ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 64

[layer]

Every defense attorney in America would go after a surviving roommate because she is the only person to see him in the house so they have to discredit her to help their client. The way they will impeach her will be to go after how much she had been drinking that day, did she smoke pot, did she vape - they will impeach her as an eyewitness. They will say the reason she didn't call 911 was because she was too drunk and passed out.

No defense attorney will go after her if she's not called to testify. If they have ample forensic evidence to convict him there would be no need to put her through that. She doesn't offer that much of value anyway, the guy was masked.

JMHO

 

[jcamh]

I don't think it has been made clear that she ordered food. It has been reported that X had ordered a door dash delivery and it came at approximately 4 AM, but Door Dash delivers more than food. Could have been something else.

I doubt that any other types of stores - other than fast food - would have been open at that time of night - well, except for convenience stores.

 

[jepop]

I don't think questioning her state of mind or senses at the time of events being witnessed and what she reported to LE is "going after her." Those are questions that should be asked and I'm sure it will be even more traumatizing for her to live through that again but still very important questions that a jury should have answered.

It is true that the defense would be inept not to ask her how she arrived at her general description of the person she saw.

ETA IMO

 

[jepop]

No, LaBar is stating the law. EVERYTHING in the PCA is hearsay--for the moment--unless the officer who signed the affidavit saw it with his own eyes. The ex-defense attorney is just stating the obvious: until DM presents her own eyewitness account to a "trier of fact" (a grand jury, a regular jury, or a judge if jury trial is waived by the defendant), it remains "hearsay".

The PCA "author" (I'm sure a team worked on the doc) merely recounts what he "heard" from the surviving witness. It can't be legitimate evidence until she testifies to it under oath.

ok

 

[jepop]

No defense attorney will go after her if she's not called to testify. If they have ample forensic evidence to convict him there would be no need to put her through that. She doesn't offer that much of value anyway, the guy was masked.

JMHO

Might it not be useful for the defense to discredit her general description of the person she saw after 4am Nov 13 heading in direction of slider? I may have this wrong, but can't defense call her to testify even if the prosecution decide against putting her on the stand?

 

[Curiosa20]

The Moscow PD redeemed themselves, IMO.

With a lot of help from their LE friends, gas station employee, WSU Campus police officer, and the public. A dream team!

 

[Curiosa20]

People generally refer to a woven mask that pulls down over your face as a ski mask, especially in Europe I would think. A face mask is a ski mask is a mask pulled down over your face with cutouts for your eyes and sometimes your mouth too.

And the lack of detail is probably intentional, to protect the investigation, IMO

 

[Charlot123]

I’d be a terrible criminal. I’d trip all over myself - forgetting what lie i told when and where i said i did what with with whom. I’d be an absolute MESS! My husband has always said that because I’m terrible at playing even Santa or birthday surprises. I ruin everything because I can’t lie well. & right when i realize i messed up i cover my mouth like oops. & i start to break out in hives in courtrooms like i did something wrong even if i didn’t - jury duty for example. I can’t handle even staying my name for the judge. I FEEL like I’m in trouble just being there.

I COULD, however, sneak in and out places like a ninja. I’m a great tooth fairy

I think I couldn't even plan because killing or hurting others simply doesn't feel like a pleasant activity. Even if homicidal behavior is poorly understood biology, still, to its owner, it brings in horrible detachment and fear.

 

[Curiosa20]

I found it interesting in the Dateline segment tonight, that Keith Morrison reported that on the Friday night prior to the murders (Friday, November 11th, I guess it would be) there was a party at the King Road house with about 150 people in attendance. I don't remember hearing that before.

Is that the same party when no residents were there?

 

[scottr]

I’m not arguing with you. I’m just irritated by BK’s ex atty

It’s possible they could have his dna under one or more of the victims fingernails (or somewhere else at the crime scene) but that was just not revealed in the probable cause affidavit because it was not necessary to show ALL they had, right???

