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

[Helechawagirl]

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

Perhaps they don’t want to draw attention to themselves as having been at the parties in the house? JMO

 

[maskedwoman]

"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'm definitely not saying anyone got it wrong, but I am struggling to see how simply finding the victim's bodies would result in her having exculpatory information. But I'm having one of those "how did I not know that" days all the way around, so maybe it's just me!

 

[CGray123]

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!

In my experience this is a rarely used strategy, the preference being to mentor and guide rather than embarrass or punish. The prior "altercation" with the professor must have shattered the mentoring relationship and left the professor with no kinder option that might effectively convince BK of the need to change.

 

[whiterhino]

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.

Respectfully, I don't appreciate being asked directly. It was a simple question coming from a pleb who knows nothing of the criminal justice system. (to be clear I was asking specifically if as a victim, would BF still be held to the same consequences as a witness would be held and the short answer is yes).

It's understandable that BF would be reluctant to comply if it pertains to information that could cast reasonable doubt or exonerate BK.

Agree it would be rather short. If BF has nothing significant or relevant then why fight it?

 

[Boxer]

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.

Agree.
MOO Defense is hoping to exclude the DNA somehow and then work the time line, laying grounds for that now.

MOO basically AT counting on uncovering police incompetence at some level to give her grounds to exclude the DNA.

She has "won" on police problems before.

 

[NCWatcher]

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!

My experience has been quite different from yours and @Nova's. Between being a student and being a faculty member I can think of only 2 instances where grad assistantships in my dept were withdrawn. Both cases were a very big deal. Neither happened to me personally.

Neither would have been handled by mailing out a hastily dictated letter composed during the rush to leave for winter break. (Only in a real emergency would funding have been withdrawn mid-year anyway.) And before a letter was sent (by registered mail, signature required most likely even if a copy was emailed to the student's official university email address) any letter would have been reviewed by multiple dept faculty, several levels of university administration, and most definitely by university counsel. I'm also not sure most university counsel I've known would say there's no need to differentiate between zoom meetings and face-to-face meetings for purposes of legal documentation (which a termination letter is, after all.)

I admit I was a grad student some time ago. But lawsuits have become more common, not less common over the years. So it seems odd if procedures have become more casual. (Although maybe casual procedures have invited the lawsuits?) Maybe firing TA/RAs is more common some places than where I've been. And maybe it's handled more on an ad hoc basis than where I've been. That doesn't mean BK might not have been devastated by the firing. Being fired certainly had financial implications. But it may not have had some other dire implications if it wasn't a rare occurrence for grad students at WSU.
JMO

 

[U.N. Known]

ince 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

It wasn't clear to me whether the Brady Giglio situation pertained to this case or another one. But your speculation about an officer not filing her interview is interesting. That could explain why it is the PI who discovered the information.

I hope LE did not exclude information that casts serious doubt on BK's guilt. That's the kind of thing that makes all LE look bad and has landed many an innocent person in prison.

 

[r3d-ros3]

My experience has been quite different from yours and @Nova's. Between being a student and being a faculty member I can think of only 2 instances where grad assistantships in my dept were withdrawn. Both cases were a very big deal. Neither happened to me personally.

Neither would have been handled by mailing out a hastily dictated letter composed during the rush to leave for winter break. (Only in a real emergency would funding have been withdrawn mid-year anyway.) And before a letter was sent (by registered mail, signature required most likely even if a copy was emailed to the student's official university email address) any letter would have been reviewed by multiple dept faculty, several levels of university administration, and most definitely by university counsel. I'm also not sure most university counsel I've known would say there's no need to differentiate between zoom meetings and face-to-face meetings for purposes of legal documentation (which a termination letter is, after all.)

