Cool Cats
I DEMAND COFFEE
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 11,715
- Reaction score
- 88,931
I used other university's libraries when I was in college and grad school. Not every library system has access to the same databases. For a seminar paper I had to do for my undergraduate history degree, I spent all day at another college's library using their databases that were unavailable to me at my college and were not accessible without a library.
I actually still use a friend's library card for another state to access databases the library I work for doesn't have subscriptions for and have emailed friends still in academia for them to take pity on me and download an article for me. I also still maintain alumni status at a university I graduated from for the sole reason that their library system has access to stuff my public library doesn't.
Research material isn't necessarily easily googled, so it's really not accurate to say it's all just online and could be accessed from anywhere. MOO
I suspect if BK was prowling around the Idaho campus, he had ill intent. But I wouldn't rule out that he had a legitimate purpose in being there, particularly the library.
WSU has a lot of criminal justice resources, incredible amount actually, but I guess it is possible that BK needed to access information at a different University's library.
But regardless of what he was doing there, it becomes the situation of - you can't exclude him.
If several witnesses saw him there it links him closer to the victims and shows possible stalking. It places him right in Moscow, not far from the victims' home and smack dab in the middle of the University his victims attended.
<modsnip - quoted post was snipped>
If DM is suddenly much more sure that BK was the intruder (as opposed to merely stating he has traits that are similar to those of the intruder), then I expect the defense to make much of how her memory became "enhanced".
Your choice of words ("address any discrepancies") sounds more benign than the process may be if her testimony changes drastically. Just because discrepancies are addressed doesn't mean the jury ends up with full faith in the witness. There's a reason they say a witness "has to be rehabilitated on cross".
But this is all speculation right now. We don't know that DM's testimony will change. We don't even know all of what she told LE, weeks before BK was named a suspect. I, for one, see no reason to be alarmed at this point.
I dont believe "her memory will become enhanced" or she will need to be "rehabilitated on cross."
If you watch trials you will see all the time how prosecutors keep witnesses on point with their testimony. The prosecution will even tell important witnesses what questions they will be asking them on the stand to get them comfortable ahead of time.
Often the prosecution or defense will give a witness a copy of their statements for them to refer back to if they are not remembering or there is a discrepancy. Like the witness says the time was noon but their written statement says 1:00pm.
It is also common for the prosecution to just remind the witness of their previous statement without even having to give them a written copy.
"You told police you saw such and such"
"In your statement you said such and such occurred."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yes, I remember, it was such and such I saw"
"Yes, it was closer to 1:00pm not noon"
Last edited by a moderator: