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

[BeginnerSleuther]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1650535905604804608

https://twitter.com/x/status/1650535980347310082

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.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

@PrairieWind If BF could provide testimony which was exculpatory for BK in his current charges, that would be allowed at a preliminary hearing, wouldn't it? Charges can be dropped after a preliminary, can't they? Sorry if these are stupid questions, I truly know nothing about legal matters.

Definitely not stupid. I think many of us have the same questions, me included.

 

[U.N. Known]

Respectfully, how would we know?

I haven't seen any clinical details about his younger years, just anecdotal "evidence" by friends, coworkers, employers, etc. Maybe I missed something.

I feel the case against him as a person who was outside the social & psychological "norms" does need some actual evidence such as psychological testing, dates of drug treatment & outcome, medical background re: autism spectrum, yadda yadda yadda.

BK has been able to take advantage of technology (distance learning) to hide a lot of behaviors IMO. We really don't know how much in-person instruction & feedback he received in classes after high school. I think this is potentially very instructive as to how some people are able to hide a lack of sociability to a degree that when they need that skill to succeed non-virtually, they simply don't have it.

So many killers have "set fires & killed kittens" at young ages. Why not Bryan?
JMO

IIRC, he went to a junior college (or something similar) prior to entering Desales online. And, wasn't he working while he was earning his degree? If so, that rather negates the ability to "hide a lot of behaviors."

The accounts of his personality have varied, which is not unusual. I am much more formal with coworkers than I am with personal friends. I'm closer to and thus more relaxed with some coworkers. I'm sure the general consensus bout me would be the same for most people asked; however, the people I feel would be more willing to do an interview are the people who don't know me as well.

I might wonder if she saw a figure or vehicle leaving the area but had a differing description.

How horrible to be called as a defense witness when, no doubt, she's not only a direct victim of his, surely she wants only to defend her slain friends.

It seems like double victimization.

I can't actually fathom anything she might testify to that would cancel his DNA on the sheath, but desperate defense teams resort to desperate measures all the time.

I feel for the surviving roommates.

JMO

IMO, what is more important than BF's and DM's feelings in the matter is getting the right person convicted. It BK is that person, so be it. However, IMO, everything possible should be done, in every trial, to ensure that putting away the guilty person is more important than putting away the guilty-looking person even if victims/witnesses are uncomfortable and/or inconvenienced.

 

[I'm Nobody]

Excpulpatory?
Like she put BKs DNA on the knife sheath?

I've calmed down a little bit. This is where I see this going. BK is desperate and will do anything to be "exonerated."
IMO If BF has to testify, the next step, on the stand, will be for Ann Taylor to call Bethany "a hostile witness" (adverse) for not answering in a favorable way about the client who called her as a witness. Judge will have to agree. That will open the door for Ann Taylor to ask leading aggressive questions which will be allowed for a "hostile" witness. The whole point of this is for AT to get in leading suggestive questions which would NOT otherwise have been allowed. It is beyond dirty in my book and a last ditch effort on the part of the defense but OMG legal. Absolutely re-victimizes the victim.

JMO

hostile witness
n. technically an "adverse witness" in a trial who is found by the judge to be hostile (adverse) to the position of the party whose attorney is questioning the witness, even though the attorney called the witness to testify on behalf of his/her client. When the attorney calling the witness finds that the answers are contrary to the legal position of his/her client or the witness becomes openly antagonistic, the attorney may request the judge to declare the witness to be "hostile" or "adverse." If the judge declares the witness to be hostile (i.e. adverse), the attorney may ask "leading" questions which suggest answers or are challenging to the testimony just as on cross examination of a witness who has testified for the opposition.

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

ALM's Law.com online Real Life Dictionary of the Law. The easiest-to-read, most user-friendly guide to legal terms. Use it free!

dictionary.law.com

edit: Judge will have to rule on the "hostile witness" bit before it can proceed.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

I have questions for all my favorite geniuses:

1. Was there a decision from the NV court on whether BF has to come to the preliminary hearing?

2. IANAL, so, (PURE SPECULATION) if "someone" let him in, and testifies to that, would they then have to drop the burglary charge?

3. If they drop the burglary charge, is it still a "Death Penalty" case?

4. What else could possibly be EXCULPATORY, y'all????

 

[girlhasnoname]

True, but we don't exactly when or how that became a true statement. He could have dropped out after he was fired, or they might have expelled him when the charges were filed. Those are just two options that occurred to me.

