4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #79

[isabella88]

Oh dear......

The clown/wizard doll in that one picture is beyond creepy.

 

[Warwick7]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1658898540108845056

Good!!

 

[arielilane]

This is unfortunate. The taxpayers will pay for this trial and they deserve to see and hear what they pay for, IMO. It's dangerous to do the business of justice behind closed doors and also to leave it to the press to relay what happened to the public. All my opinion.

Agree, absolutely, I will never understand why the taxpayer isn't allowed to attend a trial they funded. moo

 

[Twistinginthewind]

So what's in written documents has more (legal) meaning than what a judge says in court?
Edited: had to change some words around

Yes, but it's The Criminal Rule 5.1 that is the written Law of the State, (legislated), not just a "written document".

And there's probably some fine print or a precedent that what is a written rule of law supercedes any verbal statements, though as I said previously, I haven't read the entire transcript from the proceedings and what the Judge said.

Typically, IMO, there will be verbal caveats that refer to the law as written that takes precedence over "what is said".

For example "Do you understand the laws in this case as written under I.R.C. 5.1, and your attendant rights to a PH?"

JMO, but if there was a failure on the judge's part to be clear about it at that time, it doesn't matter, because the law is what it is, and there's no way the Judge and the State dropped the ball on something that subtle but legally binding.

MOO

 

[maconrich]

Yes, but it's The Criminal Rule 5.1 that is the written Law of the State, (legislated), not just a "written document".

And there's probably some fine print or a precedent that what is a written rule of law supercedes any verbal statements, though as I said previously, I haven't read the entire transcript from the proceedings and what the Judge said.

Typically, IMO, there will be verbal caveats that refer to the law as written that takes precedence over "what is said".

For example "Do you understand the laws in this case as written under I.R.C. 5.1, and your attendant rights to a PH?"

JMO, but if there was a failure on the judge's part to be clear about it at that time, it doesn't matter, because the law is what it is, and there's no way the Judge and the State dropped the ball on something that subtle but legally binding.

MOO

I'm going to accept your explanation. And I'll be the first to admit that I get stuck on small details and that my mind can be a very confusing place. But just as a FWIW this was posted by @arielilane and the judge's statement begins at 1:28

 

[10ofRods]

Shouldn't the judge have stated that he had the right to a PH unless he was indited by a grand jury? It seems like a major detail to leave out...

The Judge had a duty to advise him of his rights. He had not right to a Grand Jury. He had a right to a PH.

IMO.

 

[maconrich]

The Judge had a duty to advise him of his rights. He had not right to a Grand Jury. He had a right to a PH.

IMO.

Yes, I'm understanding that now. But I still believe she should have said that unless there was a GJ he had the right to a PH.

 

[x_files]

But cleaned it away MOO.

some but I doubt all of it!

 

[10ofRods]

I am a bit perplexed. I won't even address the Dad issue.
But you say that the Defendant wont have the opportunity to attack the evidence like that is a good thing? If the evidence can't hold up now it certainly wont at trial. This is why we have preliminary hearings. I just routinely stunned by comments like this.
The two survivors have been through a horrible ordeal. But at least the one had avoided PH testimony entirely. But regardless, if this case goes to trial, and I think there is a good chance it will, those girls are going to have to testify. And there may be some stuff that comes out that is uncomfortable for them. But before we sent a man to death row or life in prison, we have to hear the facts.

I think the point may be that the evidence is the evidence and will stand or fall in front of a jury. For whatever reason, the State used its legal ability to get a Grand Jury indictment, permitted under Idaho law.

As you have said before, Kohberger still has the right to pre-trial motions - just that he is now under indictment and remanded to trial, so his defense needs to focus on exactly what evidence they want contested (and do it out of public eye).

Are you against Grand Juries? I am skeptical of them (and it's been forever since one has been used in this way, in my state - but other states are different). Is a Judge by definition better than a jury of citizens?

I have no doubts that the defense (which is composed of stellar attorneys, IMO) will do its job at trial (and before trial). How does a Grand Jury indictment make that different? I'm not following.

