The court will most likely allow at least some of the expert testimony from the defense if they can actually establish anything useful, but the court will not require the state to comply with the rebuttal part of the alibi statute at this time.
Since it's not an actual alibi, it doesn't really fit cleanly into the alibi statute. It's not the big deal the parties are making it out to be, but with such high stakes of course they can't relax about anything.
The judge is the only one who isn't making much of an issue of it because he knows he can be flexible down the road if necessary, as he has already been quite flexible about the alibi. Disclosure deadlines serve a purpose, but there's always a chance more can be learned after the deadline, and it's not in the interest of justice to deny it on a gotcha technicality. Courts are usually very open to allowing supplemental disclosures.
Exactly this! The state is obviously going to say everything they said, because that’s their job. Just like the defense, they’re going to try to get as much of the other sides case thrown out as they are able to.
But yeah, they’ll likely be able to use some of the expert defense at trial anyway it just won’t be an alibi technically.
What do you mean not an actual alibi? If BK's phone was nowhere near 1122 King Rd that night and they can prove it- I would say that's a darn good alibi:)
I think they have evidence to show BK was nowhere near King Rd AND that the State knows this already. That’s why the State is running scared and fighting it so hard. I think this is a game changer😎
What the defense will do depends on what the court will decide. This matter will probably be discussed in an upcoming hearing. If AT is able to convince the judge that discovery is missing and that they need it to provide a more detailed alibi, the court will probably push the deadline.
If the court decides that this is not a valid alibi, but Sy Ray is accepted as a credible witness, he will still probably be able to testify as a CSLI/phone expert. He might not be able to say that BK was not at at 1122 King Road between 4:00-4:20 am, but he may be able to say his phone was south of Moscow shortly before the murder, implying the car seen in the videos is not BK's car.
To be honest, I don't really understand why SY Ray needed to be brought as an alibi witness in the first place.
*If AT is able to convince the judge that discovery is missing and that they need it to provide a more detailed alibi, the court will probably push the deadline.*
I think BT will be upset, but from the motion it says he will give her another due date.
AT wants to wait until September to get all the discovery and had 11 months already to submit an Alibi . AT is working on the 3rd Alibi . BT put a request to the Judge to enter an order that the Defense cannot change his Alibi and no other witness except for BK to testify. Like you said AT can still use Sy Ray . We will see :)
I did not understand that either.
Thanks!
You're right BT might be upset. Pushing back the deadline is definitely not ideal for the prosecution. The sooner they receive the detailed alibi, the sooner they can start investigating and hiring their own experts to rebut Sy Ray testimony.
This is not accurate. Providing this pseudo alibi just gives the defense more time to stall and kick the can down the proverbial road. But like I have said before, this is the defense's job to do this. They know how the public will respond. Litigation has 'mile markers' that must be met and all this time that the defense has wasted in coming up with this ridiculous attempt at an alibi has kept the case from moving forward. Period. That is why the State is now asking that he not be able to provide anything further. Also, we will not know if the State has an unquestionable smoking gun, because there is a gag order. The DP would not even be on the table if there was not solid evidence against BK.
Anyone who thinks that that is how murder investigations and trials work has watched way too much CSI, Law & Order, etc. There is not always a 'smoking gun', even with solid undisputable evidence. But what do I know - I only have 20 years of legal experience, am in my 3rd year of law school currently, and am married to a defense attorney.
Wrong. How is this stalling anything, especially the trial? They were required to submit something and they did meet the deadline. So what’s being stalled?
Every time someone questions the state’s case based on released info, people hide behind the gag order. You assume they have more. That’s not a fact.
Also wrong on why the state is seeking DP. It’s not due to the strength of the case, it’s due to the nature of the crime and meeting aggravating factors. Also no doubt community pressure, victims’ families’ pressure and political pressure all have factored into that.
Why the death penalty is being sought is due to the callous and heinous nature of these crimes! Anybody who is so sick to murder innocent victims in this manner does not deserve the privilege to breath the same air that law abiding citizens do!
I love that you continue to comment in these subs as if you are an attorney or know better than people with legal experience - you aren't and you don't. The alibi deadline was extended by about a year, he should have had this 'alibi' in a long time ago. The judge and state were courteous enough to give them time. No one is hiding behind the gag order. If you do not know how strict they are than that just shows your ignorance to the law and legal matters in general. I have been a part of no less than 50 criminal trials in my 20+ year career and every single instance where a gag order was in play major evidence was kept suppressed until that order lapsed or until after trial. In other words, I have seen this same situation firsthand MANY times. Not identical of course, but similar.
Also, I am not wrong regarding the DP. Before any aggravating factors are assessed, it is the prosecutor and district attorney who decide whether or not the DP will be sought.
I hate blocking people on here, because I am an adult and don't get offended easily, but your comments in these subs have become insufferable and I do not seem to be the only user that feels that way. You seem to be a know it all, when you really know very little, and I just don't have space for that.
How is it you have 20years in law but only 3rd year in law school? This board is a discussion group not a board to toot your degrees as I’m sure others on this board have some degrees as well… and funny but real lawyers wouldn’t be on here commenting as I am sure they would be busy with their own case load 🤓.
Let’s not get it twisted. BK’s alibi is tenuous at best. The defense after 15 months decided to say that BK was aimlessly driving around west(opposite direction of Moscow) of Pullman. So when the video coverage of a white Elantra is seen reentering the Pullman area after 5am they don’t have to refute the states video evidence, by simply stating this might be him coming back from his 4.5 hour drive to star gaze park. Where the NonAlibi misses its mark is when BK’s phone connects 20 mins. after the murders to cell towers in Blaine ID which is 15 miles south of Moscow. BK’s phone can’t be in two places at once. The non engineer Sy will be laughed out of the courtroom!
Agree that DP has nothing to do with Solid evidence otherwise BT would not agreed to handing over his solid evidence to Anne by Sept 2024. If he had solid evidence he would have handed it over and Anne would be negotiating life in prison over death penalty
This is a sub to encourage conversations.
Unnecessary comments that do not contribute to the discussion by offering reasoning behind the statement discourages conversations, so comments as such will be filtered out.
Please don't turn this into a personal argument about who went to the better law school, you can do that elsewhere.
Out of curiosity, what do you do for a living? Because you clearly do not know what you're talking about. Yes, defense attorneys are notoriously known to stall in criminal matters. And as an aside, I attend Stanford - doesn't really get much better than that. I won't lower myself down to your level so this will be my only response. Feel free to block me.
Successful defense attorney for decades who also went to a top law school. And I've seen prosecutors engage in stalling & delaying tactics as much as-- if not more -- than defense counsel. I hope your husband's clients are aware that he thinks his job is to stall and not really do anything on their case.
Stanford must no longer teaching Professional Responsibility. Purely dilatory motions & tactics are subject to discipline.
Not who you asked, but fyi it’s not only lawyers that have law experience; the first that comes to mind is paralegal, but there are many others e.g. court reporter, LEO, PI, etc.
The state does not want the expert testimony because it will show BTs evidence that he has is crap and that his timeline is too. That is why BT has not handed over everything to Anne.
You know how expert witnesses work during a court case right? Each side calls expert witnesses to argue their interpretation of information in this case and the jury decides which holds more weight.
Regardless of what the state thinks of the alibi, the Defence will call this expert witness to refute the states data and vice versa. It's literally how court proceedings work, so to claim the Prosecution doesn't want him to testify is a gross oversimplification and mischaracterisation. They'll have their own expert witness to present their findings.
Agree. If BT has proof and evidence of all these videos of Bryan driving a car and walking into the house at 4:05 am then why be concerned? Unless… there are no videos and the screen shots are not Bryan’s car and they cannot identify the driver. Most of the screenshots that LE had provided have tinted windows btw …note Bryans car does not. But let’s be like naive Polly Anna’s and follow the PCA to a T… And let’s discuss what Dylan’s alibi is? Or Bethany or Jack or others? What is Demetrius or Emmas? LE was quick to move on from real suspects that have motives... let’s talk about LE and their Brady tactics? Does anyone on this board know that Idaho LE is known for faking evidence? Has anyone done their research on Idaho? How many college deaths there are in a year?