It was a statement released by spokesperson for WSU itself, in which they also said they could not further comment on BK because of confidentiality issues. This was discussed in length a couple of pages back.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I have questions for all my favorite geniuses:

1. Was there a decision from the NV court on whether BF has to come to the preliminary hearing?

2. IANAL, so, (PURE SPECULATION) if "someone" let him in, and testifies to that, would they then have to drop the burglary charge?

3. If they drop the burglary charge, is it still a "Death Penalty" case?

4. What else could possibly be EXCULPATORY, y'all????

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

JMO

 

[PrairieWind]

Thanks, @sds71 !

BF's lawyer makes a clear and compelling argument for the "motion to quash" the material witness warrant, IMO

The first document states, in part:

"The Affidavit In Support Of Motion For Out Of State Service further claims that Ms. Funke (who name is repeatedly misspelled) has information material to the charges against Mr. Kohburger (sic); portions of information Ms. Funke has is exculpatory to the defendant." These statements are conclusory, without support and there is no further information or detail pertaining to the substance of the testimony, its materiality or the alleged exculpatory information of Ms. Funke or why it would be entertained at preliminary hearing. Moreover, the subpoena was issued by the Clerk of the Court without hearing. No hearing has been set for Ms. Funke to address these concerns. This motion follows:

II. ARGUMENT
THE COURT SHOULD QUASH THE FOREIGN SUBPOENA ISSUED PURPORTING TO COMPEL MS. FUNKE'S ATTENDANCE AT THE IDAHO PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE "
...
Specifically, NRS 174.415(10) requires the Court to "fix a time and place for a hearing" before it can issue any order directing testimony in another state. This hearing is necessary to provide avenue where "the judge determines that the witness is material and necessary...
...
Moreover, there is no authority for an Idaho criminal defendant to summon a Nevada witness to Idaho for preliminary hearing. There is also no authority for an Idaho criminal defendant to summon a Nevada witness to an Idaho matter without a hearing and there is no authority to summon a Nevada witness to an Idaho matter without a Nevada Judge making a finding of materiality, necessity and the lack of undue hardship."

I'm not sure what you find compelling in that. It is mostly boiler plate crap.

 

[PrairieWind]

Not what I meant. I edited my post to make this clear:

ACCORDING TO HER ATTORNEY NOT ME (she doesn't have to testify)
IDAHO JUDGE DISAGREES (she can be made to testify)

I think defense needs to do what it needs to do.
But the prosecution doesn't have to prove BARD so I believe the judge will let BK's case go to trial.

I think one thing the defense wants is to see more of the prosecution's hand, especially having witnesses testify. To see how the prosecution might present this at trial.

I saw this done with a bond hearing. Defense attorney said the bond hearing - calling the lead detective to the stand - gave him an idea of how the prosecution would proceed with their case.

Mini trials they call them.

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.

 

[Megnut]

IIRC, he went to a junior college (or something similar) prior to entering Desales online. And, wasn't he working while he was earning his degree? If so, that rather negates the ability to "hide a lot of behaviors."

The accounts of his personality have varied, which is not unusual. I am much more formal with coworkers than I am with personal friends. I'm closer to and thus more relaxed with some coworkers. I'm sure the general consensus bout me would be the same for most people asked; however, the people I feel would be more willing to do an interview are the people who don't know me as well.

IMO, what is more important than BF's and DM's feelings in the matter is getting the right person convicted. It BK is that person, so be it. However, IMO, everything possible should be done, in every trial, to ensure that putting away the guilty person is more important than putting away the guilty-looking person even if victims/witnesses are uncomfortable and/or inconvenienced.

I don't disagree.

I was theorizing how it might feel to be called by the defense, particularly if he is guilty as charged.

Yes, the greatest justice is for the right person to be convicted and sentenced.

FWIW, I don't think there is an exculpatory evidence; I think it's just the defense's characterization. Twisting in the wind.

jmo

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

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.

Wait, what? I wondered why a PD was involved, but I thought maybe it was just standard procedure. So you're saying that the PD listed on the subpoena, was possibly her PD? Would that be for this case or would it be possible that if she had a PD for an unrelated case, that person would be served with a subpoena for this case? I'm so confused.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

In classic Michael Scott fashion...

Can someone please explain what all of this means about the roommate like I'm five? I am so confused on what is happening/could happen.

The surviving roommate on the 1st floor was subpoenaed to testify at the preliminary hearing because the defense things she has information that shows BK isn't guilty. The surviving roommate is fighting the subpoena. No one really knows anything more than that at the moment.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I know an individual who pieced together whatifs on the the missing minutes between when his car was seen racing away from the house to the time when he turned his phone back on 10 miles south of Moscow on Rte 95. I also recall there was maybe like 14 minutes missing where he would have had to pull off the main road and do something.

