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

[Nova]

No one knew BK was unhinged.

No one IMO expected he'd handle that groupthink session badly or that it would play into grievance collecting or that, if humiliated, he'd go passive, passive, passive, murderous aggressive!

Jmo

Having had similar experiences, I have spoken out strongly against having undergrads gang up on a new TA.

But if your point is that nothing about the event justifies murder, I 100% agree!

 

[Nova]

Thank you.

At this point we don't even know how accurate the quoted students are. A very small number of them were quoted. Possibly being an unpopular TA does not a murderer make. If he was in fact fired, it was long after the murders were committed. The reported letter of termination was dated weeks after the murders and several days after BK arrived back home. Granted, there is nothing logical about murdering complete (or near complete) strangers, but I find it a stretch to believe that he murdered four people in another town because he suspected he may lose his position in six weeks.

I also find it odd that the university would wait until the semester was over to send official notification. Unless they sent the letter via certified mail/requested a signature upon receipt they wouldn't know he received the letter. He could easily show up in January ready to work.

I don't know the procedures at WSU. At the uni where I studied and taught, the faculty got together every quarter after grades had been determined to discuss the progress of each grad student.

It was at those meetings where expulsions and probations were discussed and decided.

 

[DeDee]

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?

The Daily Mail has again failed. They've misrepresented or misunderstood # 10. jmho

 

[whiterhino]

"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?????????

RBBM

IIRC in the early days it was deemed against TOS to discuss who found the roommates. Since there is an MSM link IDK if that makes it acceptable/open to discussion? AFAIK it's still against TOS so I'm treading lightly.

It's the DailyMail so no, I don't think you've gotten anything wrong @I'm Nobody

ICBW but are there not extenuating circumstances which could exclude BF from being fined/jailed for refusing to appear? Considering not only is she a witness but also a victim?

Forgive me for the following potentially stupid points/questions:

If there is a potential witness with knowledge/proof/evidence that could clear the defendant, is the PH not the best time to present this?

IANAL this is for anyone else who also is not:

What happens at a Preliminary Hearing? A quick walk-through

During a preliminary hearing, a prosecutor and defense attorney present evidence, to a judge, that is related to the charges in a criminal case

www.shouselaw.com

As to a defendant’s criminal lawyer, he/she is allowed to present evidence to the judge that shows the defendant should not stand trial for the crime(s) charged. The lawyer can conduct cross-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses and even cast doubt on any of the prosecutor’s physical evidence.

Witnesses can also be called if their testimony will:

• establish an affirmative defense (like an alibi),
• negate an element of a crime charged, or
• impeach the testimony of a prosecution witness.

The burden of proof at these hearings is on the prosecutor and he/she must show that:

1. there is enough probable cause to show that a crime was committed, and
2. there is enough probable cause to believe that the defendant is the person who committed that crime.

“Probable cause” is a lesser standard of proof than a finding of “beyond a reasonable doubt” (which is used at a jury trial). It is met if there is sufficient evidence to show that the defendant committed the crime charged. Or, put another way, it is met if there is a strong suspicion that the defendant did it.

If the judge finds that there is probable cause, a trial gets scheduled. If, however, the judge finds no probable cause, then the charges against the accused get dismissed. In addition, a judge may decide to reduce some or all of the charges against the defendant.

Could anyone with a better understanding please help me understand: How is the defense able to cross examine a witness during the pretrial phase, during the PH? Cross examination of the prosecutions witness is AFAIK different from subpoenaing a witness.

Again, apologies if I'm just dim and in over my head

 

[Nova]

We know part of the published letter isn't true. This part:

"We met on December 19th when I informed you of your termination as a TA for spring semester."

Unless the writer means we met electronically we know BK was long gone from WSU for break by Dec 19.

A lot of my professor friends now use Zoom to "meet" with students. I expect BK's department or the dean did the same.

 

[Rumination1]

What if BF was at some point dating BK ? That would explain his car trips and maybe the Id found in a glove was hers?
Her evidence would provide excuse for him and perhaps his relationship was a reason he did that to the four?
All imo only

Big question mark is why so few college kids talking about anything prior to the gag order
The kids in a college know each other’s gossip but they all pretty much said nothing

 

[deugirtni]

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'm behind again.. but if BF doesn't want to be there, and the penalty for not obliging is only $500, then it doesn't seem a big price to pay to just get out of it? Or would the penalty have to also include incarceration?

 

[Rumination1]

Another thought occurring to me is the order that the four died
If what BF says calls into question what DM says and whether either match what the coroner thinks may create enough reasonable doubt that BK is the man

To explain the sheath is the biggest point Anne Taylor would be focussing on is my guess. How is she gonna do that ?!

 

[deugirtni]

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.

It sure wouldn't be the first time the DailyMail embellished a story with their own assumed 'facts'. imo.

