4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #82

[NCWatcher]

Not sure if it means anything but I notice 2 people missing from the second photo. MOO

I see 2 besides BK who are missing from photo #2 and photo #3. The partially cut-off person sitting to BK's left in denim/light blue doesn't seem to be in the other photos. Neither does the woman sitting a few rows behind BK who is wearing a white cold shoulder top.

I don't think the photo with BK is fake. It appears to have been published in summer 2018 by NCC.
JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

I see 2 besides BK who are missing from photo #2 and photo #3. The partially cut-off person sitting to BK's left in denim/light blue doesn't seem to be in the other photos. Neither does the woman sitting a few rows behind BK who is wearing a white cold shoulder top.

I don't think the photo with BK is fake. It appears to have been published in summer 2018 by NCC.
JMO

I just see 2 normal photos of BK at the lecture. One up close and one at more of a distance and they are the same people around him in both and it doesn't look fake I agree.

The 2 here:

Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger spotted at feminist author Margaret Atwood’s 2018 lecture

Kohberger, now 28, is spotted front and center at the 2018 event at Northampton Community College.

nypost.com

 

[Balthazar]

I see 2 besides BK who are missing from photo #2 and photo #3. The partially cut-off person sitting to BK's left in denim/light blue doesn't seem to be in the other photos. Neither does the woman sitting a few rows behind BK who is wearing a white cold shoulder top.

I don't think the photo with BK is fake. It appears to have been published in summer 2018 by NCC.
JMO

The woman in the white cold shoulder top is second row far right partially hidden in photo 2. The person who sat next to BK may be the grey haired lady on the middle L about 4 rows back from the front of photo 2 - her top appears to match.

I looked for signs of an obvious fake - such as another man at that event wearing the same thing BK is in the photo and didn't see one. So I am also leaning towards the photo is real.

 

[NyxNY]

Could be a photoshop, but it could also be the camera angle (slightly above him), and the way his jacket is obscuring part of his chest area (the jacket makes his shoulders look better, so his head looks disproportional). This same picture is in the college's materials - you think the college would have photoshopped BK's picture into the audience?

That's my belief, anyway.

IMO.

It is not photo shopped in. I provided a direct link earlier to the actual college magazine is here it is again in case you missed it.

Oops, I should have posted this to @al66pine

NorthamptonCC - Northampton Magazine Summer 2018

Northampton Community College Magazine

northamptoncc.uberflip.com

 

[twall]

Nice interview with one of Kaylee's friends...have tissues near!

 

[Orange Tabby]

Just read the Defendants memorandum on Cameras.
Brilliant IMO

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/060623%20Defendants%20Memorandum%20on%20Cameras%20During%20Hearings%20(002).pdf

[Snipped by me]

What I found surprising in the defendant’s memorandum that you link was that the most recent case law cited was 1979! At that point there had been very, very few televised trials. Surely there is more recent case law that takes into account the now-vast experience in televising trials and discusses its effect—prejudicial or not.

The memorandum cites the decision on cameras made by the trial judge in the Lori Vallow Daybell case, quite rightly so, as that trial took place in Idaho.

Does anyone know if the media challenged the Daybell judge’s ruling? Did any media entity attempt to appeal that judge’s ruling in a higher court?

I’m not saying any of this will make a difference, because I think 3J (Judge John Judge) already hinted, in the televised hearing following (or part of) the arraignment, that he has deep concern with televising the trial.

 

[NCWatcher]

The woman in the white cold shoulder top is second row far right partially hidden in photo 2. The person who sat next to BK may be the grey haired lady on the middle L about 4 rows back from the front of photo 2 - her top appears to match.

I looked for signs of an obvious fake - such as another man at that event wearing the same thing BK is in the photo and didn't see one. So I am also leaning towards the photo is real.

Hmm. I may see a bare shoulder in the photo I'm calling #3. Nothing in #2 of her though. But if I'm looking at the person you mean, the person in light blue next to BK in the first row on the far right in photo #1 is definitely not the grey-haired lady on the left fairly far back in other photos. That woman is in all 3 pics and the light blue is an infinity-type scarf not a top like the woman next to BK is wearing in photo #1. (But I do see a couple of other possibly missing persons from the left side #1 who don't seem to be in #2 & #3.) Regardless, it does seem clear between photos there was some movement of people in the crowd beyond just BK. So I honestly don't find it weird he's not in all the photos. And I agree it's not fake especially since it was apparently published 5 years ago.
JMO

 

[Twistinginthewind]

[Snipped by me]

What I found surprising in the defendant’s memorandum that you link was that the most recent case law cited was 1979! At that point there had been very, very few televised trials. Surely there is more recent case law that takes into account the now-vast experience in televising trials and discusses its effect—prejudicial or not.