They didn’t have to put everything they knew in the PCA? Right? (And of course they may have discovered much more since then.)

I just don’t understand why so many reporters keep saying the defense just has to tear apart the PCA — as if the PCA is the ALL the prosecution has.

A good poker player doesn’t show their hand to the table until they have to. The defense doesn’t have a strategy until they have ALL the evidence/discovery is complete.

That PCA is not ALL the evidence.

Editing to add that i do believe innocent until proven guilty but he looks pretty guilty just based on the PCA and I’m assuming there’s more evidence that they have. So i think it’s silly for attys to dismiss the PCA like it’s nothing. Maybe saying well it LOOKS pretty bad but you know innocent until proven guilty. That would have been more responsible of the ex atty IMO

I agree that there is likely much more evidence (whether circumstantial or not) is likely unknown to the public. But withholding information from the PCA isn't a tactic to produce a surprise during trial. MOO it's just like what LE says, it is to protect the investigation. The goal is not to make an arrest, it is to help a prosecutor secure a conviction.

Imagine if as you said they had DNA from a victim's fingernail that matched the defendant. That would have huge ramifications on the selection or bias of a potential jury pool and whether it makes any sense or not could impact a defendant's right to a fair trial.

The same goes for the speculation on the search warrant release being withheld. There is speculation that LE may have missed something? Really? They get an arrest warrant and a property search warrant - plus other cell data search warrants approved and they missed something? I don't think so. What if they found his wallet at the crime scene and that is what was in the search warrant? I don't think the public should have that information because again it would weigh heavily on a potential jury pool's bias before a trial.

This all MOO, I'm no expert, just trying to make reasonable sense.

 

[scottr]

I’m not arguing with you. I’m just irritated by BK’s ex atty

It’s possible they could have his dna under one or more of the victims fingernails (or somewhere else at the crime scene) but that was just not revealed in the probable cause affidavit because it was not necessary to show ALL they had, right???

They didn’t have to put everything they knew in the PCA? Right? (And of course they may have discovered much more since then.)

I just don’t understand why so many reporters keep saying the defense just has to tear apart the PCA — as if the PCA is the ALL the prosecution has.

A good poker player doesn’t show their hand to the table until they have to. The defense doesn’t have a strategy until they have ALL the evidence/discovery is complete.

That PCA is not ALL the evidence.

Editing to add that i do believe innocent until proven guilty but he looks pretty guilty just based on the PCA and I’m assuming there’s more evidence that they have. So i think it’s silly for attys to dismiss the PCA like it’s nothing. Maybe saying well it LOOKS pretty bad but you know innocent until proven guilty. That would have been more responsible of the ex atty IMO

I forgot to mention, I also agree with you on BK's ex atty being irritating...

Also in the DM article, the attorney said "'If it was GPS location coordinates, you're talking down to a meter as to where Bryan Kohberger was at the time of these crimes,' he said."

Foreshadowing anyone? He wouldn't be working for me either! Let's see how that quote looks 6-8 months from now.

 

[RANCH]

Every defense attorney in America would go after a surviving roommate because she is the only person to see him in the house so they have to discredit her to help their client. The way they will impeach her will be to go after how much she had been drinking that day, did she smoke pot, did she vape - they will impeach her as an eyewitness. They will say the reason she didn't call 911 was because she was too drunk and passed out.

If I was the defense attorney questioning DM I would ask her if the person she saw was wearing a mask.

I would then ask if the mask covered a large portion of the persons face. I would then ask if that would make identifying the person difficult. And so on.

Making it clear to the jury that DM couldn't identity the defendant while not attacking her and alienating the jury. JMO.

 

[wary]

Might it not be useful for the defense to discredit her general description of the person she saw after 4am Nov 13 heading in direction of slider? I may have this wrong, but can't defense call her to testify even if the prosecution decide against putting her on the stand?

Well, if the prosecution decides to not put her on the stand, her description of the person she saw wouldn’t be in evidence.