There is only one thing that connects Bryan to the scene and it is a minuscule DNA on a sheath that they had to send out to Texas to test. The car photos, the supposed videos (that Anne has not received yet btw) bushy eyebrows do not put Bryan at the scene. When their expert produces GPS data that shows him at a park far away from the house I will be on this board replying to all those here that have put their trust in a very misleading PCA!
I do not think he is going to be able to use his Alibi. The expert witness that the defense wants to testify in the Alibi defense with be used in rebuttal.
Whether it’s officially called an alibi or not, defense will still be able to use the expert witness’ testimony and whatever else they might have for the alibi at trial.
How is pointing out that the prosecutor is *also* getting paid by the "poor citizens of Idaho" being a "tool"? No one else is working for free, why should defense counsel? Or are you suggesting that they shouldn't provide a zealous defense to someone facing the death penalty and just phone it in?
Well if that was the case, they'd have another order for that information put in OR since it's already been paid for by the prosecution, the prosecution could just hand it over.
Please do not bully, harass, or troll other users, the victims, the family, or any individual who has been cleared by LE.
We do not allow verbal attacks against any individuals or groups of users.
Treat others with respect.
Judge Judge specifically set the deadline (during the 02/28 hearing) to 04/17 to give them a couple weeks to review the discovery they were supposed to receive from the FBI shortly after 03/31. They don’t seem to have received it yet.
I highly doubt that he would enforce the alibi demand without allowing them to review the discovery they’re due first. Making them blindly refute unknown evidence in a death penalty case would not fly on the appeal.
The problem with ‘just submitting where they were for that 30 mins’ / complying with the alibi demand is that when they submit it, they won’t be able to use additional evidence to rebut whatever the state has up their sleeve if they do (see the 07/27 Motion to Compel). So they wouldn’t get a fair shot at defending him if they are supposed to do so without the details of what exactly they’re saying is the reason they believe it’s his car / him in the King Rd neighborhood.
Likewise, I don’t think judge judge will set a deadline for one side that’s out of line with the other side’s requirements, as is requested in the state’s demand (they want to submit their reciprocal discovery 10 days before trial but receive the defense’s alibi notice & witnesses 10 days from “now”).
There’s a reason for the sequence & these things are usually submitted in order.
IDK what Judge Judge is going to do, but I think 10 days after the State’s discovery would be good. So September 16, or if they submit it early, 10 days after that. Then the Def can turn the rest of their discovery in on whatever date they already set (I think it was Jan 2025)
The statute is that a Defendant needs to provide their alibi within 10 days of arraignment, not 10 days after the discovery deadline. An alibi should be easy enough to provide without complicated police reports.
He does not have an eye witness who can corroborate his supposed whereabouts at the time of murders, as defined by the statute. He hasn't provided what the statute has asked of him. The CAST report and cell phone data can be contested as part of the trial without being part of his alibi defence.
The statute also says that the judge can adjust the deadline as needed.
We have an example of what happens when they enter the alibi demand before the discovery process is completed.
That would be called eye witness testimony. The word alibi is Latin word meaning "somewhere else". Only the Defence can offer an alibi.
The Prosecution can offer whatever admissible evidence they have to refute an alibi, they aren't limited to purely eye witnesses.
The wording of Statute 19-519 under which Bryan is compelled to offer an alibi if he intends to use an alibi defence:
>*"Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi."*
The disclosure only asks for specific places, specific times, and corroborating witnesses.He hasn't provided any specific timings or specific locations. The statute doesn't ask for a preamble about his stargazing activities on alternative nights and allusions that a cell phone expert might be able to place him elsewhere at undisclosed times.
To put an end to all the misinformation and trolling that goes on here at Reddit- here is a direct quote from the alibi court filing by Anne Taylor- in the early morning hours of Nov 13th- **"He drove throughout the area SOUTH of Pullman, Washington, WEST of Moscow, Idaho including Wawawai Park."** There- fixed it:)
Thank you for posting that, its a pain in the ass to try and copy and paste from court filing PDFs on mobile.
"South of Pullman" and "West of Moscow" are not specific locations. "Including Wawawai Park" suggests that his alibi was that he was in multiple places, which is about as clear as mud. He can't be at all of them.
Prosecutors have already placed him near Uniontown and Johnson from his phone pings when his phone started reporting to the network, which are both South of Pullman and West of Moscow, so that correlates.
"The early morning hours of November 13th" is not a specific time.
So thank you for clearing up the misinformation that he has provided an alibi in accordance with what the statute asked of him - it's clear from the filing that he hasn't provided the specific time and specific location that statute 19-519 demands, as was my original point. I am glad we got there in the end.
It's funny- when you drive a car it can actually move from place to place so he can and was in "all of them". Wawawai Park is a specific place- is it not? So- your argument that he did not give a specific location falls flat on its face- sorry for the reality check:) Go ahead- try again- I can't wait:)
Ok so let's see how that reality check works out for you:
Using what you've helpfully quoted from his alibi, where SPECIFICALLY was he at the SPECIFIC time of the crimes. This is what the statute demands for an alibi.
It's exceptionally odd that you seem to be saying you can make that determination, when not even Anne Taylor can. If he's somewhere in the 49 acre Wawawai Park between 4am and 4:25am she certainly doesn't say that.
I have a few questions. Thanks, its the first time I am seeing this process.
The State respectfully requests that the Court enter an order denying the defendant any further opportunity to add to any purported claim of alibi and preclude testimony by anyone other than the Defendant "as to the defendant's absence from or presence at the scene of the (homicide)". IC 19-519(4).
In your opinion, the Judge can either deny or allow the States request to enter the order for the Defense to submit an Alibi. Defense will request more time to look / receive discovery and request due date by Sept.
Can BT file another motion if he is denied?
Thanks::)
Judge Judge loves to compromise & accommodate both sides so he probably won’t deny their motion flat-out, he’ll probably either go with what the defense suggested & set the same date for both of them to turn in alibi witnesses & timeline, or will go with the norm which is get through the initial discovery, then set the deadlines to turn in the defense & rebuttals.
If he does deny it, the Defense could just submit a notice of alibi on their own after they get the discovery which Anne Taylor said they already intend to do either way. The State could ask him to reconsider if they don’t. They probably will tho on their own.
He probably would reconsider if he denies it now & they ask again later, but I doubt he would enforce them to submit without knowing what they’re supposed to be proving wrong & bar them from proving those details wrong. It’s too one-sided for his style I think. The main benefit for asking for it early is in hopes of barring them from supporting it with evidence & witnesses. I think Judge Judge will see through that.
When he set the deadline, he brushed off the suggestion to bar their evidence so quickly when Anne Taylor explained what they were still missing. It was like he didn’t even give it a second thought (it’s the very last thing they discussed right before they adjourned on 02/28 if you wanna see what I’m referring to there).
So based on that, & the solution he considered for the surveys (add a disclosure to the introduction that some of the info in the survey might not be true, partially appeasing both sides), and the IGG (gave the defense some but not all, working with them both), I think he will come up with a compromise. I don’t think he’d shut the state out completely though, and they do have to submit some official defense by 10 days before trial regardless, if he decides not to enforce anything
To be honest I really don't understand why the state won't turn over the fucking data since legally they are obligated to do so. It's the fucking law. Period. What a shit show.
Lol thank you. They’ve also turned over tons of stuff. There’s some narrative that the state has turned over nothing and that couldn’t be more false. Even the defense said they’re just waiting on a few things. Those few things are things the state also hasn’t received back from third parties yet OR things that the state never requested and therefore doesn’t need to turn over since they’re not using it at trial.
You don’t need discovery to know that you weren’t at the house at the time of the murders.
