GUILTY PLEA DEAL ACCEPTED - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #112

[PunishThenForgive]

In Part Two: Inception of The Idaho Four: An American Tragedy, Patterson and Ward recount chilling acts allegedly committed by BK well-before he murdered Maddie, Kaylee, Xana and Ethan.

They also write that Kohberger learned in his “Psychological Sleuthing” course with Katherine Ramsland that psychopathy has a genetic component, and that interventions of affected individuals must take place very early—by age 4.

I wasn’t aware until recently that Dr. Ramsland contributes to Psychology Today. Here is her short article about “youthful psychopathy”:

3 Dimensions of Youthful Psychopathy

The forensic psychologist hired by AT diagnosed BK with Level 1 autism, and this diagnosis is corroborated by Patterson and Ward (Connie Saba claimed that BK’s mother told her that BK has Asperger’s syndrome).

However, this systematic review shows that it is psychopathy, not autism, that leads to violent acts:

The relationship between psychopathy and autism: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Though very rare, the two conditions can co-occur. Given how good of an actor and manipulator BK has proven to be, perhaps the autism is also an act and BK is just a plain ole psychopath.

IMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I think others have stated what the judge conveyed today. Anyone can "try" but the court isn't obligated to entertain it. He can try for an appeal, but he'll be shut down. The sentence states (will state on July 23rd) "no appeal". The court has no reason to entertain or reverse its decision. At least that's how I understand it.

Right - No Appeals and No Reduction in Sentence.

 

[zachs mema]

What does this mean?

I'm afraid it means that somewhere down the line his attorneys can say he was mentally ill, or something that made him not understand what he was signing

 

[Justice101]

In the case of Jesse Matthew (killed Morgan Harrington and Hannah Graham) in Virginia, he took a plea deal and received multiple life sentences without chance of parole or appeal.

I think he had the same thing where he could appeal the sentence for a short period of time but that would not be in his favor because that would call off the plea deal and make him face the death penalty and trial.

He never appealed in that time period and is in prison now until he dies.

That is what I am hoping for in the FINAL OUTCOME in this Idaho case...but it may be legally different in ID versus VA.

 

[MTW2011]

Right - No Appeals and No Reduction in Sentence.

the United States Supreme Court case that the Judge mentioned essentially says that even if a plea agreement says one “waives all appeals” that does *NOT* mean they cannot appeal. The case held that there are certain (limited) things that cannot be waived, even if it’s written into a plea agreement.

Not to go overboard with a hypothetical but BK’s agreement could have said “I waive every single possible appeal from today until the end of my natural life. I will never file an appeal” and that Supreme Court case would still hold that he is still legally able to file an appeal on a few (again - limited) grounds.

 

[SteveP]

the United States Supreme Court case that the Judge mentioned essentially says that even if a plea agreement says one “waives all appeals” that does *NOT* mean they cannot appeal. The case held that there are certain (limited) things that cannot be waived, even if it’s written into a plea agreement.

Not to go overboard with a hypothetical but BK’s agreement could have said “I waive every single possible appeal from today until the end of my natural life. I will never file an appeal” and that Supreme Court case would still hold that he is still legally able to file an appeal on a few (again - limited) grounds.

My understanding is that he might technically still be able to file an appeal on VERY limited grounds, ineffective advice of counsel, but Judge Hippler asked if he understood the plea agreement, and the rights he was waiving in accepting it, and the killer said "yes"; asked if he was satisfied with his counsel's representation of him, and the killer said "yes"; involuntary plea, but when Judge Hippler asked if he was giving the plea freely and voluntarily, the killer said "yes"; Constitutional violations, such as sentencing based on race or sentence exceeding statutory maximum, none of which are legitimate concerns,. There may be one or two other reasons he could appeal, but the bar is set very high for overturning a plea, and his chances of successfully doing so are about zero. The quadruple murderer is going away for life. Period. JMO

 

[minazoe]

I feel like I can count on Bryan to play a game with the courts. mOO

 

[MTW2011]