 

[deugirtni]

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?

In that same article, aside from the DM saying for the first time ever, that BF was the one who discovered the bodies, it says, "...Funke, is alleged to have heard or saw things that could clear the suspect, according to Bitonti's affidavit." I can imagine that depending on what she saw or heard, it could very well clear the suspect, or at least add doubt that they have the right guy. All kinds of things run through my mind, off the top of my head.

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

 

[SophieRose]

In that same article, aside from the DM saying for the first time ever, that BF was the one who discovered the bodies, it says, "...Funke, is alleged to have heard or saw things that could clear the suspect, according to Bitonti's affidavit." I can imagine that depending on what she saw or heard, it could very well clear the suspect, or at least add doubt that they have the right guy. All kinds of things run through my mind, off the top of my head.

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

BF is on the first floor, maybe she opened the door for the DoorDash delivery or looked out the window. What does the driver look like?

IMO

 

[deugirtni]

The Daily Mail has again failed. They've misrepresented or misunderstood # 10. jmho


View attachment 417001

Good catch!

 

[ttjo]

Good catch!

The statement in the New York post from Jan 5 also stated that DD has been cleared. Could this also have been misinterpreted from the PCA. It was the same day the PCA was unsealed and the first time we heard about door dash. Its created a lot of confusion about who was cleared (private driver or door dash) University of Idaho student Xana Kernodle got DoorDash delivery just minutes before her murder

 

[NCWatcher]

A lot of my professor friends now use Zoom to "meet" with students. I expect BK's department or the dean did the same.

You may be right. But a termination letter has legal implications.

There are 4 meetings among various parties described in the letter. I would think a careful writer (or one who bothered to have the letter read by someone up the chain) would not repeatedly use the term "met" in each description if some were Zoom meetings and others were in-person meetings. But the letter doesn't appear to be carefully written. For example, there's no salutation. The letter begins simply "Mr. Kohberger." I'd think use of a salutation would be automatic for anyone working in high ed. Further, BK's supervising professor is repeatedly called "professor Snyder" not "Professor Snyder." I'm pretty sure professor is used here as a title and should be capitalized. Finally the letter is dated Dec 19 yet there's no clear acknowledgement in the body of the letter the writer "met with" BK that day (except that a meeting on Dec 19 is included in the list of meetings.) Just seems odd.
JMO

 

[Honeybirdette]

It’s important not to get carried away imo.
It could be something as trivial as Bethany making an initial statement that she got up to Pee at roughly 5am, and heard the dog barking, which she assumed kaylie was up playing with Murphy at this time. The defense could try and argue that this was actually closer to the time of the murders taking place, and they can prove Bryan was somewhere near Johnson by that time as proved by his phone signal.
The prosecution claim he committed the murders specifically between 4am to 4.25am and any time outside of that window the defense can prove Bryan had already left moscow.

Just my opinion, and it could be totally wrong I’m just saying it really could be something totally minor at this point like the time she got wrong or something.

 

[girlhasnoname]

If all of this is an effort to challenge the PCA, the Prosecutor can impanel a Grand Jury to indicte BK.

This is not a get of jail free card for BK, far from it.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

BF was also a member of Phi Beta Phi.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

ICBW but are there not extenuating circumstances which could exclude BF from being fined/jailed for refusing to appear? Considering not only is she a witness but also a victim?

Snipped for focus.

No. Victims are forced to testify all the time. It's the only way we can insure our justice system works, IMO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I'm behind again.. but if BF doesn't want to be there, and the penalty for not obliging is only $500, then it doesn't seem a big price to pay to just get out of it? Or would the penalty have to also include incarceration?

IANAL so someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the cases I'm familiar with, the penalty was arrest/jail time. IMO, in a case like this, it's dicey what they'll do. When a judge orders you to appear somewhere, IMO, you're taking a big chance not appearing. It would be interesting to see if this now goes to a NV judge and what the NV says.

All MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

It’s important not to get carried away imo.
It could be something as trivial as Bethany making an initial statement that she got up to Pee at roughly 5am, and heard the dog barking, which she assumed kaylie was up playing with Murphy at this time. The defense could try and argue that this was actually closer to the time of the murders taking place, and they can prove Bryan was somewhere near Johnson by that time as proved by his phone signal.
The prosecution claim he committed the murders specifically between 4am to 4.25am and any time outside of that window the defense can prove Bryan had already left moscow.

Just my opinion, and it could be totally wrong I’m just saying it really could be something totally minor at this point like the time she got wrong or something.

I'm not sure I would consider something like that minor. The time the crime was committed is crucial to the timeline with regard to the white Elantra and DM's testimony. IMO, even if it's something like that, that's important information. IF the victims were still alive and moving around (unstabbed), after the BK left the house and his car was caught driving away, then the case can be made someone else entered the home.

MOO.