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

[BeginnerSleuther]

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

I believe @PrairieWind replied to this a few pages ago and said the language sounds boilerplate, but that the person who received the subpoena is a public defender in NV, which is curious because maybe that suggests BF has a public defender in addition to her regular lawyer?

Here's PW's post.

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

The most interesting thing about this is that the defense feels she has "exculpatory" information. I wonder what information she might have that the defense feels is exculpatory? Further, I wonder what information she might have that the defense feels would potentially even prevent a trial...

www.websleuths.com

 

[r3d-ros3]

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...

Notice that in the Motion to Quash they state that the Foreign Subpoena to BF was served upon a Nevada Public Defender. There is also reference in the subpoena to her appearing and not rendering herself liable to service of process in Idaho. The second part could be just boiler plate language. But taken in conjunction with the service on a PD, I suspect BF is/has been charged with criminal activity. She can fight if she wants but she is going to testify one way or another.

From @PrairieWind -- I am very sorry if your previous comment (quoted above) is irrelevant to the current discussion.

 

[maconrich]

I believe @PrairieWind replied to this a few pages ago and said the language sounds boilerplate, but that the person who received the subpoena is a public defender in NV, which is curious because maybe that suggests BF has a public defender in addition to her regular lawyer?

Here's PW's post.

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

The most interesting thing about this is that the defense feels she has "exculpatory" information. I wonder what information she might have that the defense feels is exculpatory? Further, I wonder what information she might have that the defense feels would potentially even prevent a trial...

www.websleuths.com

Thank you! It confused me that her having a PD in NV would cover possible illegal activity in ID (other than the fact BF resides in NV). Quite possible I'm being denser than normal.

 

[otto]

After reading the documents, my impression was that the objection to her testifying during a preliminary hearing is that she is not compelled to give evidence until trial. The preliminary hearing is not a mini-trial. At the same time, the defence wants to go on a fishing expedition to find out what she saw.

Linked upthread

 

[maconrich]

From @PrairieWind -- I am very sorry if your previous comment (quoted above) is irrelevant to the current discussion.

It ties to the information that was released, but not so much with potential aspects of the party the three were at that night. So relevant to some degree, but irrelevant re the fraternity party discussion. If that makes any sense.

 

[r3d-ros3]

It ties to the information that was released, but not so much with potential aspects of the party the three were at that night. So relevant to some degree, but irrelevant re the fraternity party discussion. If that makes any sense.

My apology was to @PrairieWind for taking their comment out of context in the event that it didn't apply to #6, now being discussed -- not your below comment. The Sigma Chi party is interesting, though, since that's where BF emerges in the PCA and the events described therein. In a single thread it's hard not to "interrupt" one another.

Sorry for asking this in the middle of discussion about the party at the fraternity

 

[Twistinginthewind]

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.



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.

Thanks, @BeginnerSleuther, that all seems to make sense to me, and I appreciate you have experience in these types of cases that go well beyond opining.

I was trying to say I think it might be a matter of timing and readiness, whether and if or when BF believes she may be willing or able to add anything or bring anything new to the table.

And maybe this instance is too "preemptive" and BK's defense subpeonaing her from out of state 2 months before the PH does not constitute the ideal time or venue for her to say anything more, from her perspective.

It all remains to be seen.

JMO

 

[maconrich]

My apology was to @PrairieWind for taking their comment out of context in the event that it didn't apply to #6, now being discussed -- not your below comment. The Sigma Chi party is interesting, though, since that's where BF emerges in the PCA and the events described therein. In a single thread it's hard not to "interrupt" one another.

Seriously blushing. Sorry about that! Agree that the party is interesting, and sorry again.

 

[U.N. Known]

I think if the Defense had a bomb like that, it would have been dropped long ago.

JMO

The defense is also party to the non dissemination order. So, no bombshells dropped, even if there is one.

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).

Exactly. Although I don't think the Defense has to show the Court exactly what she'll testify to, before she does it. She needs to be under oath. It might turn out well for BK - but it might not.