I admit I was a grad student some time ago. But lawsuits have become more common, not less common over the years. So it seems odd if procedures have become more casual. (Although maybe casual procedures have invited the lawsuits?) Maybe firing TA/RAs is more common some places than where I've been. And maybe it's handled more on an ad hoc basis than where I've been. That doesn't mean BK might not have been devastated by the firing. Being fired certainly had financial implications. But it may not have had some other dire implications if it wasn't a rare occurrence for grad students at WSU.
JMO

I have only my recent experience in my specific field to reference, and I am not in Criminology, but I'm not in the hard sciences and attended a comparable US institution for my PhD (I'm also a recent grad). I can think of only one instance that a peer was dismissed on the grounds of inappropriate behavior as a TA and it was a fairly extreme case. I have no idea how it was handled internally, but based on my experience with other departmental workings, I am ultimately not too surprised by the oddities of the termination letter.

If the larger point is discussing how BK might have felt, I have posted previously that his poor performance as a TA was probably a significant issue that weighed heavily, and might have even been a "trigger" event. His termination was likely extremely distressing to him, and while it happened after the murders, he had evidently been aware for some time that his performance and professionalism was not up to the department's standards. I completely agree with you that BK was probably devastated about the news -- if he lost his TAship, he also lost his salary, tuition remission, and likely, his place in the department.

As a side note -- while termination of a TA contract / dismissal from a program may be more or less frequent depending on the field and institution, I have never before heard of a first-year, first semester PhD student to be dismissed on these grounds. I find that most departments are pretty flexible if they throw first year students into teaching or TAing. Whatever happened to foreground his dismissal must have been pretty extreme. We have limited details (like the trial by undergrads that allegedly took place), but it continues to surprise me for a number of reasons. All IMO, but I think we are on the same page, despite our different experiences!

 

[Justice101]

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.

I think most that showed up didn't go in the house and everything they heard and repeated would have been hearsay.

I also suspect LE told them right up front to keep their mouths shut that loose lips might end up causing the murdered to get off in court...or show up looking for them!

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

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.

If you're trying to prove someone is responsible for murder because their car was at the scene, you cannot then use the car to prove the time of death of the murders.

MOO.

 

[10ofRods]

My experience has been quite different from yours and @Nova's. Between being a student and being a faculty member I can think of only 2 instances where grad assistantships in my dept were withdrawn. Both cases were a very big deal. Neither happened to me personally.

Neither would have been handled by mailing out a hastily dictated letter composed during the rush to leave for winter break. (Only in a real emergency would funding have been withdrawn mid-year anyway.) And before a letter was sent (by registered mail, signature required most likely even if a copy was emailed to the student's official university email address) any letter would have been reviewed by multiple dept faculty, several levels of university administration, and most definitely by university counsel. I'm also not sure most university counsel I've known would say there's no need to differentiate between zoom meetings and face-to-face meetings for purposes of legal documentation (which a termination letter is, after all.)

I admit I was a grad student some time ago. But lawsuits have become more common, not less common over the years. So it seems odd if procedures have become more casual. (Although maybe casual procedures have invited the lawsuits?) Maybe firing TA/RAs is more common some places than where I've been. And maybe it's handled more on an ad hoc basis than where I've been. That doesn't mean BK might not have been devastated by the firing. Being fired certainly had financial implications. But it may not have had some other dire implications if it wasn't a rare occurrence for grad students at WSU.
JMO

Interesting points. For the first time in my own career, we just fired a new professor (tenure track, first two months of teaching). By "we" I mean the college. It was done rapidly and went all the way to the Board of Trustees, of course (quickly). This was a person who was observed in an "altercation" (using loud voice and cuss words) with another faculty person. The case also had elements of sexual harassment, and there was a Title IX complaint filed. I know this because I know some of the people who are involved in filing that complaint.

We have never done it before and I think HR invented (hastily) some new procedures. We have fired two college presidents over the last 20 years and that was a big old drawn out affair (Presidents put on leave make the news). But this faculty firing was buried from public view, IMO.

Our own university counsel regards Zoom meetings as adequate for both hiring and firing, btw. That policy was changed during COVID and has not been changed back.

