GUILTY PLEA DEAL ACCEPTED - ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #114

[Luna20]

I believe that BK used his sister to get a message across (about what he currently is researching bicameral mentality). Also, the united front is somewhat unlikely, since we all have different ideas about things. It is possible that she is acting on behalf of the family to "create" the united front.

Personally I don't buy it, and I think she was quite careful and possibly appropriate to not discuss the crime. However, it becomes a defensive act to give an interview and not address the main issue. They may not believe he is guilty, but I would think all four of them do not have the same opinion. JMOO

The timing of this article is interesting (he was flown back to Idaho 3 years ago today). Something seems quite intentional in the messaging.

It is strange timing. I wonder if this is going to linger in hopes of attempting to convince the public that he isn’t a murderer but something just snapped.

Not addressing the main issue is a credibility issue imo. Why do the interview at all when the four families he murdered are still grieving? It just seems like a slap in the face.

 

[Cool Cats]

I saw a photo of the original heart in the NYT article — it was multi-colored — I recall cheerful with a lot of red and orange. My guess is the Xerox was on a black and white copier so the heart came out black. OMO.

Added: For those seeing some color, it could be the transpositions from camera to computer screen, or perhaps the person who Xeroxed it for him tried to doctor it up with colored pencils. I’d let this go. Don’t think sister sent him a black heart, but only my opinion.

Wow, thanks @LetsSolvIt you are spot on.

MSN

Here is what BK's sister Mel said about the heart photo she sent to her brother that got photocopied .......

Melissa Kohberger sat down for a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times published Saturday. She revealed she drew him a heart he was seen looking at during his sentencing, which tabloids referred to as a "creepy drawing."

The black heart picture was apparently a photocopied version of what she'd drawn which originally had a ton of vibrant colors. She says it was a sign of support from her to show him she still loved him.

Melissa says the family is still working to reconcile the brother and son they knew - with the person who could break into a home and slaughter all four people inside.

 

[minazoe]

honestly I would change my name, get plastic surgery and never look back...mOO

 

[Sor Juana]

Since many rely heavily on BK's guilty plea, here’s a statistic that might add some context. In the U.S., many innocent people plead guilty when they feel cornered or fear an unfair trial. Sharing this because it may help frame the plea in a broader way.

sociologists have estimated that between 2 and 8 percent of people who plead guilty are in fact innocent.

In the subsequent 200 years, the basic way in which people are convicted of a crime has substantially changed; plea agreements predominate, while the trial by jury has become a decreasingly viable “right.” One of the unplanned effects of the ubiquity of plea bargaining has been that unacceptable numbers of innocent people are pleading guilty and being criminally punished.

 

[Boxer]

His guilt is proven.

 

[Sor Juana]

A guilty plea is a legal mechanism, not a factual determination. Studies of wrongful convictions indicate that between 2% and 8% of people who plead guilty later turn out to be innocent. This happens for many reasons - plea bargaining pressure, fear of a severe sentence, etc. Because of this, a guilty plea does not necessarily mean the evidence was examined in court or that guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. It simply means the defendant accepted the legal consequences. A guilty plea ends a case, but it doesn’t prove guilt.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

A guilty plea is a legal mechanism, not a factual determination. Studies of wrongful convictions indicate that between 2% and 8% of people who plead guilty later turn out to be innocent. This happens for many reasons - plea bargaining pressure, fear of a severe sentence, etc. Because of this, a guilty plea does not necessarily mean the evidence was examined in court or that guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. It simply means the defendant accepted the legal consequences. A guilty plea ends a case, but it doesn’t prove guilt.

And yet it was Kohberger, through his Defense team, who requested the plea deal from the Prosecution.
At sentencing, the judge asked him every which way to Sunday regarding his reasons and his understanding of the plea deal.
I don't know if you were following along with the televised hearing, but worth a look.

 

[Boxer]

His guilt is proven.

Since many rely heavily on BK's guilty plea, here’s a statistic that might add some context. In the U.S., many innocent people plead guilty when they feel cornered or fear an unfair trial. Sharing this because it may help frame the plea in a broader way.

sociologists have estimated that between 2 and 8 percent of people who plead guilty are in fact innocent.

In the subsequent 200 years, the basic way in which people are convicted of a crime has substantially changed; plea agreements predominate, while the trial by jury has become a decreasingly viable “right.” One of the unplanned effects of the ubiquity of plea bargaining has been that unacceptable numbers of innocent people are pleading guilty and being criminally punished.

