4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 72

[Counttrarian]

IMHO
The more we learn out about this case the more it seems the best course of action for the parties involved (unless BK has unexpected evidence of innocence) would be to take the death penalty off the table in exchange for a plea. Convincing SG might be the hurdle.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Thank you. Best to cross check original sources, if available as they are in this case, with Daily M articles. MOO

Maybe it wasn't clear that in my post I was asking 2 questions about what was said in the quoted sentence in the Daily Mail article I linked to, and I was not confused about the 2 topics being combined or what the source was.

I was simply asking OP's opinions (if they have them) on:

(1) Why would BK/his PD object to the gag order being lifted? and

(2) Why could family members of victims be called as witnesses?

My questions were in context of the content of the quoted sentence, and not to do with original sources or opinions on the Daily Mail as an MSM news outlet, which Mods have stated is off topic and not a subject for discussion on this case.

MOO

 

[wary]

IMHO
The more we learn out about this case the more it seems the best course of action for the parties involved (unless BK has unexpected evidence of innocence) would be to take the death penalty off the table in exchange for a plea. Convincing SG might be the hurdle.

Well, SG has no real say in the matter, just as a parent who doesn’t want the death penalty has no real say in the matter. The criminal justice system does not revolve around private vengeance or private forgiveness.

MOO

 

[jepop]

Maybe it wasn't clear that in my post I was asking 2 questions about what was said in the quoted sentence in the Daily Mail article I linked to, and I was not confused about the 2 topics being combined or what the source was.

I was simply asking OP's opinions (if they have them) on:

(1) Why would BK/his PD object to the gag order being lifted? and

(2) Why could family members of victims be called as witnesses?

My questions were in context of the content of the quoted sentence, and not to do with original sources or opinions on the Daily Mail as an MSM news outlet, which Mods have stated is off topic and not a subject for discussion on this case.

MOO

Sorry for any confusion. By original sources, in this Daily M article context, I meant the court docs referred to.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/020923%20Objection%20to%20Motion%20to%20Appeal%20Amend%20andor%20Clarify%20Nondissemination%20Order.pdf

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/020823%20Memorandum%20of%20Points%20and%20Authorities%20Relating%20to%20Nondissemination%20Order.pdf

EBM: posted second court doc.

ETA: Sorry! the docs go someway to answering those questions at least partially
Doc 1: The defense seeks to "minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity" so as not to compromise a jury against BK is the way I understand it.

Doc 2: The prosecution has submitted affadavit (not posted here) saying they might call the Goncalves (thus defense would cross examine I guess) - possibly might be to do with their involvement in early days of investigation? Anyway, the doc I attached shows the dangers of compromised witness testimony re mistrial potential according to the prosecution.

 

[al66pine]

Best Interest of the Parties?

IMHO The more we learn out about this case the more it seems the best course of action for the parties involved (unless BK has unexpected evidence of innocence) would be to take the death penalty off the table in exchange for a plea. Convincing SG might be the hurdle.

@Counttrarian
Reading the reference in OP & "parties" in a legal sense, I'm taking out my HAIRSPLITTING scissors, to note that as Kaylee's father, SG is not a "party" in this case. The State of ID. and BCK are the parties in this criminal case.

From a common sense standpoint, OP's idea may hold some public appeal.

But Taylor is obligated to zealously represent her client. W the info available to us/public ATM, there may be a possibility of a fragment of a trace of a particle of a shred of a crumb of a shadow of an atom of a scintilla of doubt re BCK's guilt. IDK.

Reasonable doubt? Well, IDK, but seems, well, doubtful.

Could be exceeedingly difficult for Taylor to counsel BCK about her assessment of evidence and her prediction of outcome at trial.
imo

@wary Again, thanks for making point about the "parties."

 

[Luna20]

Why not?

She’s a government county employee. This isn’t typical, unless they go by a different protocol.

 

[Sundog]

She’s a government county employee. This isn’t typical, unless they go by a different protocol.

The fee is significantly higher for a public defender who is representing a defendant in a capital case. The contracted amount for Attorney Taylor in Idaho is only slightly higher than the hourly fee that is recommended by the state where I live for a public defender representing a client in a capital case.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

This post lands at random. Over-alerting or abuse of the Reporting system is a violation of TOS. Please stop reporting saying "opinion has no link". Opinions don't have links !!

Thank you.

 

[Ceska]

Sounds like DMs on trial. How pleasing for the defense.

