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

[wary]

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 ?!

I see the order that the four died as being a minor detail that the prosecution doesn’t have to prove—a case of: if the defense attorney really wants to know it, perhaps she should ask her client!

However, I think it could be probably be shown by blood evidence. If only one knife was used, there would be traces of blood from the first ones killed found in the wounds of the last one killed,,but not vice versa.

All MOO

 

[Justice101]

I see the order that the four died as being a minor detail that the prosecution doesn’t have to prove—a case of: if the defense attorney really wants to know it, perhaps she should ask her client!

However, I think it could be probably be shown by blood evidence. If only one knife was used, there would be traces of blood from the first ones killed found in the wounds of the last one killed,,but not vice versa.

All MOO

I think we are overanalyzing this... the defense is trying to get its ducks in a row just to mount some kind of defense.

I really doubt BK's attorney is saying to him, Bryan.. you have no chance, we've got nothing.

Privately, I suspect she knows already with the evidence already discovered and turned over, that this is an uphill climb wishing for a miracle.

 

[Wallendo]

Creating reasonable doubt would be useful at trial but not at a preliminary hearing. Most testimony from the room-mate that I could imagine would fit into this scenario.

The timing of the food delivery and the estimated time of the murders is problematic to me. Could the roommates evidence somehow deal with this? Possibly a car driving up would awaken a downstairs sleeper where the windows face the parking area. Does her testimony somehow suggest a gap in time there. But even then, it would seem to create doubt, but not exonerate BK.

 

[U.N. Known]

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

I have always found that very interesting, odd even. I suspect that the direct witnesses (roommates and friends present when LE arrived) were told not to say anything after they'd been interviewed, but it's very unusual for a group that big and that consumed by social media didn't post anything about what they saw, heard, heard about or experienced. There was near complete silence.

The students in my HS know details about something that happened at a school on the other side of town before admin has had time to notify parents at the affected school. How did LE or someone else manage to nearly silence an entire campus of students, including the students who lived on the same street and were surely rubbernecking when LE arrived en masse?

 

[U.N. Known]

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.

The prevailing supposition is that the man Dylan saw is the person who committed the murders. Is it farfetched to believe that? No. However, since to our knowledge, there is no witness to the murders it is possible that there was another person involved.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I have always found that very interesting, odd even. I suspect that the direct witnesses (roommates and friends present when LE arrived) were told not to say anything after they'd been interviewed, but it's very unusual for a group that big and that consumed by social media didn't post anything about what they saw, heard, heard about or experienced. There was near complete silence.

The students in my HS know details about something that happened at a school on the other side of town before admin has had time to notify parents at the affected school. How did LE or someone else manage to nearly silence an entire campus of students, including the students who lived on the same street and were surely rubbernecking when LE arrived en masse?

I'm going to suggest it wasn't LE but some form of directives from the Uni. Also, maybe it speaks to privilege - that uni youngsters aren't as easily persuaded to speak to the press as they aren't in dire need of money and they're a little bit more thoughtful in their interactions?

I would be more interested to know, how have the powers that be deterred local residents from selling stories and speaking out with opinions to the press? Some local residents who may have been very annoyed by all the partying and uni lifestyle to boot. There was one guy who got known for speaking up but he was fairly quickly dismissed as being a bit 'odd'.

 

[PrairieWind]

I have always found that very interesting, odd even. I suspect that the direct witnesses (roommates and friends present when LE arrived) were told not to say anything after they'd been interviewed, but it's very unusual for a group that big and that consumed by social media didn't post anything about what they saw, heard, heard about or experienced. There was near complete silence.

The students in my HS know details about something that happened at a school on the other side of town before admin has had time to notify parents at the affected school. How did LE or someone else manage to nearly silence an entire campus of students, including the students who lived on the same street and were surely rubbernecking when LE arrived en masse?

I find that kind of interesting too. Whoever showed up has indeed kept quiet. Apparently not even talking to friends who might have posted third hand accounts. But maybe these are young folks that are just respectful and are taking it seriously.

