ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 70

[Sundog]

Hmm
What exactly can she say?
That she didn't see any red flags?

It's possible that DeSales University has asked faculty not to make comments to t he media, and refer all requests to their media contact. I think Ramslaand would glady comply.

 

[Justice101]

Just wanted to say that the murder weapon is more important when it is related to guns like it normally is. The fact that they have DNA from the knife sheath and a knife that size was used in the killing, is probably enough on its own.

Here's to hoping that between the car, the apartment (computer) and other searches, LE has enough

 

[al66pine]

In PCA. DM's Description of Intruder's Eyebrows?

... define bushy eyebrow? imo his aren't. it's subjective. when I think bushy eyebrows, I think Martin Scorsese or Dan and Eugene Levy,... (maybe I just have a really high standard for bushy eyebrows, though )
And I hope LE has a whole lot more evidence tucked away... what we've read in the PCA could be picked apart, and then they're potentially short of BARD. JMO.

snipped for focus @Sister Golden Hair
LE has waaay more evd than set forth in PCA,* written to show basis for ARRESTING the suspect, not as comprehensive, all-encompassing evd. for CONVICTING.

Yes, the bushy EYEBROW issue is subjective to some extent and agreeing that BCK don't "measure up" to the ones you mentioned.

But, a parallel: when a witness --- 5 feet or 5'3 (IDK DM's exact height) --- describes someone as "tall" and the accused is "just" 6 feet, do we dismiss her description as inaccurate, because the accused is not professional basketball height? Or not even 7 feet tall?

BCK may not be nominated for the Bushy Eyebrow Club, but some or many would agree that his eyebrows are bushier than AVERAGE (esp'ly for his age) and would say DM's description is not inaccurate. imo

BTW, ^ post omitted one of the founding members of the Bushy Eyebrow Club: the late Andy Rooney, resident curmudgeon of CBS "60 Minutes" weekly news magazine. Image at link.

Andy Rooney - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

imo
__________________________________
FYI, not state-specific to ID:

Probable Cause - FindLaw

The 4th Amendment protects people from search and seizure without probable cause. Learn more at FindLaw's Criminal Rights section.

www.findlaw.com

Probable Cause Requirement

www.law.cornell.edu

Affidavit of Probable Cause Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

An affidavit of probable cause is a sworn statement, typically made by a police officer, that outlines the factual justification for why a judge should consent to an arrest or search warrant or why

definitions.uslegal.com

 

[WingsOverTX]

It's possible that DeSales University has asked faculty not to make comments to t he media, and refer all requests to their media contact. I think Ramslaand would glady comply.

Free speech is a beautiful thing. But then, remaining employed is, too.

I'd like to hear from her - maybe in a blog post not an interview.
MOO

 

[Down To Earth]

The defense might want results of drug tests in hopes some trace of street drugs were found in any of the victims. This could help weave a theory that any random person along the lines in the procurement of drugs could have committed the crime. IMO in most people's minds there is a degree of sketchiness associated with street drugs including crime and mental/behavioral instability, and the defense would likely want to introduce "sketchy" characters into the lifestyles of the victims if possible. Anything to dilute the potency of evidence against the defendant.

 

[Cool Cats]

I think the defense will be interested in how DM arrived at her descriptions. Were they spontaneous? Or were there leading questions asked by LE who interviewed her, thus helping her to determine the categories, for example with regard to body build. Did they show her any pictures or give her any information to help her with her descriptions? In Attorney Taylor's Discovery Request to the prosecution she requested disclosure of the identification process of any defendant that was being considered in the case.

Attorney Taylor's Discovery Request, January 10, 2023

13. Identification. Disclosure of whether a defendant, or any other person, was identified by lineup, show up, photo spread or similar identification proceeding relating to the offense charged, and production of any pictures utilized or resulting therefrom and the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all identifying witnesses.

https://www.insideedition.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/011023%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

BBM

<modsnip>

She was not identifying anyone, that doesn't apply.

