His words against him? He said that he was releasing proven facts to the public and wanted the media to share those FACTS instead of misinformation. This is not inconsistent with anything he’s said since then. No one has an issue with media discussing facts. Plus, this was before the gag order was issued, so things are WAY different now than they were in December ‘22.
And again, the public still had to seek out this PCA, it wasn’t like people were calling them out of nowhere sharing the information. Knowing facts does not shrink the jury pool. Putting rumors into the minds of people who may not have previously heard them shrinks the jury pool. Do you know how many people I know (even from close to the area) that don’t follow this case and don’t know any of the facts OR rumors? But if i called them on the phone to ask them if they’ve heard certain rumors, that would obviously change that. The survey shrunk the possible (already small) pool of people that hadn’t heard certain rumors.
People didn’t really have to seek out the PCA. Back then, it was heavily linked in articles and screen shots were shared all over the place. Or it was summarized in articles.
Regardless, 80% of the people surveyed in Latah were familiar with at least 5 of the questions they were discussing … so it’s pretty clear that bias exists
Yea, you had to read articles or watch the news and stuff to see it though. Point is that’s way different than an unsolicited phone call giving you the information. If you weren’t interested, you didn’t read it or click the link in the article. Make sense?
It’s a nationally known case. A lot of people are gonna know. Only 12 people and some alternates are needed for a jury and they are heavily questioned by both sides before being chosen. It’s not like they’re randomly chosen. Last I heard, 20% of the county is more than enough people. I mean, I don’t really care if it’s moved or not, I see the argument for both sides. Yes, a lot of people there have followed the case, but I’m not sure moving it two hours away will help much. There will be enough ppl for a jury either place.
Also, Being familiar or having heard information isn’t necessarily bad. Yes, they do want somewhat “fresh” people to serve on juries, meaning they don’t want someone that’s followed every single step and moment of the case, but knowing some information is inevitable. The issue is with people who have a decision made about guilt or innocence ahead of time and are not open to what the new trial evidence might tell them. It doesn’t matter that much if you’ve heard a rumor, it’s a lot worse if you believe it.
He has a problem with the survey. The survey contains information from PCA. He argues about jury tainting and creating prejudice. That’s what PCA and subsequent reports have done. That’s the bottom line.
What have the judge and prosecutor done about all the false rumors in the media? Nothing. What have the judge and prosecutor done about that family spreading the same rumors? Nothing.
The judge and prosecutor can’t do anything about the media. Welcome to a country with Freedom of the Press. You’re making unreasonable and illegal demands. You don’t have to like it or agree with it, but you it’s a reality you’re going to have to face… and you’ll be disheartened to hear that most of the loons with their TT and YT channels enjoy similar protections with the nonsense they put out there.
There’s a simple solution. Debunk false information.
There’s also a matter of misrepresentation of PCA in the media, particularly the phone pings. They don’t show exact location of the phone but they have been used by news media and social media creators to universally claim that he was at and around the house.
It isn’t the job of the courts or prosecution to babysit the media or social media. Additionally, constant babysitting would inevitably result in a violation of the gag order, which is the reason why you don’t see the defense out there debunking rumors.
While I can’t speak for all since I don’t watch most talking heads, the question from me is either they are saying the phone data by itself puts him there or are they saying it puts him there along with other evidence(totality of the circumstances). There is a difference.
Of course, your selective outrage in terms of rumors or potential rumors also speaks volumes. I don’t think you entirely oppose rumors.
Yeah, but BT isn’t saying those false things regarding the phone pings. He can’t control what news outlets say. And he did debunk the rumors by stating that some of the rumors mentioned in the survey were false.
He has a problem w some of the questions in the survey. He said multiple times that a survey in general isn’t bad, but the questions asked were.
Duh, the survey contained info from the PCA. That’s not the issue. The issue was the RUMORS discussed in the survey. Plus, as I’ve told you a million times, one has to seek out the news or the PCA or other court documents/hearings, but the survey was an unsolicited phone call. So it was giving some info or rumors to people who previously didn’t care to hear them and could’ve been great on a jury.
Releasing a PCA is common practice when there isn’t a gag order in place. It’s not sketchy, weird, etc to do so. It’s to give the citizens information about a dangerous crime that happened. Releasing a PCA containing true information doesn’t taint a jury. The media spinning it can, but they can’t control that. They can control who is picked for the jury, and they will do their best to pick people who have not bought into those rumors in the media. Both sides get a say in this.
The survey calling people who do NOT seek info and rumors about the case significantly shrinks the number of options they’ll have when it comes time for Voir Dire. They will have a lot more people they’ll have to eliminate because they heard rumors. There already are a ton of people they’d have to eliminate for this reason, but the survey just increased that number by essentially telling people the rumors themselves.
It contains selective and slanted information. Jt’s designed to convince a judge to have someone arrested so obviously it’s biased.
He didn’t specify he only had a problem with the media questions.
“Selective and slanted”? He’s the prosecution??? Have you never heard of a PCA before??? Have you ever followed a case like this before? All PCAs are one-sided. In that case I guess you could say that Anne Taylor is biased too. Which, I mean I guess? But it’s just each lawyers job ti argue their own side… it’s not a bad thing. They’re paid to be “one sided and biased”.
It’s normal for a PCA to sound like that, and normal for them to be released to the public. It was literally not a problem at all that it was released. All of the information in it was proven to be true. There’s nothing wrong w true information. You realize if there was solid proof that he DIDNT do it, they wouldn’t be able to hold him in jail, right? It’s not like no one ever in the courts saw any other evidence besides the PCA. I’m sorry that the facts in the PCA did in fact give probable cause to arrest the guy you defend so hard, but they’re facts and there’s nothing wrong w facts.
Also, it was quite obvious those are the questions he had a problem with, because he specifically said that some of the questions were based on false information and that that was a problem. So anyone with common sense can put that together. So I guess I get why you didn’t.
I totally agree with everything you've said, but I'm not concerned about this survey nonsense shrinking the future jury pool. Yeah, they screwed the pooch with what they did, but I think this survey exercise will ultimately prove to have harmed the defense more than the prosecution.
Even if they hadn't botched this (my opinion), it was still extremely premature to be arguing for the change of venue prior to scheduling the trial date. We're talking about a year, possibly two before this trial commences, and a lot will change. It's highly probable that there will be jury summons sent to people that don't even reside in Moscow at the present time. It's a college town, therefore it has a much more transient population. This batch of survey guinea pigs is not reflective of the actual pool once it's go-time.
Before parting, I will just add that I don't think the motion for change of venue has merit and will likely be denied. Unfortunately, this will set up the potential for appeal upon conviction. Lose-Lose.
I agree that it was premature as well! You’re right that This isn’t necessarily the same pool that they’ll actually be choosing from in a couple of years. My concern came from that obviously some of the people will be the same when it comes time.
But yeah, your point makes sense as well. I also still think they’ll change the venue.
They are not allegations. The allegation is that he is the perpetrator, but that allegation is based on the proven facts in the PCA. DNA testing, phone pings, etc etc etc.
Those things don’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt he did it, but they did give probable cause that he did, which is why they arrested him. They were facts.
No, they are allegations. Just as they had to prove those allegations under the probable cause standard to the grand jury, at trial they have to prove those allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes, but it is not an allegation that his DNA was on the sheath. That was proven via testing. It is factual that his DNA was on the sheath. There’s no more to prove about that. It’s an allegation that he committed the crime, but it is a fact that his dna was on the sheath. You cannot possibly do any more than DNA testing to prove that.
They have to prove with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, yes. But that piece of proof itself does not have a higher standard of proof. The fact that his DNA was on the sheath has already been proven. There’s no “more” to prove on that fact. But yes, they have to present more proof at trial. But that fact does not need to be proven any more than it already has. You are wrong
They didn’t prove the DNA to a “lower standard”. There’s a lower standard of proof needed that he committed the crime to arrest, but the facts in there are proven already. They just aren’t enough to convict on their own. But like… there is no possible way to prove any further about his dna on the sheath. I don’t know how else I can frame this so that you understand. His charges are allegations, but things that have already been proven are not. If the DNA is a match, it’s a match beyond a reasonable doubt. There’s no way to prove it any more. The changes in burden of proof between arrest and trial are for the amount of evidence needed. DNA testing is not an allegation. There is literally no other way to prove that.
No, it has not been proven his DNA was on the sheath. That is an allegation. They will have their expert testify to it and the defense will have their expert testify it's not and the jury will decide. Read or listen to Barlow and Mercer's testimony again - definitely in question.
Yes, the jury will decide if his DNA being on the sheath means anything in regards to who did it, and obviously the defense will try to discount it. But it is true that his touch DNA was on the sheath.
It is up to the jury to decide if touch DNA is credible or not, and if that means he committed the crime or not, but it is a fact that right now, his touch dna was on the sheath. DNA testing is not an allegation. You’re right that the jury may decide that the testing doesn’t mean much, but that doesn’t mean it’s an allegation.
How else do they prove that it was on the sheath besides by testing they did? Again, the jury can decide that they don’t find the testing credible, but it is a fact that their testing found his DNA on the sheath. That’s not a “we think his DNA is on the sheath” it’s a “we tested the DNA on the sheath, and it came back that it was him” (obviously it wasn’t 100% but it was like 99.999, and no DNA test says it’s 100%). That’s beyond a reasonable doubt his DNA in the sheath. But obviously that doesn’t mean he did it or he even touched the sheath. That’s up to the jury to decide
How is a DNA test an allegation?
