) due to the advent of internet & social media?

TIA & MOO

 

[MassGuy]

@mrjitty @Megnut @jepop @MassGuy (anyone else that’s followed hundreds of murder cases, apologies if your name/s were not included):

Was there any particular case that any of you noticed which started the trend we currently see with defense teams trying to both garner sympathy for their client AND taint potential jurors? I’m just curious because the Delphi trial was "my first time" <blushes> closely following a case/trial.

Is it something new or just a result of the world getting smaller (news, stories, rumors & comments spread in minutes & hours versus the days of traditional news outlets) due to the advent of internet & social media?

TIA & MOO

Pretty much every major case I've followed has been like this one. The defense isn't doing anything new in regards to their arguments, or their attempts to manipulate the public. Here they are hamstrung though, as the gag order means they can only influence the public via motions and arguments in court.

It's actually been mildly successful, as there is a small minority of vocal people who are buying what they're selling. They think the cell phone data is exculpatory, there is foreign DNA that belongs to the real killer, the investigators got tunnel vision, manipulated the facts of the investigation (car identification), ignored evidence (aforementioned DNA), and the prosecution has lied and is doing shady things (withholding evidence).

You want the public to feel for your client, and you want to offset the evidence that is in the public realm. Even if you have to exaggerate, misrepresent, and lie.

 

[Megnut]

@mrjitty @Megnut @jepop @MassGuy (anyone else that’s followed hundreds of murder cases, apologies if your name/s were not included):

Was there any particular case that any of you noticed which started the trend we currently see with defense teams trying to both garner sympathy for their client AND taint potential jurors? I’m just curious because the Delphi trial was "my first time" <blushes> closely following a case/trial.

Is it something new or just a result of the world getting smaller (news, stories, rumors & comments spread in minutes & hours versus the days of traditional news outlets) due to the advent of internet & social media?

TIA & MOO

The KarenRead trial put it on blast.

It's an interesting side discussion because, when the whole world is the stage (because of the information highway), changes of venue become a theorectical moot point.

Fewer rocks for potential jurors to live under.

AT is using livestreaming for her own purposes, IMO. Picking and choosing which hearings she wants streamed.

Public consumption is voracious. And conspiracies are like candy and a baby for some.

Ultimately though, common sense should still prevail among jurors.

 

[Megnut]

Pretty much every major case I've followed has been like this one. The defense isn't doing anything new in regards to their arguments, or their attempts to manipulate the public. Here they are hamstrung though, as the gag order means they can only influence the public via motions and arguments in court.

It's actually been mildly successful, as there is a small minority of vocal people who are buying what they're selling. They think the cell phone data is exculpatory, there is foreign DNA that belongs to the real killer, the investigators got tunnel vision, manipulated the facts of the investigation (car identification), ignored evidence (aforementioned DNA), and the prosecution has lied and is doing shady things (withholding evidence).

You want the public to feel for your client, and you want to offset the evidence that is in the public realm. Even if you have to exaggerate, misrepresent, and lie.

What he said.

In particular, to the RBBM --

The Defense can reference things in motions and in court during hearings that appear as evidence but aren't, because they haven't been presented at trial, subject to admissibility and cross/direct testimony from witnesses under oath.

Clever maneuvering by defense attorneys. Par for the course.

JMO

 

[mmeynstyn]

Case Summary

01/29/2025 Notice of Filing List of Stipulated Exhibits for Motions to Suppress and Motion for Franks' Hearing

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/Summary/Case-Summary-Kohberger-01302025.pdf

Does anyone know when we will hear the Judge's decision on the Franks' Hearing and the exhibits for suppression?

I see at the link that yesterday was a deadline for "List of Stipulated Exhibits for Motions to Suppress and Motion for Franks' Hearing; However, then there is nothing until April 9 Motion Hearing. Is that when the decision will be made, or is that the Limine and Resetting Hearing?

 

[INfisherman]

Pretty much every major case I've followed has been like this one. The defense isn't doing anything new in regards to their arguments, or their attempts to manipulate the public. Here they are hamstrung though, as the gag order means they can only influence the public via motions and arguments in court.

It's actually been mildly successful, as there is a small minority of vocal people who are buying what they're selling. They think the cell phone data is exculpatory, there is foreign DNA that belongs to the real killer, the investigators got tunnel vision, manipulated the facts of the investigation (car identification), ignored evidence (aforementioned DNA), and the prosecution has lied and is doing shady things (withholding evidence).

You want the public to feel for your client, and you want to offset the evidence that is in the public realm. Even if you have to exaggerate, misrepresent, and lie.

Yes, I understand the defense strategy as a whole (raise doubt, make client look good/innocent, etc.) Social media has been around for a long, long time as well as YouTube but it’s starting to be abused IMO. Maybe not in this particular trial/case but the potential is out there for copying playbooks, if that makes sense. Maybe I didn’t narrow it down enough in my OP, but you have confirmed a trend I was quick to discover very early on in the other trial.

The KarenRead trial put it on blast.