Of course her reaction was spontaneous. She was in shock and did her police interview likely that same day or close to it because LE would be interviewing everyone in that house. No one would be leaving, place would be a locked down crime scene.

There is no evidence she was drunk, no evidence she will see photos and change her story as has been previously asserted.

She gave her statement and the prosecution and defense have it. Period. If she changes her statement at trial the defense and/or the prosecution will have her read her statement on the stand and address any discrepancies in front of the Jury.

This just happened in a murder trial. A witness on the stand was sometimes saying different things from their police statements and the prosecution had them read their original statement and then address the discrepency. Happens all the time.

People forget exactly what they said and saw, time goes by, memories fade etc....This is why we have official witness statements WRITTEN and even VIDEO RECORDED with the police at the time crimes are discovered.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

It's possible that DeSales University has asked faculty not to make comments to t he media, and refer all requests to their media contact. I think Ramslaand would glady comply.

One of BK's other former professors at DeSales University did make comments to the media about him, so IMO, the university has not asked faculty not to make comments, and it up to them if they wish to comment:

"A former university professor of Bryan Kohberger said the accused killer was “one of my best students, ever” — and that the then-master’s candidate was one of only two students she has recommended to a Ph.D. program.

Michelle Bolger, 33, an associate professor at DeSales University in Pennsylvania, told the Daily Mail that Kohberger, who was arrested in the murders of four University of Idaho students, was a “great writer” and “brilliant student.”"

Accused Idaho killer Bryan Kohberger was a ‘brilliant student,’ DeSales professor claims

Ramsland said she wouldn't be commenting "at this time" (on 1/2/2023):

"She has not made any public comments since Kohberger's arrest. "I'm making no media statements at this time," she told Newsweek on Monday."

Who is Katherine Ramsland? Serial killer expert who taught Bryan Kohberger.

 

[Dotta]

told the Daily Mail that Kohberger, who was arrested in the murders of four University of Idaho students, was a “great writer” and “brilliant student.”"

Accused Idaho killer Bryan Kohberger was a ‘brilliant student,’ DeSales professor

Really,
sometimes it is better to remain silent, except expressing heartfelt condolences to grieving families

Isn't Silence considered Golden in some sensitive matters?

JMO

 

[acutename]

One of BK's other former professors at DeSales University did make comments to the media about him, so IMO, the university has not asked faculty not to make comments, and it up to them if they wish to comment:

"A former university professor of Bryan Kohberger said the accused killer was “one of my best students, ever” — and that the then-master’s candidate was one of only two students she has recommended to a Ph.D. program.

Michelle Bolger, 33, an associate professor at DeSales University in Pennsylvania, told the Daily Mail that Kohberger, who was arrested in the murders of four University of Idaho students, was a “great writer” and “brilliant student.”"

Accused Idaho killer Bryan Kohberger was a ‘brilliant student,’ DeSales professor claims

Ramsland said she wouldn't be commenting "at this time" (on 1/2/2023):

"She has not made any public comments since Kohberger's arrest. "I'm making no media statements at this time," she told Newsweek on Monday."

Who is Katherine Ramsland? Serial killer expert who taught Bryan Kohberger.

MB said she only knew BK online

"‘Him’ seemed normal to me, but then again, I only knew him from teaching him online. I didn’t know anything personal about him. I think he worked full time, as do most of our graduate students."

Idaho quadruple 'killer's' criminology professor reveals he was 'a brilliant student'

>

nybreaking.com

Idaho 'killer' a brilliant student, says his criminology professor

DeSales University Professor Michelle Bolger said she's in absolute shock after hearing that her former student Bryan Kohberger is the accused Idaho quadruple murder suspect.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[CGray123]

Or she doesn't want anyone poking around . . .

What could they poke about? De nada.

 

[CGray123]

Who is Katherine Ramsland? Serial killer expert who taught Bryan Kohberger

Ramsland is a professor at DeSales University in Pennsylvania and reportedly taught the man accused of killing four University of Idaho students.

www.newsweek.com

At the university, Kohberger was reportedly taught by Ramsland, a forensic psychologist who has spent decades studying serial killers.

