ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 68

[layer]

People, READ:

An updated gag order has been issued...

Attorneys for...
Attorneys for...
Attorneys for...

That's it.

Not exactly...
As well as the parties to the above...

 

[drmrgrl]

I'm bringing this forward from @TeaTime who posted a well thought out list (which is not in line with my thinking right now, so it interests me all the more) I attempted to attach a link, but it kept attaching something random. Sorry for the long post.

Circumstantial evidence:

He resides in Pullman, 10 miles from Moscow and is a PhD candidate in criminal psychology at WSU.

His telephone pinged in the area of the house 12 times starting on August 23 - all late night or early morning hours.

He tried unsuccessfully to connect with KG on IG on several occasions prior to 11/13.

He took a long route to Moscow from his home at about 2:45am on 11/13 (as captured by WSU cameras), turning off his cell phone minutes after leaving Pullman.

His car was captured on videos driving around Moscow in the wee hours of 11/13.

His car was captured on video driving around the house in the wee hours of 11/13, the last capture being at 4:04 am in the 500 block of Queen, the only side street off of King.

A witness in the house heard sounds, whimpers and voices "around 4 am".

A witness in the house described him as tall, athletic build with bushy eyebrows. Fits BK.

His DNA is on a knife sheath left beside one of the stabbing victims.

A surveillance camera on the house next to the scene picked up the sound of a "thud", voices and a dog barking at 4:17am

His car was captured on surveillance cameras speeding away at 4:20am.

His vehicle and cell phone depict the same way home as his trip to Moscow and the phone was turned on only after leaving Moscow.

His cell phone pinged in front of the house at 9:20-ish am on 11/13.

There is no defense but "someone else" who fits his description used: his phone and maybe car on those 12 drive-bys since August 23; his telephone to IG message KG; his car and phone on 11/13; his knife sheath; his car and phone on the 9:20-ish drive by of 1122 King Rd. on 11/13; and, none of this was known to him.

Such a defense is not reasonable and does not create reasonable doubt.

Moscow PD has the right man and he will be convicted. Surely, his attorney will advise him to accept a plea for his life rather than face the death penalty at trial.

Your list is very well put together and I've bookmarked it, so thank you.

I agree with you that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence here and the hope is that they can tie it to the murder, but there is only one piece in here that is something that ties identifies him and only him as the most likely killer and that is the DNA. My issue with the DNA is that the newest forensic science is calling it into cautious question.

I'm also curious about the messages he is said to have sent. Was that confirmed or was that still "an investigative source" via People magazine?

Framed By Your Own Cells: How DNA Evidence Imprisons The Innocent

Tiny amounts of touch-transferred DNA have placed people at locations they had never visited and implicated people for crimes they did not commit.

www.forbes.com

IMO, dna is only one tool used by LE to solve crimes, it’s not the only one.

 

[10ofRods]

I don't think a gag order issued by a judge in Idaho would apply to an attorney in Pennsylvania. And the attorney in PA isn't representing anyone related to the case now, AFAIK.

It would not, thankfully. Otherwise every time there was a high profile trial, the entire US would be under a gag order. If people's interpretations here (and WS has smart people) are any indication, this "gag order" would extend to huge numbers of citizens in 50 states.

That's not how it works.

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

This guy is SG who represents KG family who’s Dad initials are also SG.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1610369126479929346

ROTFLOL! Someone might want to let Law&Crime Network know the correct spelling is Shanon Gray.
Attorney Roster Search

 

[Rigatoni999]

Not exactly...
As well as the parties to the above...

IMO "parties to the above" means other atty's in the firm or of counsel, legal assistants, paralegals, etc. Not victim family members, MG employees, etc.

 

[Helechawagirl]

It's just so confusing to me! Think I'm going to start all my posts with "If it's true then...(then my opinion) " just in case to cover my bases. JMO

Me too Isabella; I never wrote an article without a named source.

 

[otto]

Remember this?

