I think is likely the box is unchecked because he was told to not check it. The question likely wasn't asked. He wasn't being asked to enter a plea or really do anything affirmative. He already had a PD there so likewise some of those boxes are skipped.
Maybe, but the defense could argue that criminal profiling is just junk science.
Can we get some links on all this? I'm not sure why there is any real need for a criminal profiler here. JMO
Right. Same as lie detection results not being admissible in court.
They can argue that the moon is made of cheese but the prosecutors can rebut the argument.
crimereads.com
Or if the judge allowed it, then the defense would probably present their own profiler with an alternate view.
I know that attorneys can come in from other areas and ask to be certified to practice in a particular state, but I don't know exactly how that process works. It would also be interesting to know how many attorneys (rather than just public defenders) are DP qualified in Idaho.
In regard to the coercion question, I think it could be skipped because it just isn't relevant to the proceeding that was happening. I am just speculating here of course. And the skipped attorney questions were likewise not applicable to situation. He could have checked "no" but either he decided or his attorney told him to just skip them. I don't think its a big deal anyway.
The discussion was about how jurors want an identified motive. If BK's "motive" is simply to kill, a forensic psychologist could explain that to a jury.
Maybe I just don't understand the use of the term "criminal profiler" here. But isn't profiling used during the investigation? I don't see how it would be used during the trial to convince a jury of BK's guilt by explaining his mental processes. How could a profiler do that if the profiler hadn't talked to BK? (And why would BK talk to him/her?) I'm pretty sure there won't be testimony saying "BK fits the profile of the criminal who committed these murders because he's x, y, z...' (I think that would be propensity evidence but I'm not an attorney.)
I don't think a court would allow a profiler to provide testimony regarding motive. That would be very speculative.
AT entered a provisional appearance when the case was filed, because the PD has an obligation to protect his interests but he was in PA and she did not have a chance to discuss representation - including but not limited to her qualifications and potential conflicts. That's not something you do over the phone. The day he arrived in ID it appears that she had that conversation, and it appears that he accepted her as her counsel because she stayed on the case and appeared in court with him. Does transparency require that we know what was said in those conversations? Do we need to see his decision in writing? I don't. And I'm sorry, but attorney client privilege still trumps even public cynicism. BK is entitled to confidentiality.
Yep. The evidence so far was simply for the PCA, there is FAR FAR more we don't know yet so they won't be trying the case with only the PCA evidence. IMO
Exactly! People keep saying he was stalking one of more of the victims, so he had motive to kill them and that's what I'm arguing here. If the PCA is the source of truth, then we (the public) know nothing about supposed stalking and his motive, unless we are basing that on a few recent stories the media has come out with.Yep. The evidence so far was simply for the PCA, there is FAR FAR more we don't know yet so they won't be trying the case with only the PCA evidence. IMO
The Idaho judge declared him indigent at his first appearance and assigned him a public defender.