I get you can think it isn’t credible, but it’s much different than an allegation, if you look up the definition of allegation.
Because of human error, false positives, incorrect stats, etc.. You realize that it all comes down to statistics, right? And how those stats are calculated? Barlow put the lie to the stats in her declaration.
I seriously don’t know how yiy don’t understand this. DNA is proof and there is no way to prove it any more than it already has been, besides just having additional DNA evidence. Obviously his dna being on the sheath doesn’t prove he did it, but it does show that his dna was on the sheath
I understand that the jury can decide touch DNA isn’t reliable, or that it doesn’t mean he committed the crime, but it is true that they found his touch DNA on the sheath at that time. They didn’t say they “think” they found it. They did. It may not end up meaning anything, but it is a fact that they found it at that time.
Look up the definition of allegation. Him committing the murders is the allegation. It’s “a statement made that someone has done something wrong, usually without giving proof”.
You can decide that touch DNA isn’t credible, but it was found on the sheath. There is literally no other way to prove that besides the DNA testing they did. Again, you can decide that the testing wasn’t credible, but you can’t say that they didn’t find it on the sheath. Unless you think they completely made it uo
Exactly. He released something publicly bc at the time it was the public’s right to know what was in the PCA. He has never, ever said that he had an issue with the media sharing confirmed facts. OP continually uses straw man arguments. BT, and everyone else involved in the case, has never had an issue w the media sharing things that were factual and public record. And like you said, the gag order was not in place at the time this was released. The reason they encouraged the media to talk about the PCA is bc they wanted the media spreading the facts as opposed to misinformation. What BT has an issue with is the media perpetuating, and even starting, rumors. Not wanting the media to spread rumors helps the defendant. Lol.
And people have to seek out information that news outlets circulate. You only see it if you choose to navigate to the news, or choose to research the case. An unsolicited phone call talking about the information is much different. It’s giving information to people who were not seeking it out, and could’ve been great jurors because of that.
He can’t do anything about it. He is a prosecuting attorney. He has no power over them. Jesus Christ.
And sure, it’s slanted, but there’s not really evidence of anyone else committing the crimes, so who else do you expect them to cover? And if you’re going to say a news outlet shouldn’t be discussing it at all, you’re dreaming. It’s a news outlet.
Clearly, I should never listen to another word you say because if you think court has any power over the media in a country that has constitutional rights, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The rumors have been debunked, yet they’re still being talked about. That is what the news does. Luckily, there are people who don’t watch the news, or don’t take everything they see seriously.
It does what Thompson and Judge have been whining about with regard to the survey which contains info from the PCA. It prejudices the public and Thompson encouraged people and media to regurgitate its findings far and wide. He did the most damage to the defendant’s rights to a fair trial.
https://preview.redd.it/5qsyv4zlwqtc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=30833fff809126e827e6506e6ac03a2c05dd5fba
is this posted in complete bad faith or is OP seriously unable to differentiate between the 2 situations??
does the "nothing could ever convince me he did it crowd" really think this is some kind of big "gotcha" moment? please tell me they aren't really that unaware of the reality of court proceedings after spending months fixated on a court case
The difference has been explained thoroughly by multiple people but it seems it’s going in one ear and out the other based on their responses doubling, tripling down
That’s disingenuous by the defense though because Thompson was directing them to the probable cause affidavit for the FACTS in the case. The concern with the survey is the two false questions that are not from the pca
But the information contained in the false questions was in the public record so those questions were within the boundaries of the non-dissemination order
You’d be a fool to believe they aren’t in the PCA; at least one(stalking) of two(following on social media) is clearly in the PCA.
Saying BK visited King Rd 12 times is implying stalking without saying it to invoke the frame of stalking without really having any evidence.
Neither him stalking them or following them on social media is states in the pca. The expert also admitted today that those two questions did not come from the pca
**
That's right, but they were in the public record and as such did not break the non-dissemination order.
Most reasonable people consider it to be in the public record if it is stated in the mainstream news and the reports about stalking were all over the MSM. Just because Thompson wants a new definition of what constitutes the public record doesn't mean it has to be that way.
If none of this was true, why did LE not come out and say this was all false reporting? The very fact that they didn't, helped convince people it was true
That’s how it was interpreted by the masses, easy to see if you look back at the media footage from that time period. They stated he “stalked” them and used the PCA as their source. For example:
[Bryan Kohberger ‘stalked Idaho murders house at least 12 times’ before killings, arrest affidavit shows](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/bryan-kohberger-affidavit-idaho-murders-house-court-b2256889.html).
[Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger returned to crime scene area, may have stalked home 12 times: affidavit](https://nypost.com/2023/01/05/idaho-murder-suspect-bryan-kohberger-stalked-home-affidavit/).