 

[Honeybirdette]

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.

What I mean is, she could have “assumed” it was 5am when in reality it was actually 4.02am but she’s on record claiming it was 5am or even later. I can see why the defense would latch onto something like that and try and run with it.

The police have the time stamped cctv of the Elantra driving off at high speed and the neighbours doorbell footage of the loud thud, so they’re pretty confident of the actual time the murders occurred.

 

[10ofRods]

I imagine that LE warned community members who showed up at 1122 to not speak about it, given that no one had been jailed for the crime. And I also imagine that LE has warned possible witnesses to remember that BK is presumed not guilty and could be released as soon as the Prelim (while it's highly unlikely, LE tends to err on the side of safety in my experience).

IMO.

 

[Gemmie]

I find that kind of interesting too. Whoever showed up has indeed kept quiet. Apparently not even talking to friends who might have posted third hand accounts. But maybe these are young folks that are just respectful and are taking it seriously.

Or they could see what the media circus and online trolls have done to their friends, and other people in other cases, and don't want any part of that. But with that said, that group appeared to be close friends with a lot of people so I can't imagine that there isn't 1 single person who knew (or figured out) who went over there that morning. Not to mention MSM saying it was Ethan's best friend. So, it appears that several of them are keeping mum. Likely for the reason in my first sentence. They want NO part of the circus or becoming a victim themselves. I can't blame them one bit.

Sources close to the investigation told NewsNation that Ethan Chapin and Xana Kernodle’s bodies were first found by his best friend, who reportedly checked their pulses before speaking to a 911 dispatcher.

Ethan Chapin and Xana Kernodle’s bodies were found by his best friend, source says

Kernodle and Chapin’s bodies were found in her room on the second floor of the home in Moscow

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Nova]

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

Doesn't even strike me as mildly surprising.

In my experience as a student and professor, there is always a rush in the few days after the Fall semester, as instructors have to get grades in to the Registrar, decisions have to be made hastily if students/TAs are not to be invited back after New Year's, etc., and lots of people want to go out of town for the holiday.

I agree with your criticisms of the letter, I'm just not surprised. Yes, it's poor style to insert a date and not point out that the date is "today", but it's quite possible the person who dictated the letter didn't know exactly what day it would be typed. Or it could be the date of the final meeting was mistyped, so it wasn't the day of the termination letter after all.

And treating Zoom meetings as if they were held in person is the post-Covid norm most places, at least among those I know still in higher education.

 

[gliving]

Reporter Nate Eaton tweets pertaining to the Lori Vallow trial, also in Idaho. It's a FBI agent describing their cell phone technology. The same FBI team who analysed BK's cell data:

NateNewsNow

Ballance is part of the FBI Cellular Analysis Survey Team - CAST. They take cell phone data, put it on a map and help track where phones have been. He has used the technology in hundreds of cases - homicides, missing kids, etc.

@NateNewsNow

Ballance testifies that T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T are the primary cell phone companies in Rexburg. He says your phone utilizes the cell phone tower belonging to your phone even if another company has a cell phone tower closer to you.

1:30 PM · Apr 24, 2023
https://twitter.com/NateNewsNow
A cell phone will always select the strongest and clearest cell phone tower - and it might not be the closest tower is there are obstructions or other obstacles in the way.
·
NateNewsNow
Ballance says you can not pinpoint an exact location for a cell phone but you can get a general idea.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1650598146156945408

 

[al66pine]

Crime Victim's Rights? Opting Out of Testifying at Trial?

.... It is going to be rough for Bethany, a primary witness-victim... Bethany was injured, harmed, her life turned upside down, for possibly the rest of her life by what happened August 13. That makes her a victim in my world. No BS. JMO

snipped for focus @I'm Nobody
Yes, it's going to be rough for BF to testify as a witness at trial (if called).
Yes, BF is a victim in your world.