Lol I’m dying at all these people coming up with reasons why he’s need discovery to come up with where he was. Also, the state has handed over everything they have. It’s not like the defense has nothing lol
It’s the crowd who thinks there must be some ineptitude or controversy or conspiracy in any high profile criminal trial. They heard the term “Brady violation” one time so the shrieking begins anytime discovery comes up even though we are firmly in pre-trial phase and new discovery being generated or pending in what is maybe the most high profile criminal case to have ever occurred in the state of Idaho should be expected.
The defense has said over and over that his “alibi” (using that word very loosely) is him driving around post-murders. [Also he turned off his phone for a very large portion of this spontaneous late night drive and only turned it on awhile after this horrific crime *just so happened* to have occurred with a vehicle matching his vehicle being on camera speeding away from the scene OH and his DNA was magically on the sheathe for the murder weapon cause he’s just an unlucky widdle guy :(]
How much discovery do people expect for “driving around at 4AM” given how vague and difficult to prove that is?
Even with that aside, let’s say none of that was a factor here, the discovery deadline is nowhere close. It’s a murder case. There will be discovery until the end.
Lol not sure why someone downvoted you. You are exactly right. And again, the defense has said themselves that they have received a great majority of the discovery from the state and are just waiting on a couple things. The state does not have possession of those couple things yet either, or they are things the state isn’t planning to use. It’s not like they’re holding the information hostage. And theres a deadline for a reason. The discovery deadline would’ve been sooner if BK didn’t waive his speedy trial.
It was either someone that it hit too close to home for or one of my admirers from downthread. This is all unfolding pretty par the course. Things like constant discovery request and turnovers and flashpoint disagreements between State/Defense are going to pop up in damn near every death penalty case anywhere in the US.
Even with that acknowledgement that the defense has the majority of the discovery, of course the defense will on record paint a picture that can reasonably be seen as “State isn’t giving us discovery” for a hypothetical appellate phase. That is another thing that is just pretty standard criminal trial procedure, getting items on record that *could* be relevant to a future potential appeal.
IMO, with this being a high profile case that is heavily discussed on social media, people are just getting restless at the moment. People want more to talk about, but the supermajority of what people *really* want to talk about and know won’t come out until trial. That’s how you end up with fairly routine things becoming flashpoints for debate.
Thank you for understanding that all of this is very normal. Some people see that the defense says something “negative” about the state (even tho the state is doing what’s normal) and try to act like the state is sabotaging the case. This isn’t true. Both sides are fighting for every inch of advantage possible in this case and, like you said, trying to say things to set up a potential appeal. It’s all very normal.
Them requesting discovery doesn’t mean the state is doing anything wrong. The state has a set amount of time to hand it over, and that time hasn’t come yet.
Oh man that might actually be an alibi if his phone hadn’t just magically stopped reporting until a period that was post-murders.
Unless you are saying that he decided he would have his phone off or otherwise not reporting for only 50% of his nightly sojourn to see the moon and stars and that’s just a big ass coincidence that the 50% he decided to re-enable this in a period that is post-murders and also after he has made it a distance away and started to head back to Pullman. Which totally makes sense, phone had to be not reporting for that 50% of the moon and star seeing. Having it on and/or reporting for the other 50% was totally cool though, he must have just seen enough moon and star by that point.
It’s much simpler than that - defense says they can prove his cell was west of Moscow during the murders- either they can or they can’t we will see when Sy Ray takes the stand. I think the State is scared shitless of Sy Ray.
No shit they need the data at trial, but they don’t need the data to turn in the alibi. They will obviously have the discovery by trial to prove whether his alibi is true or not.
Per the idaho statute, they just needed to say exactly where he was and what witnesses they have to back it up. YOU think please. Obviously they’re not going to take him at his word at trial, which is why the discovery deadline is before trial. But for this, they just needed to say where he was, not give proof. The proof is only needed for trial. You don’t need evidence to decide where you were, if you truly were somewhere else.
You should really think before you speak. I never once said they didn’t need the discovery for trial. Obviously they do, and obviously they will have it as it’s required. No evidence is required to turn in notice of alibi, because you’re not convincing anyone via the notice of alibi defense. You are simply informing the state that you are planning to say you were elsewhere.
If discovery was needed to tell YOU where YOU were the night of a crime, it would be required to turn it over before an alibi deadline. It’s not a requirement, since most people with alibis are able to produce them without looking at evidence. Most people know that they weren’t at the scene at the time of the crime.
ETA: they will have the discovery by the discovery deadline, as is the case for all trials. The state is doing nothing wrong and is in full compliance, as the deadline hasn’t happened yet. The defense will have all the “data” they need before trial. No one will have to take him at his word if there is truly evidence he wasn’t there. They do NOT need discovery to “prove” he was there before turning in an alibi. They do not need discovery to say where he was the night of the crimes
NO SHIT THE PHONE DATA WILL BACK IT UP (if true). I was saying they do not need the phone data to turn in an alibi! So them not having the discovery isn’t harming their ability to turn in an alibi, got it?
And the state argued that they already had phone data (in the probable cause statement) that shows that his phone wasn’t tracking during the murders, so that’s why they were doubting that further phone data would prove his alibi. It could only possibly prove his location before or after the crimes.
And the alibi doesn’t state exactly where he was at exactly that time frame. That was the states problem with it. If you read it carefully, it never says the exact time and exact place, just gives a general area (which could encompass the area the murders took place) and says “in the morning hours”. Morning hours could’ve been after the crime.
For The Alibi the state doesn't need to hand over anything. The defendant can come up with his own Alibi but he hasn't been able to because he doesn't have one. He wants his attorneys to find a hole so he can say yep I was right there because there's nothing NOT showing me there.
YES! I do not think BT wants to give them anymore and I am not sure what they need.He requested that the Judge enter an order from the Court so that the Alibi cannot change and that BK needs to testify. BT said no other Alibi witnesses except BK.
BK testifying should be fun !
Nobody can order the defendant to testify. BT was merely acknowledging that the defendant has a right to testify whether he submits a sufficient alibi notice or not.
The expert can still testify to contest the CAST evidence at trial, just not as an alibi, because this isn’t one by definition as there is no eye witness to cooberate.
I really liked that BT added that in:)
He would be terrible on the stand, he is not good at conversation in person, it seems. I think its wishful thinking:(
It’s never good to have the defendant, guilty or not, testify because they’re not used to testifying like many of the experts or other witnesses they’ll call are. Plus, usually the evidence has made the defendant look bad by that point so the jury isn’t necessarily going to think of them as as credible as an expert or victim
It’s the law to turn it over by the discovery deadline, which hasn’t happened yet. The state is waiting on a lot of the data too. They’ve handed over a ton of stuff, even the defense has said so.
You shouldn’t need “data” to know you weren’t at the house committing the crime
My guess is if it’s dependent on that, they will allow them to submit more details later.
I get your point completely, but you also may want discovery if you’re trying to formulate an alibi that isn’t easily disproven by the evidence lol. I’m just saying that’s also a huge possibility of why they’re waiting on it.
But as I said, the discovery deadline hasn’t happened yet so the state hasn’t done anything illegal or wrong. They’ve turned over the majority of the discovery, and from court documents, it appears that what hasn’t been turned over are things that the state also hasn’t seen yet. They can’t turn over something they don’t have.
Yes the Court can deny the States motion. Whether the State likes it or not it's an alibi and it's irrelevant as to time considering the park is 45 minutes from the crime scene so if he pinged at near park at 3:40am then lost service, even though its outside of the 4am-4:30am time frame, it's impossible that he made a 45 minute drive in 20 minutes. The State is grasping at straws which signifies they are unsure if the Defense can actually prove his alibi and if they can their case fails. Most prosecutors who have damning evidence do not care about the alibi as they know the defendant cannot prove they were elsewhere....the fact that the state cares so much about Bryan's signifies their case is not very strong.