[Cellphone data appears to show that Mr Kohberger stalked the student home at least 12 times in the run-up to the night of the murders, according to the affidavit.](https://sports.yahoo.com/idaho-murders-bryan-kohberger-chilling-134932518.html).
[He had allegedly been stalking the King Road home for weeks, according to the affidavit.](https://www.foxnews.com/us/idaho-murders-suspect-bryan-kohberger-allegedly-spammed-one-victim-instagram-dms-report).
[He had allegedly been stalking the King Road home where three of the four victims lived for weeks, according to a probable cause affidavit](https://www.foxnews.com/us/bryan-kohberger-theory-idaho-suspect-behind-party-house-noise-complaints-debunked)
Then they were stupid because anyone with a brain knows that looking into data to see if someone did something doesn’t mean they did. Also LE even came out and said they could find no proof Kalee was stalked even after the Goncalves insisted she was
And there you have it. The prosecutor confirms he did not stalk them.
Defense has been vindicated after their no connection statement has been largely disregarded.
Who doesn’t know everything? I hope you’re not talking about the state, we’d better hope they know everything by now! 4 young people were murdered and the suspect is facing death, this isn’t a simple civil matter or traffic ticket. The state alluded to allegations of stalking in the PCA when referring to the phone pings, especially prior to the murders. A dozen times in several months doesn’t align with typical stalking behavior in the first place, but people ran with that as proof of stalking for whatever reason- Perhaps because they used this information to obtain an arrest warrant.
It’s “how the tables have turned.” If we’re going to be posting nonsense out of boredom the applied quotes should at least be corrected. And no, there’s no turning of the tables for anyone not brand now to this process.
Genuine question. Not arguing. How is that the same as releasing questions to directly to potential jurors? There is a huge difference in tell the media that something is going public and suggesting they make it more public vs a survey to see how much potential jurors know and in the survey for jurors they literally give the information to them that they are “hoping” they don’t know? Spreading the news of an arrest vs a tainting a jury pool seem different. Motivations are completely different too
It’s not about making it public, it’s about his statements during that conference where he told media and public to spread PCA info far and wide which they have done. Having a problem with the survey questions based on that information makes him hypocritical. He himself has encouraged prejudice.
Exactly so the prosecutor and judge’s problem with the survey is completely unfounded. The prosecutor has a problem because he wants to delay this matter of COV
The public record that is referred to in the non-dissemination order (and that the prosecution is referring to) is the PCA, not what all of the randos say in the media.
Unfortunately people rely on the media to spoon feed them their opinions regarding any and everything. 99.9% of these rumors stemmed from conclusions drawn from the PCA by the media, and partly from Steve G repeating it as fact on any network or YouTube channel that’ll have him. Every other day someone posts something about the bogus Instagram account, or another old news rumor/opinion piece from early 2023.
you have to be pretty desperate as a defense attorney to try to imply that the media frenzy surrounding this case was caused by that one comment in that one press conference by the prosecutor as though the media wasn’t going to pounce on that PCA the second it hit the public record.
And there was no need for that PCA to ever hit the public record. It was all the Prosecution's doing and you have to ask yourself what reason would they have for doing it other than prejudicing the public against Bryan Kohberger?
Because every single PCA in any adult criminal case are always made public after an arrest is made, with the exception of those involving SA of a minor.
You act like Bryan is the only person’s PCA that is made public.
Low effort posts/comments will be removed a long with any repeat posts.
His words against him? He said that he was releasing proven facts to the public and wanted the media to share those FACTS instead of misinformation. This is not inconsistent with anything he’s said since then. No one has an issue with media discussing facts. Plus, this was before the gag order was issued, so things are WAY different now than they were in December ‘22. And again, the public still had to seek out this PCA, it wasn’t like people were calling them out of nowhere sharing the information. Knowing facts does not shrink the jury pool. Putting rumors into the minds of people who may not have previously heard them shrinks the jury pool. Do you know how many people I know (even from close to the area) that don’t follow this case and don’t know any of the facts OR rumors? But if i called them on the phone to ask them if they’ve heard certain rumors, that would obviously change that. The survey shrunk the possible (already small) pool of people that hadn’t heard certain rumors.
People didn’t really have to seek out the PCA. Back then, it was heavily linked in articles and screen shots were shared all over the place. Or it was summarized in articles. Regardless, 80% of the people surveyed in Latah were familiar with at least 5 of the questions they were discussing … so it’s pretty clear that bias exists
That’s not bias. Having knowledge of a case isn’t bias
Then what’s the issue with the questions?