The memorandum cites the decision on cameras made by the trial judge in the Lori Vallow Daybell case, quite rightly so, as that trial took place in Idaho.

Does anyone know if the media challenged the Daybell judge’s ruling? Did any media entity attempt to appeal that judge’s ruling in a higher court?

I’m not saying any of this will make a difference, because I think 3J (Judge John Judge) already hinted, in the televised hearing following (or part of) the arraignment, that he has deep concern with televising the trial.

Good points and questions, @Orange Tabby ! Thank you for weighing in.

IMO, Judge John Judge has valid concerns regarding televising hearings, and I was kind of surprised about what the Defense cited.

JMO

 

[kittythehare]

Are there really any grounds for the media to blame the non-dissemination order for what they choose to report on or investigate? The media are not children and are responsible for their own stories. They could be investigating court processes/rules for instance and telling the public if it is possible for victims to file motions with the court in a criminal case. People click and read this stuff so the media report. Or the media report so people click and read? It's chicken and egg Imo. Moo

Any argument that the court via the non-dissemination order is responsible for what media do report on is not going to work at the up coming hearing, Imo. I noticed that the State is now using a civil lawyer to respond to the Assoct Press, which probably frees up the other attorneys to get on with the more impartant job of preparing the case. Moo

'The media are not children and are responsible for their own stories.'

Ain't it da truth?
Stories as opposed to facts.

Facts can actually be disseminated in an interesting and artful manner.
In skilled hands. Writing is an art.

I despair of it all.

Every day I block a new formally respected media source because I reckon that if they go awol in an egregious way with one story, they are clearly unhinged at the top and nothing is to be trusted.
That's just me because I am disillusioned at the manner oin which power narrates these days.

 

[kittythehare]

So Brian doesn't want to be on the telly any more?
Was that his decision or his lawyers'?

If it's his own, bang goes our theories about him second guessing the prosecution and justice system out of a sense of superiority and belief in his own genius..
Maybe.

 

[I'm Nobody]

DBM

 

[Nova]

I know the supreme court ruled that only a jury decides capital punishment. What me and another poster want to know is this:

If the Idaho prosecutor does not go for the DP, can the G family file a Motion to have the judge overturn the prosecutor's decision? Does the judge have the legal right to do this?

Do you know?

I want information about Idaho specifically.

Thanks

I will be VERY surprised if a relative of a murder victim can force a prosecutor OR a judge to conform to the relative's desire for a specific punishment. (There is a LAW & ORDER episode that deals with the state governor or attorney general trying to usurp the DA's decision to not seek the d.p., but that's a different matter.)

That said, I am neither a lawyer nor an expert on Idaho law. If you get a definitive answer, please let us know...

 

[Nova]

Atwood's body of work on women's rights is...impeccable. At any rate, the book is definitely triggering, but actually and merely represents cultural norms from various existing human societies, over a fairly recent period of time (since so-called "Civilization" began). There's nothing in Handmaid's Tale that isn't, for example, in the Old Testament (it's just filled with lots of fictional details of course).

For those of us whose lives were changed (positively) by reading Atwood's work, the feeling about those books is very different. It's clearly a dystopian nightmare (as opposed to accepted norms and further promulgation of destroying women's rights). For my undergraduate students, the series (is it Netflix?) has been routinely mentioned as "life changing" and made Atwood one of the 12 "heroes" they give when I ask them for hero lists. At least, for many young women, that's true (and it's an ethnically diverse group who love her; they say "she gets it"). Some people are already living aspects of The Handmaid's Tale, which now seems prescient, but it's also really tragic; the book carefully explores the feelings of women who are denied reproductive rights and the human will to be free.

Impossible to say what Kohberger learned at this reading (his man-sprawling in the front row would be funny if not for the current context). Maybe the whole psychology club was there. Maybe he considers himself a feminist (I can imagine that scenario as well).

Maybe it did increase his anti-woman ideas (hard to say he doesn't have those, again, given the current context).

All speculation. At least we have something new to speculate upon.

IMO.

