4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #92

[katydid23]

She didn't prove it, tho. It seems like JJJ didn't like the questions on the survey.

IF AT is 'not afraid of anyone' in the courtroom, she is not very perceptive. She should be 'afraid' of the judge because he has a lot of power in terms of how things go for her. By doing something as flatfooted and dodgy as this, and then standing up and getting in the judge's face, AS IF he was the one in the wrong----bad look for her, IMO.

 

[katydid23]

ID - 4 University of Idaho Students Died in Apparent Homicide, Moscow, 13 Nov 2022 ****Media Thread**** NO DISCUSSION #2

Kohberger's lawyer filed a new document in court Wednesday that says a survey they completed proves that the jury pool in Latah County is "biased" against him.

Just because that is what they say the survey proved, it doesn't mean it actually does so.

 

[DeDee]

I'll just say right now that if I got a phone call with the caller asking me if I knew about Bryan Kohberger or had an opinion about him, I would freak out from the fear of simply hearing his name being spoken! I think the survey was a terrible no-good idea.

However, I thought AT showed Latah citizens are biased based on the 400 robocalls.

There's got to be a better way to show a real need in order to move the location of the trial.

 

[al66pine]

I've only skimmed the report but it sounds like it's saying
1. There is evidence of bias in the sample of 400. That suggests there is bias in the county population.
2. There is no evidence the survey itself created additional bias in prospective jurors.

I agree one can't really rule out the potential biasing effects of the survey the way the researcher has tried to except to say there is no evidence. And that's true. (And I personally think his statement about individuals not creating bias the way countywide media stories do makes sense.) But as you point out, he didn't look for evidence.

Regardless, I'm not sure another survey (or any other method) can truly test a hypothesis about the effects of the survey. IF a 2nd survey were to show a new sample was more biased than the original 400, that could be because
A. The 1st survey caused more bias in the county due to original respondents talking widely across the county.
B. Other events related to the case caused more bias such as new stories or coverage of court hearings.
C. Events not related to the case but widely reported caused bias (such as another high-profile or local violent case occurring or a conviction in another violent local or high-profile case happening.)
D. It's a matter of sampling error. The two samples weren't actually equivalent.

IF a 2nd survey were to show no difference in the amount of bias, that could be because
A. The 1st survey had no biasing effect.
B. It's an issue of statistical power. If an effect was there but was small, a huge sample would be needed to show it.
MOO

@NCWatcher "I've only skimmed the report but it sounds like it's saying
1. There is evidence of bias in the sample of 400. That suggests there is bias in the county population.
2. There is no evidence the survey itself created additional bias in prospective jurors."

Yep, imo ^that's^ basically what Dr. Edelman said.

Re point 2, AFAICT, just a bare, naked as a jaybird assertion.
ETA: Agreeing w you that now, there's not (likely) a good way to substantiate it. Or refute it.

And thank you for the rest of your post saying so eloquently what I was thinking.
Once again.

 

[katydid23]

Agreed and the questions that were formed by the consultant were based upon what is already out in the media which anyone could find and read on their own as per the standard for developing such a questionnaire.

All JMO.

But how many of those 400 people knew very little, until AFTER they were contacted by the defense?

 

[MissyRie]

All this smoke about moving the trial when there isn't even an actual alibi solidifies my belief that for one he doesn't have an actual alibi and for two she knows he/she doesn't have a chance. At all.

Edit to add the imo

 

[maskedwoman]

Yes, and he should have been exposed to the gag order, and AT "says" she sent it to him, but she doesn't know why he didn't receive it.

Call me suspicious-minded, but I find it hard to believe he wouldn't know of the gag order even without her telling him. He's supposed to be a professional in the area of jury research. And she claimed he found all the items he mentioned in the public domain. Anyone who follows crime in the news, especially for professional reasons, would know about that gag order. I just can't believe he's a professional in this area, did research on what to ask, and no where did he get a hint of the gag order? I'm not buying that. More of that plausible deniability.