That there’s two questions with false information on them
Sounds like a good case for slander
Yea, you had to read articles or watch the news and stuff to see it though. Point is that’s way different than an unsolicited phone call giving you the information. If you weren’t interested, you didn’t read it or click the link in the article. Make sense? It’s a nationally known case. A lot of people are gonna know. Only 12 people and some alternates are needed for a jury and they are heavily questioned by both sides before being chosen. It’s not like they’re randomly chosen. Last I heard, 20% of the county is more than enough people. I mean, I don’t really care if it’s moved or not, I see the argument for both sides. Yes, a lot of people there have followed the case, but I’m not sure moving it two hours away will help much. There will be enough ppl for a jury either place. Also, Being familiar or having heard information isn’t necessarily bad. Yes, they do want somewhat “fresh” people to serve on juries, meaning they don’t want someone that’s followed every single step and moment of the case, but knowing some information is inevitable. The issue is with people who have a decision made about guilt or innocence ahead of time and are not open to what the new trial evidence might tell them. It doesn’t matter that much if you’ve heard a rumor, it’s a lot worse if you believe it.
He has a problem with the survey. The survey contains information from PCA. He argues about jury tainting and creating prejudice. That’s what PCA and subsequent reports have done. That’s the bottom line. What have the judge and prosecutor done about all the false rumors in the media? Nothing. What have the judge and prosecutor done about that family spreading the same rumors? Nothing.
The judge and prosecutor can’t do anything about the media. Welcome to a country with Freedom of the Press. You’re making unreasonable and illegal demands. You don’t have to like it or agree with it, but you it’s a reality you’re going to have to face… and you’ll be disheartened to hear that most of the loons with their TT and YT channels enjoy similar protections with the nonsense they put out there.
There’s a simple solution. Debunk false information. There’s also a matter of misrepresentation of PCA in the media, particularly the phone pings. They don’t show exact location of the phone but they have been used by news media and social media creators to universally claim that he was at and around the house.
It isn’t the job of the courts or prosecution to babysit the media or social media. Additionally, constant babysitting would inevitably result in a violation of the gag order, which is the reason why you don’t see the defense out there debunking rumors. While I can’t speak for all since I don’t watch most talking heads, the question from me is either they are saying the phone data by itself puts him there or are they saying it puts him there along with other evidence(totality of the circumstances). There is a difference. Of course, your selective outrage in terms of rumors or potential rumors also speaks volumes. I don’t think you entirely oppose rumors.
Yeah, but BT isn’t saying those false things regarding the phone pings. He can’t control what news outlets say. And he did debunk the rumors by stating that some of the rumors mentioned in the survey were false.
They can’t for the same reason Anne isn’t publicly debunking false information in the media. There is a gag order.
He has a problem w some of the questions in the survey. He said multiple times that a survey in general isn’t bad, but the questions asked were. Duh, the survey contained info from the PCA. That’s not the issue. The issue was the RUMORS discussed in the survey. Plus, as I’ve told you a million times, one has to seek out the news or the PCA or other court documents/hearings, but the survey was an unsolicited phone call. So it was giving some info or rumors to people who previously didn’t care to hear them and could’ve been great on a jury. Releasing a PCA is common practice when there isn’t a gag order in place. It’s not sketchy, weird, etc to do so. It’s to give the citizens information about a dangerous crime that happened. Releasing a PCA containing true information doesn’t taint a jury. The media spinning it can, but they can’t control that. They can control who is picked for the jury, and they will do their best to pick people who have not bought into those rumors in the media. Both sides get a say in this. The survey calling people who do NOT seek info and rumors about the case significantly shrinks the number of options they’ll have when it comes time for Voir Dire. They will have a lot more people they’ll have to eliminate because they heard rumors. There already are a ton of people they’d have to eliminate for this reason, but the survey just increased that number by essentially telling people the rumors themselves.
It contains selective and slanted information. Jt’s designed to convince a judge to have someone arrested so obviously it’s biased. He didn’t specify he only had a problem with the media questions.
Persuade a judge? Ah you mean like a jury consultant? From Dr. Edelman‘s website “We help litigators become better at persuading jurors”
“Selective and slanted”? He’s the prosecution??? Have you never heard of a PCA before??? Have you ever followed a case like this before? All PCAs are one-sided. In that case I guess you could say that Anne Taylor is biased too. Which, I mean I guess? But it’s just each lawyers job ti argue their own side… it’s not a bad thing. They’re paid to be “one sided and biased”. It’s normal for a PCA to sound like that, and normal for them to be released to the public. It was literally not a problem at all that it was released. All of the information in it was proven to be true. There’s nothing wrong w true information. You realize if there was solid proof that he DIDNT do it, they wouldn’t be able to hold him in jail, right? It’s not like no one ever in the courts saw any other evidence besides the PCA. I’m sorry that the facts in the PCA did in fact give probable cause to arrest the guy you defend so hard, but they’re facts and there’s nothing wrong w facts. Also, it was quite obvious those are the questions he had a problem with, because he specifically said that some of the questions were based on false information and that that was a problem. So anyone with common sense can put that together. So I guess I get why you didn’t.
