ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 69

[SophieRose]

Let's be honest, they have a Walmart they have a gym they have lots of other shopping other than WinCo. You don't typically go to a sister town 10 miles away to do shopping you could do in your own area. More gas, not exactly a thrifty idea. JMHO

When I Google 24 hour grocery Pullman WA, only the WinCo in Moscow comes up. Area probably doesn't have enough customers for two 24 hour grocery stores.

 

[Cool Cats]

If he attended it - he will have alibi.
But, did he?
Are there any records of him being in the gym on those dates?

If BK had an ALIBI they wouldn't have arrested him, an ALIBI proves you could not have been at a crime scene when a crime occurred.

If BK had an ALIBI It would mean the killer took BK's knife sheath with him or BK touched the killer's knife sheath at some point in time before the murders.

 

[Dotta]

If BK had an ALIBI they wouldn't have arrested him, an ALIBI proves you could not have been at a crime scene when a crime occurred.

If BK had an ALIBI It would mean the killer took BK's knife sheath with him or BK touched the killer's knife sheath at some point in time before the murders.

But we were talking about times of alleged stalking, not the time of murder - well, that is what I thought.

 

[mmeynstyn]

IIRC isn't there a 24 hour gym in the area?

Good thought.....There is an "Anytime Fitness" in Pullman, Moscow, and Lewiston. Open 24 hours. NOTE: I included Lewiston because the PAC indicates the Elantra was in Clarkston/Lewiston during the day after the murders.

 

[rahod1]

If he attended it - he will have alibi.
But, did he?
Are there any records of him being in the gym on those dates?

If he had one, he wouldn't be sitting in jail right now. MOO

 

[ktm44]

If this is true, then the death penalty is pretty much already off the table.

I'm not fully versed on US law but someone previously mentioned that Anne Taylor resigned from the other case very quickly and an assisting attorney could question any witness that could be interpreted as a conflict of interest.

If this is deemed a death pentalty trial, I can't see a lawyer issue standing in the way and if it does go forward with his current lawyer, I would expect that it will proceed with every legal angle covered.

 

[mmeynstyn]

Did anyone mention WinCo, a 24 hour grocery store in Moscow?

And WinCo is only approx 2 mi. from 1122 King Rd. Curious if that is within the ping radius?

Hmmmmm......Maybe that is why BK said he goes to Moscow for the shopping. Could this be his ping radius defense?

 

[DizzyB]

If BK had an ALIBI they wouldn't have arrested him, an ALIBI proves you could not have been at a crime scene when a crime occurred.

If BK had an ALIBI It would mean the killer took BK's knife sheath with him or BK touched the killer's knife sheath at some point in time before the murders.

I imagine that LE would never have considered charging him if he was on any overnight footage during the times noted in the PCA, shopping or going to the gym. I agree that the sheath DNA was the final piece that put it all together so that a Judge would sign off. His attorney will most likely attempt to have it excluded through whatever means possible. Fingers crossed.

 

[Colorado303]

Not a lawyer, but re: conflicts of interest, let’s look at other industries for comparison.

The real estate industry is one that I personally am much more familiar with. Dual agency, representing two opposing parties, is permitted by most firms and IMO/MOO is highly highly unethical. Essentially, the agent has to step back and can’t work on anyones behalf. And then they’re paid double, so the only person they’re really looking out for is themself. And both parties have to sign off that they understand but in reality, it doesn’t serve the agent for the clients to truly understand what they’re agreeing to so they don’t explain the risk and lack of advocacy/ representation as well as they ought to. This is my strongly held opinion and here’s a great article that I always refer to on this topic:

Dual Agency Doesn’t Benefit Consumers

Asking clients to sign an agency disclosure form isn’t enough. You must explain what dual agency is and why it’s problematic.

www.nar.realtor

A bit OT, I know, but my point is that EVEN if a conflict of interest is LEGAL, it may not be ETHICAL and in my opinion dropping your client to defend the person accused of stabbing their daughter and her friends to death in their home is NOT ETHICAL.

And in this case specifically, given the nature of the charges, I do fear that this attorney’s insight into the personal lives of the victims families could come up in the defense which would be 10000% inappropriate and unacceptable.