ETA: Even so, AT had an absolute duty to make sure he knew of the gag order. I think her "he didn't get the email and we don't know why" response is a bit like "the dog ate my homework". For something that serious, he should have been required to acknowledge the gag order before doing ANY work. MOOooo

 

[Chloegirl]

Earlier this week:

U.S. Secret Service Recognizes Moscow Police Department Detective Mowery

MOSCOW - The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) formally recognized Moscow Police Department's (MPD) Detective Lawrence Mowery for achievement in the field of digital forensics and cyber-crime investigation this past Monday,

www.bigcountrynewsconnection.com

I found this interesting in the context of this case and thought I should share.

 

[al66pine]

Review of How Many Terabytes?

Earlier this week:

U.S. Secret Service Recognizes Moscow Police Department Detective Mowery

MOSCOW - The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) formally recognized Moscow Police Department's (MPD) Detective Lawrence Mowery for achievement in the field of digital forensics and cyber-crime investigation this past Monday,

www.bigcountrynewsconnection.com

I found this interesting in the context of this case and thought I should share.

@Chloegirl Thx for sharing the article.
In 2023, Mowrey reviewed 66 terabytes of data.*
In one year? By himself? Or am I misreading the story?

Any comparison to the five (5 or 6 or more, I've lost track) terabytes of discovery the prosecution produced for BK's atty's? Data that the team of three attys are griping about, need muuuuch more time to examine.

Serious question.
I realize estimates would depend on many factors, but is there a way to estimate time-needed-to-review one TB
- digital data, say, cell-tower & phone location,
(compared w)
- transcripts of LE interviews w witnesses, LE affidavits written for search warrants, LE written reports of yadda-yadda.

________________________________
* "In 2023, Det. Mowery conducted more digital forensic examinations than any other NCFI-trained graduate in northern Idaho, eastern Washington, and western Montana. He examined 261 digital devices with more than 66 terabytes of data."

U.S. Secret Service Recognizes Moscow Police Department Detective Mowery

MOSCOW - The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) formally recognized Moscow Police Department's (MPD) Detective Lawrence Mowery for achievement in the field of digital forensics and cyber-crime investigation this past Monday,

www.bigcountrynewsconnection.com

 

[Balthazar]

Doesn't matter what he was exposed to. The order applied to him.

I agree the order applied to him, but it is obvious that the consultant didn't break the order. According to Section 2 B of the Revised Amended Nondissemination Order:

2 b states

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/06232023+Revised+Amended+Nondissemination+Order.pdf

From his reaction and words, BT apparently misunderstood or is not aware of the contents of the non-dissemination order he is working under. It could not be stated more clearly that "2. Attorneys involved in the case and their agents, as outlined in paragraph 1, may make extrajudicial statements (written and oral) concerning the following:
b. Information contained in the public record."

The consultant got his information from the media. The media got their information from the public record of this case.

Further the judge should be aware of the contents of the Revised Amended Nondissemination Order and could have helped this situation by reminding BT of what it says. These surveys are very standardized in how they are written and formatted. I do think some education for BT and JJJ would be very helpful in this matter since this is their first encounter with such a survey. They could compare surveys from other high profile cases to this one, for example.

I'm actually now concerned that BT has completely tainted the entire Moscow, ID Jury Pool by reading these questions out loud on a live broadcast of the hearing with thousands watching. IMO that was a strategic mistake that may force a change of venue. We'll see what happens.

All JMO, IMO.

 

[Balthazar]

Review of How Many Terabytes?

@Chloegirl Thx for sharing the article.
In 2023, Mowrey reviewed 66 terabytes of data.*
In one year? By himself? Or am I misreading the story?

Any comparison to the five (5 or 6 or more, I've lost track) terabytes of discovery the prosecution produced for BK's atty's? Data that the team of three attys are griping about, need muuuuch more time to examine.

Serious question.
I realize estimates would depend on many factors, but is there a way to estimate time-needed-to-review one TB
- digital data, say, cell-tower & phone location,
(compared w)
- transcripts of LE interviews w witnesses, LE affidavits written for search warrants, LE written reports of yadda-yadda.

________________________________
* "In 2023, Det. Mowery conducted more digital forensic examinations than any other NCFI-trained graduate in northern Idaho, eastern Washington, and western Montana. He examined 261 digital devices with more than 66 terabytes of data."