He did a google earth search and found 5 potential stop/dump sites where BK would have been 1) not seeable from a cameras at a house or business, 2) near some low lying area or form of water and 3) would likely not be passed by a car at that time of the morning and a 4th reason which I have forgotten.

He emailed LE there in Moscow to the tip line....and asked if they were interested in the locations he identified. They actually followed back up with him 2 or 3 times to get exact locations to put on the list. I do not know the locations myself and I have not talked to my buddy for a month or so and don't know if anything ever came out of it or not.

I can't tell you who this person is but he seems fairly sharp and would probably look for himself if he was closer. He says he assisted another investigation but it didn't think the information was useful.

For whatever it is worth.... he thinks at least the knife and the clothes changing happened 5 to 10 miles south of Moscow.

Wow thanks for this info. It will be interesting to see what more comes out on this subject and I hope the information was useful.

 

[Nila Aella]

Motion, order, published opinion in the gag order case

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/Supreme/50482-2023/042123%20Motion%20of%20Respondent%20State%20of%20Idaho%20Latah%20County%20Prosecutor%20for%20Additional%20Briefpdf.pdf

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/Supreme/50482-2023/042423%20Order%20Denying%20Motion%20for%20Additional%20Briefing.pdf

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/Supreme/50482-2023/042423%20Published%20Opinion.pdf

 

[SpiderFalcon]

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

JMO

I hear you, and agree. The CERTIFICATE to SECURE ATTENDANCE was signed by Judge Marshall on March 24. The Notice of Brady Disclosure was dated March 24. It's something to think about, isn't it?

 

[PrairieWind]

@PrairieWind If BF could provide testimony which was exculpatory for BK in his current charges, that would be allowed at a preliminary hearing, wouldn't it? Charges can be dropped after a preliminary, can't they? Sorry if these are stupid questions, I truly know nothing about legal matters.

The purpose of a PH is to see if the State has evidence to support its charges and proceed to trial. Usually, that means can the state just prove its case. Here however, the Defense may be attempting to actually attack some of the States evidence early. They certainly can do that. It just doesn't happen often. A prosecutor can drop charges at any time of course.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

I'm not sure what you find compelling in that. It is mostly boiler plate crap.

This:

".. there is no authority for an Idaho criminal defendant to summon a Nevada witness to Idaho for preliminary hearing. There is also no authority for an Idaho criminal defendant to summon a Nevada witness to an Idaho matter without a hearing and there is no authority to summon a Nevada witness to an Idaho matter without a Nevada Judge making a finding of materiality, necessity and the lack of undue hardship."

 

[PrairieWind]

This:

".. there is no authority for an Idaho criminal defendant to summon a Nevada witness to Idaho for preliminary hearing. There is also no authority for an Idaho criminal defendant to summon a Nevada witness to an Idaho matter without a hearing and there is no authority to summon a Nevada witness to an Idaho matter without a Nevada Judge making a finding of materiality, necessity and the lack of undue hardship."

A mtion to quash requires first consultation which I don't see has occurred. Regardless, all this is easily fixed. Why is BF fighting this so hard? What is going on?

 

[SpiderFalcon]

A mtion to quash requires first consultation which I don't see has occurred. Regardless, all this is easily fixed. Why is BF fighting this so hard? What is going on?

Pure Speculation, of course...

I hear you, and agree. The CERTIFICATE to SECURE ATTENDANCE was signed by Judge Marshall on March 24. The Notice of Brady Disclosure was dated March 24. It's something to think about, isn't it?

 

[Sundog]

I might wonder if she saw a figure or vehicle leaving the area but had a differing description.

How horrible to be called as a defense witness when, no doubt, she's not only a direct victim of his, surely she wants only to defend her slain friends.

It seems like double victimization.

I can't actually fathom anything she might testify to that would cancel his DNA on the sheath, but desperate defense teams resort to desperate measures all the time.

I feel for the surviving roommates.

JMO

If the Judge in Latah County agreed to the issuance of the subpoena, then I don't think this is a frivolous attempt by the defense. It may not be enough to "exonerate" BK, but it may be significant exculpatory evidence for the defense to present at the preliminary hearing. In a death penalty case like this, the judge would certainly want to be careful not to gloss over potential exculpatory evidence and then have the case go to appeal after a trial.