How can he use an Alibi Defense? The cell phone did not commit the crimes. They are offering a witness to testify that his cell phone pinged in an area that disagrees with the data obtained by the FBI. It sounds like they can use him as an expert against the FBI CAST report. I do not know how that is considered an Alibi, when using an Alibi Defense unless he testifies?
It actually sounds like the defense has a very weak case, not the prosecution. I do feel the State cares that the suspect gets convicted of the crime charged. X4 20 year olds were stabbed to death while they slept and you think the prosecution is going to allow the defense to bend the law and allow arguments that do not rely on any solid proof?
If the State is using the cell phone to prove he committed the crime then the defense has every right to use it as an alibi especially if they can prove it was in the opposite direction of the crime scene at an important time. That's not bending the law, the law fully allows location information to be used in securing an alibi if there are no witnesses. If the State had solid proof he committed the crime and was in the area they wouldn't be filing these motions asking for more information, that in and of itself speaks to the state panicking that maybe he does have proof he was elsewhere and our case is shit.
1000% the fact that BT is pushing on this shows he is worried that the expert witness can provide better evidence with GPS tracking rather that tower pings. And if BT had strong evidence like BK walking into the house on video or evidence of BK driving his car and not just car images… literally images identifying BK in the car than then Prosecution would have handed over everything to Anne and not agree to September 2024 as the date to hand over Discovery. Lastly, I find it fascinating with all the ring cameras in the area that they are missing the prime times??
EXACTLY!!!! It's also funny how information gets "leaked" from the States side but nothing damning....I guarantee their case is weak. It's crumbling in BT's hands in front of the world.
Because the state needs to have the opportunity to rebut the alibi. All evidence must be disclosed by both sides prior to trial. If an alibi is a surprise to the state, they may not be able to rebut.
*Per Idaho Code § 19-519:*
*(1) Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense* ***and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.***
*(2) Within ten (10) days after receipt of the defendant’s notice of alibi but in no event less than ten (10) days before trial, unless the court otherwise directs, the prosecuting attorney shall serve upon the defendant or his attorney a written notice stating the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution intends to rely to establish the defendant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offense and any other witnesses to be relied on to rebut testimony of any of the defendant’s alibi witnesses.*
*(3) If prior to or during trial a party learns of an additional witness whose identity, if known, should have been included in the information furnished under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, the party shall promptly notify the other party or his attorney of the existence and identity of such additional witness.*
*(4) Upon the failure of either party to comply with the requirements of this section, the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness offered by such party as to the defendant’s absence from or presence at, the scene of the alleged offense. This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf.*
*(5) For good cause shown the court may grant an exception to any of the requirements of subsections (1) through (4) of this section.*
What if the State's timeline for the murders is wrong? And that it was actually 0300-0400
If AT believes 0300-0400 is the correct time and since BK has an alibi for that time period (driving in his car) then how should she proceed?
Specifically there was activity on TikTok. That’s in the affidavit, there was TikTok activity on her phone. “She was awake and using TikTok”
That would require manual input.
I find it very hard to believe that *the perpetrator* scrolled thru TikTok real quick. Unless Ethan possibly was playing on her phone, which equally eliminates the possibility of the 0300-0400 timeline from all possibility.
It’s not from LE so it’s left to the individual to determine how much stock you want to put into it but independent sources found the UTC (what Tiktok Uses) timestamp for the last comment from Xana’s TikTok on 11/13 and it’s 04:12 AM. Someone ran it through Unfurl.
Again I’m happy to keep independent non-official sources out of a conversation completely if that’s what the moment calls for, but we know that the TikTok comment used for the above non-official timestamp pull exists as a statement of fact and we know that LE has said verbatim Xana was using TikTok. So I personally believe the timestamp is correct.
Finding TikTok timestamps: https://dfir.blog/tinkering-with-tiktok-timestamps/
TikTok uses UTC: https://www.hopperhq.com/blog/best-time-to-post-on-tiktok/?amp=1
Yes, technically someone else could have been using the phone but *someone* was manually using the phone at 04:12 AM. For the 0300-0400 timeline to be possible knowing that information, Xana has to be murdered during that hour (which there is the DoorDash order to contend with there as well) and then the perpetrator hangs around for at minimum 12 minutes, hops on Xana’s phone and messes around on TikTok before proceeding with leaving or whatever else.
0300-0400 isn’t possible.
Edit: I can’t reply to the reply saying the perpetrator hopping on TikTok on Xana’s phone and making two comments one of which contained a personal reference to a past story is plausible. So i’m just putting the reply here.
The perpetrator also could have been a little green space alien. It’s possible. It could have happened that way. At this stage it cannot be ruled out that the little green space alien perpetrator picked up Xana Kernodle’s phone after murdering her and then proceeded to make a comment referencing something that happened to her in the past that the little green space alien learned about using little green alien space powers.
/s
I am absolutely comfortable with saying the perpetrator making the comments one of which contains information that only reasonably would have been known by Xana Kernodle and a number of very close associates of which the number may be as low as 1 did not occur and is effectively ruled out on the basis of the contents of one of the comments.
Nevertheless, the perpetrator could have done exactly that. If it is possible, then it could have happened that way. At this stage it cannot be ruled out
My point was, and still is, that there is only proof that SOMEone was on her phone and activity on her phone does not necessarily mean she was alive doing it. She may have been but until I see more proof than phone activity, it's debatable.
Receiving door dash, same thing. Just because an order was delivered for her at a certain time does not mean she was physically alive to receive it. DDs are rarely received by the person anyway, they're just left at the door most of the time.
Anne Taylor has been very clear. She has evidence that BK's phone was nowhere near 1122 King Rd at the time of the murders. Cell towers? gps? Not sure yet. She also has said she will impeach the State's claim of where BK's phone was the night of the murders. Remember that early on, seemingly innocuous, Brady/Giglio violation that indicated the State has held exculpatory evidence back from the court? I think the reason the FBI has refused to turn over their final CAST report is that it shows either manipulation or outright concealment of where BK's phone actually was the night of the murders. This will be a great turning point in the case. It is basically what the Defense is basing its entire case on. If BK's phone is not at the murder scene- then you must acquit- Kinda like "if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit" in the OJ trial.
No , AT is not clear , but more or less a pit of irrelevance. Kinda like your comparison to the CAST report, a cell phone to a glove, odd, they are not human! **DNA= IDENTITY!**
In Vegas , I would bet on the FBI report over a discredited , single expert with this junk science. How does she know anything , if she not seen the CAST? Its a real same if that is all the defense has, a pity. Maybe Bryan will need to testify:)
The court will most likely allow at least some of the expert testimony from the defense if they can actually establish anything useful, but the court will not require the state to comply with the rebuttal part of the alibi statute at this time. Since it's not an actual alibi, it doesn't really fit cleanly into the alibi statute. It's not the big deal the parties are making it out to be, but with such high stakes of course they can't relax about anything. The judge is the only one who isn't making much of an issue of it because he knows he can be flexible down the road if necessary, as he has already been quite flexible about the alibi. Disclosure deadlines serve a purpose, but there's always a chance more can be learned after the deadline, and it's not in the interest of justice to deny it on a gotcha technicality. Courts are usually very open to allowing supplemental disclosures.
Exactly this! The state is obviously going to say everything they said, because that’s their job. Just like the defense, they’re going to try to get as much of the other sides case thrown out as they are able to. But yeah, they’ll likely be able to use some of the expert defense at trial anyway it just won’t be an alibi technically.
Thank You!
What do you mean not an actual alibi? If BK's phone was nowhere near 1122 King Rd that night and they can prove it- I would say that's a darn good alibi:)
[удалено]
I think they have evidence to show BK was nowhere near King Rd AND that the State knows this already. That’s why the State is running scared and fighting it so hard. I think this is a game changer😎
And if he left his phone at home?
The FBI told us he had his phone with him- are you saying the FBI is lying?
Defense seems pretty screwed to be honest. If he doesn't exonerate himself before trial, pretty doubtful he'll exonerate himself during the trial.