Prelims can be very interesting in that regard.

IMO.

I have several people use the same phraseology. What would she impeach (from information we know)? The timeline? IMO, TOD could do that, if there is a discrepancy. JMO, but DM's known statements from the night of the murders are not that important in the grand scheme of things now that someone is in custody. She did not say: that she knew the intruder (maybe that was purposely written to that way lead the judge in a direction) and she was not a witness to the actual murders.

The information from the PI says BF's information is unique to her, so IMO it isn't directly connected to DM's general information.

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.

IMO, the defense would not subpoena her to say she didn't hear anything nor would that be exculpatory.

This bit of news does fit with the idea that there is much more that happened that night than what we know. I don't mean to suggest a conspiracy. However, II know that the state turned over about 1,000 pages of evidence in the first evidence exchange. BF was interviewed more than once and not one word of those interviews was in the PCA ,IMO because it did not help the state's case. We've assumed that BF did not hear anything because she isn't quoted and due to the location of her room. If she did hear murders in progress, that also tells us that it wasn't as quiet in the house as it's seemed.

ON another note: just imagine how much we'd have to discuss if the gag order did not exist! I think it's a good idea, but I feel there is a lot of interesting information out there.

 

[WingsOverTX]

The defense is also party to the non dissemination order. So, no bombshells dropped, even if there is one.

I have several people use the same phraseology. What would she impeach (from information we know)? The timeline? IMO, TOD could do that, if there is a discrepancy. JMO, but DM's known statements from the night of the murders are not that important in the grand scheme of things now that someone is in custody. She did not say: that she knew the intruder (maybe that was purposely written to that way lead the judge in a direction) and she was not a witness to the actual murders.

The information from the PI says BF's information is unique to her, so IMO it isn't directly connected to DM's general information.


IMO, the defense would not subpoena her to say she didn't hear anything nor would that be exculpatory.

This bit of news does fit with the idea that there is much more that happened that night than what we know. I don't mean to suggest a conspiracy. However, II know that the state turned over about 1,000 pages of evidence in the first evidence exchange. BF was interviewed more than once and not one word of those interviews was in the PCA ,IMO because it did not help the state's case. We've assumed that BF did not hear anything because she isn't quoted and due to the location of her room. If she did hear murders in progress, that also tells us that it wasn't as quiet in the house as it's seemed.

ON another note: just imagine how much we'd have to discuss if the gag order did not exist! I think it's a good idea, but I feel there is a lot of interesting information out there.

RBBM
Amen to that. I really find the Idaho Supreme Court telling the AP, et al, that they need to backtrack to a lower court very incorrect.

The main reason I say this is that if the gag order is to be lifted in whole or in part in a timely manner (prelim is weeks away), there is not time for proceedings to work their way up. The SC is denying potential timely justice to the public, whom the law preferentially deems to have the right to know what is occurring in a criminal case.

I'm not going to beat this topic to death but delay equals denial of justice sometimes. I find it disheartening (even if those more well-versed in the law inform me to "suck it up, buttercup")!
JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Thank you! It confused me that her having a PD in NV would cover possible illegal activity in ID (other than the fact BF resides in NV). Quite possible I'm being denser than normal.

Nah, it's confusing. I think we're going to reach the point in this case where we're going to need a chart to understand exactly what's going on. MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

After reading the documents, my impression was that the objection to her testifying during a preliminary hearing is that she is not compelled to give evidence until trial. The preliminary hearing is not a mini-trial. At the same time, the defence wants to go on a fishing expedition to find out what she saw.

Linked upthread

No way would a judge sign off on a fishing expedition, IMO. A probable cause hearing is the perfect place for someone who truly has exculpatory information to give testimony, IMO. If it actually is exculpatory, why would put the taxpayers (not to mention the defendant and the families) through the circus of a trial?? It makes no sense at all.

Also, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the defense has access to BF's statement and whatever she's told LE. The defense already knows what she saw.

