4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #89

Status
Not open for further replies.
The defense will not want the jury to focus on the violence and severity of the victims’ wounds. The jurors will naturally be upset, disgusted, and horrified. It might even elicit vengeful feelings in them.
Yet, it's very hard to prove a murder case without the actual facts of a murder. The stage in Gannon Stauch's trial when the autopsy was covered was horrifying and of course the jury was upset.

The jury needs to be upset at murder. The jury has to know all of the facts. The facts will likely show that that there was only one weapon, for example. WIthout that, the defense would be spinning it otherwise. The facts wlll also show (IMO) a careful pattern of wounds, perhaps similar from person to person (showing some pre-meditation - but obviously, even if the first murder was somehow a crime of passion, all the rest had to have been pre-meditated). By the time the killer killed one person, the killer had time to realize they had a knife in their hand and were killing people.

The pain and suffering of the victims must be shown to the jury, in my opinion, and they will have extra jurors just in case someone can't handle it. Most adults who become jurors can handle it, though - although one juror in the Stauch case was allowed to turn her head, and eventually, cover her head with a blanket (this was after the autopsy day, but she both wanted to stay on the jury AND to block out the face of the defendant - or something, it was never clear why the blanket, except as a comfort to her).

The manner of death must be shown and the autopsy will be discussed. Will the Defense try a tactic to prevent actual pictures from being shown? Possibly - I suppose there could be a stipulation but if and only if the State agrees. I think the State should make it clear during voir dire that this is a quadruple homicide, by knife, and seek to find if some jurors feel they have too much anxiety to deal with it). I predict that most in the jury pool will steel themselves and be able to do it. I'd guess that psychological resources can be offered to the juror (both during the trial and afterwards).

They didn't show a bunch of pictures in the Stauch case, IIRC. The State will have to decide what type of visual evidence they want to provide (there are ways of doing it that would be less traumatizing for everyone). Maybe there will only be testimony and no pictures - it will still be haunting and gruesome. But I think there will also be pictures and if one victim (say, Ethan) had a different wound pattern, I think that matters factually to the case. And if one or more victims had defensive wounds, that will be reflected on their body.

Even more gut-wrenching, I believe, will be Steve Gonçalves on the stand during the penalty phase.

The Defense, of course, can simply refuse to cross-examine - but I doubt they will. I should also add that the pictures in civil cases (from autopsies) can be just as horrifying - and I've never been at a civil wrongful death trial where the autopsy isn't covered by a professional and *some* pictures aren't shown. The jury is supposed to know *all* the facts and make their decision accordingly.

IMO.
 
The defense will not want the jury to focus on the violence and severity of the victims’ wounds. The jurors will naturally be upset, disgusted, and horrified. It might even elicit vengeful feelings in them.

The judge will have to determine if the prejudicial impact of any photographs that the prosecution may want to show at trial will outweigh the probative value and make his decision accordingly.

Also, IIRC, among its requests for discovery, the defense asked the prosecution to provide them with notes that LE took while observing the autopsies of the victims, or something to this effect that involved LE observing the autopsies. This information may or may not be significant for the defense at trial.
 
I think BK's big motivator was the adrenaline rush. We know from his postings on the VS site that one of his main symptoms was a lack of emotion. He didn't really 'feel' anything.

And by his educational path selection, we know he had an active interest in crime. And he thought he was outstanding in his understanding and knowledge of the subject. So good, as a matter of fact, that he thought he could pull off the perfect crime - - -

- - - and finally feel something.

And I bet he's loving the adrenaline rush even now with the theatrics and mind bending drama of the court battles.
moo!
 
The defense will not want the jury to focus on the violence and severity of the victims’ wounds. The jurors will naturally be upset, disgusted, and horrified. It might even elicit vengeful feelings in them.
Live and in person 'Jury views' of the body pre or post autopsy weren't that uncommon before the advent of cameras and pictures. And since the mid 1800s pictures of gruesome crime scenes and autopsies have been a staple of the court room.

I know that there's a fine line between prejudicial and probative. And the judge should use their discretion. But we can't rewrite the rules now, after 300+ years.
 
Last edited:
I've been wondering about the graphic physical descriptions of the murders - the jury will have to hear these being described right?

I don't know how anyone copes with listening to that sort of stuff and especially not times four in one case. Wouldn't it traumatise jurors?
 
I've been wondering about the graphic physical descriptions of the murders - the jury will have to hear these being described right?

I don't know how anyone copes with listening to that sort of stuff and especially not times four in one case. Wouldn't it traumatise jurors?