Your distinction between legal and ethical nails it! As a RE agent myself I wish I’d thought of your terrific analogy. Dual agency is permitted in CO (where I practice) and allowed by my brokerage. But when faced w/representing both Buyer and Seller I’ve always referred “the other side” to another agent and been referred clients by other agents for the same reason. For all the reasons you detail it just feels wrong to do otherwise.

It’s hard to walk away from $10,000+ additional commission and I’m sure even harder to turn down “the case of a lifetime”. Nonetheless, IMO this attorney should have just refused to take BK’s case.

JMO

 

[Orange Tabby]

Some people here have pointed out that Jackie at the Mad Greek can’t possibly know that BK never set foot in the Mad Greek restaurant. That may be true.

But it is possible that Jackie has good reason to say that the anonymous source lied to People magazine. Here are just a few possibilities, I’m sure others can add more:

--The point of sale system at the Mad Greek may enable Jackie to identify every vegan pizza she has ever sold and to link that order to a server, to payment info, and dates and times. The anonymous server may never have taken an order for even one vegan pizza. Or he may have sold hundreds, but maybe all were paid for by credit cards that have nothing whatever to do with BK. Also, if LE pursued this line of inquiry, they would know whether or not Mr. Anonymous worked at the Mad Greek only when BK was in class or when BK’s phone pinged exclusively in Pullman.

--There might have been language in Mr. Anonymous’s account that points to a contradiction with how things work at the Mad Greek. For example, Mr. Anonymous says BK wanted to make sure that his vegan pizza didn’t come in contact with meat products. Maybe it is Mad Greek policy to always warn vegans that there is only one pizza oven and a vegan pizza might be cooked on the very same spot a double-pepperoni finished baking just moments before. My point isn’t that my example is likely (I actually think it is not), but that there may have been something in the anonymous account that Jackie (and perhaps many Mad Greek employees) know can’t be true.

--He may be a former server, but he may not have worked during the relevant time (i.e. he left his employment there before BK arrived in the PNW from PA).

--He may be someone Jackie spoke to after the murders and after the arrest of BK and the answers he gave her then are the opposite from what he is telling People. That alone would make him a liar, albeit we can’t say with certainty to which party he issued the lie.

I find it interesting that Jackie specifically urges us to pay attention to what does and does not get presented in court. She certainly couldn’t bring herself to say directly, “The police, the prosecution, and I all know that there is no evidence whatsoever for what this anonymous dude is saying.”

It’s also intriguing that the anonymous source turned to People magazine and not a more news-intensive outlet. Even the Idaho Statesman would have got everyone’s attention—as it has with their story on Anne Taylor and the possible conflict of interest controversy, which has been republished in other places, starting with YahooNews (already linked here several times).

So why People magazine? The story certainly gets a huge splash because People is everywhere. Jackie speaks of the anonymous source wanting fame, but Mr. Anonymous is unknown. And if he is not telling the truth, what motivates such behavior?

[Long-time Websleuths member who lurks but hasn’t had the time to post in years.]

 

[Ccging]

Some people here have pointed out that Jackie at the Mad Greek can’t possibly know that BK never set foot in the Mad Greek restaurant. That may be true.

But it is possible that Jackie has good reason to say that the anonymous source lied to People magazine. Here are just a few possibilities, I’m sure others can add more:

--The point of sale system at the Mad Greek may enable Jackie to identify every vegan pizza she has ever sold and to link that order to a server, to payment info, and dates and times. The anonymous server may never have taken an order for even one vegan pizza. Or he may have sold hundreds, but maybe all were paid for by credit cards that have nothing whatever to do with BK. Also, if LE pursued this line of inquiry, they would know whether or not Mr. Anonymous worked at the Mad Greek only when BK was in class or when BK’s phone pinged exclusively in Pullman.

--There might have been language in Mr. Anonymous’s account that points to a contradiction with how things work at the Mad Greek. For example, Mr. Anonymous says BK wanted to make sure that his vegan pizza didn’t come in contact with meat products. Maybe it is Mad Greek policy to always warn vegans that there is only one pizza oven and a vegan pizza might be cooked on the very same spot a double-pepperoni finished baking just moments before. My point isn’t that my example is likely (I actually think it is not), but that there may have been something in the anonymous account that Jackie (and perhaps many Mad Greek employees) know can’t be true.