She has not made any public comments since Kohberger's arrest. "I'm making no media statements at this time," she told Newsweek on Monday.

Ramsland, Ph.D., is a professor and assistant provost at DeSales University. She came to the university "specifically to teach forensic psychology, focusing on her field of expertise—extreme offenders," according to her biography on the university's website.
....
Ramsland holds a master's degree in forensic psychology from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, a master's in clinical psychology from Duquesne University, a master's in criminal justice from DeSales University, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Rutgers University, according to her biography on the Psychology Today website.

She writes the "Shadow Boxing" blog for the website, which is described as one that "probe the mind's dark secrets."

I must check out her blog....

I'm sure Dr. R has had much to say about serial killers in general, but she has steadfastly declined to comment on BK.

If there's any evidence BK was in touch with her about murdering people, I think she would have said...

 

[al66pine]

Impeaching Own Witness?

.... I thought trial practice rules dictate that you cannot impeach your own witness. If that’s true, then the defense cannot call her as a witness only to try and impeach or contradict everything she has already expressed to LE...

snipped for focus @Orange Tabby
Briefly, nope. Why? ID Rule of Evidence 607* is same as Fed rule 607:**
"Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness’s credibility."

Not so briefly. Why? This explanation re fed rule:
"Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules
"The traditional rule against impeaching one's own witness is abandoned as based on false premises. A party does not hold out his witnesses as worthy of belief, since he rarely has a free choice in selecting them. Denial of the right leaves the party at the mercy of the witness and the adversary. If the impeachment is by a prior statement, it is free from hearsay dangers and is excluded from the category of hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)...."
" The substantial inroads into the old rule made over the years by decisions, rules, and statutes are evidence of doubts as to its basic soundness and workability...."

Rule 607. Who May Impeach a Witness

www.law.cornell.edu

Hope this helps.
ETA: @wary
______________________________
*" Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 607. Who May Impeach a Witness.
"Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness’s credibility."

I.R.E. 607. Who May Impeach. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

** "Rule 607. Who May Impeach a Witness
"Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness’s credibility."

Rule 607. Who May Impeach a Witness

www.law.cornell.edu

Federal Rules of Evidence | 2024 Official Edition

The Federal Rules of Evidence are a set of rules that govern the introduction of evidence at civil and criminal trials in US Federal Courts.

www.rulesofevidence.org

© 2015-2022 The National Court Rules Committee

 

[Sundog]

Free speech is a beautiful thing. But then, remaining employed is, too.

I'd like to hear from her - maybe in a blog post not an interview.
MOO

Yes, faculty have free speech, but usually will comply with the administration's wishes, especially in a situation that would draw this kind of attention to an institution. I'm guessing that Ramslaand has tenure, so remaining employed wouldn't be a concern for her. I don't think that she wants to be asked questions about this case. After all, as a criminal psychologist, she missed the one sitting in the front row (so to speak) of her classes. JMO.

 

[Sundog]

Free speech is a beautiful thing. But then, remaining employed is, too.

I'd like to hear from her - maybe in a blog post not an interview.
MOO

It would certainly be interesting if BK wanted Ramslaand called as a witness, especially if she wrote a reference for him for his doctoral application(s). If she did, and they were positive, then she would have to admit that.

Otherwise, BK and his attorney would be taking a chance on what she would say. I don't think the prosecution would call her as a witness, they would have nothing to gain and possibly something to lose. So I guess we will see.

 

[Sundog]

<snipped for focus> Ramsland said she wouldn't be commenting "at this time" (on 1/2/2023):
Who is Katherine Ramsland? Serial killer expert who taught Bryan Kohberger.

So Ramslaand is a member of the administration at DeSales, and not just a faculty member. Article says she is a vice provost. In that case, she would be on board with the admnistration and not speaking about the case.

