4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #87

Status
Not open for further replies.
I genuinely think this case, and BK in particular (for reasons that elude me) have pulled the attention of people who have never followed a high profile murder case before, and who just don’t have a grip on the fundamentals.

I can only speak for myself as thought/opinion. I think one thing it certainly did was grab the attention of every parent who has (or who has ever had) a child away at school. This case from the perspective of a mom or dad who sends their child away to school not only expecting them to be safe and gain a wonderful education, but to also make some of the most wonderful memories of their life, is utterly gut wrenching. As one of those parents, I know this case has personally hit me in a very profound way. It's tragic.

jmo
 
They shouldn't be including anything in opening that they don't intend to prove or at minimum offer evidence on. I doubt there will be an objection from the state if she does this because it's disruptive and it can make you look bad if you object and interrupt during the other side's opening, and I bet the judge will let go on. However, if she goes off on this path and then she doesn't prove it or even offer it? Well, then I think she has done even more damage to her case because the jury is going to be expecting that offer of evidence - and they will remember that she didn't deliver.

As always all jmo
I've seen a lot of opening statements by Defenses that claim they will prove x, y or z, and of course it never happened. I don't think I remember the State ever objecting in opening statements either.

Ah, the alibi that wasn't. Why do I have a sneaking feeling that the Defense has something tricky up their sleeves?

MOO
 
I've seen a lot of opening statements by Defenses that claim they will prove x, y or z, and of course it never happened. I don't think I remember the State ever objecting in opening statements either.

Ah, the alibi that wasn't. Why do I have a sneaking feeling that the Defense has something tricky up their sleeves?

MOO

Am I getting this right that BK's lawyer wanted a separate hearing for BK to tell a judge his alibi... WITHOUT prosecution there and ability to cross examine?

If this is true, that is outlandish.
 
Am I getting this right that BK's lawyer wanted a separate hearing for BK to tell a judge his alibi... WITHOUT prosecution there and ability to cross examine?

If this is true, that is outlandish.
Last ex parte I heard of was in the Morphew case.
MOO All this is straight from Iris Eytan's playbook.
Hope it is not granted.
 
Last edited:
Am I getting this right that BK's lawyer wanted a separate hearing for BK to tell a judge his alibi... WITHOUT prosecution there and ability to cross examine?

If this is true, that is outlandish.
In AT's Aug 2nd response she is asking the Court for exemption from further inquiry regarding his alibi, citing that this delves into the facts of BK's defense. As part of the Court agreeing to that, she states that BK is willing to discuss his alibi further ex parte'.

So basically she is stating that they're asking for emption from continuing any discussion on the alibi (that wasn't) but would have BK give his statement to the Judge in private in order to make that official.

This is how I have interpreted the Motion.

MOO
 
In AT's Aug 2nd response she is asking the Court for exemption from further inquiry regarding his alibi, citing that this delves into the facts of BK's defense. As part of the Court agreeing to that, she states that BK is willing to discuss his alibi further ex parte'.

So basically she is stating that they're asking for emption from continuing any discussion on the alibi (that wasn't) but would have BK give his statement to the Judge in private in order to make that official.

This is how I have interpreted the Motion.

MOO

Looks like a trick to me. I would hope the judge would see thru this thinly veiled attempt at circumventing cross examination of a witness.
 
In AT's Aug 2nd response she is asking the Court for exemption from further inquiry regarding his alibi, citing that this delves into the facts of BK's defense. As part of the Court agreeing to that, she states that BK is willing to discuss his alibi further ex parte'.

So basically she is stating that they're asking for emption from continuing any discussion on the alibi (that wasn't) but would have BK give his statement to the Judge in private in order to make that official.

This is how I have interpreted the Motion.

MOO
Terrible.
The judge should not be exposing himself to the highest form of manupiulation, humans with a lot at stake in an interpersonal meeting. With either side.

MOO
The jury is the tryor of facts.
Ex parte preemptively takes away their decision making authority, similar to suppression of relative evidence by unrelated reasons.
 
