As far as most institutions are concerned - if it’s not for religious reasons, he can eat it.
4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 76
- Thread starter ChatteringBirds
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,676
- Reaction score
- 8,670
<snipped for focus>
Detention
Latah County is located in the northern Idaho panhandle; to the immediate west lies Whitman County, Washington. These counties are referred to as The Palouse, which produces a large share of the wheat, lentils, peas, oats and barley in the United States. The Palouse is home to two major...latahcountyid.gov
Details of Bryan Kohberger's jail life emerge
The man accused of murdering four University of Idaho students has been attending Mass on Sundays and has the option of attending Bible study on Wednesdays.www.newsweek.com
Thank you very much for sharing all that.
It didn't look like he had a need to lose any weight, much less significant amounts of it, but I do think he would be very concerned about managing his weight in jail. I think he would find it deeply upsetting to be seen in the news as the old, heavy BK. The part that really doesn't sound like BK to me is the statement about him walking around and smiling. Almost everyone has described him as a deadpan stare-through-you, creep you out, kind of person. I don't see jail changing that, even if he were secretly pleased with how things are going.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2022
- Messages
- 1,524
- Reaction score
- 12,010
New case posts
Stipulated motion
Defendants 2nd supplemental discovery rquest
Order to file
Stipulated motion
Defendants 2nd supplemental discovery rquest
Order to file
ExpectingUnicorns
. . . only the pure of heart can see.
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,617
- Reaction score
- 3,229
According to this article, BK was in his early adolescence when he worked at Big Brown Fish and Pay Lakes. The owner has been quoted in various MSM pieces, painting a painful picture of BK's total failure to perform at any of the tasks he was assigned. Basically, he was unable to interact with the customers (mostly families who brought their children there to catch fish) and was unable to dress/filet the fish properly.
I'm very curious about the impact these four months might have had on his development. Could this experience have sparked the desire to become a vegetarian, or was he already avoiding meat before he had this job? Was he not confident enough to be comfortable chatting with the customers, or did he already hold himself on a different level?
Whatever the case, I cannot imagine a more unsuitable employment for a youngster with BK's predispositions. And it makes me wonder what degree of impact it had on his grim future.
Edited to add reference: More details of Bryan Kohberger's past emerges
I'm very curious about the impact these four months might have had on his development. Could this experience have sparked the desire to become a vegetarian, or was he already avoiding meat before he had this job? Was he not confident enough to be comfortable chatting with the customers, or did he already hold himself on a different level?
Whatever the case, I cannot imagine a more unsuitable employment for a youngster with BK's predispositions. And it makes me wonder what degree of impact it had on his grim future.
Edited to add reference: More details of Bryan Kohberger's past emerges
U.N. Known
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2023
- Messages
- 292
- Reaction score
- 2,439
Thank you for posting these. As much as I want to know what was requested and found, I agree with the parties that the information should be under seal.
The more I read about this case and think about others, I'm leaning more toward keeping most pre-trial evidence--in all cases--under seal. When officials go on deep dives to find suspects and motives, they will uncover information unrelated to the trial that is therefore, and should be kept private.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2022
- Messages
- 1,524
- Reaction score
- 12,010
I think there needs to be a balance. I agree with the exhibits being sealed. I do think they could provide what is being requested and if the prosecutor is providing those items or not, and any arguments relating to the discovery process. I do realize that social media has an enormous effect on the defendant's right to a fair trial and that the courts are grappling with how to deal with SM/fair trial issues. I just have conflicting thoughts about secret court proceedings. JMO
<modsnip: off topic/not approved sources>
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 13,066
- Reaction score
- 103,525
I remember hearing they were accommodating his vegan diet but not using separate pans to cook his food.
Pans that touch meat.
Jails and prisons try to accommodate special meals to a point, some prisons that cook their own food do better than those that hire cheap companies to come in and microwave their own expired frozen food.