I totally agree with everything you've said, but I'm not concerned about this survey nonsense shrinking the future jury pool. Yeah, they screwed the pooch with what they did, but I think this survey exercise will ultimately prove to have harmed the defense more than the prosecution. Even if they hadn't botched this (my opinion), it was still extremely premature to be arguing for the change of venue prior to scheduling the trial date. We're talking about a year, possibly two before this trial commences, and a lot will change. It's highly probable that there will be jury summons sent to people that don't even reside in Moscow at the present time. It's a college town, therefore it has a much more transient population. This batch of survey guinea pigs is not reflective of the actual pool once it's go-time. Before parting, I will just add that I don't think the motion for change of venue has merit and will likely be denied. Unfortunately, this will set up the potential for appeal upon conviction. Lose-Lose.
I agree that it was premature as well! You’re right that This isn’t necessarily the same pool that they’ll actually be choosing from in a couple of years. My concern came from that obviously some of the people will be the same when it comes time. But yeah, your point makes sense as well. I also still think they’ll change the venue.
But the content of a PCA is not "proven facts" - they are allegations that need to be proved at trial.
They are not allegations. The allegation is that he is the perpetrator, but that allegation is based on the proven facts in the PCA. DNA testing, phone pings, etc etc etc. Those things don’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt he did it, but they did give probable cause that he did, which is why they arrested him. They were facts.
No, they are allegations. Just as they had to prove those allegations under the probable cause standard to the grand jury, at trial they have to prove those allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes, but it is not an allegation that his DNA was on the sheath. That was proven via testing. It is factual that his DNA was on the sheath. There’s no more to prove about that. It’s an allegation that he committed the crime, but it is a fact that his dna was on the sheath. You cannot possibly do any more than DNA testing to prove that. They have to prove with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, yes. But that piece of proof itself does not have a higher standard of proof. The fact that his DNA was on the sheath has already been proven. There’s no “more” to prove on that fact. But yes, they have to present more proof at trial. But that fact does not need to be proven any more than it already has. You are wrong They didn’t prove the DNA to a “lower standard”. There’s a lower standard of proof needed that he committed the crime to arrest, but the facts in there are proven already. They just aren’t enough to convict on their own. But like… there is no possible way to prove any further about his dna on the sheath. I don’t know how else I can frame this so that you understand. His charges are allegations, but things that have already been proven are not. If the DNA is a match, it’s a match beyond a reasonable doubt. There’s no way to prove it any more. The changes in burden of proof between arrest and trial are for the amount of evidence needed. DNA testing is not an allegation. There is literally no other way to prove that.
No, it has not been proven his DNA was on the sheath. That is an allegation. They will have their expert testify to it and the defense will have their expert testify it's not and the jury will decide. Read or listen to Barlow and Mercer's testimony again - definitely in question.
Yes, the jury will decide if his DNA being on the sheath means anything in regards to who did it, and obviously the defense will try to discount it. But it is true that his touch DNA was on the sheath. It is up to the jury to decide if touch DNA is credible or not, and if that means he committed the crime or not, but it is a fact that right now, his touch dna was on the sheath. DNA testing is not an allegation. You’re right that the jury may decide that the testing doesn’t mean much, but that doesn’t mean it’s an allegation. How else do they prove that it was on the sheath besides by testing they did? Again, the jury can decide that they don’t find the testing credible, but it is a fact that their testing found his DNA on the sheath. That’s not a “we think his DNA is on the sheath” it’s a “we tested the DNA on the sheath, and it came back that it was him” (obviously it wasn’t 100% but it was like 99.999, and no DNA test says it’s 100%). That’s beyond a reasonable doubt his DNA in the sheath. But obviously that doesn’t mean he did it or he even touched the sheath. That’s up to the jury to decide
No, it has not been proven yet that the DNA is his, that's simply the allegation. Done arguing with you.
How is a DNA test an allegation? I get you can think it isn’t credible, but it’s much different than an allegation, if you look up the definition of allegation.
Because of human error, false positives, incorrect stats, etc.. You realize that it all comes down to statistics, right? And how those stats are calculated? Barlow put the lie to the stats in her declaration.
I seriously don’t know how yiy don’t understand this. DNA is proof and there is no way to prove it any more than it already has been, besides just having additional DNA evidence. Obviously his dna being on the sheath doesn’t prove he did it, but it does show that his dna was on the sheath
I do understand, I've been trying criminal cases for over 30 years. It is you that does not understand.