It would traumatize *some* jurors. Anyone who is in a medical profession or LE or a first responder is prepared for this kind of thing. And anyone who has witnessed a bad accident has seen some tough things.

Jurors can ask to be excused if they have PTSD or think they are overly squeamish about knife wounds. No one can make them look at the pictures - the woman in the Stauch trial looked away and then was allowed to use a blanket to block out her view of the defendant. At the time, we all worried she was going to vote Not Guilty (she didn't).

Most courts have psychological help at the ready for jurors in cases with graphic evidence. Some of the car and train crash cases I've seen (and a couple of gas explosion cases) have horrific evidence. The lawyers, their staff and the court all have to see this stuff - day after day. That's why I always say that, as a citizen, I feel I should be strong enough to handle it too.

Of course, I did take anatomy (which I did not enjoy - was very grateful that my team was headed up by the most humorous and least squeamish woman I've ever met - she became a surgeon).

I was working as a crime scene photographer when I was 19 (couldn't handle it) but then worked in law firms for 20 years while going through school - and was in charge of ordering the autopsies, pictures from the scene, describing and filing them. It was super anxiety-producing at first. But I see my students work in mortuaries, in surgery (in minor capacities), in LE and so on - a lot of people *can* handle it. Both of my daughters are fine with such things (one is a nurse).

I am confident they can find 16 or so people to start out, most of whom will find ways of coping with the fact that it's a murder trial - and everyone knows it was a horrific quadruple homicide, going in, for this one.

I should also add that many veterans end up on juries - and many have seen some pretty bad things. So there's a kind of "pool" for this and I'd hope that anyone with an anxiety disorder would let Judge Judge know right away. So probably not going to be a lot of tender-hearted people impanelled on this DP case.

IMO.
 
I've been wondering about the graphic physical descriptions of the murders - the jury will have to hear these being described right?

I don't know how anyone copes with listening to that sort of stuff and especially not times four in one case. Wouldn't it traumatise jurors?

What typically happens is the defense files a motion to keep the jury from seeing the crime scene photos saying they are too prejudicial. The judge will often leave out some but never all of them. The jury has to be shown some of these photos and often the news media are stopped from showing them on camera, but not always.

So the BK jurors will see some graphic photos. I do not know if they can refuse to look at them. This should be addressed in Voir dire.
 
It would traumatize *some* jurors. Anyone who is in a medical profession or LE or a first responder is prepared for this kind of thing. And anyone who has witnessed a bad accident has seen some tough things.

Jurors can ask to be excused if they have PTSD or think they are overly squeamish about knife wounds. No one can make them look at the pictures - the woman in the Stauch trial looked away and then was allowed to use a blanket to block out her view of the defendant. At the time, we all worried she was going to vote Not Guilty (she didn't).

Most courts have psychological help at the ready for jurors in cases with graphic evidence. Some of the car and train crash cases I've seen (and a couple of gas explosion cases) have horrific evidence. The lawyers, their staff and the court all have to see this stuff - day after day. That's why I always say that, as a citizen, I feel I should be strong enough to handle it too.

Of course, I did take anatomy (which I did not enjoy - was very grateful that my team was headed up by the most humorous and least squeamish woman I've ever met - she became a surgeon).

I was working as a crime scene photographer when I was 19 (couldn't handle it) but then worked in law firms for 20 years while going through school - and was in charge of ordering the autopsies, pictures from the scene, describing and filing them. It was super anxiety-producing at first. But I see my students work in mortuaries, in surgery (in minor capacities), in LE and so on - a lot of people *can* handle it. Both of my daughters are fine with such things (one is a nurse).

I am confident they can find 16 or so people to start out, most of whom will find ways of coping with the fact that it's a murder trial - and everyone knows it was a horrific quadruple homicide, going in, for this one.

I should also add that many veterans end up on juries - and many have seen some pretty bad things. So there's a kind of "pool" for this and I'd hope that anyone with an anxiety disorder would let Judge Judge know right away. So probably not going to be a lot of tender-hearted people impanelled on this DP case.

IMO.

Thank you so much for all this insight. It sounds totally inappropriate to say in the context but it sounds like you've assisted with some fascinating and interesting situations and had lots of life experiences that the average person wouldn't even imagine.

As for juries, I'm swayed towards thinking that there should be banks of people registered as willing to do jury service instead of the current system but I live in the UK and anyway most people don't agree with me, luckily I would have no influence either way.
 