In the world of criminal law, Latah County prosecutor acting on behalf of the State of Idaho filed charges against BK and is obliged to comply w myriad state and federal laws in doing so. Likewise, under fed. & state law, as the accused, BK (i,e., BK's def. team) also has the right to gather evidence by interviewing witnesses, etc, preparing a defense, right to subpoena witnesses, etc.

NOTE: NOT addressing the specific procedural question re a subpoena served in a foreign jurisdiction (outside the state of Idaho), or the question of compelling testimony at prelim. hearing. Speaking only to whether a "crime victim" has the "right" to refuse to testify at trial, as some have said or suggested.

Is BF a "VICTIM" under Idaho State Constitution and Statutes?*
Per 19-5306 (5), yep, looks like it.

Does the statute give a crime victim the right to REFUSE TO TESTIFY, to opt out of getting on the stand if subpoenaed for trial?
Per 19-5306 (1)(g) a "crime victim is "allowed to refuse an interview, ex parte contact or other request by the defendant or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, unless such request is authorized by law."

This refers to def't's attempts to communicate w potential witnesses, such as crime victims, to question outside of court without def't giving notice to the other party --- other party being the state of Idaho --- and without a court order or subpoena.

A crime victim can refuse to talk w def't, except when def'ts "request is authorized by law"--- such as, per subpoena.
And a crime victim, like any person served, has the right to make a motion to request that the court quash or modify a subpoena.
Like BF has done.

IMO. Welcoming clarification or correction, esp'ly from our legal professionals.

==============================================
* "CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS – IDAHO CONSTITUTION"
Idaho's State Constitution, Article 1, Section 22? (p. 5 of 23)
sets forth the rights of crime victims, "as defined by statute."
IOW, nobody is a victim, unless/until ID statute defines it/ says so.

https://www.ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/VictimsRights.pdf.

So, how do Idaho statutes define "crime victim"? Hint: See (5).
"STATUTORY PROVISIONS – IDAHO CODE
"19-5306. Rights of victim during investigation, prosecution. and disposition of the crime.
"(1) Each victim of a criminal or juvenile offense shall be:
"(a) Treated with fairness, respect, dignity and privacy
throughout the criminal justice process;...
"(g) Allowed to refuse an interview, ex parte contact or
other request by the defendant or any other person acting on behalf of
the defendant, unless such request is authorized by law;
(5) As used in this section:
(a) “Victim” is an individual who suffers direct or threatened physical, financial or emotional harm as the result of the commission of a crime or juvenile offense;..."

 

[maskedwoman]

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 (reason for wanting her at the PH). More and more I'm wondering if BK knew these ladies prior to the murder. There's more here than a random quadruple murder, IMO.

All MOO.

IANAL (no duh there LOL) but that is the kind of strategic question that fascinates me. Google gave me a definition from Cornell about exculpatory information that stated exculpatory information could be anything from information that directly clears the accused or justifies their actions, information that goes against the credibility of a witness unfavorable to the accused, or "information that allows the jury to infer against a defendant's guilt". Assuming the last example could only apply once the case goes to actual trial, is it logical to say that their argument for demanding her appearance must be founded on one of the other example's given? Or are there other ways exculpatory information could be used to argue for demanding her appearance at the PH?

Brady rule

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[whiterhino]

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.

Right. I completely understand that victims are compelled to testify and am aware these measures are in place to make certain that justice is carried out. It just seems like an extreme measure, the possibility of jail time/fines considering BF is not only a witness but a victim. JMO.

BBM ah, the justice system... a well oiled machine (jk & moo).

 

[Gemmie]

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 (reason for wanting her at the PH). More and more I'm wondering if BK knew these ladies prior to the murder. There's more here than a random quadruple murder, IMO.

All MOO.

BBMFF.