My understanding is that he might technically still be able to file an appeal on VERY limited grounds, ineffective advice of counsel, but Judge Hippler asked if he understood the plea agreement, and the rights he was waiving in accepting it, and if he was satisfied with his counsel, and the killer said "yes"; involuntary plea, but when Judge Hippler asked if he was giving the plea freely and without coercion or duress, the killer said "yes"; Constitutional violations, such as sentencing based on race or sentence exceeding statutory maximum, none of which are legitimate concerns,. There may be one or two other reasons he could appeal, but the bar is set very high for overturning a plea, and his chances of successfully doing so are probably about zero. The quadruple murderer is going away for life. Period. JMO

Apologies for belaboring my point but all of those questions Hippler asked BK were asked in these other appellate cases that say a defendant cannot waive every possible issue for an appeal. Some of them even had a much more detailed written plea agreement that contained language on specifically what they were “waiving” how it would affect their future appellate options. Some included more in depth questioning of the defendant before accepting the plea agreements BK’s - for whatever reason - the State went with something more general, if you look at the language.
That language does say “any and all” but that’s the very same language in the Garza case that Hippler mentioned. In that case the written plea even contained more robust language than what we see in BK’s plea agreement.

Garza agreed and signed to waiving his right to “appeal any sentence imposed upon him based on ‘any and all motions, defenses, probable cause determinations, and objections which defendant has asserted or could assert to this prosecution and to the court's entry of judgment against defendant and imposition of sentence.’”.

And even with that many details that he waived, the Supreme Court said he did not actually waive all of his options on appeal.

 

[twall]

 

[arielilane]

I think others have stated what the judge conveyed today. Anyone can "try" but the court isn't obligated to entertain it. He can try for an appeal, but he'll be shut down. The sentence states (will state on July 23rd) "no appeal". The court has no reason to entertain or reverse its decision. At least that's how I understand it.

I dont believe for one second that BK is ever walking out of prison alive. jmo

 

[arielilane]

In immediacy of #Idaho4 judge lifting the gag order yesterday, former
@PullmanPolice Chief Gary Jenkins, then of @WSUPolice, told @sallykrutzig about his experience interviewing #BryanKohberger for an internship, and also seeing his WSU student apartment.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1946222538234998973

Police Chief Gary Jenkins still remembers the day Bryan Kohberger interviewed for an internship with the Pullman Police Department. Jenkins had no idea that the graduate student in front of him would go on to kill four Idaho students that same year.




“I just felt that he would have a difficult time developing that trust with my staff,” Jenkins said. “He seemed a little bit awkward in talking. He wasn’t very conversational, and I just thought he would not be a good fit and would have difficulty working with my staff.” Jenkins wouldn’t think about Kohberger for another eight months.




Jenkins said nothing taken into evidence at the apartment ended up being of value to the case. But Kohberger’s home still left an impression on the police chief. “It was fairly sparse,” Jenkins noted. “If someone were to look at it, they would have the thought that maybe he wasn’t planning to come back.”

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article310899255.html#storylink=cpy

 

[cottonweaver]

Newish from MPD -

'The City will establish a website where investigative reports produced by the Moscow Police Department (MPD) will be posted once the City is legally permitted to begin publicly releasing records. At that point in time, a separate press release will be issued providing the web address and notification to the public that the webpage is available for access. '

City of Moscow to Establish Website for Homicide Investigation Documents

Published yesterday


Link adds further:

' Investigative reports and other records created by other law enforcement agencies and entities, such as the Idaho State Police, Latah County Sheriff’s Office, Latah County Prosecutor’s Office, Pennsylvania State Police, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Pullman Police Department, University of Idaho and Washington State University are the property of those agencies and entities as the custodian of those records. Any request for those records should be directed to those entities.'

Not surprised that Mr Goncalves was complaining about the prospect of chasing multiple agencies in his latest Banfield interview, which was posted a few hrs ago,on page 20 of this thread. That's a lot of work for a grieving parent who wants all the records. BUT in the next interview, today, Mr Goncalves' lawyer says that the Prosecution has already promised them that

 

[Sundog]

SBM

Constitutional rights can be waived:


Source: The Waiver of Constitutional Rights


Source: Appellate Courts and Cases – Journalist’s Guide

IANAL, but I don’t think BK can file a federal appeal since you can’t violate a constitutional right of it was properly waived.