MOO.

 

[Gemmie]

Nah, it's confusing. I think we're going to reach the point in this case where we're going to need a chart to understand exactly what's going on. MOO.

Already there for some of us! (Me. lol)

 

[I'm Nobody]

"It was Funke who found the bloodied bodies of her three housemates and she has argued she should not have to appear because she now lives in Nevada, not Idaho."

Thanks Dotta--buried in the article the reason defense wants BF.

Surviving Idaho University roommate fights court order

The surviving Idaho university roommmate is fighting a court order for her to testify for quadruple murder suspect Bryan Kohberger.

www.dailymail.co.uk

"Investigator Richard Bitonti, who is working for Anne Taylor, Kohberger's court-appointed attorney, has now subpoenaed Funke to appear on June 28, and if she refuses to appear, could face a potential fine of $500 or 25 days in jail.

Kohberger's defense team aims to challenge the probable cause used to justify his arrest at his scheduled preliminary hearing in June and claim Funke has 'exculpatory' information that is 'material and necessary' to the alleged killer's defense.

'During the course of my investigation, it became known to me that [she] has information material to the charges against Mr. Kohberger,' Bitonti wrote in an affidavit. "

Sorry if this was posted but reason BF is material witness is she is the one who found the bodies
seems to be buried in the Daily Mail article today.
OR I got it wrong again?????????

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

RBBM
Amen to that. I really find the Idaho Supreme Court telling the AP, et al, that they need to backtrack to a lower court very incorrect.

The main reason I say this is that if the gag order is to be lifted in whole or in part in a timely manner (prelim is weeks away), there is not time for proceedings to work their way up. The SC is denying potential timely justice to the public, whom the law preferentially deems to have the right to know what is occurring in a criminal case.

I'm not going to beat this topic to death but delay equals denial of justice sometimes. I find it disheartening (even if those more well-versed in the law inform me to "suck it up, buttercup")!
JMO

The public's right to know doesn't supersede the defendant's right to a fair trial and IIRC, that was one of the reasons for the gag order. Also, time constraints isn't a reason to dismiss proper protocol, IMO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

"It was Funke who found the bloodied bodies of her three housemates and she has argued she should not have to appear because she now lives in Nevada, not Idaho."

Thanks Dotta--buried in the article the reason defense wants BF.

"Investigator Richard Bitonti, who is working for Anne Taylor, Kohberger's court-appointed attorney, has now subpoenaed Funke to appear on June 28, and if she refuses to appear, could face a potential fine of $500 or 25 days in jail.

Kohberger's defense team aims to challenge the probable cause used to justify his arrest at his scheduled preliminary hearing in June and claim Funke has 'exculpatory' information that is 'material and necessary' to the alleged killer's defense.

'During the course of my investigation, it became known to me that [she] has information material to the charges against Mr. Kohberger,' Bitonti wrote in an affidavit. "

Sorry if this was posted but reason BF is material witness is she is the one who found the bodies
seems to be buried in the Daily Mail article today.
OR I got it wrong again?????????

Whoa. You're right, this has never been revealed before. In fact, social media rumors indicated the exact opposite and this is the first we're hearing that one of the roommates actually found them. That is huge, IMO. I wonder what about that would be exculpatory though?

 

[r3d-ros3]

"It was Funke who found the bloodied bodies of her three housemates and she has argued she should not have to appear because she now lives in Nevada, not Idaho."

Thanks Dotta--buried in the article the reason defense wants BF.

"Investigator Richard Bitonti, who is working for Anne Taylor, Kohberger's court-appointed attorney, has now subpoenaed Funke to appear on June 28, and if she refuses to appear, could face a potential fine of $500 or 25 days in jail.

Kohberger's defense team aims to challenge the probable cause used to justify his arrest at his scheduled preliminary hearing in June and claim Funke has 'exculpatory' information that is 'material and necessary' to the alleged killer's defense.