--He may be a former server, but he may not have worked during the relevant time (i.e. he left his employment there before BK arrived in the PNW from PA).

--He may be someone Jackie spoke to after the murders and after the arrest of BK and the answers he gave her then are the opposite from what he is telling People. That alone would make him a liar, albeit we can’t say with certainty to which party he issued the lie.

I find it interesting that Jackie specifically urges us to pay attention to what does and does not get presented in court. She certainly couldn’t bring herself to say directly, “The police, the prosecution, and I all know that there is no evidence whatsoever for what this anonymous dude is saying.”

It’s also intriguing that the anonymous source turned to People magazine and not a more news-intensive outlet. Even the Idaho Statesman would have got everyone’s attention—as it has with their story on Anne Taylor and the possible conflict of interest controversy, which has been republished in other places, starting with YahooNews (already linked here several times).

So why People magazine? The story certainly gets a huge splash because People is everywhere. Jackie speaks of the anonymous source wanting fame, but Mr. Anonymous is unknown. And if he is not telling the truth, what motivates such behavior?

[Long-time Websleuths member who lurks but hasn’t had the time to post in years.]

Good question. People issued a statement today standing behind their story.

 

[CGray123]

Your distinction between legal and ethical nails it! As a RE agent myself I wish I’d thought of your terrific analogy. Dual agency is permitted in CO (where I practice) and allowed by my brokerage. But when faced w/representing both Buyer and Seller I’ve always referred “the other side” to another agent and been referred clients by other agents for the same reason. For all the reasons you detail it just feels wrong to do otherwise.

It’s hard to walk away from $10,000+ additional commission and I’m sure even harder to turn down “the case of a lifetime”. Nonetheless, IMO this attorney should have just refused to take BK’s case.

JMO

Attorneys in Idaho are governed by a specific conflict of interest rule (IIRC Rule 1.8) that prohibits business relationships with clients except under limited circumstances. It doesn't apply to representing a client in litigation, and estate agents do not have a rule comparable to IIRC Rule 1.7, which does apply to AT.

I appreciate your high personal standard of ethics as estate agent (and @Colorado303's). Your analysis of dual agency is spot on, but it does not apply to AT's situation as the only capital offense-qualified attorney in northern Idaho, serving in the decidedly non-remunerative position of deputy public defender. MOO, of course.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Kootenai County has a small Public Defender’s Office, located in a small state with a tiny group of death qualified attorneys. I am not surprised by this development. It's not necessarily a major problem, and it appears that Taylor has already addressed it - she withdrew from the parent's case before taking on BK. In both cases, disclosure and the client's informed consent would be required. Taylor's withdrawal from the parent's cases would have had to be approved by the judge handling those cases as well.

The Idaho Rules of Professional Responsibility allow clients to waive conflicts in many circumstances, so long as there is no risk that the attorney's representation of the client would not be impaired by her obligations to the former client. See, Rule 1.7 and comments.

In this high profile case, I am sure Taylor consulted the State Public Defender and independent ethics counsel, and was very confident that this course of action was sound.

All that said, in a media firestorm running on very little factual fuel, maybe this will seem larger than it should be.

Thank you, CGray123, for the on point source! I do understand that Ms Taylor has addressed the fact that there are conflicts of interest and we do have documentation that she has withdrawn from a parent's case.
I tried to read and understand your referenced Rule 1.7 and it appears she did withdraw from the parent's case, timely, as she committed to representing the person who is arrested of murdering their child.
But in Rule 1.7 I found a reference to apply Rule 1.9 for those conflicts of interests concerning former clients. Of interest:
RULE 1.9: DUTIES TO FORMER CLIENTS

1. (a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed
   consent, confirmed in writing.

(BBM) I would consider that 'a substantially related matter' would include a parent/child relationship and its connection to representing the accused murderer of that parent's child.
So, as I understand, wouldn't that former client (parent of child) have to give their informed consent (as well as BK) for Ms Taylor to represent the accused also?
And, if so, do we know that the parent has consented and signed a legal document stating such?