It'll be interesting to see who calls those two young women as witnesses. What if the State doesn't call them? And the Defense does, instead? Doesn't that make some kind of difference? It does to me, and if I were a juror, it would make me squint at the Defense, especially if the young women appeared traumatized by having to testify. These are things that each set of Defense attorneys has to weigh. If the Defense pits the two young women's impressions against each other, that sounds ugly.

But, it could come down to that. Are you saying that, now indicted, the trial won't be fair because it was a Grand Jury indictment?

All my opinion and true questions.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

Yes, but it's The Criminal Rule 5.1 that is the written Law of the State, (legislated), not just a "written document".

And there's probably some fine print or a precedent that what is a written rule of law supercedes any verbal statements, though as I said previously, I haven't read the entire transcript from the proceedings and what the Judge said.

Typically, IMO, there will be verbal caveats that refer to the law as written that takes precedence over "what is said".

For example "Do you understand the laws in this case as written under I.R.C. 5.1, and your attendant rights to a PH?"

JMO, but if there was a failure on the judge's part to be clear about it at that time, it doesn't matter, because the law is what it is, and there's no way the Judge and the State dropped the ball on something that subtle but legally binding.

MOO

This document , the Notification of Rights, addresses both PH and GJ Indictment, but doesn't really answer the question...

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/010523%20Notification%20of%20Rights.pdf

BK signed and initialed this on Jan 5

 

[Sundog]

What witness(es) would you think there are?

Are these any and all witnesses (like phone experts, forensic DNA specialists, etc.) or more like eye witnesses DH, etc?

Besides phone experts, DNA experts, etc. there are also expert eyewwitness witnesses. The new attorney for BK (Massoth) worked with a well-known eyewitness expert witness in an earlier case.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

I'm going to accept your explanation. And I'll be he first to admit that I get stuck on small details and that my mind can be a very confusing place. But just as a FWIW this was posted by @arielilane and the judge's statement begins at 1:28

It's all good, I too am very detail-oriented, and it's complicated and we're in the dark not only with the gag order but this surprise (to many I think, not me personally tho) GJ indictment that is unusual and unexpected, but packs a huge punch afterall, and has definitely set the tone that the State is loaded for bear (oyyy, again with the euphemisms, must make note to self to try to speak clear plain English !)

Looking forward to the next chapter on this case and rolling with the punches with you all (heck, more euphemisms, gotta call it quits !)

MOO some more, thanks for everyone's great input !

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Besides phone experts, DNA experts, etc. there are also expert eyewwitness witnesses. The new attorney for BK (Massoth) worked with a well-known eyewitness expert witness in an earlier case.

Gotta wonder if that's one reason they opted for a GJ.

 

[BUF]

The prosecutor filed a motion that was granted by the judge to seal the names of the Grand Jury witness. The prosecutor alleges that they have already received complaints from prospective witnesses and the families of threats, harassment and intimidation.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/051723%20Motion%20to%20Seal%20Grand%20Jury%20Witnesses.pdf

Just have to say … social media was rampant on some folks … if they ended up being included on the GJ witness list … I would be very uncomfortable too. moo

 

[Warwick7]

If the PH would have played out that's when prosecution would have basically showed their cards.

MOO I thinks a really good decision because there is probably to much over whelming information. Maybe they don't want the jury pool tainted by the PH. That way the defense can't say hey we aren't going to get a fair trial because all of this is out there in the public
MOO

 

[Sundog]

Gotta wonder if that's one reason they opted for a GJ.

I wonder how long ago the GJ was impaneled.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Just have to say … social media was rampant on some folks … if they ended up being included on the GJ witness list … I would be very uncomfortable too. moo

How are they already getting threats when the witness list was never released? IANAL, but everything I know about GJ tells me they're done in private and no one knows who the witnesses were unless it's released. In this case, it wasn't. So who's being threatened and by whom? BK's in jail. He clearly doesn't have friends. I personally can't see his parents threatening people. So these people who've formed some sort of weird fan club for him? And if so, how do they know who to threaten?

Nothing about this case makes sense and every day gets weirder than the day before.

MOO.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Prairie Wind is a verified attorney.

I agree that PW makes a valid point. If the prosecution can't make BARD, then GJ is the way to go. Based on what we know at this time, I am not convinced BARD, so maybe PW is right and that is the issue.