Sister Golden Hair
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 1,395
- Reaction score
- 8,980
jmo imo with supporting links
I brought the different reasons cited for sealing the documents earlier, but it was argued that this was boilerplate language. While the language is boilerplate, the application of reasons stated in the motions and orders is not; that language is specific to the case, the situation, and the reasons vary. These are legal orders, signed by the judge, stating their reasons for withholding these documents from public record. It will be interesting to see if they reseal in April when a lot of the orders end.
jmo imo with supporting links
So I went back through all the ones that just say Order to Seal. I had looked at those when they were first added and noted the different language, and I think there is definitely a CI. Different sealed orders have different language
for example, the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh ones say this:
(I) The documents contain highly intimate facts or statements, the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person;
(2) The documents contain facts or statements that might threaten the safety of or endanger the life or safety of individuals; and
(3) Disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
the fourth ones says this:
(l) The documents contain highly intimate facts or statements, the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person; and
(2) Production of such records would disclose investigative techniques and procedures.
the eighth (last) one just says for the reasons stated in the original order, and those reasons are this:
Interfere with enforcement proceedings
Constitute an unwanted invasion of personal privacy,
Disclose the identity of a confidential source; and
Disclose investigative techniques and procedures.
Same language in the DD warrant and the court sealed it for all the reasons stated in the motion.
Then I looked at the messy Daybell cases for comparison Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest. For example, they mostly say;
1) The interests in privacy are predominant over the public’s interest in disclosure.
(2) Sealing said documents is the least restrictive measure consistent with the privacy interests
at issue.
(3) Sealing these documents during the pendency ofthis criminal investigation is in the
best interest of justice and will preserve the right to a fair trial. and
(1) The information contained in the document is exempt from disclosure pursuant to
I.C.A.R.(g)(10); I.C.A.R. 32. Records of The Judicial Department - Examination and Copying - Exemption From and Limitations on Disclosure. | Supreme Court
this is very different than the kohberger docs, even though the language is 'boilerplate'.
jmo imo with supporting links
The Idaho court admin rule I.C.A.R. 32i lays it out:
(2) Before a court may enter an order redacting or sealing records, it must also make one or more of the following determinations in writing:
(A) That the documents or materials contain highly intimate facts or statements, the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, or
(B) That the documents or materials contain facts or statements that the court finds might be libelous, or
(C) That the documents or materials contain facts or statements, the dissemination or publication of which may compromise the financial security of, or could reasonably result in economic or financial loss or harm to a person having an interest in the documents or materials, or compromise the security of personnel, records or public property of or used by the judicial department, or
(D) That the documents or materials contain facts or statements that might threaten or endanger the life or safety of individuals, or
(E) That it is necessary to temporarily seal or redact the documents or materials to preserve the right to a fair trial, or
(F) That the documents contain personal data identifiers that should have been redacted pursuant to Idaho Rule of Electronic Filing and Service 15, Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 2.6, or Idaho Rule of Family Law Procedure 218 in which case the court shall order that the documents be redacted in a manner consistent with the provisions of that rule.
The actual and applicable reasons are applied specifically to the motion/order/case. All of the ones I opened for both Daybell trials had the same types of reasons cited, nothing similar to the mess that is the kohberger experience. jmo imo ime
This case outlines it really well - what the rule says, what applies in that case:
https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR01-21-34839/081622 Motion to Seal Record Pursuant to Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32.pdf
Based on this, imo jmo, there is a CI and there's some really sticky stuff and that is why the court has sealed the records. jmo imo ime
I brought the different reasons cited for sealing the documents earlier, but it was argued that this was boilerplate language. While the language is boilerplate, the application of reasons stated in the motions and orders is not; that language is specific to the case, the situation, and the reasons vary. These are legal orders, signed by the judge, stating their reasons for withholding these documents from public record. It will be interesting to see if they reseal in April when a lot of the orders end.
