4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #77

[vls12345]

Or could BF being called to appear have to do with the reports that the front door (on the lowest level/where BF's room was) was seen open at some point earlier that morning? And in the first press conference, LE said they weren't sure about the door being unlocked? (Approx. time 10:45 in the video.)

MOO.

Moscow Police Department Press Conference

Moscow Police Department press conference streamed with assistance from the University of Idaho.

www.youtube.com

 

[vls12345]

Bryan Kohberger's lawyers want to force victims' roommate to testify

Kohberger attended Washington State University at the time of the murders, with his former lawyer in Pennsylvania saying that he was "eager to be exonerated."

www.newsweek.com

 

[Cool Cats]

A man's life is on the line. If he's innocent (and I get the prevailing opinion here is that he's not), and a witness has information that can exonerate him, there is no hardship that would excuse her, IMO.

This was about the money for travel and hotel which is going to be paid for.

But yes there is such a thing as hardship. As a physician you know, health issues can keep witnesses from court.

In these cases video is used - with a doctor's excuse.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

On the face of it, I think it's pretty obvious that BF doesn't think she has anything to add or spill the beans about, that she hasn't already told LE, that would be a game changer for BK's defense ahead of his PH.

Also, if she is still recovering from the shock and trauma of the murders, which seems likely since it has been less than 6 months, it may be "doctor's orders" to postpone her being questioned (again, since she must have told LE all she knows) for as long as possible and until she absolutely has to, e.g., if she is called to testify at the PH.

There could be something else on top of this that the defense would like to know more about, but that she does not want to discuss or can not discuss because she doesn't know or doesn't remember or is petrified of trying to remember because she has had to make herself forget about it in order to survive (e.g., blocked it out).

I hope they can find a way to meet in the middle somewhere, and am happy to leave it to the professionals to figure out what's best for both parties.

JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

On the face of it, I think it's pretty obvious that BF doesn't think she has anything to add or spill the beans about, that she hasn't already told LE, that would be a game changer for BK's defense ahead of his PH.

Also, if she is still recovering from the shock and trauma of the murders, which seems likely since it has been less than 6 months, it may be "doctor's orders" to postpone her being questioned (again, since she must have told LE all she knows) for as long as possible and until she absolutely has to, e.g., if she is called to testify at the PH.

There could be something else on top of this that the defense would like to know more about, but that she does not want to discuss or can not discuss because she doesn't know or doesn't remember or is petrified of trying to remember because she has had to make herself forget about it in order to survive (e.g., blocked it out).

I hope they can find a way to meet in the middle somewhere, and am happy to leave it to the professionals to figure out what's best for both parties.

JMO

Nice balanced view about it, thanks.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

On the face of it, I think it's pretty obvious that BF doesn't think she has anything to add or spill the beans about, that she hasn't already told LE, that would be a game changer for BK's defense ahead of his PH.

Also, if she is still recovering from the shock and trauma of the murders, which seems likely since it has been less than 6 months, it may be "doctor's orders" to postpone her being questioned (again, since she must have told LE all she knows) for as long as possible and until she absolutely has to, e.g., if she is called to testify at the PH.

There could be something else on top of this that the defense would like to know more about, but that she does not want to discuss or can not discuss because she doesn't know or doesn't remember or is petrified of trying to remember because she has had to make herself forget about it in order to survive (e.g., blocked it out).

I hope they can find a way to meet in the middle somewhere, and am happy to leave it to the professionals to figure out what's best for both parties.

JMO

Maybe it's about the texting between DM and BF, and what each said in those. Maybe they revealed their physical condition, ie: drinking, etc. But I'll say it again:

I hear you, and agree. The CERTIFICATE to SECURE ATTENDANCE was signed by Judge Marshall on March 24. The Notice of Brady Disclosure was dated March 24. It's something to think about, isn't it?

And it could also be about the supposed "open front door"

MOO

 

[r3d-ros3]

Ostensible cause would be easy to find and state, I'd think. Until BF testifies to what she heard and saw during that 24 hour period (or longer, depending on other evidence), there isn't an on-record account of what she knows. For all we know, Defense is using someone else's discovery/statements to indicate that BF was indeed involved in finding the bodies and calling 911 (in some way). She certainly may have seen blood footprints at some point in time.

Both sides could call her, really. But it's interesting that the Defense may want her to impeach DM (that's my first hunch).