This is true. But MOO not in Kohberger's case because his DNA at the scene is irrefutable evidence, a "not guilty" result for him would only be possible if the defense successfully suppressed that evidence. When the defense couldn't suppress it, they pled.
It was a gamble on both sides.
The US Supreme court could eventually limit genealogy DNA causIng him to eventually have a successful appeal while on death row.
But would that possible outcome even happen in time? It would have to be in the next 20 years or so while on he was in normal appeal process for the death penalty. And for the prosecution the mere idea of a free Kohberger walking around free after 10 years was so hideous they chose to offer life without parole or appeal.
He accepted, without explanation or remorse.
And now it's really irritating to hear him complain about bananas when he should be on death row.

But maybe not as bad as hearing in 2035 he was being released on appeal.

 

[Tragg]

That is certainly a valid opinion, but I disagree. We don't what the university know and when they knew it, and a lawsuit is one way to uncover that.

IMO this is how policies change/grow.

If it is without merit, the judge will summarily dismiss it. Perhaps with the attorney fees charged... but if there's a modicum of merit, I can't begrudge the families pushing for answers. Transparency and accountability.

JMO

News coverage of this would lead a casual reader to believe that the Goncalves's lawsuit has been filed and is being actively pursued, but I have not been able to find the case in any court. Some of the coverage indicates that the Goncalves family filed what is commonly called a "notice of claim" or "notice of intent" with the State of Washington. This notice describes the nature of the claim. It requires the state to preserve relevant evidence and is a necessary procedural prerequisite to suing a state entity. However, it is not a lawsuit. The Goncalves family has preserved their right to sue within a two year period, but to the best of my knowledge they haven't actually sued the University.

The attorney for the family has said that the claim is an effort to gain access to student records that are clearly private under federal law. They cannot access by public record request. Gaining access to these private records is not a valid justification for filing a frivolous lawsuit. If their attorney has not advised them of the risk that they will likely gain no additional access and have to pay the state's defense costs, he has committed malpractice. A lawyer who actually files such a case commits a violation of professional standards and puts his license in jeopardy.

I pray for the family, that God will heal their pain. But scouring the landscape for people to blame for their daughter's death is a move in the opposite direction.

MOO

 

[MassGuy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2009386473003352427

 

[girlhasnoname]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2009386473003352427

The article states that WSU failed to act upon repeated acts and dire warnings of the Murderer based upon information coming to light. So how much did WSU know and when would be my question?

JMO

 

[MassGuy]

The article states that WSU failed to act upon repeated acts and dire warnings of the Murderer based upon information coming to light. So how much did WSU know and when would be my question?

JMO

There's just no chance they win this outright. Best case scenario for them (from what I can gather), is a settlement.

They might even see discovery as a win, where they compel the university to turn over all these complaints and other documentation.

I ran this through a few AI models and they all said basically the same thing.

Why this case is extremely hard to win​

1.​

WSU will argue:

• The murders occurred off-campus
• Victims were not WSU students
• Kohberger acted independently
• No university action could legally be the proximate cause of the killings

This is where many similar cases fail.

A judge will ask:

“Even if WSU messed up, can you prove their actions caused these murders — not just that Kohberger later committed them?”

That’s a very high bar.

---

2.​

To win, plaintiffs must show WSU knew or should have known:

• Kohberger posed a specific, imminent risk of lethal violence
• Not just that he was “creepy,” inappropriate, or unstable

Courts are reluctant to say:

“A university should have foreseen a quadruple homicide”

Unless the evidence is shockingly explicit, this will be hard.

---

3.​

Public universities get:

• Sovereign-immunity protections
• Judicial deference in disciplinary decisions
• Broad discretion under academic freedom doctrines

Judges are cautious about turning universities into guarantors of third-party safety.

 

[LinasK]

There's just no chance they win this outright. Best case scenario for them (from what I can gather), is a settlement.

They might even see discovery as a win, where they compel the university to turn over all these complaints and other documentation.

I ran this through a few AI models and they all said basically the same thing.

Why this case is extremely hard to win​

1.​

WSU will argue:

• The murders occurred off-campus
• Victims were not WSU students
• Kohberger acted independently
• No university action could legally be the proximate cause of the killings

This is where many similar cases fail.