jmo imo with supporting links
So I went back through all the ones that just say Order to Seal. I had looked at those when they were first added and noted the different language, and I think there is definitely a CI. Different sealed orders have different language
for example, the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh ones say this:
(I) The documents contain highly intimate facts or statements, the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person;
(2) The documents contain facts or statements that might threaten the safety of or endanger the life or safety of individuals; and
(3) Disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
the fourth ones says this:
(l) The documents contain highly intimate facts or statements, the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person; and
(2) Production of such records would disclose investigative techniques and procedures.
the eighth (last) one just says for the reasons stated in the original order, and those reasons are this:
Interfere with enforcement proceedings
Constitute an unwanted invasion of personal privacy,
Disclose the identity of a confidential source; and
Disclose investigative techniques and procedures.
Same language in the DD warrant and the court sealed it for all the reasons stated in the motion.
Then I looked at the messy Daybell cases for comparison Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest. For example, they mostly say;
1) The interests in privacy are predominant over the public’s interest in disclosure.
(2) Sealing said documents is the least restrictive measure consistent with the privacy interests
at issue.
(3) Sealing these documents during the pendency ofthis criminal investigation is in the
best interest of justice and will preserve the right to a fair trial. and
(1) The information contained in the document is exempt from disclosure pursuant to
I.C.A.R.(g)(10); I.C.A.R. 32. Records of The Judicial Department - Examination and Copying - Exemption From and Limitations on Disclosure. | Supreme Court
this is very different than the kohberger docs, even though the language is 'boilerplate'.
jmo imo with supporting links
The Idaho court admin rule I.C.A.R. 32i lays it out:
(2) Before a court may enter an order redacting or sealing records, it must also make one or more of the following determinations in writing:
(A) That the documents or materials contain highly intimate facts or statements, the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, or
(B) That the documents or materials contain facts or statements that the court finds might be libelous, or
(C) That the documents or materials contain facts or statements, the dissemination or publication of which may compromise the financial security of, or could reasonably result in economic or financial loss or harm to a person having an interest in the documents or materials, or compromise the security of personnel, records or public property of or used by the judicial department, or
(D) That the documents or materials contain facts or statements that might threaten or endanger the life or safety of individuals, or
(E) That it is necessary to temporarily seal or redact the documents or materials to preserve the right to a fair trial, or
(F) That the documents contain personal data identifiers that should have been redacted pursuant to Idaho Rule of Electronic Filing and Service 15, Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 2.6, or Idaho Rule of Family Law Procedure 218 in which case the court shall order that the documents be redacted in a manner consistent with the provisions of that rule.
The actual and applicable reasons are applied specifically to the motion/order/case. All of the ones I opened for both Daybell trials had the same types of reasons cited, nothing similar to the mess that is the kohberger experience. jmo imo ime
This case outlines it really well - what the rule says, what applies in that case:
https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR01-21-34839/081622 Motion to Seal Record Pursuant to Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32.pdf
Based on this, imo jmo, there is a CI and there's some really sticky stuff and that is why the court has sealed the records. jmo imo ime
Last edited:
Sister Golden Hair
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 1,395
- Reaction score
- 8,980
I also noticed this:
the second AT&T
dated 12.23 may have been Kohberger's because of the dates and they were getting ready to arrest, but can't be sure... because no name, and phone number redacted, but if the records were for someone else, then it would indicate someone else was around during that time and they had PC fr a warrant.
November 12, 2022 at 12:00 am. PST to November 14, 2022 at 12:00 am. PST
CI? imo jmo one possibility
and does that in any way relate to a bigger picture?
How is March 1-31, 2021 and how are 19-20 tinder accounts linked to this case, remembering probable cause required.... and
the Tinder warrant/motion/order also has the same reasons in the order:
Therefore, pursuant to I.C.A.R. 32(i)(2)(A) and (D) and I.C. §74-124(1)(c), the court finds it necessary to seal the records related to the search warrant for the following reasons:
edited to add the Tinder piece
the second AT&T
dated 12.23 may have been Kohberger's because of the dates and they were getting ready to arrest, but can't be sure... because no name, and phone number redacted, but if the records were for someone else, then it would indicate someone else was around during that time and they had PC fr a warrant.