The TV series is the "jewel" in Hulu's crown. It is that rara avis: a case of a TV show being even better than the two, amazing books Atwood wrote about the Handmaid world. (Atwood is an executive producer on the series, so I don't mean to imply she has nothing to do with its excellence.)

The Handmaid's Tale (TV) should be ranked with The Sopranos and Broadchurch, et al., among the greatest TV dramas of all time.

And Ms. Atwood absolutely deserves her spot among 10ofRods' heros!

 

[al66pine]

Agreeing, No P-Shopping of BK Photo.

It is not photo shopped in. I provided a direct link earlier to the actual college magazine is here it is again in case you missed it.
Oops, I should have posted this to @al66pine

NorthamptonCC - Northampton Magazine Summer 2018

Northampton Community College Magazine

northamptoncc.uberflip.com

@NyxNY Thank you for your post w links.
Oops, in replying to post by @Montecore1, I said (carelessly in retrospect):
"@Montecore1 Yes, looks like BK's head was P-shopped in."
Should / could have added, "but jmo on first glance, IDK if it is."
From my 'first glance' perspective, still seems that way when viewing it by itself.

In the larger context and from info in posts by @NyxNY and @10ofRods (and others), I now understand this to be a legit photo published yrs ago in a college publication. Agreeing, no p-shopping.

Thank you and mea culpa.

 

[Nila Aella]

[Snipped by me]

What I found surprising in the defendant’s memorandum that you link was that the most recent case law cited was 1979! At that point there had been very, very few televised trials. Surely there is more recent case law that takes into account the now-vast experience in televising trials and discusses its effect—prejudicial or not.

Snipped by me

I think the reason the 1979 case was cited is that Gannet Co Inc v De Pasquale is a case that went all the way to the supreme court. JMO

Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979)

Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale

supreme.justia.com

{{meta.fullTitle}}

LOOKING BACK: Seneca County case that made it to the Supreme Court (copy)

Not many court cases ever result in a hearing and ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, but one such case originating in Seneca County has beaten these odds.

www.fltimes.com

edit spelling

 

[Orange Tabby]

I think the reason the 1979 case was cited is that Gannet Co Inc v De pasquale is a case that went all the way to the supreme court. JMO

All of the cases cited by the defense in the memorandum are Supreme Court cases.

What I was trying to highlight is that in the 44 years since Gannet I expect the Supreme Court has made other rulings that are relevant and the media lawyers may well argue based on more recent Supreme Court rulings. I’m a little surprised the defense seems not to have made any attempt to forestall that.

Gannet doesn’t even address cameras in the courtroom, and neither does the seminal case Sheppard v Maxwell (1966), also cited by the defense.

Trial judges do have ways that courts recognize to deal with pre-trial publicity to both protect the defendant and foster press freedom. They include change of venue, jury sequestration (to reduce not the problem of pre-trial publicity but trial publicity), and detailed voir dire. I’m not saying all of these are great alternatives, but the Supremes have clearly recognized that the 6th Amendment does not obliterate the 1st.

Since I am not a lawyer and I don’t know Supreme Court case law, I can’t judge how well the defense arguments in that memorandum hold up in light of Supreme Court rulings on cameras in the courtroom made in the last 40-some years since Gannet.

I think the reason the judge is hyper-focused, and rightly so, is that unless and until the prosecutor says otherwise, this is a capital case. These are quite correctly given the most serious attention in the event of an appeal. No one, including Judge Judge, wants the case tried and then sent back on appeal.

 

[Nila Aella]

Reading the Objection to Media's motion to vacate:

Wow! I was going to post points that grabbed my attention, but just ended up filling the page and basically reposting the entire response.

Little bits and rule highlights:



RULE 3.6: TRIAL PUBLICITY (a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.


JL goes through the medias case point by point. This is one of those points. Posting for the "gem" part:



Looked up the rules for this:

It appears the Media is attempting to mislead its reader, violation of I.R.P.C. 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4.

RULE 3.1: MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established
RULE 3.3: CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. (b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. (c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6. (d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
RULE 3.4: FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL A lawyer shall not: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act; (b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law; (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists; (d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party; (e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused; or (f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless: (1) the person is a relative or an employee or other agent of a client; and (2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information.

https://isb.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/irpc.pdf

I'll end my gargantuan post with this bit:

This Court should simply apply the standards set out in Sheppard and Gentile. The Media’s attempt at rebalancing First and Sixth Amendment concerns in this context would necessarily require this Court to overrule the Supreme Court of the United States. Similarlythe Media’s argument that the Idaho Constitution can draw different line (Media’s Brief at *23) must fail- states cannot provide less protection than the federal constitution— and to rebalance one right against another necessarily requires this Court to undercut one of those rights. Sec State I). Donate, 135 Idaho 469, 471 (2001).