'During the course of my investigation, it became known to me that [she] has information material to the charges against Mr. Kohberger,' Bitonti wrote in an affidavit. "

Sorry if this was posted but reason BF is material witness is she is the one who found the bodies
seems to be buried in the Daily Mail article today.
OR I got it wrong again?????????

I saw this. I haven't heard it anywhere else -- I do have reservations about DM, but I know it's an approved source. I wonder where they got this information and why it hasn't been released prior? How is this exculpatory? (I also recognize that being a material witness and having exculpatory evidence are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but...)

Also in the linked DM article, and a few others circulating today in response to the recent news, they repeat that the whereabouts of DM and BF are unknown that night. The PCA clearly states that BF saw Ethan and Xana at the Sigma Chi house party, so I'm assuming she was there as well? It's on page 3 of the PCA and supplies part of Xana and Ethan's timeline for the night. They left at 1:45am. This is just to say that it seems like MSM is getting some things wrong, or filling in gaps, or leaving things out, depending on what suits the current narrative. JMO.

 

[Sundog]

"It was Funke who found the bloodied bodies of her three housemates and she has argued she should not have to appear because she now lives in Nevada, not Idaho."

Thanks Dotta--buried in the article the reason defense wants BF.

"Investigator Richard Bitonti, who is working for Anne Taylor, Kohberger's court-appointed attorney, has now subpoenaed Funke to appear on June 28, and if she refuses to appear, could face a potential fine of $500 or 25 days in jail.

Kohberger's defense team aims to challenge the probable cause used to justify his arrest at his scheduled preliminary hearing in June and claim Funke has 'exculpatory' information that is 'material and necessary' to the alleged killer's defense.

'During the course of my investigation, it became known to me that [she] has information material to the charges against Mr. Kohberger,' Bitonti wrote in an affidavit. "

Sorry if this was posted but reason BF is material witness is she is the one who found the bodies
seems to be buried in the Daily Mail article today.
OR I got it wrong again?????????

I haven't seen this information in any other MSM news reports, and Daily Mail doesn't give a source to this info, just states it as fact. I am not taking this reporting as fact, at this time, until we are given a source or it appears as verified in other MSM. JMO.

 

[10ofRods]

I saw this. I haven't heard it anywhere else -- I do have reservations about DM, but I know it's an approved source. I wonder where they got this information and why it hasn't been released prior? How is this exculpatory? (I also recognize that being a material witness and having exculpatory evidence are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but...)

Also in the linked DM article, and a few others circulating today in response to the recent news, they repeat that the whereabouts of DM and BF are unknown that night. The PCA clearly states that BF saw Ethan and Xana at the Sigma Chi house party, so I'm assuming she was there as well? It's on page 3 of the PCA and supplies part of Xana and Ethan's timeline for the night. They left at 1:45am. This is just to say that it seems like MSM is getting some things wrong, or filling in gaps, or leaving things out, depending on what suits the current narrative. JMO.

Frankly, at the time of the murders it was definitely rumored that BF and DM found the bodies - we just didn't know which one of them came first or whether it was a joint discovery. This was not MSM and so I guess this is the first time we discuss it here.

MSM can't always find reliable sources unless they put on a full court press. But, there were rumors in the Internet at the time. IMO

Until MSM (or the legal proceedings) provide more details, I do not believe we can go into what else was said in regards to BF and DM and the finding of the bodies. I"m not sure it's about "current narrative," I think it's a very sticky wicket, and MSM is trying to obey the gag order.

IMO.

 

[gliving]

"The high court did not weigh in on whether the gag order, which prohibits attorneys, prosecutors, law enforcement agencies and others involved in the case from talking to the news media, violates the First Amendment rights of a free press. Instead, the unanimous Idaho Supreme Court justices said the news organizations should have brought their request to the magistrate judge who issued the gag order."

Court denies request to lift gag order in Idaho killings

The Idaho Supreme Court on Monday rejected a request by 30 news organizations to lift a gag order in the criminal case of Bryan Kohberger.

komonews.com