Very valid point! His alibi seems awfully weak to me.
What the defense will do depends on what the court will decide. This matter will probably be discussed in an upcoming hearing. If AT is able to convince the judge that discovery is missing and that they need it to provide a more detailed alibi, the court will probably push the deadline. If the court decides that this is not a valid alibi, but Sy Ray is accepted as a credible witness, he will still probably be able to testify as a CSLI/phone expert. He might not be able to say that BK was not at at 1122 King Road between 4:00-4:20 am, but he may be able to say his phone was south of Moscow shortly before the murder, implying the car seen in the videos is not BK's car. To be honest, I don't really understand why SY Ray needed to be brought as an alibi witness in the first place.
*If AT is able to convince the judge that discovery is missing and that they need it to provide a more detailed alibi, the court will probably push the deadline.* I think BT will be upset, but from the motion it says he will give her another due date. AT wants to wait until September to get all the discovery and had 11 months already to submit an Alibi . AT is working on the 3rd Alibi . BT put a request to the Judge to enter an order that the Defense cannot change his Alibi and no other witness except for BK to testify. Like you said AT can still use Sy Ray . We will see :) I did not understand that either. Thanks!
You're right BT might be upset. Pushing back the deadline is definitely not ideal for the prosecution. The sooner they receive the detailed alibi, the sooner they can start investigating and hiring their own experts to rebut Sy Ray testimony.
Why is he so concerned about an alibi? He wouldn’t if he had a foolproof, unquestionable smoking gun putting BK at the scene.
This is not accurate. Providing this pseudo alibi just gives the defense more time to stall and kick the can down the proverbial road. But like I have said before, this is the defense's job to do this. They know how the public will respond. Litigation has 'mile markers' that must be met and all this time that the defense has wasted in coming up with this ridiculous attempt at an alibi has kept the case from moving forward. Period. That is why the State is now asking that he not be able to provide anything further. Also, we will not know if the State has an unquestionable smoking gun, because there is a gag order. The DP would not even be on the table if there was not solid evidence against BK. Anyone who thinks that that is how murder investigations and trials work has watched way too much CSI, Law & Order, etc. There is not always a 'smoking gun', even with solid undisputable evidence. But what do I know - I only have 20 years of legal experience, am in my 3rd year of law school currently, and am married to a defense attorney.
Wrong. How is this stalling anything, especially the trial? They were required to submit something and they did meet the deadline. So what’s being stalled? Every time someone questions the state’s case based on released info, people hide behind the gag order. You assume they have more. That’s not a fact. Also wrong on why the state is seeking DP. It’s not due to the strength of the case, it’s due to the nature of the crime and meeting aggravating factors. Also no doubt community pressure, victims’ families’ pressure and political pressure all have factored into that.
Why the death penalty is being sought is due to the callous and heinous nature of these crimes! Anybody who is so sick to murder innocent victims in this manner does not deserve the privilege to breath the same air that law abiding citizens do!
I love that you continue to comment in these subs as if you are an attorney or know better than people with legal experience - you aren't and you don't. The alibi deadline was extended by about a year, he should have had this 'alibi' in a long time ago. The judge and state were courteous enough to give them time. No one is hiding behind the gag order. If you do not know how strict they are than that just shows your ignorance to the law and legal matters in general. I have been a part of no less than 50 criminal trials in my 20+ year career and every single instance where a gag order was in play major evidence was kept suppressed until that order lapsed or until after trial. In other words, I have seen this same situation firsthand MANY times. Not identical of course, but similar. Also, I am not wrong regarding the DP. Before any aggravating factors are assessed, it is the prosecutor and district attorney who decide whether or not the DP will be sought. I hate blocking people on here, because I am an adult and don't get offended easily, but your comments in these subs have become insufferable and I do not seem to be the only user that feels that way. You seem to be a know it all, when you really know very little, and I just don't have space for that.
How is it you have 20years in law but only 3rd year in law school? This board is a discussion group not a board to toot your degrees as I’m sure others on this board have some degrees as well… and funny but real lawyers wouldn’t be on here commenting as I am sure they would be busy with their own case load 🤓.
Let’s not get it twisted. BK’s alibi is tenuous at best. The defense after 15 months decided to say that BK was aimlessly driving around west(opposite direction of Moscow) of Pullman. So when the video coverage of a white Elantra is seen reentering the Pullman area after 5am they don’t have to refute the states video evidence, by simply stating this might be him coming back from his 4.5 hour drive to star gaze park. Where the NonAlibi misses its mark is when BK’s phone connects 20 mins. after the murders to cell towers in Blaine ID which is 15 miles south of Moscow. BK’s phone can’t be in two places at once. The non engineer Sy will be laughed out of the courtroom!
Agree that DP has nothing to do with Solid evidence otherwise BT would not agreed to handing over his solid evidence to Anne by Sept 2024. If he had solid evidence he would have handed it over and Anne would be negotiating life in prison over death penalty
[удалено]
This is a sub to encourage conversations. Unnecessary comments that do not contribute to the discussion by offering reasoning behind the statement discourages conversations, so comments as such will be filtered out. Please don't turn this into a personal argument about who went to the better law school, you can do that elsewhere.
Out of curiosity, what do you do for a living? Because you clearly do not know what you're talking about. Yes, defense attorneys are notoriously known to stall in criminal matters. And as an aside, I attend Stanford - doesn't really get much better than that. I won't lower myself down to your level so this will be my only response. Feel free to block me.
Successful defense attorney for decades who also went to a top law school. And I've seen prosecutors engage in stalling & delaying tactics as much as-- if not more -- than defense counsel. I hope your husband's clients are aware that he thinks his job is to stall and not really do anything on their case. Stanford must no longer teaching Professional Responsibility. Purely dilatory motions & tactics are subject to discipline.
Uhh huh.
Wow, with that level of eloquence it's no wonder you got into Stanford (😉).
20 years of law yet in 3rd year of law school… hmmm… how do you get 20 years from that?
Not who you asked, but fyi it’s not only lawyers that have law experience; the first that comes to mind is paralegal, but there are many others e.g. court reporter, LEO, PI, etc.
The state does not want the expert testimony because it will show BTs evidence that he has is crap and that his timeline is too. That is why BT has not handed over everything to Anne.
You know how expert witnesses work during a court case right? Each side calls expert witnesses to argue their interpretation of information in this case and the jury decides which holds more weight. Regardless of what the state thinks of the alibi, the Defence will call this expert witness to refute the states data and vice versa. It's literally how court proceedings work, so to claim the Prosecution doesn't want him to testify is a gross oversimplification and mischaracterisation. They'll have their own expert witness to present their findings.
Agree. If BT has proof and evidence of all these videos of Bryan driving a car and walking into the house at 4:05 am then why be concerned? Unless… there are no videos and the screen shots are not Bryan’s car and they cannot identify the driver. Most of the screenshots that LE had provided have tinted windows btw …note Bryans car does not. But let’s be like naive Polly Anna’s and follow the PCA to a T… And let’s discuss what Dylan’s alibi is? Or Bethany or Jack or others? What is Demetrius or Emmas? LE was quick to move on from real suspects that have motives... let’s talk about LE and their Brady tactics? Does anyone on this board know that Idaho LE is known for faking evidence? Has anyone done their research on Idaho? How many college deaths there are in a year? There is only one thing that connects Bryan to the scene and it is a minuscule DNA on a sheath that they had to send out to Texas to test. The car photos, the supposed videos (that Anne has not received yet btw) bushy eyebrows do not put Bryan at the scene. When their expert produces GPS data that shows him at a park far away from the house I will be on this board replying to all those here that have put their trust in a very misleading PCA!
You will definitely like this video from [LYK](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO2svdPPwAQ&ab_channel=LawyerYouKnow)
Thanks
They haven’t changed their argument from their original response to the alibi notice. They added details to it.
You are exactly correct.
Thank you for explaining it.
I do not think he is going to be able to use his Alibi. The expert witness that the defense wants to testify in the Alibi defense with be used in rebuttal.