I know that the prosecution stated just how much material was turned over during discovery, but quantity doesn't make quality (I'll cite the Morphew debacle re that - volumes of it but not enough, apparently). Also, side note, important to remember IMO that all that material still might not include what was included in the defense's discovery request, either.

Section deleted by me.

What I wish I knew about the BK/GJ situation (and what i think would be a big indicator as to why this is happening) is how the defense feels about this - that would give me a better read on things. I think it's quite possible that the prosecution hasn't gotten to BARD and the case is much more complex than it appears with issues that are best kept sealed until they can't be. JMO ICBW and I haven't read the documents yet, so all this could change after I do some research. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to start my Go Fund Me so I can quit the day job and devote myself to this case lol.

 

[10ofRods]

No, I don't think the State is still communicating with the families, but I think they did early on -- possibly more than they should have. As in telling them details that IMHO should have been kept from the media, and that perhaps LE didn't think they'd share with the media.

I'm not sure what Mr G has been thinking. At all. And IMHO the family might do better with a different attorney. SG (attorney) hasn't impressed me at all. Maybe that's just me though. (It's been difficult to know if something is coming from the attorney or the family.) Along the same lines, I'm not sure if Mr G didn't believe he had the right to speak to the media, or if it was attorney SG who believed they couldn't speak out since he wasn't allowed to speak out (because of the gag order).

I also believe Mr G saw the autopsy reports, and I agree the parents had the right to see those if they wanted to. They didn't do an autopsy on my son when he passed, but I did talk to the coroner and then requested (and received) a copy of the coroner's report. I had to know, and I'd think at least some of the families would have felt the same.

Maybe it will be better for the families to have a little more time before the trial. Time to heal a bit before it's all brought up again. Mrs G stated in the article that she'll most likely leave the court room when explicit details are brought up (paraphrasing her), and IMHO that's a good idea. If only for her own emotional and mental health.

Just my thoughts and opinions

I completely agree with you and I would be *so* frustrated and sleepless if this were my child who was murdered. I'd also be on every online forum, everywhere, drinking up any information about Kohberger that I could find.

It is not that long in the past that LE *did* communicate more openly with the families of victims. I think where this case turned the corner is with an actual arrest. Up until then, I think if the families were persistent (as SG was), much information was shared, out of compassion.

I agree that their attorney is not the best one for them. And it's almost certain, in my mind, that SG didn't realize he could still speak (and I say that because even here on WS and certainly on other platforms, many, many people thought the same). SG's attorney may have thought the same, we don't know.

I am so sorry to hear about your son. I can't even imagine. You have an inquisitive mind and I don't know how you stood up. I would *have* to have the coroner's report and would go to court over that if I had to (but I believe it was shared with the families when it was completed in this case - if they wanted to see it). The closest I've come to this is the havock wreaked in my own family when my talented young musician cousin died in a single car accident around 1972, and we all waited anxiously for the Coroner's report (and then, my uncle misinterpreted it and had a nervous breakdown - his thinking was completely off the charts for a couple of years).

I agree that this gives the families more time to heal. It also gives the highly mobile population of residents of Moscow, ID to have some turn over, in terms of a potential jury pool. That benefits the defendant and helps the prosecution escape appeals based on "not a fair trial." By the time this comes to trial, it will be much more fair. I think Mr G took the brunt of handling the funerals, viewing the bodies - and he is the one who read the autopsies (I think MM's mom probably delegated that to him or allowed it).

Maybe the parents got access to all the coroner's reports (which would have been standard many years ago). What the parents want is justice and I believe they think the right person has been charged and have been privy to enough information (way more than the PCA - because they saw the full ME reports, at least for their own kids). From what SG said, the manner of death showed a lot about the killer's mind and pattern of crime execution.

Most days, I can't get what he said out of my mind and I haven't forgotten - it's a key piece of this case.

Since I believe the right person is in custody, I can't fault the state (and I think Mr. G thinks the same and has way more information than I do). There is no hurry here, to try him.

The victim family pathway through a terrible crime is fraught with constant re-trauma, IMO. And I wish it weren't so, but it is part of making sure the right person is convicted. I always keep in mind that it's like some family members are reading here.

IMO.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1658960585726337025