Current Slasher Murders of Four University of Idaho Students - US *Bryan Kohberger Arrested

[Kurve]

Here's the probable cause docs.

 

[Sir_Loin]

No photos there?
Or you talking about somewhere else?

Somewhere else. Can’t recall where but it was an external shot of one of the rooms.

 

[Kurve]

The defence has filed for a change of venue, out of the state of Idaho. So the trial is a way off.

 

[Munich]

Did anybody watch the hearing last week re: The survey done by the defence?

It was probably the most heated hearing thus far.

AT accused JJJ of violating due process and he was pissed.

A few legal experts think she's trying to cause a change of venue via this survey. Interestingly Andrea Burkhart saw no issue with the survey.

 

[owen87]

Did anybody watch the hearing last week re: The survey done by the defence?

It was probably the most heated hearing thus far.

AT accused JJJ of violating due process and he was pissed.

A few legal experts think she's trying to cause a change of venue via this survey. Interestingly Andrea Burkhart saw no issue with the survey.

Article about it - didn't realise this had occurred.

Bryan Kohberger’s attorneys scolded for contacting potential jurors ahead of trial

Kohberger’s attorney claimed phone surveys were vital part of efforts to seek a change of venue for the high-profile trial

www.independent.co.uk

Seems real sketchy, almost like they're trying to taint the jury pool to get it moved.

“Your honour … those questions are disseminating, by means of communication, evidence expected to be presented (and) evidence that could be or would be inadmissible at trial,” Mr Thompson told the judge.

He added that some of the questions contain “representations of fact that are not true or that would not be offered at trial.”

“That’s completely reckless,” he shouted. “We have a group of at least 400 people in Latah County who have been exposed to this in violation of the non-dissemination order.”

Mr Thompson was made aware of the phone surveys when a local resident contacted his office with some of the questions they received.

One asked: “Have you read, seen or heard that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?”

Another asked: “Have you read, seen or heard if police found a knife sheath on the bed next to one of the victims?”

It was followed up with: “Have you read, seen or heard that DNA found on the knife sheath was later matched to Bryan Kohberger?”

Next hearing date:

The judge did not make a ruling but set the next court date for Wednesday 10 April.

The judge said he also wants a “hearing at least every month,” noting the importance of “cleaning up” the legal proceedings.

 

[Munich]

Article about it - didn't realise this had occurred.

Bryan Kohberger’s attorneys scolded for contacting potential jurors ahead of trial

Kohberger’s attorney claimed phone surveys were vital part of efforts to seek a change of venue for the high-profile trial

www.independent.co.uk

Seems real sketchy, almost like they're trying to taint the jury pool to get it moved.



Next hearing date:

The survey is above board - they are sometimes done in high profile cases.

JJJ just had an issue with the defence doing it without his permission/forewarning. And in a brief AT accused him of violating due process which he was notttttttt happy about.

At one point JJJ said he'd be happy to do a weekly hearing from now on!

 

[TheDudeAbides]

The survey is above board - they are sometimes done in high profile cases.

JJJ just had an issue with the defence doing it without his permission/forewarning. And in a brief AT accused him of violating due process which he was notttttttt happy about.

At one point JJJ said he'd be happy to do a weekly hearing from now on!

Normally the survey is above board.

I think the prosecution (and Judge) were miffed on 2 further points to yours.

• The fact that questions were so direct containing evidence that may or may not have officially released to public
• The fact that they have worked so hard to protect the fairness of the trial with stacks and stacks of non-publication orders, only for the defence to do this.

The prosecution was saying (without saying it) that the defence has tainted the potential jury pool now with 400 people contacted in this survey out of the 40,000 county residents.

The defence put their arms up and said they werent aware of the questions being asked, they engaged this expert to do it and he went off on his own to carry it out. The defence said it needed to survey in order to put forward an argument to move the trial to another county for a fair trial.

Very interesting argument on a very interesting tactic of the defence...

 

[Munich]

Normally the survey is above board.

I think the prosecution (and Judge) were miffed on 2 further points to yours.

• The fact that questions were so direct containing evidence that may or may not have officially released to public
• The fact that they have worked so hard to protect the fairness of the trial with stacks and stacks of non-publication orders, only for the defence to do this.

The prosecution was saying (without saying it) that the defence has tainted the potential jury pool now with 400 people contacted in this survey out of the 40,000 county residents.

The defence put their arms up and said they werent aware of the questions being asked, they engaged this expert to do it and he went off on his own to carry it out. The defence said it needed to survey in order to put forward an argument to move the trial to another county for a fair trial.

Very interesting argument on a very interesting tactic of the defence...

Yes, though JJJ never mentioned the content of the questions when he was discussing his annoyance. Only that he wasn't informed or included in the process.

Everything that was mentioned in the questions is already in the public domain - most of it contained in the PCA but the bit about stalking was actually from a News source and unverified, so that's why it was included in the questions. If it was already out there I agree with Andrea Burkhart, what's the issue?

Interestingly (or not) as I posted Burkhart saw no issue with the questions (she's a defence lawyer) whilst Emily D Baker thought they were too much (she was a prosecutor).

 

[Munich]

Hearing on now with expert who designed the survey.

 

[Munich]

Thompson admitted today that BK did not stalk the victims.

He was not a happy camper! I thought the expert was really good.

+1 for the defence.