My concern is not that Ms Taylor is not, nor would not, do her best to put forth the best defense for BK. My concern lies in giving him any opportunity or loopholes, whatsoever, to contest the legality of the trial should he be found guilty.

My limited interpretation and moo.

 

[want2solveit]

I imagine that LE would never have considered charging him if he was on any overnight footage during the times noted in the PCA, shopping or going to the gym. I agree that the sheath DNA was the final piece that put it all together so that a Judge would sign off. His attorney will most likely attempt to have it excluded through whatever means possible. Fingers crossed.

Four dead people with knife wounds, a knife sheath with his dna found next to one victim. I think the conclusion is pretty inescapable. Did he unknowingly leave a hair, an eyelash, saliva or some other dna that was found? If so, it's a win for the prosecution.

 

[PrairieWind]

Thank you, CGray123, for the on point source! I do understand that Ms Taylor has addressed the fact that there are conflicts of interest and we do have documentation that she has withdrawn from a parent's case.
I tried to read and understand your referenced Rule 1.7 and it appears she did withdraw from the parent's case, timely, as she committed to representing the person who is arrested of murdering their child.
But in Rule 1.7 I found a reference to apply Rule 1.9 for those conflicts of interests concerning former clients. Of interest:
RULE 1.9: DUTIES TO FORMER CLIENTS

1. (a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed
   consent, confirmed in writing.

(BBM) I would consider that 'a substantially related matter' would include a parent/child relationship and its connection to representing the accused murderer of that parent's child.
So, as I understand, wouldn't that former client (parent of child) have to give their informed consent (as well as BK) for Ms Taylor to represent the accused also?
And, if so, do we know that the parent has consented and signed a legal document stating such?

My concern is not that Ms Taylor is not, nor would not, do her best to put forth the best defense for BK. My concern lies in giving him any opportunity or loopholes, whatsoever, to contest the legality of the trial should he be found guilty.

My limited interpretation and moo.

No, this would not be a substantially related matter. It is a totally different case and circumstance.

 

[CGray123]

Thank you, CGray123, for the on point source! I do understand that Ms Taylor has addressed the fact that there are conflicts of interest and we do have documentation that she has withdrawn from a parent's case.
I tried to read and understand your referenced Rule 1.7 and it appears she did withdraw from the parent's case, timely, as she committed to representing the person who is arrested of murdering their child.
But in Rule 1.7 I found a reference to apply Rule 1.9 for those conflicts of interests concerning former clients. Of interest:
RULE 1.9: DUTIES TO FORMER CLIENTS

1. (a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed
   consent, confirmed in writing.

(BBM) I would consider that 'a substantially related matter' would include a parent/child relationship and its connection to representing the accused murderer of that parent's child.
So, as I understand, wouldn't that former client (parent of child) have to give their informed consent (as well as BK) for Ms Taylor to represent the accused also?
And, if so, do we know that the parent has consented and signed a legal document stating such?

My concern is not that Ms Taylor is not, nor would not, do her best to put forth the best defense for BK. My concern lies in giving him any opportunity or loopholes, whatsoever, to contest the legality of the trial should he be found guilty.

My limited interpretation and moo.

These are excellent questions.

The rule applies to substantially related matters, and on their face the charges against the parent are entirely independent of the murders. The fact that the parent's child is a murder victim does not, in and of itself, establish a substantial relationship between the two legal matters IMO.

Nonetheless, the client always has an opportunity to object to an attorney's withdrawal on the grounds that it will adversely affect their representation. IDK if that occurred, or whether AT received the parent's consent to withdraw in advance of filing the motion. Regardless, the judge in the parent's case is responsible to assure that the parent's interests as a defendant are not materially harmed by the substitution of counsel. I infer from the fact of the judge's approval of the substitution motion that no such harm was found.

All that said, there may be issues down the line if the parent disclosed information about the murdered child in confidence to AT, that could be useful in BK's defense but that AT is prevented from using because of her obligation to keep the parent's confidences as a former client. It's hard to imagine what that information would be at this point.

All MOO (non-attorney)

 

[Cool Cats]

But we were talking about times of alleged stalking, not the time of murder - well, that is what I thought.

OK. Thought you meant a regular ALIBI.

But photos in a gym prove zero for his defense attorneys. Prosecution could explain that.

