4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 73

[Gemmie]

Why not?
But
Will the neighbours be happy??
I mean, constant barking, howling haha

JMO

JMO but a dog park wouldn't have constant barking and howling. Maybe a few barks here and there but all during the daytime. And that would sure be a heck of a lot quieter than living near a big party house which their's was. And I've never heard of police being called out for loud disturbances for some barking at a dog park. Just sayin'. LOL

If I lived next door, and it turned into a dog park, I'd be a lot happier than when the party house was there. MUCH quieter.

 

[PrairieWind]

I agree that there’s no hurry. Personally, I seriously don’t believe that any noticeable degree of ‘healing’ will come from demolishing the house. That concept would be laughable, if there was anything funny about the situation, which there isn’t. So, specially no hurry.

MOO

I bet the neighbors are sick of all the looky loos driving by the see the murder house.

 

[Gemmie]

I bet the neighbors are sick of all the looky loos driving by the see the murder house.

More like looky ghouls when it's a murder site.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I feel torn about demolishing the house. It is such a confusing floor plan that it seems it would be helpful for jurists to walk though and be able to follow the speculated movements of the murderer. I admit, after all my exposure to the plans and videos of the inside of the house - I am still easily confused. It's not like the layout of the house is your typical one story ranch in which a person's paths would be an easy flow to follow.
A walk-through of the house would help tactile learners, like me, who learn best by doing, not just by reading, seeing, or hearing - and all those on the jury might benefit by this.
I can understand the town's, college's, and city's desire to remove the morbid reminder - but at what cost? The preservation and protection of all other evidence has been a priority to protect the integrity of a fair trial; it seems like this would rank right up there with any other evidence.
Tactile learners, like me, learn best by doing, not just by reading, seeing, or hearing.

 

[Cool Cats]

Idaho murders: Bryan Kohberger leaks 'huge issue' with 'potential to compromise' prosecution, lawyer warns

A lawyer warns that the case against Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger could be compromised because of sources leaking information in the investigation.

www.yahoo.com

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Idaho murders: Bryan Kohberger leaks 'huge issue' with 'potential to compromise' prosecution, lawyer warns

A lawyer warns that the case against Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger could be compromised because of sources leaking information in the investigation.

www.yahoo.com

I detest these fake headlines. This "grabber" makes it sound like BK leaked the information himself.

 

[schooling]

I detest these fake headlines. This "grabber" makes it sound like BK leaked the information himself.

ALL of the 'leaked' NewsNation tidbits could have been pulled right off of the moscowidaho official subreddit (not the ones specific to the crime) in the days following the murders. I've mentioned it before, but find it highly suspicious that as soon as the DailyMail referenced one of those Mid-November Reddit posts (by Xanas Sis in Law) in a news story, NewsNation all of the sudden had a source who just happened to be leaking all of that same information.

The People Mag source is a little bit more ominous. I figured that with the full throated denial of the 'BK visited MadGreeks' story that they would have stopped using that source. But after saying they stood behind their story it's apparent that they continue to use the same person.

MOO

 

[Boxer]

Why not?
But
Will the neighbours be happy??
I mean, constant barking, howling haha

JMO

Frat neighbors . Yes, early morning dogs barking would be a problem for them.

 

[al66pine]

A "Jury View." An In-Person Visit at 1122 King St. House. Possible??

As usu., I'm behind, posted this before reading about planned conveyance of house & planned demo. Sorry, nevertherless:

...The prosecutor could go into detail on their theory with all of the alleged actions and show how that fits or conversely the defense could want to walk the property with the jury to show how the timeline doesn't make sense....

snipping for focus @SpanishInquisition
Sure, some TV dramas show trial juries at crime scenes where a prosecutor or def. atty. grandly gestures to highlight some details and says --- here's how the crime happened (or it could not have happened that way or here).

Per ID law below,* a trial judge may grant a motion for a "jury view" of a crime scene, and order that the sheriff arranging transport must see that "no person to speak or communicate with the jury... on any subject connected with the trial."
Sheriff takes jury “to the place, which must be shown to them by a person appointed by the court for that purpose.”

Sooo, who goes besides jury & person “showing” it to jury?
Judge? Prosecutor? Def atty? Def’t? Ct. reporter? Deputies for security? Is MSM allowed? The gen public?
I see how jury views can be awkward, lead to claims of jurors talking, ppl making prohibited communications, etc., etc., etc.
IIUC, seems this ID law puts the damper on atty. showboating at murder scene.

Not expressing a personal opn. re whether jury view would be helpful in this case, IDK.