I think that the defense calling her to testify would be a spectacular example of an ‘own goal.’ If they call her, they can’t cross-examine her. In other words, their questions would have to be more like: “Tell us what happened at 4:00 am.” Less like: “Now, the next morning, you weren’t even sure this had happened, were you?”

No, I’m not a lawyer. I’d love for one to weigh in on this.

MOO

 

[layer]

Might it not be useful for the defense to discredit her general description of the person she saw after 4am Nov 13 heading in direction of slider? I may have this wrong, but can't defense call her to testify even if the prosecution decide against putting her on the stand?

If she isn't called to testify, then the defense would have no reason to discredit her.

 

[debbiediablo]

It was seen wide open at 8:30am by a close neighbor. I wonder why. Maybe he was going to leave that way and changed his mind? Or Xana maybe didn't shut it tight after 4am Door Dash and it blew wide open over the hours afterwards?

Idaho murders: Slain university students' neighbor says front door left wide open after attacks

A neighbor of four slain University of Idaho students whose shocking stabbing deaths remain unsolved nearly four weeks later claimed they saw the front door wide open hours after the slayings.

www.google.com

I question the neighbor waited four weeks to remember an open door considering all the chaos which ensued that afternoon and in days following. LE would likely not have made this public if it is true, but, given that half the campus knew the keypad combination and if the door really was open, a small part of me wonders who might have happened along earlier in morning...and why they weren't overwhelmed by the smell of blood. Blood reference is from this Howard Blum article linked several days ago. An Exclusive Look Inside the Idaho Murders: Part I

 

[jepop]

If I was the defense attorney questioning DM I would ask her if the person she saw was wearing a mask.

I would then ask if the mask covered a large portion of the persons face. I would then ask if that would make identifying the person difficult. And so on.

Making it clear to the jury that DM couldn't identity the defendant while not attacking her and alienating the jury. JMO.

Agree, only to my mind it isn't only a matter of Dylan being unable to identify the defendent (BK) because at least part of her police statement (via PCA) already shows that she did not recognise the person she saw, IMO. IMO the defense, if they question her, will attempt to show that she could not have reasonably identified the basic characteristics of the person - height, build, eybrows - owing to lighting factors, confusion, intoxication or whatever else they deem relevant to raise. MOO

 

[jepop]

If she isn't called to testify, then the defense would have no reason to discredit her.

OK,whoops, I see that now.

 

[debbiediablo]

It is, but can you imagine what a circus that courtroom would become on cross examination? Barry Scheck's "Where is it Mr Fung?" would have nothing on Anne Taylor's cross examination of the 911 call timeline alone.

The difference being Dennis Fung, a criminologist, was not a 19 year-old girl who is the only surviving witness to the slaughter of her four friends.

 

[jepop]

Well, if the prosecution decides to not put her on the stand, her description of the person she saw wouldn’t be in evidence.

I think that the defense calling her to testify would be a spectacular example of an ‘own goal.’ If they call her, they can’t cross-examine her. In other words, their questions would have to be more like: “Tell us what happened at 4:00 am.” Less like: “Now, the next morning, you weren’t even sure this had happened, were you?”

No, I’m not a lawyer. I’d love for one to weigh in on this.

MOO

Sorry to go on about this, just for clarity, so if the defense call her but the Prosecution don't, then the defense cannot bring her police statement into evidence themselves at that point and question the witness in regards to that statement? Genuine question. I think I am understanding that only the prosecution can table the witness' statement to police. Correct?

 

[RANCH]

If she isn't called to testify, then the defense would have no reason to discredit her.

If the State doesn't call DM to testify about who she saw at the time of the murders that would open up the defense to call her as a witness who saw someone but can't positively identify the defendant as being that person.

The State should call her as a witness who can describe seeing someone that fits the physical description of the defendant. Same approximate height and weight. And leave it at that. That would blunt the defense from calling out any weakness of the eyewitness. JMO.