No, not on trial.... It is a legit question, the articles out there (posted on this thread) about it did not make sense to me, blame the article if you want but don't judge me or put words in my mouth just because I question what was written, what was written is contradictory.

 

[Kdot112]

The thing is, the PCA is not there to explain the subsequent actions of the witness or send a message to the world of social media IMO. And DM has chosen to remain quiet (for good reasons IMO), so all subsequent actions on that night and the next day that have been reported are from other sources MOO. IMO defense would have a field day if the PCA went on to 'defend' DM, so to speak, against any perceived potential future attacks on her via sm or MSM (via unnnamed second hand sources). That would be impartiality towards a witness in the PCA and there is no place for that IMO. Defense would destroy any thing like that at the PH IMO. MOO Just recently the defense has asked for standard items, IMO, in the discovery looking for places where they hope (as opposed to know), IMO, that LE may have stuffed up. LE would have knowledge of law IMO that defense is fully entitled to view witness interviews and statements and reports of how witnesses were handled by LE at the time. Defense would be remiss not to view this material in discovery. MOO

I see what you are saying but that wasn’t really what I was getting at. I’m saying the pca has info in there that seems like it might not reflect what the witness really meant. This is an opinion based off of what we know happened.

 

[NCWatcher]

I see what you are saying but that wasn’t really what I was getting at. I’m saying the pca has info in there that seems like it might not reflect what the witness really meant. This is an opinion based off of what we know happened.

I guess it depends on whether the quotation marks indicate the phrase "frozen shock phase" was a quote from DM. If she used those very words, it's pretty hard IMO for anyone to argue she didn't really mean to say that, she meant to say something else instead. And whether the phrase is common is pretty immaterial too (although I suspect it's not as uncommon among young people as it may be across the board.) From my reading of the PCA, the phrase is only supposed to describe how she reacted when she saw the unfamiliar man in black in the house. It's not supposed to explain her reactions and actions over a 7-8 hour period. All of that is not relevant--all that mattered for the PCA was the claim she saw someone unfamiliar in the house and the description could have fit BK.

Of course, given what we know about the case there are questions about what DM thought and felt and what she did. On WS victims get varying degrees of protection but that's not how the real world operates and how life in the legal system operates. The defense "beating up on" DM wouldn't be a good look but asking her pointed questions is a different matter. And I can understand why the families-- also victims-- would want more info from DM, particularly if the additional info reported by AB/NewsNation is actually true. Personally, based on what we know right now, I don't think DM could have saved anyone even if she'd called 911 right after seeing the stranger leave. The injuries sound too severe. But I don't know that. And I don't know when crying was heard if it really was.

As I said in an earlier post I do wonder if DM was quoted in the PCA (assuming she was) partly to attempt to protect her from easily-anticipated questions. It didn't work but I can see someone thinking (essentially) saying she was in shock might protect her from questions about her later actions even though the PCA doesn't address anything to with DM beyond that brief incident.

JMO

 

[monkey222]

I guess it depends on whether the quotation marks indicate the phrase "frozen shock phase" was a quote from DM. If she used those very words, it's pretty hard IMO for anyone to argue she didn't really mean to say that, she meant to say something else instead. And whether the phrase is common is pretty immaterial too (although I suspect it's not as uncommon among young people as it may be across the board.) From my reading of the PCA, the phrase is only supposed to describe how she reacted when she saw the unfamiliar man in black in the house. It's not supposed to explain her reactions and actions over a 7-8 hour period. All of that is not relevant--all that mattered for the PCA was the claim she saw someone unfamiliar in the house and the description could have fit BK.

Of course, given what we know about the case there are questions about what DM thought and felt and what she did. On WS victims get varying degrees of protection but that's not how the real world operates and how life in the legal system operates. The defense "beating up on" DM wouldn't be a good look but asking her pointed questions is a different matter. And I can understand why the families-- also victims-- would want more info from DM, particularly if the additional info reported by AB/NewsNation is actually true. Personally, based on what we know right now, I don't think DM could have saved anyone even if she'd called 911 right after seeing the stranger leave. The injuries sound too severe. But I don't know that. And I don't know when crying was heard if it really was.

As I said in an earlier post I do wonder if DM was quoted in the PCA (assuming she was) partly to attempt to protect her from easily-anticipated questions. It didn't work but I can see someone thinking (essentially) saying she was in shock might protect her from questions about her later actions even though the PCA doesn't address anything to with DM beyond that brief incident.

JMO

Has anything been said/known about the other roomate, other that I believe she is a female that was sleeping the whole time. There were two, right?