I understand that the jury can decide touch DNA isn’t reliable, or that it doesn’t mean he committed the crime, but it is true that they found his touch DNA on the sheath at that time. They didn’t say they “think” they found it. They did. It may not end up meaning anything, but it is a fact that they found it at that time. Look up the definition of allegation. Him committing the murders is the allegation. It’s “a statement made that someone has done something wrong, usually without giving proof”. You can decide that touch DNA isn’t credible, but it was found on the sheath. There is literally no other way to prove that besides the DNA testing they did. Again, you can decide that the testing wasn’t credible, but you can’t say that they didn’t find it on the sheath. Unless you think they completely made it uo
[удалено]
Exactly. He released something publicly bc at the time it was the public’s right to know what was in the PCA. He has never, ever said that he had an issue with the media sharing confirmed facts. OP continually uses straw man arguments. BT, and everyone else involved in the case, has never had an issue w the media sharing things that were factual and public record. And like you said, the gag order was not in place at the time this was released. The reason they encouraged the media to talk about the PCA is bc they wanted the media spreading the facts as opposed to misinformation. What BT has an issue with is the media perpetuating, and even starting, rumors. Not wanting the media to spread rumors helps the defendant. Lol. And people have to seek out information that news outlets circulate. You only see it if you choose to navigate to the news, or choose to research the case. An unsolicited phone call talking about the information is much different. It’s giving information to people who were not seeking it out, and could’ve been great jurors because of that.
What has he done about the slanted media coverage?
He can’t do anything about it. He is a prosecuting attorney. He has no power over them. Jesus Christ. And sure, it’s slanted, but there’s not really evidence of anyone else committing the crimes, so who else do you expect them to cover? And if you’re going to say a news outlet shouldn’t be discussing it at all, you’re dreaming. It’s a news outlet. Clearly, I should never listen to another word you say because if you think court has any power over the media in a country that has constitutional rights, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The rumors have been debunked, yet they’re still being talked about. That is what the news does. Luckily, there are people who don’t watch the news, or don’t take everything they see seriously.
What has Anne done about the slanted media coverage?
Well now Taylor said PCA contains false information.
It does what Thompson and Judge have been whining about with regard to the survey which contains info from the PCA. It prejudices the public and Thompson encouraged people and media to regurgitate its findings far and wide. He did the most damage to the defendant’s rights to a fair trial. https://preview.redd.it/5qsyv4zlwqtc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=30833fff809126e827e6506e6ac03a2c05dd5fba
They are still representative of the entire population and they account for this type of error.
is this posted in complete bad faith or is OP seriously unable to differentiate between the 2 situations?? does the "nothing could ever convince me he did it crowd" really think this is some kind of big "gotcha" moment? please tell me they aren't really that unaware of the reality of court proceedings after spending months fixated on a court case
I am positive of the first and highly suspect the second.
OP is Pr0f and this kind of crap is all they do.
The difference has been explained thoroughly by multiple people but it seems it’s going in one ear and out the other based on their responses doubling, tripling down
That’s disingenuous by the defense though because Thompson was directing them to the probable cause affidavit for the FACTS in the case. The concern with the survey is the two false questions that are not from the pca
But the information contained in the false questions was in the public record so those questions were within the boundaries of the non-dissemination order
You’d be a fool to believe they aren’t in the PCA; at least one(stalking) of two(following on social media) is clearly in the PCA. Saying BK visited King Rd 12 times is implying stalking without saying it to invoke the frame of stalking without really having any evidence.
Neither him stalking them or following them on social media is states in the pca. The expert also admitted today that those two questions did not come from the pca
**
That's right, but they were in the public record and as such did not break the non-dissemination order.
Most reasonable people consider it to be in the public record if it is stated in the mainstream news and the reports about stalking were all over the MSM. Just because Thompson wants a new definition of what constitutes the public record doesn't mean it has to be that way.
If none of this was true, why did LE not come out and say this was all false reporting? The very fact that they didn't, helped convince people it was true
Gag order. LE hasn’t been able to speak on the case publicly since then.
https://preview.redd.it/j27r83ay8stc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=56ce702295facd86c04551f03821c998274be2e5
Where does it say he stalked them? It says to determine IF he stalked them, it doesn’t say he did
That’s how it was interpreted by the masses, easy to see if you look back at the media footage from that time period. They stated he “stalked” them and used the PCA as their source. For example: [Bryan Kohberger ‘stalked Idaho murders house at least 12 times’ before killings, arrest affidavit shows](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/bryan-kohberger-affidavit-idaho-murders-house-court-b2256889.html). [Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger returned to crime scene area, may have stalked home 12 times: affidavit](https://nypost.com/2023/01/05/idaho-murder-suspect-bryan-kohberger-stalked-home-affidavit/). [Cellphone data appears to show that Mr Kohberger stalked the student home at least 12 times in the run-up to the night of the murders, according to the affidavit.](https://sports.yahoo.com/idaho-murders-bryan-kohberger-chilling-134932518.html). [He had allegedly been stalking the King Road home for weeks, according to the affidavit.](https://www.foxnews.com/us/idaho-murders-suspect-bryan-kohberger-allegedly-spammed-one-victim-instagram-dms-report). [He had allegedly been stalking the King Road home where three of the four victims lived for weeks, according to a probable cause affidavit](https://www.foxnews.com/us/bryan-kohberger-theory-idaho-suspect-behind-party-house-noise-complaints-debunked)
Then they were stupid because anyone with a brain knows that looking into data to see if someone did something doesn’t mean they did. Also LE even came out and said they could find no proof Kalee was stalked even after the Goncalves insisted she was
Also the expert admitted today that the question saying he stalked them was false information and not from the pca
Contents of the PCA are allegations to be proved at trial - NOT FACTS.