How?

Because it doesn't matter if he went to various places in Moscow, he could do both!

By both I mean his going to places but also him having plenty of time to leave those places and drive over to King Rd.

Most places were closed likely when he was in Moscow. He went late at night and into the early morning.

There could be 2 hours of video of him in a gym and then video after that of him stopping in a late night bar, but bars often close at 2:00am.

Anyway, even after going to multiple places he easily could have driven, like I said, over to King Rd to case-out the victims and their house.

Unless he spent the night 12 times with a friend who will testify to it, the defense cannot prove he did not drive over to King Rd 12 times.

The prosecution does have video of a car that looks like his driving around King Rd the morning of the murders. They probably have other car footage.

All the prosecution has to do is show the jury that it is reasonable to believe BK had the opportunity 12 times to drive over to King Rd. Some jurors will think he did.

We will see if a friend testifies that BK was with him/her 11 times late at night and early in the morning. And one time during the day.

Means ✓
Motive
Opportunity ✓

 

[CLGM]

Regarding the cell pings near the home, Google maps shows Moscow's Walmart and Marshalls stores are 2 miles from 1122 King Road.

Ah! It just occurred to me (and I’m sure somebody has already made this observation here ), but this might be what BK had decided he would say if questioned about his proximity to the house. That he was at Walmart “the shopping is better”, after all. In other words, he already thought through what he would say if questioned in certain situations. Like, for example, maybe he envisioned getting stopped and questioned while driving around Moscow or Pullman and that’s the answer he would have ready to go. What he didn’t anticipate is what he would say if he was pulled out of his house by a special response team in the middle of the night. So he tried his explanation anyway. And it sounded quite different in that context… flippant and incriminating… IMO MOO

 

[jepop]

Kootenai County has a small Public Defender’s Office, located in a small state with a tiny group of death qualified attorneys. I am not surprised by this development. It's not necessarily a major problem, and it appears that Taylor has already addressed it - she withdrew from the parent's case before taking on BK. In both cases, disclosure and the client's informed consent would be required. Taylor's withdrawal from the parent's cases would have had to be approved by the judge handling those cases as well.

The Idaho Rules of Professional Responsibility allow clients to waive conflicts in many circumstances, so long as there is no risk that the attorney's representation of the client would not be impaired by her obligations to the former client. See, Rule 1.7 and comments.

In this high profile case, I am sure Taylor consulted the State Public Defender and independent ethics counsel, and was very confident that this course of action was sound.

All that said, in a media firestorm running on very little factual fuel, maybe this will seem larger than it should be.

BBM: Thank you for the more detailed and informed opinion on what the COI process would have been. As long as any potential COI has been properly addressed, which would mean neither BK's defense or the prosecution would be impaired, for eg AT is not defending BK whilst also giving info or receiving info about the prosecution owing to her earlier rep of a parent, I don't see the issue.
MOO

I wondered earlier whether there is any public perception factor that might be adddressed under Idaho law?

 

[Colorado303]

Attorneys in Idaho are governed by a specific conflict of interest rule (IIRC Rule 1.8) that prohibits business relationships with clients except under limited circumstances. It doesn't apply to representing a client in litigation, and estate agents do not have a rule comparable to IIRC Rule 1.7, which does apply to AT.

I appreciate your high personal standard of ethics as estate agent (and @Colorado303's). Your analysis of dual agency is spot on, but it does not apply to AT's situation as the only capital offense-qualified attorney in northern Idaho, serving in the decidedly non-remunerative position of deputy public defender. MOO, of course.

You’re right. The fact that AT is the only qualified capital case defense attorney is an important distinction. I can see where the law and AT might conclude she has an obligation to defend BK because no one else locally can. I say if it were me I wouldn’t have taken his case but given that, I’m not really sure what I’d do.

Makes me wonder though: What would happen if more than one person winds up beimg charged w/this crime and both face the death penalty? Like what’s happening now on the other end of the State w/Lori and Chad Daybell?

I’m inclined to think that BK acted alone but if he didn’t it seems the State would need to drum up a second DP qualified attorney, even if none are available locally. Each defendant would need their own attorney if for no other reason than to be able to point fingers at each other.