Does not even come close to meeting the definition of an alibis. I was looking at the stars!His alibi doesn't meet the threshold.
JMO
Does not even come close to meeting the definition of an alibis. I was looking at the stars!His alibi doesn't meet the threshold.
JMO
There were legal filings in this regard:
"The prosecution ended their response by requesting that court deny Kohberger and his attorneys "any further opportunity to add to any purported claim of alibi.""
Why Prosecutors Say Idaho Murders Suspect Bryan Kohberger’s Alibi Is Inadequate
Prosecutors say Bryan Kohberger's alibi lacks the "specificity required" by an Idaho law.people.com
If the prosecution has a strong case, they should not be bothered in the least by BK's alibi.
All JMO.
The prosecution has not yet given the defense all of the discovery referenced in the PCA (stated by AT in today's hearing.) The prosecution has until September 2024 to turn over all discovery. Defense has longer than that. Prosecution is sending the defense chopped parts of video not synced with sound. Disorganized materials - they are trying to make things as hard as possible on the defense and are costing taxpayers a lot of extra money due to these tactics since the defense attorney is paid by the state and has to hire extra people to help bring order to this mess. IMO, neither the defense nor the prosecution can claim the high road here, but if the discovery was used for the PCA, by now it should be in defense hands. There is simply no excuse for it not being already provided. The alibi - it is a modern technological alibi. Why is the prosecution so scared of this alibi that they want it disallowed and want a closed hearing with the expert? This makes no tactical sense if the state has a strong case. What SY has testified to in the past is already available online for prosecution's perusal. BT they. were continuing to receive discovery - well hopefully he will receive discovery about BK's meta data and the cellular data needs to be rechecked by an independent expert. It is always possible that a mistake has been made somewhere and the defense is exploiting the mistake. It is better for the prosecution to identify this mistake and get their own solution for it than to continue along these lines that could lead to an overturned verdict.The defense is required - just like the prosecution - to reveal their evidence. It is the law in Idaho that a defendant must reveal his alibi defense if he is going to use it at trial. The defense passed the lawful deadline for this a year ago.
The prosecution is bending over backwards giving the defense time to produce their alibi defense.The prosecution has been waiting for the defense's alibi evidence for 1 1/2 years.
Later in the filing, the prosecution writes: "It has now been approximately 11 months since the State filed its 'Request for Discovery Disclosure; Alibi Demand' on May 23, 2023, and almost a year and a half since the homicides occurred. The defendant has been given more time than he is legally entitled in order to provide his alibi."
The prosecution ended their response by requesting that court deny Kohberger and his attorneys "any further opportunity to add to any purported claim of alibi."
The prosecution needs time to investigate Bryan's alibi and this includes interviewing and getting depositions of witnesses and viewing video and all related data.
The defense is not allowed to "spring" last minute alibi defenses on the prosecution, making it impossible for the prosecution to have time to investigate.
Why Prosecutors Say Idaho Murders Suspect Bryan Kohberger’s Alibi Is Inadequate
Prosecutors say Bryan Kohberger's alibi lacks the "specificity required" by an Idaho law.people.com
The prosecution has not yet given the defense all of the discovery referenced in the PCA (stated by AT in today's hearing.) The prosecution has until September 2024 to turn over all discovery. Defense has longer than that. Prosecution is sending the defense chopped parts of video not synced with sound. Disorganized materials - they are trying to make things as hard as possible on the defense and are costing taxpayers a lot of extra money due to these tactics since the defense attorney is paid by the state and has to hire extra people to help bring order to this mess. IMO, neither the defense nor the prosecution can claim the high road here, but if the discovery was used for the PCA, by now it should be in defense hands. There is simply no excuse for it not being already provided. The alibi - it is a modern technological alibi. Why is the prosecution so scared of this alibi that they want it disallowed and want a closed hearing with the expert? This makes no tactical sense if the state has a strong case. What SY has testified to in the past is already available online for prosecution's perusal. BT they. were continuing to receive discovery - well hopefully he will receive discovery about BK's meta data and the cellular data needs to be rechecked by an independent expert. It is always possible that a mistake has been made somewhere and the defense is exploiting the mistake. It is better for the prosecution to identify this mistake and get their own solution for it than to continue along these lines that could lead to an overturned verdict.
All JMO.
Does not even come close to meeting the definition of an alibis. I was looking at the stars!
Unless he set it up on a tripod somewhere, programmed to take photos at intervals.Anne Taylor's filing says there is proof that on other occasions BK has been star gazing.
Note.... "Other occasions."
Star gazing won't hold up in front of a jury....Why?
Because he would need the proof on his phone for November 13, 2022 at 4:00 to 4:30 AM. There has been no filings from AT that says BK's phone took videos or photos at 4 to 4:30 am that night.
You know how photos always spring up on your phone and other digital devices? Mine just came up to show me what I recorded on my phone a year ago, a house fire a few houses down.
What did BK record on his phone that night? Nothing. He turned it off to commit 4 murders and burglary.
2 Cents
Of course he is. In the eyes of the law. He hasn't been tried yet.
Pffft, AT.
By virtue of arrest, the State does think he's guilty (that they can prove it BARD), but I think you are right about the Defense. She can't make public statements so she's using open hearings to saturate the media. Pure strategy.He's presumed innocent in the eyes of the law? But AT and co. don't say that.
I think D making statements in public hearings that Kohberger is innocent is strategic. There is no need or reason or relevance in telling the Judge what members of the D personally believe. Such comments are meant for public/jury pool consumption.All moo.