Am I getting this right that BK's lawyer wanted a separate hearing for BK to tell a judge his alibi... WITHOUT prosecution there and ability to cross examine?

If this is true, that is outlandish.

In the defense's alibi notice document, they offered to go into more detail with the judge in an ex parte meeting, if the judge wanted more information regarding why the defense presented their alibi notice in the way that they did. AT was not asking for an ex parte meeting with the judge, but offering to do so if it would be helpful to the judge as he makes his decision on the state's motion to compel regarding the alibi notice.

Ex parte hearings are probably rare but held if needed. I don't see anything outrageous about AT offering this option to the court, but that is my opinion. Ex parte hearings are part of the judicial system.

A grand jury hearing, also, is held without the defense able to present witnesses or commnent on the evidence that the prosecution presents.
 
Terrible.
The judge should not be exposing himself to the highest form of manupiulation, humans with a lot at stake in an interpersonal meeting. With either side.

MOO
The jury is the tryor of facts.
Ex parte preemptively takes away their decision making authority, similar to suppression of relative evidence by unrelated reasons.

An exparte hearing with the judge would take place before the trial so the jury would still be hearing the case. Judges are constantly ruling on what gets in and what stays out of a trial and what the jury can and cannot consider as they hear a case and deliberate. So I don't see this as in anyway taking away the decision-making authority of a jury. JMO.
 
In the defense's alibi notice document, they offered to go into more detail with the judge in an ex parte meeting, if the judge wanted more information regarding why the defense presented their alibi notice in the way that they did. AT was not asking for an ex parte meeting with the judge, but offering to do so if it would be helpful to the judge as he makes his decision on the state's motion to compel regarding the alibi notice.

Ex parte hearings are probably rare but held if needed. I don't see anything outrageous about AT offering this option to the court, but that is my opinion. Ex parte hearings are part of the judicial system.

A grand jury hearing, also, is held without the defense able to present witnesses or commnent on the evidence that the prosecution presents.
A grand jury is the constitutional process, PHs were added as a more defense friendly process.

MOO The hostile subpoena for BF is what caused the prosecution to change gears. Ex Parte is along the same line as the PH.
AT does not want to try this case in court as the citizen jurors will be less inclined to bend with the craft of law and more inclined to say "you can't say where you were, your DNA is at the CS, your car is seen circling the house."
That a roommate does drugs or even sells them does not change that.
 
In the defense's alibi notice document, they offered to go into more detail with the judge in an ex parte meeting, if the judge wanted more information regarding why the defense presented their alibi notice in the way that they did. AT was not asking for an ex parte meeting with the judge, but offering to do so if it would be helpful to the judge as he makes his decision on the state's motion to compel regarding the alibi notice.

Ex parte hearings are probably rare but held if needed. I don't see anything outrageous about AT offering this option to the court, but that is my opinion. Ex parte hearings are part of the judicial system.

A grand jury hearing, also, is held without the defense able to present witnesses or commnent on the evidence that the prosecution presents.
"Pssst. I will tell you a secret."

This judge does not do crime news or he would have known how to pronounce Kaylee's name.
Probably has not made a study of Iris Eytan's winning defense strategy.

Hope he is hip to the tricks.
 
Terrible.
The judge should not be exposing himself to the highest form of manupiulation, humans with a lot at stake in an interpersonal meeting. With either side.

MOO
The jury is the tryor of facts.
Ex parte preemptively takes away their decision making authority, similar to suppression of relative evidence by unrelated reasons.
I don't like all this ex parte' stuff either Boxer. Defense already had their meetings ex parte' for Defense Expert Witnesses or was it just the Motion to present them. IDK?
 
In the defense's alibi notice document, they offered to go into more detail with the judge in an ex parte meeting, if the judge wanted more information regarding why the defense presented their alibi notice in the way that they did. AT was not asking for an ex parte meeting with the judge, but offering to do so if it would be helpful to the judge as he makes his decision on the state's motion to compel regarding the alibi notice.