November 12, 2022 at 12:00 am. PST to November 14, 2022 at 12:00 am. PST
CI? imo jmo one possibility
and does that in any way relate to a bigger picture?
How is March 1-31, 2021 and how are 19-20 tinder accounts linked to this case, remembering probable cause required.... and
the Tinder warrant/motion/order also has the same reasons in the order:
Therefore, pursuant to I.C.A.R. 32(i)(2)(A) and (D) and I.C. §74-124(1)(c), the court finds it necessary to seal the records related to the search warrant for the following reasons:
- (1) The documents centain highly intimate facts or statements, the publication of which would be
highly objectionable to a reasonable person; - (2) The documents contain facts or statements that might threaten the safety of or endanger the life
or safety of individuals; and - (3) Disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
edited to add the Tinder piece
Last edited:
I'm Nobody
Are you Nobody too?
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2021
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 3,638
BK's sisters lost their jobs.
Sister Golden Hair
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 1,395
- Reaction score
- 8,980
And then this is the newest
motion
This motion is made pursuant to I.C.A.R 32(i)(2) (D) and (E) and LC. §74-124(l) (b) and (c)
because 1) the documents contain facts or statements that might threaten or endanger the life or safety of individuals, 2) it is necessary to preserve the right to a fair trial, and 3) disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
order
The Court having before it the Defendant’s Stipulated Motion to file Exhibit B Attached to Defendant’s 2"" Supplemental Request for Discovery Under Seal, and afier reviewing the Stipulation, weighing the interests in privacy and public disclosure and good cause appearing, now, thereforerursuant to I.C.A.R 32(i)(2) (D) and (E) and LC. §74-124(1) (b) and (c) because 1) the documents contain facts or statements that might threaten or endanger the life or safety of individuals, 2) it is necessary to preserve the right to a fair trial, and 3) disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
I keep asking myself, "Whose life?"
motion
This motion is made pursuant to I.C.A.R 32(i)(2) (D) and (E) and LC. §74-124(l) (b) and (c)
because 1) the documents contain facts or statements that might threaten or endanger the life or safety of individuals, 2) it is necessary to preserve the right to a fair trial, and 3) disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
order
The Court having before it the Defendant’s Stipulated Motion to file Exhibit B Attached to Defendant’s 2"" Supplemental Request for Discovery Under Seal, and afier reviewing the Stipulation, weighing the interests in privacy and public disclosure and good cause appearing, now, thereforerursuant to I.C.A.R 32(i)(2) (D) and (E) and LC. §74-124(1) (b) and (c) because 1) the documents contain facts or statements that might threaten or endanger the life or safety of individuals, 2) it is necessary to preserve the right to a fair trial, and 3) disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
I keep asking myself, "Whose life?"
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 2,657
- Reaction score
- 21,413
That's terribly unfair, if true; his sisters had nothing to do with him allegedly murdering 4 people. But haters will hate all over the place, unfortunately, another sad repercussion of the crimes he allegedly committed. JMO
Sister Golden Hair
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 1,395
- Reaction score
- 8,980
I think there needs to be a balance. I agree with the exhibits being sealed. I do think they could provide what is being requested and if the prosecutor is providing those items or not, and any arguments relating to the discovery process. I do realize that social media has an enormous effect on the defendant's right to a fair trial and that the courts are grappling with how to deal with SM/fair trial issues. I just have conflicting thoughts about secret court proceedings. JMO
I agree with this argument: this one deals with preliminary hearings but it is a concern of mine with broad gag orders in general. MOO
Without the “sunlight” of public disclosure of the facts in criminal investigations and prosecutions, the fair administration of justice by government prosecutors and the courts is put at risk of neglect or abuse. In criminal proceedings, openness “enhances both the basic fairness of the criminal trial and the appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system.” Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court [Enterprise I], 464 U.S. 501, 508 (1984)
Gag Orders in Federal Criminal Matters: Free Speech and Fair Trials
It was recently revealed that the U.S. Department of Justice sought and obtained gag orders against CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, their attorneys, and executives, related to criminal investigations regarding leaks of national security secrets. Read our blog to learn more!www.af-lawfirm.com
imo jmo if you scour the applicable Idaho disclosure rules and the motions/orders related to it, the court seems to have good reason to seal the documents. imo jmo ime, it's a much more complex situation that can't be fully summed up without reflecting on the specific circumstances. In the case you cited, the reasons given are arguably less compelling than the ones cited in the Kohberger case.