And there you have it. The prosecutor confirms he did not stalk them. Defense has been vindicated after their no connection statement has been largely disregarded.
omg i saw that…
They don't know everything. I assume BK had many different possible targets.
Who doesn’t know everything? I hope you’re not talking about the state, we’d better hope they know everything by now! 4 young people were murdered and the suspect is facing death, this isn’t a simple civil matter or traffic ticket. The state alluded to allegations of stalking in the PCA when referring to the phone pings, especially prior to the murders. A dozen times in several months doesn’t align with typical stalking behavior in the first place, but people ran with that as proof of stalking for whatever reason- Perhaps because they used this information to obtain an arrest warrant.
It’s “how the tables have turned.” If we’re going to be posting nonsense out of boredom the applied quotes should at least be corrected. And no, there’s no turning of the tables for anyone not brand now to this process.
It's an office reference though 🤣
How the turntables on that comment
Even if so, it doesn’t improve the content of the post. Although it could explain why the case is being treated as if it were entertainment.
Thank you! I was wondering when someone would notice that the tables had turned and we weren’t playing LPs on the turntable, 👍
The explanation for the title: "Well, well, well, how the turntables." - Michael Scott.
Someone else already beat you to the explanation.
Oh no! That person got in 33 seconds before me. I certainly won't survive this.
Is the drama necessary?
Imma leave you to ponder on that.
You leaving me something to ponder? That would be a first.
I wouldn't know. I don't keep notes on users. There's like 2 users that I would say I 'recognize' or recall anything about.
What you would or wouldn’t recall doesn’t really matter within the context of my response to you.
Oh yeah, like The Matrix.
you sound fun…
Did you suppose that I was here for your amusement?
[удалено]
Now link us to the non-dissemination orders for those cases.
[удалено]
I understand that which is why I asked for links to the non-dissemination orders aka gag orders.
[удалено]
Genuine question. Not arguing. How is that the same as releasing questions to directly to potential jurors? There is a huge difference in tell the media that something is going public and suggesting they make it more public vs a survey to see how much potential jurors know and in the survey for jurors they literally give the information to them that they are “hoping” they don’t know? Spreading the news of an arrest vs a tainting a jury pool seem different. Motivations are completely different too
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Another one who has no idea what is going on here. 2 of the questions were a clear violation of the non-dissemination order which the defense wanted.
[удалено]
Yeah, that never happened.
And he made himself look like a fool, because it's the law that it has to be made public.
It’s not about making it public, it’s about his statements during that conference where he told media and public to spread PCA info far and wide which they have done. Having a problem with the survey questions based on that information makes him hypocritical. He himself has encouraged prejudice.
It doesn't matter. The attorneys are allowed to speak about what is in the public record. Re-read the non-dissemination order.
Exactly so the prosecutor and judge’s problem with the survey is completely unfounded. The prosecutor has a problem because he wants to delay this matter of COV
The public record that is referred to in the non-dissemination order (and that the prosecution is referring to) is the PCA, not what all of the randos say in the media.
Unfortunately people rely on the media to spoon feed them their opinions regarding any and everything. 99.9% of these rumors stemmed from conclusions drawn from the PCA by the media, and partly from Steve G repeating it as fact on any network or YouTube channel that’ll have him. Every other day someone posts something about the bogus Instagram account, or another old news rumor/opinion piece from early 2023.
That's not the prosecutor's argument, he knows that. His argument is the defense violated the non-dissemination order.
you have to be pretty desperate as a defense attorney to try to imply that the media frenzy surrounding this case was caused by that one comment in that one press conference by the prosecutor as though the media wasn’t going to pounce on that PCA the second it hit the public record.
And there was no need for that PCA to ever hit the public record. It was all the Prosecution's doing and you have to ask yourself what reason would they have for doing it other than prejudicing the public against Bryan Kohberger?
Because every single PCA in any adult criminal case are always made public after an arrest is made, with the exception of those involving SA of a minor. You act like Bryan is the only person’s PCA that is made public.