Ex parte hearings are probably rare but held if needed. I don't see anything outrageous about AT offering this option to the court, but that is my opinion. Ex parte hearings are part of the judicial system.

A grand jury hearing, also, is held without the defense able to present witnesses or commnent on the evidence that the prosecution presents.
Right, but AT also asked for BK's exemption from further notice of alibi. That is why she offered BK up to speak ex parte' with the Judge. IIRC

I think BK is having a lot more input in his Defense than we think. I believe while listening and going along with a certain strategy, I can definitely see him being quite insistent on voicing his demands, as is his constitutional right.

MOO
 
"Pssst. I will tell you a secret."

This judge does not do crime news or he would have known how to pronounce Kaylee's name.
Probably has not made a study of Iris Eytan's winning defense strategy.

Hope he is hip to the tricks.
I was disappointed, but not surprised by the Judge's ruling in the Motion to Stay for the extra 37 days, even though BK has not waived his right to a speedy trial. I liked the State's response, basically saying 'you can't keep asking for a continuance, and then say your rights to a speedy trial were violated'. I'm glad that got it on record with the motion. I believe these motions are going to be heard on Aug 18th?

Court is supposed to begin on Oct 2nd? Plus, they have 37 days (if needed). Does anybody feel like either side will be ready to go at that point?

MOO
 
An exparte hearing with the judge would take place before the trial so the jury would still be hearing the case. Judges are constantly ruling on what gets in and what stays out of a trial and what the jury can and cannot consider as they hear a case and deliberate. So I don't see this as in anyway taking away the decision-making authority of a jury. JMO.
But ID law requires Notice of Alibi, which technically the Defense did not provide in their response to the Motion. The State is entitled to discovery of who/how BK plans to prove he was elsewhere at the time of the murders. They won't have that if this Motion is ex parte'.

Or am I missing something (which is entirely possible)?

MOO
 
I was disappointed, but not surprised by the Judge's ruling in the Motion to Stay for the extra 37 days, even though BK has not waived his right to a speedy trial. I liked the State's response, basically saying 'you can't keep asking for a continuance, and then say your rights to a speedy trial were violated'. I'm glad that got it on record with the motion. I believe these motions are going to be heard on Aug 18th?

Court is supposed to begin on Oct 2nd? Plus, they have 37 days (if needed). Does anybody feel like either side will be ready to go at that point?

MOO
MOO defense stalling and then will set trial a year forward, a tactic to gain options along the timeline.
Plus jail better than what is probable to come.
 
MOO watching a guilty party twist, dodge, feint, spin, deflect, strong arm and try to get a secret going with the referee.
Everything but an alibi, or even a direct statement of innocence.

Yes agree.

His defense has probably told him he will get scorched if he tried to offer an alibi in court. Would he not have to take the witness stand? Or can his lawyer just state that his client was "driving around town because he was an insomniac."

Driving around where? And at what time? And which days? And why in the King Rd neighborhood? And how come around the crime scene 3 times?

BK would not stand a chance. That's why, in my opinion, this trick is trying to be played by the defense
 
Yes agree.

His defense has probably told him he will get scorched if he tried to offer an alibi in court. Would he not have to take the witness stand? Or can his lawyer just state that his client was "driving around town because he was an insomniac."

Driving around where? And at what time? And which days? And why in the King Rd neighborhood? And how come around the crime scene 3 times?

BK would not stand a chance. That's why, in my opinion, this trick is trying to be played by the defense
Agree.
BK claims no specific time or specific location of his driving around.
Not an alibi, it's just calling the evidence against him an alibi.

Then with getting something dumb or scandalous out of the survivors to operationally color perceptions follow up by confusing (ala IrisEytan) the FBI expert with world time vs. Idaho time and using an alternate cell geolocating application's names for CAST terms.

It's like an Aesop's fable, hope the judge does not agree to meet in secret with the fox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
257
Guests online
1,316
Total visitors
1,573

Forum statistics

Threads
587,148
Messages
17,876,991
Members
226,992
Latest member
Hazel2525
Back
Top