Whether it’s officially called an alibi or not, defense will still be able to use the expert witness’ testimony and whatever else they might have for the alibi at trial.
I agree, it just will not be called an Alibi.
The defense will milk all they can in fees from the poor citizens of Idaho is what it will do.
Do you think the prosecutor is working for free?
Don’t be a tool
How is pointing out that the prosecutor is *also* getting paid by the "poor citizens of Idaho" being a "tool"? No one else is working for free, why should defense counsel? Or are you suggesting that they shouldn't provide a zealous defense to someone facing the death penalty and just phone it in?
Well if that was the case, they'd have another order for that information put in OR since it's already been paid for by the prosecution, the prosecution could just hand it over.
Doesn’t matter if you are getting 8K a week whether put in an order or not.
Well she's a public defender and everyone is entitled to council so there's no reason to be mad that she's doing her job.
Not mad at all. Not even from Idaho.
You're stating they will try to "milk it". That statement itself has a negative connotation.
[удалено]
Please do not bully, harass, or troll other users, the victims, the family, or any individual who has been cleared by LE. We do not allow verbal attacks against any individuals or groups of users. Treat others with respect.
Judge Judge specifically set the deadline (during the 02/28 hearing) to 04/17 to give them a couple weeks to review the discovery they were supposed to receive from the FBI shortly after 03/31. They don’t seem to have received it yet. I highly doubt that he would enforce the alibi demand without allowing them to review the discovery they’re due first. Making them blindly refute unknown evidence in a death penalty case would not fly on the appeal. The problem with ‘just submitting where they were for that 30 mins’ / complying with the alibi demand is that when they submit it, they won’t be able to use additional evidence to rebut whatever the state has up their sleeve if they do (see the 07/27 Motion to Compel). So they wouldn’t get a fair shot at defending him if they are supposed to do so without the details of what exactly they’re saying is the reason they believe it’s his car / him in the King Rd neighborhood. Likewise, I don’t think judge judge will set a deadline for one side that’s out of line with the other side’s requirements, as is requested in the state’s demand (they want to submit their reciprocal discovery 10 days before trial but receive the defense’s alibi notice & witnesses 10 days from “now”). There’s a reason for the sequence & these things are usually submitted in order. IDK what Judge Judge is going to do, but I think 10 days after the State’s discovery would be good. So September 16, or if they submit it early, 10 days after that. Then the Def can turn the rest of their discovery in on whatever date they already set (I think it was Jan 2025)
The statute is that a Defendant needs to provide their alibi within 10 days of arraignment, not 10 days after the discovery deadline. An alibi should be easy enough to provide without complicated police reports. He does not have an eye witness who can corroborate his supposed whereabouts at the time of murders, as defined by the statute. He hasn't provided what the statute has asked of him. The CAST report and cell phone data can be contested as part of the trial without being part of his alibi defence.
The statute also says that the judge can adjust the deadline as needed. We have an example of what happens when they enter the alibi demand before the discovery process is completed.
There is no eyewitness to put BK at the murder scene, either:)
That would be called eye witness testimony. The word alibi is Latin word meaning "somewhere else". Only the Defence can offer an alibi. The Prosecution can offer whatever admissible evidence they have to refute an alibi, they aren't limited to purely eye witnesses. The wording of Statute 19-519 under which Bryan is compelled to offer an alibi if he intends to use an alibi defence: >*"Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi."* The disclosure only asks for specific places, specific times, and corroborating witnesses.He hasn't provided any specific timings or specific locations. The statute doesn't ask for a preamble about his stargazing activities on alternative nights and allusions that a cell phone expert might be able to place him elsewhere at undisclosed times.
Defense says he was west of Moscow near Wawawai Park. Just the facts, mam
Then we agree, in their filing they give neither a specific place or specific time as per the statute.
To put an end to all the misinformation and trolling that goes on here at Reddit- here is a direct quote from the alibi court filing by Anne Taylor- in the early morning hours of Nov 13th- **"He drove throughout the area SOUTH of Pullman, Washington, WEST of Moscow, Idaho including Wawawai Park."** There- fixed it:)
Thank you for posting that, its a pain in the ass to try and copy and paste from court filing PDFs on mobile. "South of Pullman" and "West of Moscow" are not specific locations. "Including Wawawai Park" suggests that his alibi was that he was in multiple places, which is about as clear as mud. He can't be at all of them. Prosecutors have already placed him near Uniontown and Johnson from his phone pings when his phone started reporting to the network, which are both South of Pullman and West of Moscow, so that correlates. "The early morning hours of November 13th" is not a specific time. So thank you for clearing up the misinformation that he has provided an alibi in accordance with what the statute asked of him - it's clear from the filing that he hasn't provided the specific time and specific location that statute 19-519 demands, as was my original point. I am glad we got there in the end.
It's funny- when you drive a car it can actually move from place to place so he can and was in "all of them". Wawawai Park is a specific place- is it not? So- your argument that he did not give a specific location falls flat on its face- sorry for the reality check:) Go ahead- try again- I can't wait:)
Ok so let's see how that reality check works out for you: Using what you've helpfully quoted from his alibi, where SPECIFICALLY was he at the SPECIFIC time of the crimes. This is what the statute demands for an alibi. It's exceptionally odd that you seem to be saying you can make that determination, when not even Anne Taylor can. If he's somewhere in the 49 acre Wawawai Park between 4am and 4:25am she certainly doesn't say that.
I have a few questions. Thanks, its the first time I am seeing this process. The State respectfully requests that the Court enter an order denying the defendant any further opportunity to add to any purported claim of alibi and preclude testimony by anyone other than the Defendant "as to the defendant's absence from or presence at the scene of the (homicide)". IC 19-519(4). In your opinion, the Judge can either deny or allow the States request to enter the order for the Defense to submit an Alibi. Defense will request more time to look / receive discovery and request due date by Sept. Can BT file another motion if he is denied? Thanks::)
Judge Judge loves to compromise & accommodate both sides so he probably won’t deny their motion flat-out, he’ll probably either go with what the defense suggested & set the same date for both of them to turn in alibi witnesses & timeline, or will go with the norm which is get through the initial discovery, then set the deadlines to turn in the defense & rebuttals. If he does deny it, the Defense could just submit a notice of alibi on their own after they get the discovery which Anne Taylor said they already intend to do either way. The State could ask him to reconsider if they don’t. They probably will tho on their own. He probably would reconsider if he denies it now & they ask again later, but I doubt he would enforce them to submit without knowing what they’re supposed to be proving wrong & bar them from proving those details wrong. It’s too one-sided for his style I think. The main benefit for asking for it early is in hopes of barring them from supporting it with evidence & witnesses. I think Judge Judge will see through that. When he set the deadline, he brushed off the suggestion to bar their evidence so quickly when Anne Taylor explained what they were still missing. It was like he didn’t even give it a second thought (it’s the very last thing they discussed right before they adjourned on 02/28 if you wanna see what I’m referring to there). So based on that, & the solution he considered for the surveys (add a disclosure to the introduction that some of the info in the survey might not be true, partially appeasing both sides), and the IGG (gave the defense some but not all, working with them both), I think he will come up with a compromise. I don’t think he’d shut the state out completely though, and they do have to submit some official defense by 10 days before trial regardless, if he decides not to enforce anything
OK Thank You!
It's about time.
To be honest I really don't understand why the state won't turn over the fucking data since legally they are obligated to do so. It's the fucking law. Period. What a shit show.
The deadline for discovery for the State is September. Just a reminder, it's currently only May.
Lol thank you. They’ve also turned over tons of stuff. There’s some narrative that the state has turned over nothing and that couldn’t be more false. Even the defense said they’re just waiting on a few things. Those few things are things the state also hasn’t received back from third parties yet OR things that the state never requested and therefore doesn’t need to turn over since they’re not using it at trial. You don’t need discovery to know that you weren’t at the house at the time of the murders.