A judge will ask:


That’s a very high bar.

---

2.​

To win, plaintiffs must show WSU knew or should have known:

• Kohberger posed a specific, imminent risk of lethal violence
• Not just that he was “creepy,” inappropriate, or unstable

Courts are reluctant to say:


Unless the evidence is shockingly explicit, this will be hard.

---

3.​

Public universities get:

• Sovereign-immunity protections
• Judicial deference in disciplinary decisions
• Broad discretion under academic freedom doctrines

Judges are cautious about turning universities into guarantors of third-party safety.

As is should be! These murders had nothing to do with WSU.

 

[Boxer]

News coverage of this would lead a casual reader to believe that the Goncalves's lawsuit has been filed and is being actively pursued, but I have not been able to find the case in any court. Some of the coverage indicates that the Goncalves family filed what is commonly called a "notice of claim" or "notice of intent" with the State of Washington. This notice describes the nature of the claim. It requires the state to preserve relevant evidence and is a necessary procedural prerequisite to suing a state entity. However, it is not a lawsuit. The Goncalves family has preserved their right to sue within a two year period, but to the best of my knowledge they haven't actually sued the University.

The attorney for the family has said that the claim is an effort to gain access to student records that are clearly private under federal law. They cannot access by public record request. Gaining access to these private records is not a valid justification for filing a frivolous lawsuit. If their attorney has not advised them of the risk that they will likely gain no additional access and have to pay the state's defense costs, he has committed malpractice. A lawyer who actually files such a case commits a violation of professional standards and puts his license in jeopardy.

I pray for the family, that God will heal their pain. But scouring the landscape for people to blame for their daughter's death is a move in the opposite direction.

MOO

Agree.

 

[minazoe]

I'm not sure, there might be a precedent for something like this. things to note.

people who are experts identified BK as a serious ticking time bomb and thought he was a threat to the students and personnel of the program.

the student incidents could have been serious enough to alert police to this problematic, predatory person who is harassing and intimidating with young women.

police don't always have to make an arrest, they can do other things, they can mitigate, warn and observe.

it is questionable but I think the consensus would be that either the school didn't have protocols in place to exercise due diligence in a serious situation with a problematic student, or they simply didn't follow commonsense protocol, which would have been to alert police and allow them to assess the situation.

I don't think it matters that these college kids were at another school.

It's kind of like they just rushed him out of the program and didn't want this reflecting on their program that attracted a weirdo, dangerous creep.

I think the school has to settle with the parents. there is no way to ascertain wether or not Bryan could have been spooked after
a police confrontation, spooked enough to abandon his ideas. I mean eventually he would kill I think..someday but maybe not this one time...with more of an intervention. mOO

 

[Tealgrove]

There's just no chance they win this outright. Best case scenario for them (from what I can gather), is a settlement.

They might even see discovery as a win, where they compel the university to turn over all these complaints and other documentation.

I ran this through a few AI models and they all said basically the same thing.

Why this case is extremely hard to win​

1.​

WSU will argue:

• The murders occurred off-campus
• Victims were not WSU students
• Kohberger acted independently
• No university action could legally be the proximate cause of the killings

This is where many similar cases fail.

A judge will ask:


That’s a very high bar.

---

2.​

To win, plaintiffs must show WSU knew or should have known:

• Kohberger posed a specific, imminent risk of lethal violence
• Not just that he was “creepy,” inappropriate, or unstable

Courts are reluctant to say:


Unless the evidence is shockingly explicit, this will be hard.

---

3.​

Public universities get:

• Sovereign-immunity protections
• Judicial deference in disciplinary decisions
• Broad discretion under academic freedom doctrines

Judges are cautious about turning universities into guarantors of third-party safety.

They won’t win this.

 

[minazoe]

They won’t win this.

the optics are bad, I feel there will be a settlement.

 

[Boxer]

the optics are bad, I feel there will be a settlement.

HR did move quickly and appropriately. The crime is so outlandish that it really couldn't be anticipated. But they may settle anyway.

 

[LinasK]

the optics are bad, I feel there will be a settlement.

Bad optics won't win a case. What else could WSU have done other than to fire him earlier??? He still would have committed the murders. They happened to students at a different school in ANOTHER state (and not even on campus at their school)! They bear NO responsibility IMO!

 

[Kemug]

And if WSU had fired him earlier, he would have been furious, so much so that he may well have committed a massacre there.