Certainly could be asked to poke holes in DM's witness account, especially considering the PCA. Speaking of, I decided to take a look back at it and see exactly where BF is mentioned. On page 3, BF supplies Ethan and Xana's location that night, having seen them at the Sigma Chi house party between 9pm and 1:45am [I've been away from the threads for a while, so I'm sure it's been discussed, but I don't think I had previously processed that BF was also at the Sigma Chi house party]. She estimates that they returned to the King road residence at 1:45am.

I agree that the defense will probably look at texts or phone calls between DM and BF that night and the following morning, and certainly may try to use BF to diminish DM's credibility as an eyewitness. Their interest in BF's account might also have to do with the fact that she was proximate to Ethan and Xana that night. The fact that they were all at the same party has probably [definitely?] been discussed here, but just to add some additional context about what they MIGHT be interested in hearing more about.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

This was about the money for travel and hotel which is going to be paid for.

But yes there is such a thing as hardship. As a physician you know, health issues can keep witnesses from court.

In these cases video is used - with a doctor's excuse.

That's an entirely different scenario and that wouldn't excuse her from testimony, just excuse her from travel. But if that's what you were referring to, then yes, witnesses can be excused from TRAVEL due to medical conditions, but they will still have to testify.

JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

On the face of it, I think it's pretty obvious that BF doesn't think she has anything to add or spill the beans about, that she hasn't already told LE, that would be a game changer for BK's defense ahead of his PH.

What makes you say that? Her attorney made the case that there's no support her information could exonerate him and that the PH isn't the place for it, but IMO, that's a far cry from not having anything to add, IMO.

Also, if she is still recovering from the shock and trauma of the murders, which seems likely since it has been less than 6 months, it may be "doctor's orders" to postpone her being questioned (again, since she must have told LE all she knows) for as long as possible and until she absolutely has to, e.g., if she is called to testify at the PH.

As a physician who's been caught up in these cases, the only time that comes to play (at least in my state) is if the witness is incapable of testifying/speaking to LE. In those cases, they're seen by an independent forensic psychologist or a forensic psychiatrist (not the treating provider due to the concern of conflict of interest) to assess their level of impairment. Impairment doesn't just mean trauma. Sadly, I've seen children testify about abuse and rape because they were not "impaired," though they certainly were traumatized. Reliving the trauma isn't good for any witness so I always believe that attorneys must have VERY good reason (i.e. very important information to extract) if they're calling a traumatized victim to the stand. But by the same token, we can't just not call traumatized victims who have important information to the stand. Our judicial system can't work if we make those types of exceptions.

IANAL, but the above is based on my professional opinion as a physician.

 

[di anna]

Many years ago I witnessed a terrible crime. I was asked to identify the individuals
by line up. Do they still do this, or is it necessary for someone to have a criminal history to participate in a line up? The crime happened very quickly but I definitely ID'd both perpetrators. They had a criminal history. I only witnessed this in a very short time, a couple of minutes. It never entered my mind to not assist prosecution of the individuals that committed the crime. Is it frightening, yes but much more compelling to bring the perpetrators to justice.

 

[Cool Cats]

That's an entirely different scenario and that wouldn't excuse her from testimony, just excuse her from travel. But if that's what you were referring to, then yes, witnesses can be excused from TRAVEL due to medical conditions, but they will still have to testify.

JMO

I agree.

That is what I said in my post. That if a witness cannot come to court they do it by video.
I remember a person having to participate in a court hearing from their hospital bed.

But it seems like B's attorney is challenging the subpoena based on it not being enforceable rather than from a true "hardship" claim.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

From the affidavit of Richard Bitonti: "portions of information Funke has is exculpatory to the defendant. Ms. Funke's information is unique to her experiences and cannot be provided by another witness."

Perhaps what is "unique to her experiences" is that she was on the first floor (nobody else was), she received texts and/or phone calls from DM (nobody else was alive to respond), and maybe she didn't hear anything that DM heard.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

One other thing,

This:

".. there is no authority for an Idaho criminal defendant to summon a Nevada witness to Idaho for preliminary hearing. There is also no authority for an Idaho criminal defendant to summon a Nevada witness to an Idaho matter without a hearing and there is no authority to summon a Nevada witness to an Idaho matter without a Nevada Judge making a finding of materiality, necessity and the lack of undue hardship."

If a Nevada Judge has to make a finding of materiality....would the gag order apply in Nevada, or could we maybe be privy to the hearing....?