It's an interesting side discussion because, when the whole world is the stage (because of the information highway), changes of venue become a theorectical moot point.

Fewer rocks for potential jurors to live under.

AT is using livestreaming for her own purposes, IMO. Picking and choosing which hearings she wants streamed.

Public consumption is voracious. And conspiracies are like candy and a baby for some.

Ultimately though, common sense should still prevail among jurors.

OK. This is what I was after. Defense attorneys picked up on it quickly & are running with it. Yes, we hope common sense prevails but when it doesn’t, I’m curious how difficult it might be to close the floodgates. We certainly don’t see prosecutors going down the same paths but that’s obvious (innocent until proven guilty). Seems like it’s a bit of an unfair advantage, especially if defense is colluding with mouthpieces.

What he said.

In particular, to the RBBM --

The Defense can reference things in motions and in court during hearings that appear as evidence but aren't, because they haven't been presented at trial, subject to admissibility and cross/direct testimony from witnesses under oath.

Clever maneuvering by defense attorneys. Par for the course.

JMO

Clever but still like PEDs in sports IMO. Unfair advantage, potentially. I believe it will get worse. (Using other platforms to spread misinformation, etc. only).

Thanks for the perspective & sorry to stray a bit off topic.

MOO

 

[Nila Aella]

Does anyone know when we will hear the Judge's decision on the Franks' Hearing and the exhibits for suppression?

Judge Hippler
1:01:11
I don't know whether we're going to have a Frank's hearing or not I need to go and do that but if you don't mind emailing um some dates that you have available in the
next say three weeks uh to do that in the event that we need to do it I would
appreciate that.

I see at the link that yesterday was a deadline for "List of Stipulated Exhibits for Motions to Suppress and Motion for Franks' Hearing;

This was a court submission after the hearing.
It just hasn't made it to the Cases of Interest page yet.

Upcoming deadlines:
Rebuttal guilt phase experts: February 13, 2025
all Motions in limine shall be filed no later than February 24, 2025

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2024/100924-Redacted-Order-Governing-Proceedings-Notice-Setting.pdf

jmo

However, then there is nothing until April 9 Motion Hearing. Is that when the decision will be made, or is that the Limine and Resetting Hearing?

Judge Hipp reset the 4/3 MIL hearing to 4/9.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/013025-Order-Extending-Deadlines-File-Motions-in-Limine-Resetting-Hearing.pdf

JMO

 

[MassGuy]

Does anyone know when we will hear the Judge's decision on the Franks' Hearing and the exhibits for suppression?

I see at the link that yesterday was a deadline for "List of Stipulated Exhibits for Motions to Suppress and Motion for Franks' Hearing; However, then there is nothing until April 9 Motion Hearing. Is that when the decision will be made, or is that the Limine and Resetting Hearing?

He’ll make his decision via written order. I can’t imagine it will be too much longer, and it certainly will be before April.

 

[CKS]

Because they didn't have anything to connect that original sample to yet; that was the entire purpose of the genetic genealogy.

So they take his DNA, do whatever they have to do to make it searchable through databases, and develop a family tree from there. Then they figured out that the likely match was named Bryan Kohberger, obtained DNA from the trash, found a relationship match from his father, then compared the knife sheath DNA profile to Kohberger after his arrest (to confirm).

The defense is making the same argument we've seen in other cases. What is indisputable, is that the genealogy led them to the correct man. The sheath DNA and Kohberger's DNA match proves that.

So regardless of the work done, the answer was correct.

All MOO


Fair enough. So why doesn't the prosecution just show the work? Why is it a secret? Are we just supposed to believe the prosecution in a DP case? Why does the defense want the proof but the prosecution wants to keep it a secret? Kind of a red flag for me. MOO

What if AT told us she had evidence to prove BK didn't do it? Would we just believe her or would we want to see the evidence?


Remember I'm not saying BK is innocent but from we know in my opinion there's no way he's found guilty. LE cannot even prove BK was ever in that house, they can't prove it's car, and the transfer/touch DNA on a moveable object means nothing in my opinion at this point unless they show the world their work.


All MOO

 

[CKS]

You can see why AT plays this game. It seems to generate fans. I guess she can hope one ends up on the jury.

All MOO

Pardon my ignorance but what games are you referring to?

 

[Sundog]

I guess that we will never know if BK had entered this house previously, and scoped out the place. Personally, I think that he might have. Something drove him to this house, to these people.

It could have been something that he started with by casually meeting one of the victims, or "staring" at her at a restaurant, and became obsessed. I don't think he just got up one day, and decided to kill four people.

In college towns, it is usually well-known where the party houses are and word gets around fast. I think it's likely that BK knew about the house and would then know about some of the main occupants. I, too, think he could have gone to one of the large, open parties, but at a minimum he likely knew of the house and drove by during party events and was aware of some of the occupants.