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7155699079236816171

 

[al66pine]

Employers, Employees, Speaking to Media

....
Employers in the U.S. have no legal right to tell employees what they can or cannot say to the media.
Reference: Private employers: You can’t forbid your workers from talking to journalists

Private employers: You can't forbid your workers from talking to journalists - Poynter

From person-to-person coaching and intensive hands-on seminars to interactive online courses and media reporting, Poynter helps journalists sharpen skills and elevate storytelling throughout their careers.

www.poynter.org

MOO, etc.....

snipped for focus. @WingsOverTX
Suggest re-reading it, as the content focuses mostly on laws & ct. rulings re employers & UNION employees terms & conditions of employment under NLRA. Link also lists some exceptions, i.e., circumstances in which employers may limit or penalize employees' speech.

As the link does not support the OP's overly broad conclusion, for now I'll bow out of this line of discussion to let others read & form own opinions. imo

 

[10ofRods]

I agree, I have always felt like there is a first ammendment case to be made when gag orders extend beyond the usual parties - LE, witnesses, victims, prosecutors, defense attorneys, investigators etc. Frankly, I even find those restrictions troubling.

When first I read that the gag order in the Delphi case extended to the families I was shocked and disturbed. Maybe it's common, but I don't recall seeing it before.

In this case it is not as explicitly laid out as it is in the Delphi case. Having read it several times, each time I read it I come away less certain of whether or not it applies to the families. Maybe I'm fatigued too.

Having said that, I also agree with this:

There is real wisdom there. I just feel that constitutional rights are more important than convictions.

Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, didn't play one on TV, didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night...

I agree with you. And I do not believe it's always the case that victim's families should stay quiet because "LE/the courts" know better.

But I followed the Kristin Smart case, among others. Thank god for the family (and others) speaking truth to LE. Took several changes of sheriff - but it worked out in the end.

I too think rights are more important than convictions, but it's rare that the two are exclusive. Judges are over reacting, historically, to "social media" but it's pretty much always been the same. You cannot keep people from talking. If they can't speak their own views here on WS, they'll go elsewhere to speak them. If reddit (which still has moderation) doesn't work, they'll go to TikTok (which has some honest, gritty first person accounts and is preferred by young people - and young people do not prefer talking to LE). And if not TikTok, then some other place.

We're a global community. Conversations cannot be completely shut down. And I trust Mr. G, at least, to pop up if there's any attempt to suppress information that the public should know.

It's very odd. Part of me strongly thinks that if BK has been found to own a pair of Vans of the type and year in the latent print, and someone knows that (they saw him wear them; maybe have a picture) we should encourage them to speak. That's how it was in for most of American jurisprudence: townspeople came forward with what they knew.

At any rate, it's clear that the courts are protecting BK's rights, as they should. But it someone has something to say, they should get to say it - just not in a court of law.

 

[layer]

IMO "parties to the above" means other atty's in the firm or of counsel, legal assistants, paralegals, etc. Not victim family members, MG employees, etc.

Read this about 12 times like I did. If you can still see straight, see if you still think that.

The attorneys for any interested party in this case, including the prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, and any attorney representing a witness, victim, or victim's family, as well as the parties to the above entitled action

In other words, the attorneys representing these parties: witnesses, victims, victim's family, as well as the parties.

Sure sounds to me like the judge is extending the gag order to the victim's families. And the MG employees, if they witnessed something, seemingly would be, well, witnesses. That's how I'm reading it.

And I don't like it one little bit...

 

[XtremeScorpio]

I'd like to go back to the recently unsealed Search Warrant.....

I found it odd that they worded each item with or instead of using 'and/or, as this would seem to only allow 1 of these to be retrieved no matter how many were found [Ref. Pg 3]. It only stood out to me because I know the importance of how things are worded to eliminate a variety of potential loopholes or actions, such as the word should vs shall in statutes or laws leaves big loopholes if should is used over shall, as one may imply a suggestion and the other is to act upon. First thing that came to mind was if the defense attorney can have some evidence declared inadmissible because they only asked for 1, not all. I know that sounds far fetched but if I was a defense attorney up against a case like this, that's something I would want to do (if possible). In today's day and age, wording is everything. MOO

I also found it odd that the warrant showed that the wounds on KG, MM, & XK were said to be from apparent stab wounds but EC's were later determined to be caused by sharp-force injuries [Ref. Pg 2 of Exhibit A]. What does that even mean?? And why weren't his injuries 'apparent' like the others??