WSU does have rather strict and detailed policies about TA's in the Criminal Justice Program (they get some perks other TA's don't get - but I am guessing their contracts are on a semester by semester basis, just like mine when I teach as an adjunct at a different university). It was imperative to pry him out of the TA role before January, is how I read their hasty decision-making. The prof was likely more than annoyed and perhaps well into anxious territory and it sounds like at least one grad student was afraid of BK (it could be two - there's the woman who walked out of the seminar and there's the woman who got followed to her car). We don't know what information those people gave HR (or even if they are one and the same person, actually).

IMO.

 

[PrairieWind]

Respectfully, I don't appreciate being asked directly. It was a simple question coming from a pleb who knows nothing of the criminal justice system. (to be clear I was asking specifically if as a victim, would BF still be held to the same consequences as a witness would be held and the short answer is yes).

It's understandable that BF would be reluctant to comply if it pertains to information that could cast reasonable doubt or exonerate BK.

Agree it would be rather short. If BF has nothing significant or relevant then why fight it?

I'm sorry you took that as a personal attack. It wasn't meant that way. But I was reacting to your statement:

" 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)."

You are poking at the system, are you not? You insinuate that it is improper for the Defense to threaten jail/fines with its subpoena. But that is simply what the law says. It is BF that has lead to this point. That is literally the ONLY path the defense has to take.

 

[IDK]

It wasn't clear to me whether the Brady Giglio situation pertained to this case or another one. But your speculation about an officer not filing her interview is interesting. That could explain why it is the PI who discovered the information.

I hope LE did not exclude information that casts serious doubt on BK's guilt. That's the kind of thing that makes all LE look bad and has landed many an innocent person in prison.

I couldn’t agree more about the importance of a valid PCA. I think we all understand these documents are carefully curated to present the case against the accused in the strongest possible way. Which is how it should be, IMO as long as it’s done honestly. However, if any possibly exculpatory evidence is withheld or misrepresented, that’s a whole other story.
IMO!

 

[Twistinginthewind]

IMO, lots of good discussion about BK losing his TA position, how nonchalant vs unusual it was, and how interpersonal or inter-academic interactions (ha - inter cubed!) may have played into it.

From the outside looking in, having had TAs and assisted professors, I would have to say, from my own experience in the trenches, BK sounds like one of those TAs that would not last long, and whom everyone would not only avoid at all costs, but may be extremely frustrated, intimidated, and/or angered by his unprofessionalism in his workplace.

And everyone would know he would be easier to get rid of during the 1st semester or quarter on board while he was still proving himself and was in somewhat of a 'probationary period', similar to a lot of jobs that have that written into the hiring agreement -- usually within 3 months, everyone regroups and checks in on how it's going and whether you're a keeper or they're going to cut you loose.

I realize the TA position was not a job job, but it was his workplace and there were monetary rewards associated with it, e.g., greatly reduced tuition/housing, if not a stipend. Those rewards/stipends are to show appreciation from the professor, department, and university for a "job well done" in assisting them in accomplishing their mission of teaching their enrolled students and upholding a level of academic excellence.

So I'm not surprised at all that they fired him in December at the end of his 1st semester. He sounds like he was a nightmare, they tried to work with him on an improvement plan, and he just couldn't or wouldn't improve on his professionalism, and so they cut him loose as quick as they could since they didn't owe him anything contractually.

Even if they didn't fire him in the 1st semester, I think, based on my experiences, he would have eventually been "voted off the island" in other ways (e.g., through seriously under-enrolled courses he was a TA for with dozens of students dropping out of an otherwise very popular professor's courses and trying to add courses being taught/TA'd by someone else), or he would have been given "bad marks" when it came to "x" number of complaints being filed against him that would be reflected in some fashion on any student reviews or performance reviews conducted.

Again, in my experience, everyone enrolled in an academic program who is investing their time, energy, and money in working towards obtaining a degree and is expecting to be able to do so in a stimulating, pleasant, supportive, and congenial collegiate environment 'as advertised' by most major universities, would avoid him and the courses he was TAing like the plague in any of the subsequent semesters he may have stayed on thereafter.