I'm in agreement with you. I've thought from the beginning that BK knew at least one of the victims, and likely 2 (Maddie & Xana). As far as how well he knew them/her... it could be anything from a fleeting glance and perhaps trying to make small talk (which I feel was quickly nipped in the bud). It could have gone a little further than that (repeatedly trying to engage in conversation, awkwardly flirty, and perhaps getting far enough along to get SM info). Maybe one of the 2 made a comment to one of the surviving roommates like "There's that weird guy again" or something. It could have been nicer like... "There's that guy I told you about, I'm just not interested *shrug*." But, he could have been pointed out to her by one of them. I just feel like he "knew" them on some level, even if very remotely.

All MOO.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

IANAL (no duh there LOL) but that is the kind of strategic question that fascinates me. Google gave me a definition from Cornell about exculpatory information that stated exculpatory information could be anything from information that directly clears the accused or justifies their actions, information that goes against the credibility of a witness unfavorable to the accused, or "information that allows the jury to infer against a defendant's guilt". Assuming the last example could only apply once the case goes to actual trial, is it logical to say that their argument for demanding her appearance must be founded on one of the other example's given? Or are there other ways exculpatory information could be used to argue for demanding her appearance at the PH?

Brady rule

www.law.cornell.edu

Yes! I am fascinated, as well. I noticed that the certificate to secure attendance and the notice of brady disclosure were both signed by Judge Marshall on March 24. I am SO CURIOUS, since she signed a Protective Order for the "officer", if maybe BF was involved in some way with the "officer", or perhaps, the "officer" never filed her interview. ME MADLY SPECULATING, as forced to, by the gag order.....MOO

 

[ktm44]

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.

I don't believe a barking dog would be sufficient to extablish any timeline at all nor do I believe this is the reason her testimony is required.

Based on the scenario you responded to, dogs bark for many reasons, such as deviation from routine (maybe expecting an early am trip outside), boredom, seeking human interaction or possibly stress but we are short on any facts that may support any of that.

If her statement were dog related, which I doubt, it would be more significant if she had heard that dog barking outside, let it back inside, walked through athe house without noticing anything unusual and locked the dog in K's room at 5:00 am. None of which I believe happened, nor is there any evidence to support it.

 

[PrairieWind]

Right. I completely understand that victims are compelled to testify and am aware these measures are in place to make certain that justice is carried out. It just seems like an extreme measure, the possibility of jail time/fines considering BF is not only a witness but a victim. JMO.

BBM ah, the justice system... a well oiled machine (jk & moo).

What would you suggest the Defense do?

The Defense has reason to believe she has important information. Based upon the proceedings, I think it is safe to assume the defense attorneys have attempted to reach out to BF to get an interview or deposition, etc. and she is not cooperating. That leaves the Defense with this option: subpoena. She is fighting that as well. There might be flaws in the service of the foreign subpoena, but those will be quickly addressed even if the subpoena has to be reserved. The Defense can keep trying until they get it right. So at that point she can either comply (and have her attorney negotiate a convenience way to provide her testimony: zoom/teams, via deposition) or she can not comply and be in contempt. It is her choice. But the Court wont give her much sympathy as long as the Defense requests are reasonable, which they seem to be so far. Why is she not willing to talk about what she saw or didn't see? If she has no relevant information, her testimony would be pretty short.

 

[r3d-ros3]

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

You'd be surprised how un-specific things like this are in higher ed, although it of course depends on the school and the department [I think many have the impression that higher ed and graduate school is extremely serious, but you'd be shocked by how some departments conduct business so casually and without precedence]. There's not always boilerplate language for something like a termination of a TAship, which -- in my experience -- is pretty rare. We also have to take into account the fact that administrative staff may have worked this up quickly, as another poster said, before close of business prior to winter break / final grade deadlines.

Finally, re: the imprecision surrounding "met" -- in my recent experience, I would say that the meeting in-person and meeting on Zoom are synonymous post-pandemic. It's significantly easier for faculty and students to conduct meetings online, and many are reticent to relinquish the convenience of working from home. Many departments conduct all formal business, including department meetings and even job interviews, on Zoom even now that most classes are in-person. It wouldn't make sense, IMO, to distinguish between in-person or Zoom meetings in this case, as the distinction no longer matters to most. JMO based on my experience in higher ed!