As always, welcoming clarification or correction, esp'ly from our legal professionals. @PrairieWind ? Others?
____________________________________
* page 5 of 8 at link.
"19-2124. VIEW OF PREMISES BY JURY. When, in the opinion of the court, it is proper that the jury should view the place in which the offense is charged to have been committed, or in which any other material fact occurred, it may order the jury to be conducted in a body, in the custody of the sheriff, to the place, which must be shown to them by a person appointed by the court for that purpose; and the sheriff must be sworn to suffer no person to speak or communicate with the jury, nor to do so himself, on any subject connected with the trial, and to return them into court without unnecessary delay, or at a specified time."
"[(19-2124) Cr. Prac. 1864, secs. 376, 377, p. 258; R.S., R.C., & C.L., sec. 7878; C.S., sec. 8964; I.C.A., sec. 19-2024
Also 2022 Idaho Code :: Title 19 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :: Chapter 21 - TRIAL :: Section 19-2124 - VIEW OF PREMISES BY JURY.

 

[Nova]

A "Jury View." An In-Person Visit at 1122 King St. House. Possible??

As usu., I'm behind, posted this before reading about planned conveyance of house & planned demo. Sorry, nevertherless:

snipping for focus @SpanishInquisition
Sure, some TV dramas show trial juries at crime scenes where a prosecutor or def. atty. grandly gestures to highlight some details and says --- here's how the crime happened (or it could not have happened that way or here).

Per ID law below,* a trial judge may grant a motion for a "jury view" of a crime scene, and order that the sheriff arranging transport must see that "no person to speak or communicate with the jury... on any subject connected with the trial."
Sheriff takes jury “to the place, which must be shown to them by a person appointed by the court for that purpose.”

Sooo, who goes besides jury & person “showing” it to jury?
Judge? Prosecutor? Def atty? Def’t? Ct. reporter? Deputies for security? Is MSM allowed? The gen public?
I see how jury views can be awkward, lead to claims of jurors talking, ppl making prohibited communications, etc., etc., etc.
IIUC, seems this ID law puts the damper on atty. showboating at murder scene.

Not expressing a personal opn. re whether jury view would be helpful in this case, IDK.

As always, welcoming clarification or correction, esp'ly from our legal professionals. @PrairieWind ? Others?
____________________________________
* page 5 of 8 at link.
"19-2124. VIEW OF PREMISES BY JURY. When, in the opinion of the court, it is proper that the jury should view the place in which the offense is charged to have been committed, or in which any other material fact occurred, it may order the jury to be conducted in a body, in the custody of the sheriff, to the place, which must be shown to them by a person appointed by the court for that purpose; and the sheriff must be sworn to suffer no person to speak or communicate with the jury, nor to do so himself, on any subject connected with the trial, and to return them into court without unnecessary delay, or at a specified time."
"[(19-2124) Cr. Prac. 1864, secs. 376, 377, p. 258; R.S., R.C., & C.L., sec. 7878; C.S., sec. 8964; I.C.A., sec. 19-2024
Also 2022 Idaho Code :: Title 19 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :: Chapter 21 - TRIAL :: Section 19-2124 - VIEW OF PREMISES BY JURY.

I am not a lawyer, but in trials I've watched on TV where the jury toured the crime scene, included were the judge, the defendant, attorneys for both sides, the jurors (including alternates), and the sheriff and as many officers as the sheriff feels are needed to keep passersby from approaching the jurors.

I believe such tours are normally conducted in silence, since the jurors aren't supposed to be discussing the case yet, not even with one another.

 

[maskedwoman]

Those who are saying it's too soon could be right. But with the sort of crime it was, unless LE missed fingerprints left in blood, I'm not sure the building can offer more help. There's no doubt there were murders on site, no doubt who the victims were, no doubt the murder weapon was a knife (I guess that could have been left hidden in the house but I really doubt it.) At any rate, I can't be quite imagine the university leaving it standing until after the trial. Realistically a trial could be years away.
JMO

I just want them to be really really careful to get this right. Not having possible evidence available any longer just makes me nervous. I'm bad about "borrowing trouble". Ha!

 

[NCWatcher]

I just want them to be really really careful to get this right. Not having possible evidence available any longer just makes me nervous. I'm bad about "borrowing trouble". Ha!

I know. But I'd bet in most murder trials the option for the jury to visit the site of the murder doesn't exist even when the exact site is known. House are sold and renovated, apartments are rented to different tenants (and refurbished) & even outdoor areas can change because of natural events and/or human intervention.