 

[Boxer]

He also may have entered other people's homes in the past and nobody ever knew.
JMO

Yes. GSK type.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/013125-Amended-Order-Extending-Deadlines-File-Motions-in-Limine-Resetting-Hearing.pdf

 

[schooling]

All MOO


Fair enough. So why doesn't the prosecution just show the work? Why is it a secret? Are we just supposed to believe the prosecution in a DP case? Why does the defense want the proof but the prosecution wants to keep it a secret? Kind of a red flag for me. MOO

What if AT told us she had evidence to prove BK didn't do it? Would we just believe her or would we want to see the evidence?


Remember I'm not saying BK is innocent but from we know in my opinion there's no way he's found guilty. LE cannot even prove BK was ever in that house, they can't prove it's car, and the transfer/touch DNA on a moveable object means nothing in my opinion at this point unless they show the world their work.


All MOO

if she had evidence proving his innocence she would show it.

similarly, prosecutors have a mountain of evidence proving BKs guilt that they are going to show.

it’s not that I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. but prosecutors have a direct dna match from the sheath sample pulled locally to a direct hit in CODIS. That’s a straight line. with rock solid chain of custody from everything we know so far.

so IMO and in a lot of actual-legal-experts opinions the IGG is moot when it comes to exculpatory evidence. The IGG is not proving anything. One way or another.

This is a warrant issue and the judge will decide if what the FBI did invalidated the warrants. (Spoiler: he’ll decide against the defense IMo)

MOO

 

[Megnut]

Another way to look at this is this:

Assuming BK commit the murders but refuses to admit responsibility. By the Constitution, he has a right to have a trial, before a jury of his peers, and the attorney or attorney he hires or has appointed to him then is obligated to defend him, which means making the State prove its case, to the BARD standard.

So, if BK has commit the crime, but still has a right to go before judge and jury in order to force that State to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, how would an attorney go about doing that?

In this light, IMO, AT's approach makes perfect sense and is rather transparent.

Of the death penalty, argue against it on moral ground.

Of the charges, attack the evidence, the investigation, the investigators, the search warrants, the arrest warrants.

This really isn't a case of BK being framed or railroad nor of tunnel vision or rush to judgment. IMO the Defense attorneys don't believe he's innocent but rather, since the State has yet to present their case, he hasn't been convicted so that's why they can make impassioned declarations of his "innocence".

Every criminal trial I've followed has predictable elements. Blizzard motions from the Defense, insinuations that discovery is being willfully withheld, challenges related to evifence/experts/discovery.

AT is novel in supplying an alibi, but it's one that IMO doesn't meet the legal standard as there are no specifics! She basically said, "he wasn't at the crime scene because he was somewhere else, and just as soon as we can be sure we have obtained and have viewed all the data available to the State, then we'll tell you where he was (it'll be the one place without cctv), we just don't want'a tell ya right now." If BK had anything even approaching a legitimate alibi, she be leading with it.

"Driving around somewhere else" falls short. In every way possible.

But again, she's doing exactly what I expect her to do. She's not defending BK because he's innocent; she's defending him because this is what the (justice) system requires of her, to force the State's hand, to prove he's guilty. She IS BK's best defense. In the sense that she isn't going to make it easy for the State, using every trick in the defense bag.

I'm eager to get to trial, to see what of these preliminary defense motions and representations even have a showing there.

Often they don't.

JMO

 

[Kemug]

I'm of the opinion that BK entered the house with the firm intention to kill. If it was just to hot prowl, I don't think that he would have gone to all the trouble and expense which he did. What he wore was because he expected blood and plenty of it. If he only intended to prowl around in the house, wouldn't just a mask have been enough? JMO

 

[Megnut]

Somebody asked upthread about the knife and Amazon. I'm not sure if we know for certain he purchased the knife there, but what we can 100% certain of, IMO that bought something from Amazon, something significant and directly related to the crime? Besides the specificity of the dates pulled, the very fact AT is hot on the topic tells me he bought something incriminating. If his Amazon history was a boring shopping list of safe, energy day items, AT would be giddy to have it produced as an exhibit for trial! There'd be nothing there to see! Nope, she wants it out, more spoilt fruit, she'll argue. Tells me everything I need to know. He bought sumpin he used in the commission of these crimes.

Just as AT is going to make the State work hard to do their jobs, BK has been working hard to make sure AT works hard at hers.

His life depends on it.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

@mrjitty @Megnut @jepop @MassGuy (anyone else that’s followed hundreds of murder cases, apologies if your name/s were not included):

Was there any particular case that any of you noticed which started the trend we currently see with defense teams trying to both garner sympathy for their client AND taint potential jurors? I’m just curious because the Delphi trial was "my first time" <blushes> closely following a case/trial.

Is it something new or just a result of the world getting smaller (news, stories, rumors & comments spread in minutes & hours versus the days of traditional news outlets) due to the advent of internet & social media?

TIA & MOO

I think there was a big shift in the public's POV, after this Netflix Series : Making A Murderer

It put it in the public's mind that LE would/could frame innocent blokes for murder. And since this series, other murder cases were suddenly viewed as possibly frame jobs by corrupt cops. IMO

Making a Murderer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org