4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #81

[NyxNY]

Well, that would be about a crime in IDAHO, not PA. And a Grand Jury in PA can't investigate a crime in IDAHO. The PA GJ can only investigate crimes in PA, and in that specific county. Not crimes in other parts of PA or crimes in ID. Now if DS were killed by a Ka-Bar knife in PA, and the parents testified that BK had the Ka-Bar knife in PA, that information could be shared with ID, but that does not put the knife in ID, either.

The GJ seems to have been an investigatory one, and there are lots of posts above about that. There are also posts that LE says they have no evidence linking BK to the murder of DS.

jurisdiction

www.law.cornell.edu

Question. Would evidence involved in an ID crime being destroyed/tampered with (a separate crime within itself?) in PA fall under PA's GJ jurisdiction? I know I am not wording that properly, but I hope you get the gist.

 

[Justice101]

I cannot imagine what liability U of I could have in this. The victims were all of legal age. They were murdered off campus, by a student of another university. U of I wouldn't have had any authority over him or the investigation.

These lawyers sue everyone in hope that one of them sticks or wants to settle out of court to keep it private. It's a scam and one of the things I don't like about the US legal system.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

The wording certainly makes interesting reading ……

Can you be a bit more specific about your “or” ??? Maybe a hint???


Or what was seen on the camera footage perhaps???

Legal documents don't contain hints. They contain facts and opinions based on knowledge, belief and experience (in the case of the warrants mostly.) Some of the facts may be used as clues to follow the trail, but that's it. LE and the court aren't hinting about anything. The motion to seal is signed by the prosecutor and provides legally allowed reasons for the motion. In the order, the judge will also provide their reason for sealing. Those reasons are ones specifically allowed by legislation re public records and Idaho Court Rules. The wording used is precise, taken from ICAR 32 (Idaho Court Adminstrative Rules) and Idaho Code 74-124.

I have broken the language down extensively in prior threads including the language used in the motion to request redaction and sealing of the warrants and affidavits and the language from the judge's orders. While following the warrants, it's important to remember that each is supported by probable cause contained in the affidavits which are all sealed. The order, dates, and the party upon whom the warrant was served are our only real path to follow.

I.C.A.R. 32. Records of The Judicial Department - Examination and Copying - Exemption From and Limitations on Disclosure. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

Section 74-124 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

74-124. Exemptions from disclosure — Confidentiality. (1) Notwithstanding any statute or rule of court to the contrary, nothing in this chapter nor chapter 10, title 59, Idaho Code, shall be construed to require disclosure of investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes by a law enforcement agency, but such exemption from disclosure applies only to the extent that the production of such records would:

(a) Interfere with enforcement proceedings;

(b) Deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;

(c) Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(d) Disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement agency in the course of a criminal investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source;

(e) Disclose investigative techniques and procedures;

(f) Endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel; or

(g) Disclose the identity of a reporting party maintained by any law enforcement entity or the department of health and welfare relating to the investigation of child abuse, neglect or abandonment unless the reporting party consents in writing to the disclosure or the disclosure of the reporting party’s identity is required in any administrative or judicial proceeding.

(g) Court records exempt from disclosure. Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this rule, court records specified below are exempt from disclosure. Any willful or intentional disclosure or accessing of a sealed or exempt court record, not otherwise authorized under this rule, may be treated as a contempt of court.

(1) Documents and records to which access is otherwise restricted by state or federal law;

(2) Pre-trial risk assessments and pre-sentence investigation reports, except as provided in Idaho Criminal Rule 32;

(3) Affidavits or sworn testimony and records of proceedings in support of the issuance of search or arrest warrant pending the return of the warrant;

(4) Unreturned search warrants;

(5) Unreturned arrest warrants, except bench warrants, or summonses in a criminal case, provided that the arrest warrants or summonses may be disclosed by law enforcement agencies at their discretion;

(A) An "arrest warrant" is a warrant issued for the arrest and detention of a defendant at the initiation of a criminal action.

(B) A "bench warrant" is a warrant issued for the arrest and detention of a defendant who has already appeared in a criminal action, and it would include a warrant issued for failure to appear at a hearing or trial, a warrant issued for violation of the conditions of release or bail, and a warrant issued for a probation violation.