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/060623%20Objection%20to%20Medias%20Motion%20to%20Vacate%20the%20Amended%20Nondissemination%20Order.pdf

MOO

 

[Nila Aella]

All of the cases cited by the defense in the memorandum are Supreme Court cases.

What I was trying to highlight is that in the 44 years since Gannet I expect the Supreme Court has made other rulings that are relevant and the media lawyers may well argue based on more recent Supreme Court rulings. I’m a little surprised the defense seems not to have made any attempt to forestall that.

Gannet doesn’t even address cameras in the courtroom, and neither does the seminal case Sheppard v Maxwell (1966), also cited by the defense.

Trial judges do have ways that courts recognize to deal with pre-trial publicity to both protect the defendant and foster press freedom. They include change of venue, jury sequestration (to reduce not the problem of pre-trial publicity but trial publicity), and detailed voir dire. I’m not saying all of these are great alternatives, but the Supremes have clearly recognized that the 6th Amendment does not obliterate the 1st.

Since I am not a lawyer and I don’t know Supreme Court case law, I can’t judge how well the defense arguments in that memorandum hold up in light of Supreme Court rulings on cameras in the courtroom made in the last 40-some years since Gannet.

I think the reason the judge is hyper-focused, and rightly so, is that unless and until the prosecutor says otherwise, this is a capital case. These are quite correctly given the most serious attention in the event of an appeal. No one, including Judge Judge, wants the case tried and then sent back on appeal.

I thought his objection to the motion responded directly to how the Media laid out it's case (their citations), point by point. JMO

JL did address the alternatives that were mentioned by the media:



RULE 3.6: TRIAL PUBLICITY (a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state: (1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved; (2) information contained in a public record; (3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress; (4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation; (5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto; (6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and (7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6): (i) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused; (ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person; (iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and (iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation. (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity. (d) No lawyer associated in a firm or government agency with a lawyer subject to paragraph (a) shall make a statement prohibited by paragraph (a).

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/060623%20Objection%20to%20Medias%20Motion%20to%20Vacate%20the%20Amended%20Nondissemination%20Order.pdf

https://isb.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/irpc.pdf

MOO

 

[Nila Aella]

The last part where he argues for keeping the Non dissemination order in place. Powerful IMO

Some points toward the end:



And:



The whole objection was impressive IMO.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/060623%20Objection%20to%20Medias%20Motion%20to%20Vacate%20the%20Amended%20Nondissemination%20Order.pdf

 

[girlhasnoname]

All of the cases cited by the defense in the memorandum are Supreme Court cases.

What I was trying to highlight is that in the 44 years since Gannet I expect the Supreme Court has made other rulings that are relevant and the media lawyers may well argue based on more recent Supreme Court rulings. I’m a little surprised the defense seems not to have made any attempt to forestall that.

Gannet doesn’t even address cameras in the courtroom, and neither does the seminal case Sheppard v Maxwell (1966), also cited by the defense.

Trial judges do have ways that courts recognize to deal with pre-trial publicity to both protect the defendant and foster press freedom. They include change of venue, jury sequestration (to reduce not the problem of pre-trial publicity but trial publicity), and detailed voir dire. I’m not saying all of these are great alternatives, but the Supremes have clearly recognized that the 6th Amendment does not obliterate the 1st.

Since I am not a lawyer and I don’t know Supreme Court case law, I can’t judge how well the defense arguments in that memorandum hold up in light of Supreme Court rulings on cameras in the courtroom made in the last 40-some years since Gannet.

I think the reason the judge is hyper-focused, and rightly so, is that unless and until the prosecutor says otherwise, this is a capital case. These are quite correctly given the most serious attention in the event of an appeal. No one, including Judge Judge, wants the case tried and then sent back on appeal.

As I understand it, the State has 60 days after BK entered his plea (silently) to charge the DP. I don't think it's automatic, I believe they'll have to announce they're seeking the DP before that time is up.

I feel like they're waiting on BK's notice of alibi before they make that call officially.

MOO