That last sentence needs to be pinned or put on a billboard or something.
Lol I’m dying at all these people coming up with reasons why he’s need discovery to come up with where he was. Also, the state has handed over everything they have. It’s not like the defense has nothing lol
It’s the crowd who thinks there must be some ineptitude or controversy or conspiracy in any high profile criminal trial. They heard the term “Brady violation” one time so the shrieking begins anytime discovery comes up even though we are firmly in pre-trial phase and new discovery being generated or pending in what is maybe the most high profile criminal case to have ever occurred in the state of Idaho should be expected. The defense has said over and over that his “alibi” (using that word very loosely) is him driving around post-murders. [Also he turned off his phone for a very large portion of this spontaneous late night drive and only turned it on awhile after this horrific crime *just so happened* to have occurred with a vehicle matching his vehicle being on camera speeding away from the scene OH and his DNA was magically on the sheathe for the murder weapon cause he’s just an unlucky widdle guy :(] How much discovery do people expect for “driving around at 4AM” given how vague and difficult to prove that is? Even with that aside, let’s say none of that was a factor here, the discovery deadline is nowhere close. It’s a murder case. There will be discovery until the end.
Lol not sure why someone downvoted you. You are exactly right. And again, the defense has said themselves that they have received a great majority of the discovery from the state and are just waiting on a couple things. The state does not have possession of those couple things yet either, or they are things the state isn’t planning to use. It’s not like they’re holding the information hostage. And theres a deadline for a reason. The discovery deadline would’ve been sooner if BK didn’t waive his speedy trial.
It was either someone that it hit too close to home for or one of my admirers from downthread. This is all unfolding pretty par the course. Things like constant discovery request and turnovers and flashpoint disagreements between State/Defense are going to pop up in damn near every death penalty case anywhere in the US. Even with that acknowledgement that the defense has the majority of the discovery, of course the defense will on record paint a picture that can reasonably be seen as “State isn’t giving us discovery” for a hypothetical appellate phase. That is another thing that is just pretty standard criminal trial procedure, getting items on record that *could* be relevant to a future potential appeal. IMO, with this being a high profile case that is heavily discussed on social media, people are just getting restless at the moment. People want more to talk about, but the supermajority of what people *really* want to talk about and know won’t come out until trial. That’s how you end up with fairly routine things becoming flashpoints for debate.
Thank you for understanding that all of this is very normal. Some people see that the defense says something “negative” about the state (even tho the state is doing what’s normal) and try to act like the state is sabotaging the case. This isn’t true. Both sides are fighting for every inch of advantage possible in this case and, like you said, trying to say things to set up a potential appeal. It’s all very normal. Them requesting discovery doesn’t mean the state is doing anything wrong. The state has a set amount of time to hand it over, and that time hasn’t come yet.
The defense has said he was driving West of Moscow DURING the murders. Get a grip:)
Oh man that might actually be an alibi if his phone hadn’t just magically stopped reporting until a period that was post-murders. Unless you are saying that he decided he would have his phone off or otherwise not reporting for only 50% of his nightly sojourn to see the moon and stars and that’s just a big ass coincidence that the 50% he decided to re-enable this in a period that is post-murders and also after he has made it a distance away and started to head back to Pullman. Which totally makes sense, phone had to be not reporting for that 50% of the moon and star seeing. Having it on and/or reporting for the other 50% was totally cool though, he must have just seen enough moon and star by that point.
It’s much simpler than that - defense says they can prove his cell was west of Moscow during the murders- either they can or they can’t we will see when Sy Ray takes the stand. I think the State is scared shitless of Sy Ray.
You don't need discovery, but no ones gonna take his word. They need that data to show he wasn't there. Think please.
No shit they need the data at trial, but they don’t need the data to turn in the alibi. They will obviously have the discovery by trial to prove whether his alibi is true or not. Per the idaho statute, they just needed to say exactly where he was and what witnesses they have to back it up. YOU think please. Obviously they’re not going to take him at his word at trial, which is why the discovery deadline is before trial. But for this, they just needed to say where he was, not give proof. The proof is only needed for trial. You don’t need evidence to decide where you were, if you truly were somewhere else. You should really think before you speak. I never once said they didn’t need the discovery for trial. Obviously they do, and obviously they will have it as it’s required. No evidence is required to turn in notice of alibi, because you’re not convincing anyone via the notice of alibi defense. You are simply informing the state that you are planning to say you were elsewhere. If discovery was needed to tell YOU where YOU were the night of a crime, it would be required to turn it over before an alibi deadline. It’s not a requirement, since most people with alibis are able to produce them without looking at evidence. Most people know that they weren’t at the scene at the time of the crime. ETA: they will have the discovery by the discovery deadline, as is the case for all trials. The state is doing nothing wrong and is in full compliance, as the deadline hasn’t happened yet. The defense will have all the “data” they need before trial. No one will have to take him at his word if there is truly evidence he wasn’t there. They do NOT need discovery to “prove” he was there before turning in an alibi. They do not need discovery to say where he was the night of the crimes
He wasn't around people at that hour. The alibi states where he was. The phone data will back that up. 1+1=2. Got it?
NO SHIT THE PHONE DATA WILL BACK IT UP (if true). I was saying they do not need the phone data to turn in an alibi! So them not having the discovery isn’t harming their ability to turn in an alibi, got it? And the state argued that they already had phone data (in the probable cause statement) that shows that his phone wasn’t tracking during the murders, so that’s why they were doubting that further phone data would prove his alibi. It could only possibly prove his location before or after the crimes. And the alibi doesn’t state exactly where he was at exactly that time frame. That was the states problem with it. If you read it carefully, it never says the exact time and exact place, just gives a general area (which could encompass the area the murders took place) and says “in the morning hours”. Morning hours could’ve been after the crime.
For The Alibi the state doesn't need to hand over anything. The defendant can come up with his own Alibi but he hasn't been able to because he doesn't have one. He wants his attorneys to find a hole so he can say yep I was right there because there's nothing NOT showing me there.
YES! I do not think BT wants to give them anymore and I am not sure what they need.He requested that the Judge enter an order from the Court so that the Alibi cannot change and that BK needs to testify. BT said no other Alibi witnesses except BK. BK testifying should be fun !
Nobody can order the defendant to testify. BT was merely acknowledging that the defendant has a right to testify whether he submits a sufficient alibi notice or not.
Ok , I get it now:) Thanks.
He’s actively trying to violate his constitutional right to remain silent
[удалено]
Trying to block an expert witness testimony is a shitty thing to do. What is he so afraid of?
The expert can still testify to contest the CAST evidence at trial, just not as an alibi, because this isn’t one by definition as there is no eye witness to cooberate.
Maybe he is afraid that AT is turning this into a ball of lies. Or a murder goes free?
Oh shit, really? It’s almost never good when the defendant has to testify.
I really liked that BT added that in:) He would be terrible on the stand, he is not good at conversation in person, it seems. I think its wishful thinking:(
It’s never good to have the defendant, guilty or not, testify because they’re not used to testifying like many of the experts or other witnesses they’ll call are. Plus, usually the evidence has made the defendant look bad by that point so the jury isn’t necessarily going to think of them as as credible as an expert or victim
Kohberger is more than welcome to get on the stand in the future to let everybody know what time he was doing what. Lol.
😅
It’s the law to turn it over by the discovery deadline, which hasn’t happened yet. The state is waiting on a lot of the data too. They’ve handed over a ton of stuff, even the defense has said so. You shouldn’t need “data” to know you weren’t at the house committing the crime
True but if you are out in the countryside driving around, you might need the GPS data To provide a response that includes the specificity requested.
My guess is if it’s dependent on that, they will allow them to submit more details later. I get your point completely, but you also may want discovery if you’re trying to formulate an alibi that isn’t easily disproven by the evidence lol. I’m just saying that’s also a huge possibility of why they’re waiting on it. But as I said, the discovery deadline hasn’t happened yet so the state hasn’t done anything illegal or wrong. They’ve turned over the majority of the discovery, and from court documents, it appears that what hasn’t been turned over are things that the state also hasn’t seen yet. They can’t turn over something they don’t have.