U.S. Secret Service Recognizes Moscow Police Department Detective Mowery

MOSCOW - The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) formally recognized Moscow Police Department's (MPD) Detective Lawrence Mowery for achievement in the field of digital forensics and cyber-crime investigation this past Monday,

www.bigcountrynewsconnection.com

Those numbers seem off. Certainly 1 person could not look at that much video. This is what I found:

1 hour of video is 1.3 gigabytes in 1080p
66 terabytes converts to 66,000 gigabytes
66,000/1.3 = 50,769 hours
8,760 hours in a year

1 terabyte converts to 1000 gigabytes
1000/1.3 = 769.23 hours

Maybe the reporter misunderstood?

 

[Chloegirl]

Those numbers seem off. Certainly 1 person could not look at that much video. This is what I found:

1 hour of video is 1.3 gigabytes in 1080p
66 terabytes converts to 66,000 gigabytes
66,000/1.3 = 50,769 hours
8,760 hours in a year

1 terabyte converts to 1000 gigabytes
1000/1.3 = 769.23 hours

Maybe the reporter misunderstood?

This is not my field. However, I'm assuming that going through things forensically equates to different hours than going through it as a lay person. There could be some advanced technology analyzing the data?

I think it's great that somebody would be honored like this, process that information, and possibly that someone did some great work on the investigation for this case. JMOO

 

[al66pine]

Reviewing Devices or TeraBytes of Data?

Those numbers seem off. Certainly 1 person could not look at that much video. This is what I found:

1 hour of video is 1.3 gigabytes in 1080p
66 terabytes converts to 66,000 gigabytes
66,000/1.3 = 50,769 hours
8,760 hours in a year

1 terabyte converts to 1000 gigabytes
1000/1.3 = 769.23 hours

Maybe the reporter misunderstood?

@Balthazar Thanks for your post analyzing the amt of data.

It's daunting, leading me to think you are likely on track, saying reporter may have misunderstood.
Maybe about the number (1, or, 6, or 66?) TBs.
Or the unit of measurement (megabyte, gigabyte, or terabyte?)

But also rereading that article more closely, I noticed:
Mowery "examined 261 digital devices with more than 66 terabytes of data." *

Maybe Mowery examined only the DEVICES themselves, say, sufficiently to crack passwords, to open certain files, and NOT to review the CONTENT in the 66 TB of data.

Regardless I appreciate your line of thought and local, state & fed LE employees who plug away at solving cases. IDK.

___________________________________
* www.bigcountrynewsconnection.com

 

[al66pine]

Initial Nondissemination Order?

.... According to Section 2 B of the Revised Amended Nondissemination Order:
2 b states
View attachment 495471

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/06232023+Revised+Amended+Nondissemination+Order.pdf

....

@Balthazar
Initial Nondissemination Order?

Trying to search here, I got one result, BK's traffic ticket.

https://mycourts.idaho.gov/odysseyportal/Home/Dashboard/29

I'm not finding the initial gag order. Arg.

Anyone have a link to the full initial order? TiA.

 

[Balthazar]

It's one thing to ask a respondent if they have heard of the Moscow murder case, and if so, what have they heard. That is completely fair.

But that is not what the consultant did. The consultant proactively told the respondents what had been reported at various times in the media. If a respondent was not aware of those specifics before the call, they were when they hung up. That potential jury member has now been tainted by that consultants phone call. That's the issue. Multiply that by 400. How many would have been called eventually?

The sample size is only 400 per population researched. So no more people in Moscow would be called. There are supposed to be 2 comparison counties for the study and there would be 400 called from each of those counties. Unfortunately BT decided to read the questions out loud during the hearing that was streamed with thousands watching. Who knows how many from Moscow were watching the hearing.

However, I've seen many of these questionnaires and the questions BT read ARE consistent with what is on other similar questionnaires.

Initial Nondissemination Order?

@Balthazar
Initial Nondissemination Order?

Trying to search here, I got one result, BK's traffic ticket.

https://mycourts.idaho.gov/odysseyportal/Home/Dashboard/29

I'm not finding the initial gag order. Arg.

Anyone have a link to the full initial order? TiA.

There was an initial non dissemination order on 1/3/23 which was Amended 1/8/23 and then the order I linked from 3/26/24 which is the latest.

Most of the documents are here - scroll down to Bryan Kohberger. For some reason a few of the documents don't show up in this list but you can get to them by clicking on Case Summary at the top of the list of documents in this case. Hope that helps!