IMO

I wonder, though, if being properly waived is even possible when the coercion factor is the death penalty.

 

[INfisherman]

Apologies for belaboring my point but all of those questions Hippler asked BK were asked in these other appellate cases that say a defendant cannot waive every possible issue for an appeal. Some of them even had a much more detailed written plea agreement that contained language on specifically what they were “waiving” how it would affect their future appellate options. Some included more in depth questioning of the defendant before accepting the plea agreements BK’s - for whatever reason - the State went with something more general, if you look at the language.
That language does say “any and all” but that’s the very same language in the Garza case that Hippler mentioned. In that case the written plea even contained more robust language than what we see in BK’s plea agreement.

Garza agreed and signed to waiving his right to “appeal any sentence imposed upon him based on ‘any and all motions, defenses, probable cause determinations, and objections which defendant has asserted or could assert to this prosecution and to the court's entry of judgment against defendant and imposition of sentence.’”.

And even with that many details that he waived, the Supreme Court said he did not actually waive all of his options on appeal.

This doesn’t change anything, really. Garza v. Idaho was 2 pronged, the first being his right to appeal. The second being he wanted post conviction relief.

My summary: Garza wanted to appeal, his attorney wouldn’t file for the appeal saying it was very laborious & he likely wouldn’t be granted an appeal for post conviction relief. Time for filing an appeal ran out. The Idaho courts refused to hear his appeal based on his waivers. He appealed to SCOTUS. The SCOTUS said, no, the courts can’t use that as a basis, they have to allow an appeal to be filed & if rejecting the appeal, base their decision on some other reason than "you signed a plea agreement with a waiver."

Ultimately, the SCOTUS DISALLOWED the hearing for a post conviction relief. They only agreed that appeals based on plea deals aren’t completely disallowed, no matter the reason. So Garza won in that he could appeal, the SCOTUS agreed there shouldn’t be any post conviction relief. Ultimately, Garza’s sentencing stuck, which was the whole basis for the appeal in the first place. So, not really a big deal in the end. Garza’s sentence was upheld. They only agreed his attorney should have filed the appeal & the ID courts should have used other wording/reasons when dismissing his appeals.

BK can file appeals all he wants, barring new evidence, proof of prosecutorial misconduct or proof of inadequate defense or some mental health issue, he isn’t going anywhere & wont be in any appellate court anytime soon, if ever. The grounds are going to be very limited, regardless of his having the right to try & appeal. He can fill out all the paperwork he wishes - that’s his right to file an appeal. That doesn’t mean it has to be heard before a judge. 2 different things.

MOO since not a lawyer.

 

[PunishThenForgive]

I wonder, though, if being properly waived is even possible when the coercion factor is the death penalty.

As much as I personally dislike the death penalty, the citizens of Idaho consider it a just punishment, not a cruel and unusual one, for capital crimes.

In my mind, BK himself inflicted cruel and unusual punishment, one wholly underserved, on four young people, and he is lucky that the State of Idaho gave him the opportunity to escape the punishment he deserved.

IMO

 

[MTW2011]

This doesn’t change anything, really. Garza v. Idaho was 2 pronged, the first being his right to appeal. The second being he wanted post conviction relief.

My summary: Garza wanted to appeal, his attorney wouldn’t file for the appeal saying it was very laborious & he likely wouldn’t be granted an appeal for post conviction relief. Time for filing an appeal ran out. The Idaho courts refused to hear his appeal based on his waivers. He appealed to SCOTUS. The SCOTUS said, no, the courts can’t use that as a basis, they have to allow an appeal to be filed & if rejecting the appeal, base their decision on some other reason than "you signed a plea agreement with a waiver."

Ultimately, the SCOTUS DISALLOWED the hearing for a post conviction relief. They only agreed that appeals based on plea deals aren’t completely disallowed, no matter the reason. So Garza won in that he could appeal, the SCOTUS agreed there shouldn’t be any post conviction relief. Ultimately, Garza’s sentencing stuck, which was the whole basis for the appeal in the first place. So, not really a big deal in the end. Garza’s sentence was upheld. They only agreed his attorney should have filed the appeal & the ID courts should have used other wording/reasons when dismissing his appeals.