Just wondering what transpired in the morning, daylight. Did they go to each room, doors, at least Ethan's must have been open. Or just to scared to venture out since they sensed something amiss, hence called Es friend.

 

[iamshadow21]

Has anything been said/known about the other roomate, other that I believe she is a female that was sleeping the whole time. There were two, right?

Just wondering what transpired in the morning, daylight. Did they go to each room, doors, at least Ethan's must have been open. Or just to scared to venture out since they sensed something amiss, hence called Es friend.

We don't have that information at this time.

 

[Dotta]

Just wondering what transpired in the morning, daylight. Did they go to each room, doors, at least Ethan's must have been open. Or just to scared to venture out since they sensed something amiss, hence called Es friend.

I guess the whole place might have been a bloodbath
(I remember a child at school had a terrible nose bleed and half of the floor was a bloody mess.)
Here 4 people were slaughtered and blood was (allegedly) trickling down a wall.

Even officers were traumatized by the sight.
No wonder one girl fainted and the other was allegedly hyperventilating.

I still don't get why the front door was allegedly wide open early in the morning according to the neighbour.
Who opened it if the perp left via a kitchen sliding door?

I guess all will be explained during the trial.

JMO

 

[Dotta]

By the way,
How could anyone live in that house ever again?
With victims' blood in every corner, every nook and cranny???
Not to mention chemicals used by Police?
Can it all ever be properly cleaned?

I shudder at the thought.

"Good vibes" turned into sinister ones

JMO

 

[iamshadow21]

By the way,
How could anyone live in that house ever again?
With victims' blood in every corner, every nook and cranny???
Not to mention chemicals used by Police?
Can it all ever be properly cleaned?

I shudder at the thought.

"Good vibes" turned into sinister ones

JMO

Crime scene cleanup is a whole business. They'd turned up to clean the place when the order came through to stop.

Whether anyone would want to live there again is another matter. Some way back on the threads was a whole discussion of murder houses demo'd vs murder houses bought and turned into homes again by people who don't mind the history.

 

[TL4S]

What I'm curious about is if the new report is true about DM yelling at her roommates to be quiet, and calling them, then the killer would have heard that, right? Who did he think was yelling, or calling, and was he then fully aware someone else was alive in that house? Just more unanswerable questions...

ETA: I'm not caught up on the thread, so I apologize if this has been brought up a hundred times already.

 

[iamshadow21]

What I'm curious about is if the new report of DM yelling at her roommates to be quiet is true, and calling them, then the killer would have heard that, right? Who did he think was yelling, or calling, and was he then fully aware someone else was alive in that house? Just more unanswerable questions...

ETA: I'm not caught up on the thread, so I apologize if this has been brought up a hundred times already.

It's in a Daily Mail article, based off of things E's SIL was saying on social media when the crime had not long happened, very early days. I don't know where the SIL got her info - could have been someone actually there, could have been through the social media vine like so much of that early information/misinformation. We just don't know.

Give it exactly the sort of credence and weight of veracity you think that deserves.

And yes, before you ask, E has a SIL, it's not a spouse of one of the other tripsibs, but spouse of one of his older halfsibs. They are mentioned in his obit.

EDIT: Assuming that there is some truth in the Mail article, I can think of two possibilities.

1) He was kind of distracted attacking one of the housemates
2) She shouted when he was upstairs in M's room. He then went down to X's room. After that, he thought he'd eliminated the shouter.


Very Much MOO

 

[Dotta]

Give it exactly the sort of credence and weight of veracity you think that deserves.

And yes, before you ask, E has a SIL, it's not a spouse of one of the other tripsibs, but spouse of one of his older halfsibs. They are mentioned in his obit.

Of all sources, I would believe the families most.
They surely had news first-hand.

JMO

 

[iamshadow21]

Of all sources, I would believe the families most.
They surely had news first-hand.

JMO

The parents, maybe? They'd be talked to directly by the police. But even they don't hear much, hence SG's frustration in the weeks before arrest. A lot of what he assumed about the investigation didn't turn out to have basis.

The spouse of an older sibling? She could have easily heard that E had been killed, and then watched it all play out on social media like the rest of us. Reading public groups. Talking to fraternity or sorority friends of friends of the housemates. Someone could have told her 'inside info' that they heard from someone who heard from someone, and she took it as hard fact, when it's not. And that's why we can't rely on social media, here, unless it's in MSM, and then only with a whole pile of salt.

MOO