EBM

 

[ktm44]

<modsnip>

She was not identifying anyone, that doesn't apply.

Of course her reaction was spontaneous. She was in shock and did her police interview likely that same day or close to it because LE would be interviewing everyone in that house. No one would be leaving, place would be a locked down crime scene.

There is no evidence she was drunk, no evidence she will see photos and change her story as has been previously asserted.

She gave her statement and the prosecution and defense have it. Period. If she changes her statement at trial the defense and/or the prosecution will have her read her statement on the stand and address any discrepancies in front of the Jury.

This just happened in a murder trial. A witness on the stand was sometimes saying different things from their police statements and the prosecution had them read their original statement and then address the discrepency. Happens all the time.

People forget exactly what they said and saw, time goes by, memories fade etc....This is why we have official witness statements WRITTEN and even VIDEO RECORDED with the police at the time crimes are discovered.

Just to add to your comment. I would suggest that she's been interviewed several times, starting with immediately after LE knew she resided in the house. It sounds like LE has done their job and scrutinized the surviving roommates phones as well so I'm sure no stone has been left unturned.

I don't think people realize that her partial description is simply presented in the PCA as a starting point for the investigation. She saw one male of a general build which suggests that LE didn't need to spend much time looking for a slender built female and her initial description does suggest that she only saw one person in the house at roughly about the time her roommates were killed.

I feel very sorry for her <modsnip - no source link for information stated as fact> but even SG said he was thankful she did because she was able to help LE find his daughter's killer.

 

[maskedwoman]

I don't necessarily disagree. I was responding specifically to the line that bushy eyebrows makes the case. I think that's the weakest part of the PCA. MOO.

I apologize for jumping off your post for this, but it was the perfect place to ask about this. I am confused as to why people feel it's important to judge the strength or weakness of the PCA or the case based on what was or wasn't included within the PCA. I find the contents very interesting, because it's our first glimpse into what they know and we aren't likely to get much else for a good while, but that's all I take it for. The Judge felt it was sufficient, as he/she authorized an arrest warrant, so I was good with that. I've been pretty much assuming they included enough conclusive information to make the Judge comfortable they have the right guy, but I wouldn't expect them to put their best stuff in it. It's a strategic release of information, right? He has a right to know what they have on him, but they get to decide when (within the process) he gets to find out. They show their two pairs, or even one pair, because that's all they need in order to arrest him. But they keep quiet about their Ace in the hole until they have to show it. Or am I misunderstanding how this works? I would appreciate any feedback on this. Thanks!! MOOoooo

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Hey everyone,

WS requires links to information stated as fact. What you "heard somewhere" or "read somewhere" "think I heard" etc is NOT an approved source. If you can't link it, you can't post it.

No link, no post !!

Bringing this forward (on Page 1 of every thread)

 

[Cool Cats]

Just to add to your comment. I would suggest that she's been interviewed several times, starting with immediately after LE knew she resided in the house. It sounds like LE has done their job and scrutinized the surviving roommates phones as well so I'm sure no stone has been left unturned.

I don't think people realize that her partial description is simply presented in the PCA as a starting point for the investigation. She saw one male of a general build which suggests that LE didn't need to spend much time looking for a slender built female and her initial description does suggest that she only saw one person in the house at roughly about the time her roommates were killed.

<modsnip>

<modsnip - quoted post was snipped>

It is a miracle the killer didn't see the witness or saw her but decided to ignore her.

She was maligned for not calling 911 and that was a problem she was getting on SM. A stranger scared her in the middle of the night, she had no clue he was a killer leaving her house.

You don't call 911 because a man looked scary to you. He wasn't breaking in either, he was leaving, no crime to report.

If a stranger was in my house at 4:00am I'd call 911, but her situation is different. She was living in a "college house" rented out by several people with people in and out at all hours, including people ordering food at 4:00am.