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court [Enterprise I], 464 U.S. 501, 508 (1984)
Before the voir dire examination of prospective jurors began at a trial in California Superior Court for the rape and murder of a teenage girl, petitioner moved that the voir dire be open to the public and the press. The State opposed the motion, arguing that, if the press were present, juror responses would lack the candor necessary to assure a fair trial.
Also, in the Enterprise case, that issue was at a much later stage in the process (voir dire), and investigation had been wrapped, and the prosecution's case had been made.
In the Kohberger case, my guess is that investigation is ongoing, people are at risk, BARD is in play and at risk, and much more to consider than I can imagine. that's jmo imo ime.
imo jmo it's telling that the ID prosecution and defense, and as far as we can tell from every order the judge has issued, all believe there's quite convincing reason to seal these documents, esp if other lives are in danger for reasons we don't know. jmo imo ime
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 2,657
- Reaction score
- 21,413
Good points, SGH! I hope there are one or more CIs. I wonder if people in their neighborhood had seen BK lurking on occasion or even that night or the next morning and was able to corroborate what LE suspected with an eye witness account that they saw his face in his white sedan right around there. I could totally understand people being reluctant to talk about it unless it was promised to be kept confidential. JMO ETA: And that would be a fairly innocent scenario, IMO, sadly I can think of several others that could be more 'lurid'.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,676
- Reaction score
- 8,670
That is terrible! His sisters can't help who they are related to.
D
Deleted member 718
Guest
That's a good point. What I don't understand is how BK could be a threat to anyone when he's in jail? I think it's something else. Maybe to do with the "intimate facts" and "invasion of personal privacy"? Or maybe where he got the murder weapon? <moo>
Sister Golden Hair
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 1,395
- Reaction score
- 8,980
Ditto. I'm showing amazing restraint here. I have taken all the facts, and woven different scenarios that could potentially explain the facts as presented, questions that I've got (I don't succumb to pat answers without fact for support; opinions expressed with certainty are not fact), and dates/scope of warrants, and have come up with a number of possible scenarios. imo jmo ime I think we'll learn a lot during this trial, and I think there are surprises in store. This does not appear to be a one-size-fits-all case with a simple explanation, though I know many disagree, and I know ICBW. My theories and the possible scenarios have morphed over the past few months, and I suspect that will continue to be the case. jmo imo ime.
Sister Golden Hair
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 1,395
- Reaction score
- 8,980
100%.
I lead the most boring life on earth, and I still wouldn't want my secrets revealed on live-screen. So think of some of what could be in Tinder DMs and beyond for people with more exciting lives... and because I don't believe the judge signing the orders is being melodramatic, I do believe lives could be in danger. I just don't know why or who, but I believe the judge's statements should be believed. icbw imo jmo ime
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2019
- Messages
- 15,931
- Reaction score
- 201,000
He was already very thin. Who is doing the noticing, I wonder. They guaranteed him sufficient vegan calories (but no separate pans). If the report is accurate and it's that noticeable, I'd think it would have to be muscle wasting.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,676
- Reaction score
- 8,670
I agree. Very much overreach or blatant exaggeration on something like that and you would start seeing a lot of that judges stuff being overturned by higher courts.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Staff online
-
BreezyflavorModerator -
FraizeAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 49
- Guests online
- 2,617
- Total visitors
- 2,666