I think BK's big motivator was the adrenaline rush. We know from his postings on the VS site that one of his main symptoms was a lack of emotion. He didn't really 'feel' anything.

And by his educational path selection, we know he had an active interest in crime. And he thought he was outstanding in his understanding and knowledge of the subject. So good, as a matter of fact, that he thought he could pull off the perfect crime - - -

- - - and finally feel something.

And I bet he's loving the adrenaline rush even now with the theatrics and mind bending drama of the court battles.
moo!
But I bet he hates how boring it is to sit in an isolated tiny jail cell for 8 months. He seems to really want to get out. He is making sure his defense team is looking under every stone to try to get his DNA ruled inadmissible by the judge.

<modsnip - off topic>

2 Cents
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What typically happens is the defense files a motion to keep the jury from seeing the crime scene photos saying they are too prejudicial. The judge will often leave out some but never all of them. The jury has to be shown some of these photos and often the news media are stopped from showing them on camera, but not always.

So the BK jurors will see some graphic photos. I do not know if they can refuse to look at them. This should be addressed in Voir dire.

That's what I think will happen. What I've seen used most often is

the photos that are taken right before the actual autopsy begins, with the body in a state of repose and often without the entire body shown - in this case, maybe just face and torso. Probably at least one picture of each victim, and if there are specific injuries that help tell the story of what happened, then pictures of those. If the State needs to show that the wounds were methodical and therefore similar on each body, I believe the Judge will allow that. Equally disturbing will be the expert testimony about how long each victim lived, esp. Xana. The jury - regardless of who they are - will be *very* upset, as they should be. This is a terrible, terrible crime. No family should ever have to go through what these families have gone through.

I think they will address it in voir dire. It's absolutely essential that the jury understand the type of crime the defendant is accused of, and frankly, I believe the jury should have to see some of the photos - just as the responding officers had to see much more and the doctors who did the autopsy had to deal with the aftermath too. These are emotionally difficult for all parties - and all of it was caused, apparently, by just one person. And the jury will be watching the defendant closely during all of this. That's why we have human jurors, after all.

And "looking" is a general term - they will need to at least glance at the pictures, I think. I also think it affects the jury process if 11 jurors more or less calmly took in the details - and want to use them in deliberation - and one person refused to look. The woman in the Stauch trial did look at the pictures, which is likely what started her anxiety reaction. She did make it all the way through deliberation.

IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not a cell phone expert either, but I do know that there are way more towers and masts in Moscow than the ones we learned about in the PCA. Many of them would contain information of a ping or attempt at a handshake (even if the phone could not use that tower or mast). I would assume that LE has gotten information from some of those other towers and/or masts.

And I bet they went to that Albertson's in Clarkston (I think it was Clarkston) and tried to get records on whether his phone had any interaction with store wifi (which likely exists). Even if he didn't sign on.

Many of these masts or systems might turn up as dead ends. But the fact that he was seen twice in Clarkston (once by a coffee kiosk clerk and once by cameras at Albertson's) implies that he could have been "seen" a few more times as the investigation rolled on and his face was in the media. He does have a memorable face and bearing, IMO.

IMO. I don't know about UofI's data retention policies, but at many college libraries, they keep the records of whose phones/devices contact their wifi...indefinitely. For good reason, too. People use college libraries for all kinds of nefarious purposes. So, I believe LE would know if his phone reached out to the library on that night of the murders (or perhaps at any other time). Since it appears both universities are fully cooperating with the investigation, I doubt a subpoena would be necessary - and of course, the State would share what it found with the Defense.

My guess is that nothing exonerating was found (crazy of me to guess that, I know - obviously, if something exonerating had been found and BK's phone was near or in the library that night at any time, the Defense would be using that as part of his alibi).

IMO: The CAST analysis will be a key part of this case, as will all forms of documented travel of BK's phone and the same rigor applied to his computer use and searches.
I have this in saved docs just don’t have time to quote-I remember KG father stating that BK was close enough to the victims’ house to connect to their Wi-Fi. Anyone remember that?
 
I have this in saved docs just don’t have time to quote-I remember KG father stating that BK was close enough to the victims’ house to connect to their Wi-Fi. Anyone remember that?


The affidavit also said Kohberger’s phone pinged near the girls’ home on King Road in Moscow at least 12 times in the months leading up to the murders.

“He was close enough that he was touching their wi-fi," Goncalves said.
 