 

[Sassafrass]

IMO DM's description of the person she saw is widely vague BUT at the same time a decent piece of circumstantial evidence at the very least. She didn't say it was a 5'2" female, or a 6'8" elderly Asian man, or a set of conjoined triplets attached at the hips. She saw a single man with the very basics of Kohberger's build.

I'm also a little bit curious about the mask she witnessed the suspect wearing. It's quoted in the PCA as "a mask that covered the person's mouth and nose". That certainly doesn't exclude very many types of masks, but that may not be the only description of the mask she provided to LE. For all we know, which is nothing, she could have told LE that the mask is a fabric Covid mask that is blue with black polka dots and has yellow bands that attach the mask over the wearer's ears and she recognized the mask immediately because she's seen it for sale at Target. That's a complete hypothetical but what I'm getting at is there's a possibility, especially if the mask was a Covid-type, that a description of the mask has at least a possibility to further tie Kohberger to the crime. Covid masks were required in many public places over the last few years. Kohberger's classmates would likely be able to describe at least a "type" of mask he may have frequently worn, and perhaps he even always wore the same one (disposable or washable). Again, if DM described that same mask that Kohberger's classmates could describe, that's more circumstantial evidence with ascending or descending importance based on "uniqueness" of the description.

Just MO but it seems likely that the mask would be a Covid-type because that's the least likely of all masks to draw attention anywhere, even while driving in the car. But of course it could be a Donald Trump or a Baby Yoda Halloween mask for all we know. But again, a distinct Halloween mask would offer yet another chance to tie Kohberger via description if he ever wore it anywhere previously on Halloween...

More likely a balaclava

Impeaching Own Witness?

snipped for focus @Orange Tabby
Briefly, nope. Why? ID Rule of Evidence 607* is same as Fed rule 607:**
"Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness’s credibility."

Not so briefly. Why? This explanation re fed rule:
"Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules
"The traditional rule against impeaching one's own witness is abandoned as based on false premises. A party does not hold out his witnesses as worthy of belief, since he rarely has a free choice in selecting them. Denial of the right leaves the party at the mercy of the witness and the adversary. If the impeachment is by a prior statement, it is free from hearsay dangers and is excluded from the category of hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)...."
" The substantial inroads into the old rule made over the years by decisions, rules, and statutes are evidence of doubts as to its basic soundness and workability...."

Rule 607. Who May Impeach a Witness

www.law.cornell.edu

Hope this helps.
ETA: @wary
______________________________
*" Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 607. Who May Impeach a Witness.
"Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness’s credibility."

I.R.E. 607. Who May Impeach. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

** "Rule 607. Who May Impeach a Witness
"Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness’s credibility."

Rule 607. Who May Impeach a Witness

www.law.cornell.edu

Federal Rules of Evidence | 2024 Official Edition

The Federal Rules of Evidence are a set of rules that govern the introduction of evidence at civil and criminal trials in US Federal Courts.

www.rulesofevidence.org

© 2015-2022 The National Court Rules Committee

yes, this is part of what procedural TV shows are doing when they ask permission to treat a witness as "hostile."

Also remember that regardless of the Fed rules of crim pro, states have their own versions (most if not all have adopted the FRE, but they adopt a specific version/not promising to accept revisions forever). 5 minutes' looking tells me that ID appears to have adopted the FRE, and though they may make tweaks, looks like 607 is the same. I did not look at caselaw to see if that rule or its scope has been litigated by ID courts or otherwise.

Under common law, it used to be that you could not impeach your own witness. That gave way to the "surprise" doctrine (you could if surprised by testimony, basically), which gave way to the current FRE 607, which recognizes that parties have to take witnesses as they are and so aren't vouching for them by calling them; thus you can impeach someone you called. This was still evolving as late as the 70s in my state (I just looked at the legislative history), but is pretty settled at this point. That said, you can't generally call someone with the intention of impeaching them as a sort of subterfuge.

Impeachment of a Party's Own Witness, Fed.R.Evid. 607

Who May Impeach a Witness? Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness’s credibility. Pursuant to the common law's voucher r

papers.ssrn.com