BK can file appeals all he wants, barring new evidence, proof of prosecutorial misconduct or proof of inadequate defense or some mental health issue, he isn’t going anywhere & wont be in any appellate court anytime soon, if ever. The grounds are going to be very limited, regardless of his having the right to try & appeal. He can fill out all the paperwork he wishes - that’s his right to file an appeal. That doesn’t mean it has to be heard before a judge. 2 different things.

MOO since not a lawyer.

My point was simply this: even if a defendant signs a plea agreement saying they “waive all appeals”, the highest Court in the land has said that doesn’t actually mean one waives ALL of their appeals.

I never said this would mean he gets a new trial, lighter or different sentence, gets out of prison, or anything of the sort. Simply that there (as evidenced by comments by the families and discussions on her and elsewhere on social media) was this belief that his plea agreement was forfeiting all appeals, which is just not the case. Appreciate the opportunity to clarify my point.

 

[SteveP]

BK broke into a home in the wee hours of morning, and brutally stabbed and murdered four young college students, none of whom apparently knew him, all but one apparently asleep in their beds, and for no reason other than that he apparently wanted to. He voluntarily agreed to plead guilty, after almost three years, only because he is guilty, and he finally realized that the case against him was so strong that there was zero chance that he was ever going to be exonerated, and no sure bet that he would not be put to death.

Despite his agreement not to, he can perhaps find loopholes, and legally file appeals 'til the cows come home', as my dear mama would have said, but I would bet the last dollar that I have that he will never draw another breath as a free man. He is going away for life. JMO

 

[INfisherman]

My point was simply this: even if a defendant signs a plea agreement saying they “waive all appeals”, the highest Court in the land has said that doesn’t actually mean one waives ALL of their appeals.

I never said this would mean he gets a new trial, lighter or different sentence, gets out of prison, or anything of the sort. Simply that there (as evidenced by comments by the families and discussions on her and elsewhere on social media) was this belief that his plea agreement was forfeiting all appeals, which is just not the case. Appreciate the opportunity to clarify my point.

Yeah, I believe all who said his chance at an appeal were small understood your point. I wasn’t disagreeing at all. I was summarizing - he has a small chance at an appeal. Not intending to offend you in the least nor debate, just clarifying, trying help.

His chances of an appeal remind me of a scene from Dumb & Dumber…

 

[PunishThenForgive]

I'm afraid it means that somewhere down the line his attorneys can say he was mentally ill, or something that made him not understand what he was signing

Luckily, it seems that “somewhere down the line” is restricted to just 42 days after sentencing.

So in that time, BK must claim that the forensic psychologist who evaluated BK for the Defense somehow missed a diagnosis of a mental illness that precluded him from understanding the plea agreement that he attested to in open court and signed.

IMO, though, the only diagnoses that the forensic psychologist failed to make are the very personality disorders that led BK to so effectively convince many an older woman (and a few his own age) to buy the garbage that spewed out of his mouth.

Evidence:

• Body cam footage of Pullman stop
• Interviews of BK’s DeSales University professors Drs. Katherine Ramsland and Michelle Bolger
• Interview of his childhood friend Casey Arntz
• Interviews in 2023 & 2024 of Connie Saba in The Idaho Four: An American Tragedy
• Treatment of Korean WSU graduate student described in the May 9 Dateline episode
• Convincing Anne Taylor and the other members of his defense team at first that he was innocent?

IMOO

 

[DizzyB]

I know how y’all feel about SG, I’m sure he was a handful before his daughter was murdered, but he did have a couple of points when I watched him last night.

He said his family wanted to include details in their victim impact statement, that they wanted to state exactly what Bryan Kohberger did to their loved one. But they are not privy to those details. I get that everything must be protected and locked down but this is their child and sister and I understand their need to say explicitly what this monster did. Kaylee mattered, and it still feels like Bryan Kohberger is the only one protected in the courtroom.