The D's repeated assertions of innocence or belief in innocence in court circumnavigate non dissemination order. But they are nevertheless being made by attorneys who are perceived as learned and therefore influential authorities in the public eye. The non D order seeks to keep attorneys from making such bold statements for dissemination to the public but only outside the court setting. What would happen if a member of the P said to the judge during a public hearing out loud and emphatically, 'we believe BK is guilty' I wonder? Not that they would ofcourse. All moo
"Stargazing" reminds me of "watching fish".No doubt she will soon suggest BK was stargazing twelve times. Under a different sky than the one Moscow has.
JMO
There were legal filings in this regard:
"The prosecution ended their response by requesting that court deny Kohberger and his attorneys "any further opportunity to add to any purported claim of alibi.""
Why Prosecutors Say Idaho Murders Suspect Bryan Kohberger’s Alibi Is Inadequate
Prosecutors say Bryan Kohberger's alibi lacks the "specificity required" by an Idaho law.people.com
If the prosecution has a strong case, they should not be bothered in the least by BK's alibi.
All JMO.
Good points! More thoughts: even though ofcourse the assumption is P obviously believe in his guilt, there is a diff influence wise between what is widely understood and what is said out loud/declared publicly. That being why the non D order prevents all attorneys from making public statements re their beliefs in his guilt or innocence; because of attorneys' and LE's potentially large capacity to manipulate/influence public opinion either deliberately or inadvertently.mooBy virtue of arrest, the State does think he's guilty (that they can prove it BARD), but I think you are right about the Defense. She can't make public statements so she's using open hearings to saturate the media. Pure strategy.
As well, she's "getting it out there" that the State is refusing to turn over discovery. But I find this disingenuous too. In some cases it's discovery she already has, reports that don't exist, etc. The State can't give her what they don't have.
Today she got about 150,000 words in just under an hour out to the general public. Goal met.
JMO
He's presumed innocent in the eyes of the law? But AT and co. don't say that.
I think D making statements in public hearings that Kohberger is innocent is strategic. There is no need or reason or relevance in telling the Judge what members of the D personally believe. Such comments are meant for public/jury pool consumption.All moo.
The D's repeated assertions of innocence or belief in innocence in court circumnavigate non dissemination order. But they are nevertheless being made by attorneys who are perceived as learned and therefore influential authorities in the public eye. The non D order seeks to keep attorneys from making such bold statements for dissemination to the public but only outside the court setting. What would happen if a member of the P said to the judge during a public hearing out loud and emphatically, 'we believe BK is guilty' I wonder? Not that they would ofcourse. All moo
I agree. It is theater. JMOO
He's presumed innocent in the eyes of the law? But AT and co. don't say that.
I think D making statements in public hearings that Kohberger is innocent is strategic. There is no need or reason or relevance in telling the Judge what members of the D personally believe. Such comments are meant for public/jury pool consumption.All moo.
The D's repeated assertions of innocence or belief in innocence in court circumnavigate non dissemination order. But they are nevertheless being made by attorneys who are perceived as learned and therefore influential authorities in the public eye. The non D order seeks to keep attorneys from making such bold statements for dissemination to the public but only outside the court setting. What would happen if a member of the P said to the judge during a public hearing out loud and emphatically, 'we believe BK is guilty' I wonder? Not that they would ofcourse. All moo
Totally, totally agreed on this. What else is she going to say? "My client's guilty as sin. I wish I didn't have to try this case with this sanctimonious academic, who's also a pathological liar, as a defendant." A lawyer disciplinary board would probably bring disciplinary action against her for anything along those lines. And I'm glad she's not saying it, he needs counsel and deserves a fair trial. But that so-called "alibi" is a joke, it's more of the same that we've already seen with this defendant, AT is herself an academic, she's had years of schooling, she has to know herself it's not looking good for BK.He's presumed innocent in the eyes of the law? But AT and co. don't say that.
I think D making statements in public hearings that Kohberger is innocent is strategic. There is no need or reason or relevance in telling the Judge what members of the D personally believe. Such comments are meant for public/jury pool consumption.All moo.
The D's repeated assertions of innocence or belief in innocence in court circumnavigate non dissemination order. But they are nevertheless being made by attorneys who are perceived as learned and therefore influential authorities in the public eye. The non D order seeks to keep attorneys from making such bold statements for dissemination to the public but only outside the court setting. What would happen if a member of the P said to the judge during a public hearing out loud and emphatically, 'we believe BK is guilty' I wonder? Not that they would ofcourse. All moo
Totally, totally agreed on this. What else is she going to say? "My client's guilty as sin. I wish I didn't have to try this case with this sanctimonious academic, who's also a pathological liar, as a defendant." A lawyer disciplinary board would probably bring disciplinary action against her for anything along those lines. And I'm glad she's not saying it, he needs counsel and deserves a fair trial. But that so-called "alibi" is a joke, it's more of the same that we've already seen with this defendant, AT is herself an academic, she's had years of schooling, she has to know herself it's not looking good for BK.
He's presumed innocent in the eyes of the law? But AT and co. don't say that.
I think D making statements in public hearings that Kohberger is innocent is strategic. There is no need or reason or relevance in telling the Judge what members of the D personally believe. Such comments are meant for public/jury pool consumption.All moo.
The D's repeated assertions of innocence or belief in innocence in court circumnavigate non dissemination order. But they are nevertheless being made by attorneys who are perceived as learned and therefore influential authorities in the public eye. The non D order seeks to keep attorneys from making such bold statements for dissemination to the public but only outside the court setting. What would happen if a member of the P said to the judge during a public hearing out loud and emphatically, 'we believe BK is guilty' I wonder? Not that they would ofcourse. All moo