 

[Shamrock1]

I’ve deposed non-party witnesses in a hospital bed and in their own living-room recliners. A preliminary hearing isn’t a deposition, of course. But “hardship” is more than just a medical note. (And, in any case, I don’t think BF is making an argument for undue hardship/trauma). JMO.

 

[wary]

From the affidavit of Richard Bitonti: "portions of information Funke has is exculpatory to the defendant. Ms. Funke's information is unique to her experiences and cannot be provided by another witness."

Perhaps what is "unique to her experiences" is that she was on the first floor (nobody else was), she received texts and/or phone calls from DM (nobody else was alive to respond), and maybe she didn't hear anything that DM heard.

Would this be exculpatory in any way that would matter to the preliminary hearing?

 

[10ofRods]

Would this be exculpatory in any way that would matter to the preliminary hearing?

We won't know until we hear it. It would be bizarre if BF testifies (for example) that she heard some other dude threaten Xana and Ethan and say "I'm going to come over to your house and get you!"

I don't know what this judge would do with that, but where I live, if such matters were about to explored at Prelim, the Judge would probably delay Prelim and ask the DA/LE to weigh in specifically on the person who made the threat.

I personally doubt that anything BF has to say is exculpatory when viewed by a jury - but that's the whole point. The Defense can claim it is exculpatory all the way up until the verdict, and that's how it should be, IMO.

As others have stated, the trial could still be scheduled - since BK's DNA was at the scene. Unless BF is a DNA expert, she cannot give a reason why there was a sole source of DNA on the sheath - and that source is BK.

IMO.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

We won't know until we hear it. It would be bizarre if BF testifies (for example) that she heard some other dude threaten Xana and Ethan and say "I'm going to come over to your house and get you!"

I don't know what this judge would do with that, but where I live, if such matters were about to explored at Prelim, the Judge would probably delay Prelim and ask the DA/LE to weigh in specifically on the person who made the threat.

I personally doubt that anything BF has to say is exculpatory when viewed by a jury - but that's the whole point. The Defense can claim it is exculpatory all the way up until the verdict, and that's how it should be, IMO.

As others have stated, the trial could still be scheduled - since BK's DNA was at the scene. Unless BF is a DNA expert, she cannot give a reason why there was a sole source of DNA on the sheath - and that source is BK.

IMO.

@10ofRods :

The CERTIFICATE to SECURE ATTENDANCE was signed by Judge Marshall on March 24. The Notice of Brady Disclosure was dated March 24. I'm curious if you think this timing has anything to do with each? The Brady Disclosure signed by Judge Marshall ON THE SAME DAY as the Certificate to secure attendance for BF. Makes me fidgety....

 

[maconrich]

@PrairieWind What might #6 mean? tia

View attachment 416863

Anyone? Number 6? This seems to be specific, although it may or may not be related to why the defense is stating she may be a material witness, correct? Or not? Or something we're not allowed to ask? Sorry for asking this in the middle of discussion about the party at the fraternity, but it's bothering the heck out of me...

 

[LAhiker]

Anyone? Number 6? This seems to be specific, although it may or may not be related to why the defense is stating she may be a material witness, correct? Or not? Or something we're not allowed to ask? Sorry for asking this in the middle of discussion about the party at the fraternity, but it's bothering the heck out of me...

That is intriguing. Is it boilerplate for such summons? Is it another version of "we won't bust you for drugs or drinking" disclaimer that the Moscow police kept repeating? Or might they be referring to something specific?

JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Or could BF being called to appear have to do with the reports that the front door (on the lowest level/where BF's room was) was seen open at some point earlier that morning? And in the first press conference, LE said they weren't sure about the door being unlocked? (Approx. time 10:45 in the video.)

MOO.

Moscow Police Department Press Conference

Moscow Police Department press conference streamed with assistance from the University of Idaho.

www.youtube.com

Early on, I believed the front door allegedly being open suggested that BK may have returned (possibly to get the sheath?). But his phone supposedly didn't ping there until 9 am. So if the door was open, was it left open that whole time (from the time the killer left until the roommates woke up?) or did someone else come over or did BF, who was on the first floor, open it and then go back to bed without going upstairs?

Even if we want to believe it was wind (as people had suggested earlier in the thread, though I find it a stretch), it would still give access to others. IMO, this could have something to do with her testimony, though if it's this, I hope they're asking more than just "was the door open?" to justify putting this poor girl through it again.

MOO.