I think it must have been just awful for all the folks involved in his program, never heard of anything like it.

All JME/JMO

 

[PrairieWind]

IMO, lots of good discussion about BK losing his TA position, how nonchalant vs unusual it was, and how interpersonal or inter-academic interactions (ha - inter cubed!) may have played into it.

From the outside looking in, having had TAs and assisted professors, I would have to say, from my own experience in the trenches, BK sounds like one of those TAs that would not last long, and whom everyone would not only avoid at all costs, but may be extremely frustrated, intimidated, and/or angered by his unprofessionalism in his workplace.

And everyone would know he would be easier to get rid of during the 1st semester or quarter on board while he was still proving himself and was in somewhat of a 'probationary period', similar to a lot of jobs that have that written into the hiring agreement -- usually within 3 months, everyone regroups and checks in on how it's going and whether you're a keeper or they're going to cut you loose.

I realize the TA position was not a job job, but it was his workplace and there were monetary rewards associated with it, e.g., greatly reduced tuition/housing, if not a stipend. Those rewards/stipends are to show appreciation from the professor, department, and university for a "job well done" in assisting them in accomplishing their mission of teaching their enrolled students and upholding a level of academic excellence.

So I'm not surprised at all that they fired him in December at the end of his 1st semester. He sounds like he was a nightmare, they tried to work with him on an improvement plan, and he just couldn't or wouldn't improve on his professionalism, and so they cut him loose as quick as they could since they didn't owe him anything contractually.

Even if they didn't fire him in the 1st semester, I think, based on my experiences, he would have eventually been "voted off the island" in other ways (e.g., through seriously under-enrolled courses he was a TA for with dozens of students dropping out of an otherwise very popular professor's courses and trying to add courses being taught/TA'd by someone else), or he would have been given "bad marks" when it came to "x" number of complaints being filed against him that would be reflected in some fashion on any student reviews or performance reviews conducted.

Again, in my experience, everyone enrolled in an academic program who is investing their time, energy, and money in working towards obtaining a degree and is expecting to be able to do so in a stimulating, pleasant, supportive, and congenial collegiate environment 'as advertised' by most major universities, would avoid him and the courses he was TAing like the plague in any of the subsequent semesters he may have stayed on thereafter.

I think it must have been just awful for all the folks involved in his program, never heard of anything like it.

All JME/JMO

I know there are pages and pages on him losing his job. Can you explain why this is relevant?

 

[Nila Aella]

• 04/24/2023 Petition for Appointment of Special Assistant Attorneys General
• 04/24/2023 Order Appointing Special Assistant Attorneys General

 

[Cool Cats]

I know there are pages and pages on him losing his job. Can you explain why this is relevant?

Because it could be his catalyst for murder. Final straw.

Jury will want to know what the heck was happening in his life in October and November 2022.

Nothing good was happening, his life was going down hill, everything he worked for he was starting to loose.

 

[PrairieWind]

Because it could be his catalyst for murder.

Is there evidence of that? I mean, I can see the theory, but it seems weak to me. I don't mean to discourage people from discussing it, but I don't really agree with it. This is speculation to the nth degree that has taken on a life of its own.

 

[Cool Cats]

Is there evidence of that? I mean, I can see the theory, but it seems weak to me. I don't mean to discourage people from discussing it, but I don't really agree with it. This is speculation to the nth degree that has taken on a life of its own.

I think it's important, what the jury will want to know and what the prosecution will present to the jury.

I have never seen a trial where the prosecution did not tell the jury what was going on in a murder defendant's life right before and after the murders.

I went back and edited that post to make my position more clearer.

EDIT:

Because it could be his catalyst for murder. Final straw.

Jury will want to know what the heck was happening in his life in October and November 2022.

Nothing good was happening, his life was going down hill, everything he worked for he was starting to loose.

(My opinion is that this is very important)

 

[Boxer]

I know there are pages and pages on him losing his job. Can you explain why this is relevant?

MOO Shows BKs lack of regard for others as well as a negative life event.