Another thing that has never sat well with me was BK being pulled over on August 21st at Farm Road & Pullman Hwy at 11:37 p.m when his phone pinged near the residence from 10:34 to 11:35 p.m. [Ref. Pg 17, Exhibit A]. Its approx 1.3 miles but about a 6 or 7 minute drive from the King Rd address with lots of turns. At first I just thought this was a simple matter of cell towers overlapping but, IDK, something doesn't seem right about it. MOO. Is it just me??

None of these things are keeping me awake at night or anything. They're just things I observed and figured I'd bring up to hear others input.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/search%20warrant%20for%20bryan%20kohberger%20apartment/ddb059f6cc8e24c1/full.pdf

Ebm

 

[layer]

It just feels like they are taking someone like SG, someone who has been victimized in the most horrific way possible, and re-victimizing him by robbing him of his constitutional right to speak.

I'm all in favor of protecting the rights of the accused, probably more than most people on here are. But shouldn't the rights of victims be protected as well?

 

[drmrgrl]

Oh this is interesting (and distressing). I assumed all the accounts were fake -- it sounds like one MIGHT have actually been him.

Edit to say, I wonder if he was also following D or B? He might have known Maddie and Xana from Mad Greek, but he apparently followed Kaylee and the girls regularly tagged all of the roommates in Instagram pictures.

IMO, maybe he just an aquaintance of the girls.

 

[al66pine]

Shannon Gray represents the Goncalves family...

@Cindizzi @twall

Of course, it's Shannon Gray.
Thank you both for melting my brain freeze.
TY too, @maconrich.

And to anyone else who responded.

 

[al66pine]

...
The attorneys for any interested party in this case, including the prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, and any attorney representing a witness, victim, or victim's family, as well as the parties to the above entitled action
In other words, the attorneys representing these parties: witnesses, victims, victim's family, as well as the parties.

Sure sounds to me like the judge is extending the gag order to the victim's families. And the MG employees, if they witnessed something, seemingly would be, well, witnesses. That's how I'm reading it. ...

The parties in this case are State of IDAHO and BCK.

Order does not prohibit victims' family members or witnesses from speaking. They are NOT parties to the case.

Attys are officers of the court.
Judges have wide discretion in issuing orders re atty's rep'ing witnesses and fam. imo

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Floridian here. Sunshine Law. We saw and heard everything re Casey Anthony's case and trial. Jury acquitted her.
Jury selection might be more crucial than gag orders/withholding information.
MOO.

 

[Curiosa20]

This tweet says it includes vics & their families too.

Disclaimer: I have not actually read the order (due to experiencing eye strain right now......yet I continue reading thru these comments on my phone, in very small print). So if this tweet headline is wrong, I'm sorry.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1616218460937408512

No, it doesn’t say that.
It says attorneys for vics etc can’t speak out.

 

[XtremeScorpio]

Read this about 12 times like I did. If you can still see straight, see if you still think that.

The attorneys for any interested party in this case, including the prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, and any attorney representing a witness, victim, or victim's family, as well as the parties to the above entitled action

In other words, the attorneys representing these parties: witnesses, victims, victim's family, as well as the parties.

Sure sounds to me like the judge is extending the gag order to the victim's families. And the MG employees, if they witnessed something, seemingly would be, well, witnesses. That's how I'm reading it.

And I don't like it one little bit...

OMG.... you are going to cause me to go insane! LMAO!! That is exactly what I initially thought but, after seeing all the discussion and points on the 1st Amendment, etc, I figured I was just reading too far into it; overanalyzing it.

I have concluded that it does not include the vics + their families. MOO

 

[layer]

Regarding whether or not the gag order extends to family members, which I still can't say for certain either way, I'm pretty sure it will be made clear, one way or the other, in very little time. This case just refuses to sit quietly.

 

[Curiosa20]

IMO, I am curious about the diamond soled shoes. Where are they?

In an innocent kids closet or chopped up and dumped, burned maybe out on the drive into the forest? Or PA.