I have this in saved docs just don’t have time to quote-I remember KG father stating that BK was close enough to the victims’ house to connect to their Wi-Fi. Anyone remember that?
Yes, I remember. It was a public comment; there are no official reports available (gag order) to substantiate the claim, at least yet. MOO.
 
m00c0w
Well-Known Member

I personally think he very carefully planned a lot of this out and did choose to cross state lines and attack at a different university because it would distance the homicide from himself. He also had an out of state plate until shortly after the murders, when he picked up Washington plates. Which I think was also intentional - his car would no longer fit the description of his car.

I believe he planned very meticulously, but this isn’t something that can really be rehearsed. You’re not in it until you’re in it, and once he was in it, he was way out of his league and made stupid mistakes he never accounted for (the most glaring being the knife sheath left at the scene). He probably thought it would be easier than it was, and there were probably some things he never dreamed of, like an unaccounted for roommate actually seeing him in the house. The wheels fell off pretty quickly, so he needed to mitigate as much as he could. Which resulted in him traveling to PA, separating his DNA into neighbors’ trash, etc. Unfortunately for him (fortunately for everyone else), you don’t know what you don’t know… and he didn’t know that LE was able to identify him as quickly as they did and probably didn’t anticipate federal involvement to the level it was.

JMO

ETA: I also fully believe he thinks he will get away with this.




Reply by Boxer.:
Agree about everyone has the perfect plan...MOO losing the sheath is just so something that an academic with violent dream would do. Unaware that when one really exerts oneself nothing stays in pockets, no matter how secure that thing seems when standing or crouching down for a test.
 
Last edited:
I suspect the information on BK's twelve previous times in the area was included in the PCA because on one of those previous times, BK got pulled over by LE. This establishes that BK was without question the driver of his white elantra and the user of his cell phone during the previous times in Moscow, during the late night and early morning hours, similar in timeframe as the murders, and as close in proximity to the King Rd house as the cell tower data tells them he was, whatever that distance is. JMO.

By itself, that's not probable cause for murder charges, IMO, but taking into consideration that on those twelve previous times, he didn't turn his cell phone off, then it starts to look suspicious that on the morning of the 13th, he did, right before leaving Pullman in the direction of Moscow, during the same general timeframe he was established to have frequently gone to Moscow, in a car that matched the one seen circling the house before and speeding away after the crime. It's a behavior that was out of the ordinary for him, apparently, which, by coincidence, also happened to be during the time of the murders. Then he turned it back on shortly after the murders.

Again, this is just one small feature in the PCA, which is not all inclusive, but I have a feeling it will come up later. That's not to mention the DNA and other evidence...
This establishes that BK was without question the driver of his white elantra and the user of his cell phone during the previous times in Moscow, during the late night and early morning hours, similar in timeframe as the murders, and as close in proximity to the King Rd house as the cell tower data tells them he was, whatever that distance is. JMO.


So true!!!!
 
Update on status of house demolition from UofI media source.

 
I've been wondering about the graphic physical descriptions of the murders - the jury will have to hear these being described right?

I don't know how anyone copes with listening to that sort of stuff and especially not times four in one case. Wouldn't it traumatise jurors?
Speaking from experience, yes.
I was a juror on a gruesome murder trial. We saw a LOT of photos. Not just saw but, printed 8x10s were given to us to look at during deliberation. I was traumatized for a long time. Months? A year maybe? Traumatized meaning, scared to be alone, scared having my blinds open, and couldn’t walk past a meat section of a grocery store or eat/look at meat at all. That’s how it affected me anyway.
 
Live and in person 'Jury views' of the body pre or post autopsy weren't that uncommon before the advent of cameras and pictures. And since the mid 1800s pictures of gruesome crime scenes and autopsies have been a staple of the court room.

I know that there's a fine line between prejudicial and probative. And the judge should use their discretion. But we can't rewrite the rules now, after 300+ years.
I suspect we will see a pre-trial motion by the defense to exclude any photos that they deem to be prejudicial to the defendant. And if the judge allows these photos into evidence, this may be grounds for appeal by the defense.

Here is a case of a state Supreme Court ruling against a judge who allowed graphic photos of a murdered victim to be introduced as evidence before a jury in South Carolina, in spite of the objections of the defense. A new trial was ordered as the state Supreme Court determined that the photos were more prejudicial than probative.


I am sure that Judge Judge will take this matter quite seriously and weigh the issues carefully, also with the goal of avoiding an appeal that could result in a new trial being ordered by a higher court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
299
Guests online
1,762
Total visitors
2,061

Forum statistics

Threads
586,848
Messages
17,871,268
Members
226,865
Latest member
TattedGemini
Back
Top