(6) Unless otherwise ordered by the custodian judge, applications made and orders granted for the interception of wire, electronic or oral communications pursuant to Idaho Code § 18-6708, recordings of intercepted communications provided to the court, and reports made to the court regarding such interceptions under Idaho Code § 18-6708(7);

 

[Sundog]

These lawyers sue everyone in hope that one of them sticks or wants to settle out of court to keep it private. It's a scam and one of the things I don't like about the US legal system.

I agree, but state universities don't settle to keep things private, they have lots of resources to fight lawsuits, such as in-house general counsel and deputy general counsel; and also the state Attorney General will provide outside counsel to assist, and in many cases take over as the attorneys of record. The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at the federal level would also have to allow the lawsuit of a university to go forward after their review, if the lawsuit addresses areas of law that fall under their purview.

 

[maconrich]

DBM

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Question. Would evidence involved in an ID crime being destroyed/tampered with (a separate crime within itself?) in PA fall under PA's GJ jurisdiction? I know I am not wording that properly, but I hope you get the gist.

BK hasn't been charged with destroying or tampering with evidence AFAIK in either state. I'm assuming you're asking about the parents destroying/tampering? There's no evidence of that AND the PA GJ wouldn't be calling the parents as witnesses if they'd done anything illegal. They'd be the focus of the investigation, not witnesses for it.

Here's the link for hindering the investigation in PA, but again, the parents appear to be innocent of the crimes and any involvement with them, and I honestly hesitate to discuss this because IMO their lives have also been completely ruined and they are victims IMO. I cannot imagine how devastating on every level this must be for them.

Title 18

www.legis.state.pa.us

 

[Nila Aella]

Yes, for the most part if I understand what's being discussed about the Umpqua warrants.

It could have been for video footage from cameras mounted inside the walk up teller machine (Automatic Teller Machine, or ATM) where customers withdraw and deposit funds, or on the bank building itself.

MOO

Looking at the bank website, they also have a drive up teller.

Umpqua Bank in Moscow, ID | 609 S Washington

Umpqua Bank is helping people, businesses, and communities build economic vitality for the greater good. Most banks treat their customers like customers. We treat our customers like people. You, your life, your money management style—all things that are more important to us than the size of...

locations.umpquabank.com

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Looking at the bank website, they also have a drive up teller.

Umpqua Bank in Moscow, ID | 609 S Washington

Umpqua Bank is helping people, businesses, and communities build economic vitality for the greater good. Most banks treat their customers like customers. We treat our customers like people. You, your life, your money management style—all things that are more important to us than the size of...

locations.umpquabank.com

And regardless of which they used, the narrow focus and obvious request tell us what LE wanted and why. Perfectly normal request imo.

 

[NyxNY]

BK hasn't been charged with destroying or tampering with evidence AFAIK in either state. I'm assuming you're asking about the parents destroying/tampering? There's no evidence of that AND the PA GJ wouldn't be calling the parents as witnesses if they'd done anything illegal. They'd be the focus of the investigation, not witnesses for it.

Here's the link for hindering the investigation in PA, but again, the parents appear to be innocent of the crimes and any involvement with them, and I honestly hesitate to discuss this because IMO their lives have also been completely ruined and they are victims IMO. I cannot imagine how devastating on every level this must be for them.

Title 18

www.legis.state.pa.us

Thank you for this. I didn't mean to imply the parents were guilty of anything, although I can see how it comes across as that. I do feel horrible for that family as well. I was thinking witnesses to/of BK destroying things of evidential value. I obviously have it completely wrong. Being that LE is denying claims that BK is a suspect in the homicide of DS, and that the media may have been speculating, I was just thinking of other possibilities the GJ in PA may want to meet with his parents.

 

[Sundog]

I was thinking witnesses to/of BK destroying things of evidential value.

<snipped for focus>

Very possible, if not related to the DS case.

Good suggestion.

 

[Chloegirl]

I agree, but state universities don't settle to keep things private, they have lots of resources to fight lawsuits, such as in-house general counsel and deputy general counsel; and also the state Attorney General will provide outside counsel to assist, and in many cases take over as the attorneys of record. The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at the federal level would also have to allow the lawsuit of a university to go forward after their review, if the lawsuit addresses areas of law that fall under their purview.

UI has a history of settling things so I disagree on that and they do not have deep pockets.

 

[Sundog]

UI has a history of settling things so I disagree on that and they do not have deep pockets.

I agree that they would settle if the AG's office in Idaho felt that the University would most likely lose a lawsuit based on the specfics of the suit - and if the U.S. Office of Civil Rights (OCR) gave permission to the family for the lawsuit to move forward (if the lawsuit related to areas of OCR jurisdiction).