Personally I doubt there's useful evidence yet to be found in the house. Obviously I can't know that though. But even if there was, it seems there would be a problem with chain of custody for evidence unless the house has been under 24/7 police guard. And I just don't see how it could be kept guarded that way for what could be years. I'm also pretty confident neither LE nor the prosecutor's office has objected to the university's plans for demolition.
 JMO

 

[Dotta]

Is so called "on site verification" done any more?
With the perp or an officer playing the perp replaying what was done during the crime -step by step?
At the real crime scene.
To check all the details, time, etc?

JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

Maybe. I'd kind of doubt it though. I expect the house has been pretty thoroughly processed. And it's not as though there's any doubt over CoD of the victims for example or whether a victim was found far from where he/she was killed. It sounds like even the times of death are pinned down more than is often the case. But regardless, if the university plans for the house to be gone by the end of this semester, doing the work over break isn't a bad idea, IMO. I don't know if that's realistic so far as finding a demo company.
JMO

I am really interested in learning the coroner's time of death for each victim and how it was determined. JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

Just thinking a bit this morning about the recently released documents on supplemental discovery. I realize that the court needs to tread a fine line and provide a fair trial for the defendant, however, not seeing the entire request from the defense, the full response of the prosecution (whether they are complying or objecting to any items), and not seeing the arguments cited for sealing these documents is bothering me a bit. I feel they have gone a little too far and it feels more like a "secret" court case. Law is not my expertise, so I am wondering if any lawyers here have seen this level of secrecy before? JMO

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

edit: I just reread the states response and it refers back to its first response to discovery on Jan 23 so I'm guessing their response is duplicate to the first response?

 

[WingsOverTX]

Just thinking a bit this morning about the recently released documents on supplemental discovery. I realize that the court needs to tread a fine line and provide a fair trial for the defendant, however, not seeing the entire request from the defense, the full response of the prosecution (whether they are complying or objecting to any items), and not seeing the arguments cited for sealing these documents is bothering me a bit. I feel they have gone a little too far and it feels more like a "secret" court case. Law is not my expertise, so I am wondering if any lawyers here have seen this level of secrecy before? JMO

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

It is a secret court case. When the extensive gag order was imposed, it was clear this judge would be very likely to seal anything she was asked to seal IMO.

While a desire for justice is admirable in any case, the legal presumption is always supposed to be public release.

I'm hoping there are very good reasons for the secrecy but it is concerning since the PH is coming up in June. The media are pushing for more transparency. Unless they are successful, I'm not sure even courtroom proceedings are going to be open.

This is trending in the wrong direction IMHO. I am willing to give the judge the benefit of the doubt at this time but when proceedings start, more openness needs to be the default.

JMHO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Just thinking a bit this morning about the recently released documents on supplemental discovery. I realize that the court needs to tread a fine line and provide a fair trial for the defendant, however, not seeing the entire request from the defense, the full response of the prosecution (whether they are complying or objecting to any items), and not seeing the arguments cited for sealing these documents is bothering me a bit. I feel they have gone a little too far and it feels more like a "secret" court case. Law is not my expertise, so I am wondering if any lawyers here have seen this level of secrecy before? JMO

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

edit: I just reread the states response and it refers back to its first response to discovery on Jan 23 so I'm guessing their response is duplicate to the first response?

I really think there's a lot more to the story. I'm not sure what, but there's definitely more. I wondered if there could be an accomplice out there or if BK could have connections or something and they're doing this out of protection for potential witnesses. I don't think the latter is likely, but I still wonder about the former. Another thought I had is maybe there's a witness who they're afraid the public will go after, kind of like they targeted DM, but to an even larger degree, if these documents are made public.

I think we need to curb publicity regardless to insure a fair trial and impartial jurors, but the emphasis on protecting witnesses makes me wonder.

 

[Boxer]

I really think there's a lot more to the story. I'm not sure what, but there's definitely more. I wondered if there could be an accomplice out there or if BK could have connections or something and they're doing this out of protection for potential witnesses. I don't think the latter is likely, but I still wonder about the former. Another thought I had is maybe there's a witness who they're afraid the public will go after, kind of like they targeted DM, but to an even larger degree, if these documents are made public.

I think we need to curb publicity regardless to insure a fair trial and impartial jurors, but the emphasis on protecting witnesses makes me wonder.

MOO the effect of internet sleuthing to get info about witnesses and victims is adding a force to high profile court cases that they are trying to deal with.

 

[gliving]

 

[iamshadow21]

I know it's a happy time, that this baby has been long expected, since well before the murders, but I have to admit this just made me burst into tears. Murder is theft in so many ways, and not just once, but over and over again, forever. Maddie and Kaylee should be holding this baby, not be memorialised in her.

May justice happen, for all the tomorrows these families have had stolen from them.