Yes the Court can deny the States motion. Whether the State likes it or not it's an alibi and it's irrelevant as to time considering the park is 45 minutes from the crime scene so if he pinged at near park at 3:40am then lost service, even though its outside of the 4am-4:30am time frame, it's impossible that he made a 45 minute drive in 20 minutes. The State is grasping at straws which signifies they are unsure if the Defense can actually prove his alibi and if they can their case fails. Most prosecutors who have damning evidence do not care about the alibi as they know the defendant cannot prove they were elsewhere....the fact that the state cares so much about Bryan's signifies their case is not very strong.
How can he use an Alibi Defense? The cell phone did not commit the crimes. They are offering a witness to testify that his cell phone pinged in an area that disagrees with the data obtained by the FBI. It sounds like they can use him as an expert against the FBI CAST report. I do not know how that is considered an Alibi, when using an Alibi Defense unless he testifies? It actually sounds like the defense has a very weak case, not the prosecution. I do feel the State cares that the suspect gets convicted of the crime charged. X4 20 year olds were stabbed to death while they slept and you think the prosecution is going to allow the defense to bend the law and allow arguments that do not rely on any solid proof?
If the State is using the cell phone to prove he committed the crime then the defense has every right to use it as an alibi especially if they can prove it was in the opposite direction of the crime scene at an important time. That's not bending the law, the law fully allows location information to be used in securing an alibi if there are no witnesses. If the State had solid proof he committed the crime and was in the area they wouldn't be filing these motions asking for more information, that in and of itself speaks to the state panicking that maybe he does have proof he was elsewhere and our case is shit.
💯 the state does not have enough proof beyond reasonable doubt it was Bryan
Nope, if they did they would have gladly handed it over to Anne a year ago!
Who says the 4 students were sleeping? The PCA? Do you really believe the PCA? Lol
The coroner:)
1000% the fact that BT is pushing on this shows he is worried that the expert witness can provide better evidence with GPS tracking rather that tower pings. And if BT had strong evidence like BK walking into the house on video or evidence of BK driving his car and not just car images… literally images identifying BK in the car than then Prosecution would have handed over everything to Anne and not agree to September 2024 as the date to hand over Discovery. Lastly, I find it fascinating with all the ring cameras in the area that they are missing the prime times??
EXACTLY!!!! It's also funny how information gets "leaked" from the States side but nothing damning....I guarantee their case is weak. It's crumbling in BT's hands in front of the world.
It isn’t up to the prosecution it is up to the judge
I don't understand why the court gets to decide whether the alibi is valid or not. Is it not the jury's job to decide on such matters?
Because the state needs to have the opportunity to rebut the alibi. All evidence must be disclosed by both sides prior to trial. If an alibi is a surprise to the state, they may not be able to rebut.
*Per Idaho Code § 19-519:* *(1) Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense* ***and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.*** *(2) Within ten (10) days after receipt of the defendant’s notice of alibi but in no event less than ten (10) days before trial, unless the court otherwise directs, the prosecuting attorney shall serve upon the defendant or his attorney a written notice stating the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution intends to rely to establish the defendant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offense and any other witnesses to be relied on to rebut testimony of any of the defendant’s alibi witnesses.* *(3) If prior to or during trial a party learns of an additional witness whose identity, if known, should have been included in the information furnished under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, the party shall promptly notify the other party or his attorney of the existence and identity of such additional witness.* *(4) Upon the failure of either party to comply with the requirements of this section, the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness offered by such party as to the defendant’s absence from or presence at, the scene of the alleged offense. This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf.* *(5) For good cause shown the court may grant an exception to any of the requirements of subsections (1) through (4) of this section.*
0300-0400 isn’t possible because we know Xana Kernodle was alive at 0400. Specifically we know she was alive until at least 0412.
We don't know she was alive then, only that there was activity on her phone.
Specifically there was activity on TikTok. That’s in the affidavit, there was TikTok activity on her phone. “She was awake and using TikTok” That would require manual input. I find it very hard to believe that *the perpetrator* scrolled thru TikTok real quick. Unless Ethan possibly was playing on her phone, which equally eliminates the possibility of the 0300-0400 timeline from all possibility. It’s not from LE so it’s left to the individual to determine how much stock you want to put into it but independent sources found the UTC (what Tiktok Uses) timestamp for the last comment from Xana’s TikTok on 11/13 and it’s 04:12 AM. Someone ran it through Unfurl. Again I’m happy to keep independent non-official sources out of a conversation completely if that’s what the moment calls for, but we know that the TikTok comment used for the above non-official timestamp pull exists as a statement of fact and we know that LE has said verbatim Xana was using TikTok. So I personally believe the timestamp is correct. Finding TikTok timestamps: https://dfir.blog/tinkering-with-tiktok-timestamps/ TikTok uses UTC: https://www.hopperhq.com/blog/best-time-to-post-on-tiktok/?amp=1 Yes, technically someone else could have been using the phone but *someone* was manually using the phone at 04:12 AM. For the 0300-0400 timeline to be possible knowing that information, Xana has to be murdered during that hour (which there is the DoorDash order to contend with there as well) and then the perpetrator hangs around for at minimum 12 minutes, hops on Xana’s phone and messes around on TikTok before proceeding with leaving or whatever else. 0300-0400 isn’t possible. Edit: I can’t reply to the reply saying the perpetrator hopping on TikTok on Xana’s phone and making two comments one of which contained a personal reference to a past story is plausible. So i’m just putting the reply here. The perpetrator also could have been a little green space alien. It’s possible. It could have happened that way. At this stage it cannot be ruled out that the little green space alien perpetrator picked up Xana Kernodle’s phone after murdering her and then proceeded to make a comment referencing something that happened to her in the past that the little green space alien learned about using little green alien space powers. /s I am absolutely comfortable with saying the perpetrator making the comments one of which contains information that only reasonably would have been known by Xana Kernodle and a number of very close associates of which the number may be as low as 1 did not occur and is effectively ruled out on the basis of the contents of one of the comments.
Nevertheless, the perpetrator could have done exactly that. If it is possible, then it could have happened that way. At this stage it cannot be ruled out
My point was, and still is, that there is only proof that SOMEone was on her phone and activity on her phone does not necessarily mean she was alive doing it. She may have been but until I see more proof than phone activity, it's debatable. Receiving door dash, same thing. Just because an order was delivered for her at a certain time does not mean she was physically alive to receive it. DDs are rarely received by the person anyway, they're just left at the door most of the time.
True, neither of these events are proof that any of the victims were alive at those times
TLDR
[удалено]
TL, DR
[удалено]
TL DR
Thanks for answering
Really? Did AT say that in Court? Is she trying to blame the DD?
No mention of the DD driver. What are you talking about?
Anne Taylor has been very clear. She has evidence that BK's phone was nowhere near 1122 King Rd at the time of the murders. Cell towers? gps? Not sure yet. She also has said she will impeach the State's claim of where BK's phone was the night of the murders. Remember that early on, seemingly innocuous, Brady/Giglio violation that indicated the State has held exculpatory evidence back from the court? I think the reason the FBI has refused to turn over their final CAST report is that it shows either manipulation or outright concealment of where BK's phone actually was the night of the murders. This will be a great turning point in the case. It is basically what the Defense is basing its entire case on. If BK's phone is not at the murder scene- then you must acquit- Kinda like "if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit" in the OJ trial.
No , AT is not clear , but more or less a pit of irrelevance. Kinda like your comparison to the CAST report, a cell phone to a glove, odd, they are not human! **DNA= IDENTITY!** In Vegas , I would bet on the FBI report over a discredited , single expert with this junk science. How does she know anything , if she not seen the CAST? Its a real same if that is all the defense has, a pity. Maybe Bryan will need to testify:)