 

[Montecore1]

These lawyers sue everyone in hope that one of them sticks or wants to settle out of court to keep it private. It's a scam and one of the things I don't like about the US legal system.

I agree, but state universities don't settle to keep things private, they have lots of resources to fight lawsuits, such as in-house general counsel and deputy general counsel; and also the state Attorney General will provide outside counsel to assist, and in many cases take over as the attorneys of record. The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at the federal level would also have to allow the lawsuit of a university to go forward after their review, if the lawsuit addresses areas of law that fall under their purview.

What would be the reason that the University of Idaho had anything to do with the responsibility in the deaths of these four people to begin with?

 

[I'm Nobody]

What would be the reason that the University of Idaho had anything to do with the responsibility in the deaths of these four people to begin with?

Good question @Montecore1 I'm thinking it has something to do with student loans. Isn't there a ruling that even after death the loan has to be repaid unless the school forgives it? To get the loans dismissed? That would be my guess.

JMO

edit: wrong again

It might depend on the lender.

What Happens To Student Loans When You Die?

While it may seem morbid to think about, it’s important to know what happens to student loans when you die so you can prepare for the absolute worst-case scenario. It’s a commonly overlooked subject. According to a 2019 survey by insurance company Haven Life, 73% of student loan borrowers said th

www.forbes.com

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Thank you for this. I didn't mean to imply the parents were guilty of anything, although I can see how it comes across as that. I do feel horrible for that family as well. I was thinking witnesses to/of BK destroying things of evidential value. I obviously have it completely wrong. Being that LE is denying claims that BK is a suspect in the homicide of DS, and that the media may have been speculating, I was just thinking of other possibilities the GJ in PA may want to meet with his parents.

<modsnip - off topic>

That said, I did want to answer your question. And IGI and agree that it's important to consider all the relevant aspects of the case, whether or not they're discussed down here. Some things that I'm fairly sure of I've had to circle around to be respectful of WS TOS and other things because I just don't think they'd be appropriate. But consider them? Oh yeah.

Also, re jurisdiction, it's not always as easy as it looks. For example, the gag order

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/Supreme/50482-2023/020623%20Brief%20in%20Support%20of%20Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Mandamus%20or%20Writ%20of%20Prohibition.pdf

“The term ‘jurisdiction’ has a specific meaning in the context of a writ of
prohibition.” Re Petition for Writ of Prohibition, 168 Idaho 909, 919, 489 P.3d 820, 830 (2021) (citation omitted). It “includes power or authority conferred by law.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In this context, “the question of jurisdiction is not merely a question of whether the tribunal had subject matter and personal jurisdiction, but also whether the tribunal had
the lawful authority to take the action that it did...
When it issued the amended gag order, the District Court violated its duty to perform in accordance with the law and exercised power exceeding its jurisdiction. Accordingly, either a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition is appropriate. A writ of prohibition is also appropriate because the District Court
exceeded its personal jurisdiction by issuing an order affecting individuals, such as Washington’s state agencies, the Pennsylvania State Police, and some of the victims’ family members, that are not parties before the District Court and may be domiciled outside the State of Idaho..."

This was not the ID court buying time for the defendant to delay the gag order (I read those concerns here and elsewhere). The gag order was sent back to the court with jurisdiction appropriately. IMO.

 

[NCWatcher]

What would be the reason that the University of Idaho had anything to do with the responsibility in the deaths of these four people to begin with?

I'm not an attorney but I don't see any reason the University, the City, or given what we know now, local LE, would be seen as having responsibility for the deaths. But it's not clear that parents intend to sue for wrongful death (assuming they do sue.) Gray, the attorney representing the parents said the reason for the torts claim notice was "if something goes wrong, or was done improperly, then someone is held accountable for that." So it sounds like to me they intend to sue if they think things have been done wrong since the murders. I understand in theory-- if LE has messed up evidence collection, for example, and BK goes free, the parents will be upset. What I don't understand though is how they'd have grounds to sue for that reason. It's not as though families of crime victims can sue the DA everytime he/she loses a case. (Or maybe they can but no one does?)
JMO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Good question @Montecore1 I'm thinking it has something to do with student loans. Isn't there a crazy ruling that even after death the loan has to be repaid unless the school forgives it? To get the loans dismissed? That would be my guess.