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

 

[Cool Cats]

Initial Nondissemination Order?

@Balthazar
Initial Nondissemination Order?

Trying to search here, I got one result, BK's traffic ticket.

https://mycourts.idaho.gov/odysseyportal/Home/Dashboard/29

I'm not finding the initial gag order. Arg.

Anyone have a link to the full initial order? TiA.

This looks like the first Nondissemination Order

 

[katydid23]

I'll just say right now that if I got a phone call with the caller asking me if I knew about Bryan Kohberger or had an opinion about him, I would freak out from the fear of simply hearing his name being spoken! I think the survey was a terrible no-good idea.

However, I thought AT showed Latah citizens are biased based on the 400 robocalls.

There's got to be a better way to show a real need in order to move the location of the trial.

I don't think she proved they were biased. How many people did they have to dial BEFORE they found 400 people to sit through the survey and answer the questions?

My hypothesis is that many of the 1200, or so, who hung up before listening, are most likely unbiased and didn't pay attention to the news, etc. My husband does not pay any attention to the news or to local crimes. He still can't understand why I do so---

[My hypothesis is based upon my college days working for a marketing company---we were paid to call randoms and give surveys about products----almost everyone just hung up saying 'no thanks.' ]

The 400 who listened were the type of people willing to engage in a survey and listen and respond. Thus they are more likely to have listened to info about the crimes back when they occurred. That does not mean that EVERYONE they dialled that day would have known any of those things.

I am convinced the courts will be able to find enough unbiased local jurors to go to trial. <modsnip> IMO.

 

[NCWatcher]

I'll just say right now that if I got a phone call with the caller asking me if I knew about Bryan Kohberger or had an opinion about him, I would freak out from the fear of simply hearing his name being spoken! I think the survey was a terrible no-good idea.

However, I thought AT showed Latah citizens are biased based on the 400 robocalls.

There's got to be a better way to show a real need in order to move the location of the trial.

Telephone surveys ARE an accepted way to assess the difficulty of finding an unbiased jury without a change of venue. It's a method that's been used for decades and it's a method that's used nationwide. You may be right there is a better way to go about assessing bias -- I'm not sure what that might be. But surveying a sample of county residents and comparing their responses to those obtained in surveys in other counties was hardly a radical or novel idea. (And honestly, if those chosen in the local sample tend to freak out from just hearing the defendant's name, a change of venue IS probably needed.)
MOO

 

[katydid23]

We cannot assume that the 400 survey respondents are a good sample, IMO. How many people did they have to actually call to get those 400 who were willing to sit and respond to the survey?

I know for a fact that neither my husband or son would have done so. And neither of them listen to the news about local crimes either.

I bet they had to call about 1600+ numbers to get 400 respondents. And I bet that MANY of those 1600 would be unbiased, impartial potential jurors.

Besides all that, you don't have to be 'ignorant' of the reported facts in order to be an impartial juror. They say that in all the high profile case trials. You just need to be able to start with an open mind and consider only what is brought forth in testimony. If you 'had heard' he was stalking the girls, but no evidence of stalking is admitted, then you will not consider that in your deliberations.

 

[katydid23]

We cannot assume that the 400 survey respondents are a good sample, IMO. How many people did they have to actually call to get those 400 who were willing to sit and respond to the survey?

I know for a fact that neither my husband or son would have done so. And neither of them listen to the news about local crimes either.

I bet they had to call about 1600+ numbers to get 400 respondents. And I bet that MANY of those 1600 would be unbiased, impartial potential jurors.

Besides all that, you don't have to be 'ignorant' of the reported facts in order to be an impartial juror. They say that in all the high profile case trials. You just need to be able to start with an open mind and consider only what is brought forth in testimony. If you 'had heard' he was stalking the girls, but no evidence of stalking is admitted, then you will not consider that in your deliberations.

What I am trying to say is that just because a certain percentage of those 400 survey respondents seem to know all of the facts surrounding the case, that does not mean it is a reliable sample of the entire population.

InsteAd, it is the percentage of the type of people who agree to sit and listen to the survey and answer the questions.

What's percentage of 'those who would not take the survey' compared to 'those who would?' I think those who would not take the survey would have a high potential of NOT knowing many facts about the Moscow Murders. JMO