JMO

We'd have to know about their student loan debts to know who owns the debt, but it's almost certainly not the universities. And ETA: see @BeginnerSleuther 's post below with the link.

My guess is that they're going to take a several different tacks depending on the situation. No way of knowing, of course, but they'd have to have a cause of action and standing, so both of those issues would need to be considered when evaluating potential lawsuits.

Off the top of my head, I think they might with some in loco parentis issues (UofI and there have been some recent cases of that of late - this was discussed much earlier threads bc I put money on these civil claims happening) and some employer/due diligence issues with WSU. And some other negligence issues to go around. But that's just top of the head thinking.

cause of action

www.law.cornell.edu

standing

www.law.cornell.edu

The Return of In Loco Parentis? - Hogan Marren Babbo & Rose

In loco parentis (Latin for “in the place of a parent”) is a phrase that refers to the legal responsibility of an individual or organization to assume some of the functions and responsibilities of the parent. In higher education, this doctrine was very much alive and well, and […]

www.hmbr.com

Who Actually Owns Student Loan Debt?

The federal government owns a significant amount of student loans but private companies also own these loans. Learn how to determine who owns your student loan debt.

www.investopedia.com

Lots here to consider: Idaho Statutes – Idaho State Legislature

State Board of Education | University of Idaho

The University of Idaho is governed by a Board of Regents who also make up the Idaho State Board of Education.

www.uidaho.edu

Also, this: Chapter 9 – Idaho State Legislature


And JMO but adding here anyway: IMO that WSU warrant may have been the result of WSU's own deep dive and discovery of some hidey-holes. JMO and based on nothing more than dates, scope, order of warrants, application of previously known facts, and fitting all of that into several working theories. But I'm sure WSU dove deep to find out just where they'd be vulnerable to civil suit.

 

[jepop]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1661843281724973075

https://twitter.com/Angenette5

Just clicked on the link. I cannot imagine the pain felt by Maddie's family (and all the families). This gesture shows their love and must surely help in some small way to mediate their loss.. I feel they see Maddie going on in the acts of kindness that will come from this. Be kind on Maddie Mogen Day. And all days try to be. Reminds me of the line from a song by Jewel "In the end, only kindness matters". MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Good question @Montecore1 I'm thinking it has something to do with student loans. Isn't there a ruling that even after death the loan has to be repaid unless the school forgives it? To get the loans dismissed? That would be my guess.

JMO

Federal student loans are owed to the government, not the university, and actually, student loan debt is discharged upon death. I doubt these students took out private loans for their education (this part is IMO).

https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/death

 

[jepop]

Hi @Cool Cats just wondering if you can clarify something for me please in those documents ??

I have read multiple times that the Prosecution have dropped “the sheath” from the evidence, after Ann Taylor challenged the type of testing that was done to obtain the DNA evidence???

Is this correct???

I believe the information was in those documents lodged to date ….and the Prosecution has now removed the sheath from the probable cause statement entirely. (Apologise if that is the wrong terminolog) So that Ann Taylor could not get everything from that statement dropped due to one item ….IYKWIM?

I did have a rest from following this case as it was consuming my life, trying to follow every written word about the case …. So apologise if this has been answered in a prior thread…

All IMO

I was responding on the fly earlier, and now going through the thread from old posts to new,finally see where the later confusion began! I did peek ahead so I know this has been resolved now. But just thought I'd add here that I'm not sure where you read this info re the "sheath being dropped" from evidence but I would say that is speculation only, perhaps by other posters? but from wherever it was,it is speculation IMO.( from MSM, I haven't read such and as there is a gag order I doubt it's been reported unless speculation by "talking heads"?). MOO

Responding to post resolution of this issue posts (!)yes, we have no reason to believe that the sheath located at crime scene is not still in evidence. There have been no court docs released to suggest otherwise. The most recent Court Docs released re dna evidence come from the Defense and the State. Sheath is not mentioned in these docs but it's not a leap to imagine, they probably relate, at least partially, to the dna found and identified as the defendant's on the snap button of the sheath. MOO

Defendant's 3rd Supplemental Request for Discovery: Filed 3rd May

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/050323%20Defendants%203rd%20Supplemental%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

State's Response to Defense's 3rd Supplemental Request for Discovery: Filed May 12th.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/051223%20States%20Response%20to%20Defendants%20Third%20Supplemental%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

EBM to fix first link.