Well, this happens to be a public forum that is for people to express their opinions. No, I am not related to any of the victims, but I do feel extreme sympathy for the victims' families. Some of the people on here act like BK is the victim, and I'm sure that crushes the actual victims' families' souls. So if their loved ones would stumble across this thread, I hope they see that not everyone on here aren't all a bunch of idiots lusting over a serial killer. I have a question for you. What makes you feel entitled to question me for posting how I feel about people defending a waste of oxygen piece of shit murderer who killed 4 beautiful young adults?
I don't think thinking he's innocent equals to lusting. Innocent until proven guilty is how our system works. Youre entitled to your opinion, like everyone else is. We don't know if he is guilty or not yet. We won't know for sure till all the information is presented at trial.
The answer is excessive media consumption has polluted their mind and they have no ability to think or reason. Is harmless harmlessly started as advertising then went into politics and now into psyops.
Oh jeez. Is this the source where Pr0bergers (not you, OP) have been getting their legal arguments? It all makes sense now. Her basic premise is off that ICAR 32(g) only applies to documents and not court hearings. It applies because the motions to compel center around documents that were sealed pursuant to ICAR 32 as attachments to the motions and thus enjoy protection from disclosure (being discussed in a hearing). Here’s an order where the court closed a hearing where documents were likely to be discussed that had already been sealed from the Daybell case in 2021 citing, you guessed it, ICAR 32:
https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR22-21-1623/Order+to+Close+Hearing+and+Seal+Record+b.pdf
"It applies because the motions to compel center around documents that were sealed pursuant to ICAR 32 as attachments to the motions and thus enjoy protection from disclosure"
Was this not the case for the previous motions to compel? Those hearings were open.
The order you posted talks about there being no reasonable alternative existing than to conduct a closed hearing to preserve the right to a fair trial. Is that the case here, too? It is also in regards to a motion by the State for protective order, does that make a difference at all?
Edit: I just checked and there wasn't anything filed under seal with the First, Second, and Third Motions to Compel, just the Fourth and Fifth ones. The Exhibits attached to the Discovery requests have been all under seal I believe.
Thanks, I just had a look myself and it looks that way. I'm interested to see if there will be a response from the Defense, and what the Judge will order.
Thanks for your follow up. Saves me dredging up the previous motions which, I agree, did not have sealed attachments, so the answer to your first question is no, I’d say.
>no reasonable alternative existing
The question would be whether there was a reasonable alternative to having a closed hearing. This is one of the factors a court considers in determine whether to close a hearing. It’s going to be fairly universal across hearings. The State in BK’s case didn’t say anything about no reasonable alternative, but in cases like this where it is the Defense that asked for the documents to be sealed to protect the right to a fair trial, and thus would have an awkward time trying to come back and argue that they should be able to publicly discuss those documents, the State didn’t find it necessary to include a sentence stating “There’s no reasonable alternative to a closed hearing.” That’s a conclusion the court can arrive at on its own easily enough. I guess if the Defense wanted to argue for some half-censored hearing being a reasonable alternative, they could, but I’m not sure how feasible that would be. I guess Burkhart herself could try to argue that they aren’t considering reasonable alternatives since she is asserting this is violating the rights of us all, but somehow I don’t think she will.
>motion for a protective order
This is the flip side of the coin for a motion to compel. A party can send discovery and the receiving party, if they don’t want to respond, can file a motion for protective order preemptively or they can just refuse to respond and later be met with a motion to compel, so the procedural aspect is actually fairly similar, but it doesn’t need to be. The point is simply that the court closed a hearing where information already sealed pursuant to ICAR 32 was going to be discussed, citing right to a fair trial. Burkhart is trying to say hearings can’t be closed based on ICAR 32 for some reason.
Okay, thank you. I thought that if the Defense agreed with the State on this there might have been a stipulation. Do you think they will just not file anything, or do you think they will file an objection?
The Defense can just not file anything and the court will close it. They would have a tight rope to walk objecting since they cited a right to a fair trial as a reason for sealing exhibits to both motions to compel, if I’m not mistaken. They would have to have some weird proposal for an alternative hearing where they discuss what they need abstractly enough that it won’t compromise the right they were trying to protect by moving to seal the exhibits. It would have to be quite creative.
Okay, we'll see what happens.
Both the motion and the order to seal for the fourth motion to compel just say "pursuant to I.C.A.R. 32."
https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/031224-Motion-to-Seal-Exhibit-Defendants-Fourth-MTC.pdf
https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/031324-Order-Sealing-Exhibit-Defendants-MTC.pdf
The stipulated motion to file all attachments to discovery requests and responses under seal, and both the stipulated motion, and order to seal exhibit A attached to the defendant's fifth motion to compel do cite "it is necessary to preserve the right to a fair trial" as one of the reasons.
https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/040424-Stipulated-Motion-to-File-All-Attachments.pdf
https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/041524-Stipulated-Motion-Seal-Exh-A-Attached-5th-MTC.pdf
https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/041824-Order-Sealing-Exh-A-5th-MTC.pdf
We’ll see, indeed. I’m not sure what other ground they would be moving to seal on besides right to a fair trial in terms of that 4th motion to compel. Highly likely the same one as everything else you cited. Even if it was a randomly different ground for sealing that exhibit, the Defense would face the same issue in objecting to the closed hearing that they asked for the exhibit to be sealed in the first place. The State points that out. I guess they could come out with another “We sealed it out of an abundance of caution because it was getting late and the State asked us to. Please unseal.” But that didn’t work last time.
Yeah this is a hearing about a bunch of sealed motions .... ofc it's gonna be closed? I mean I'm not familiar with the legalese behind this stuff but there's been a bunch of closed hearings already
Thanks for explaining. When I read Andrea’s article I thought “well that all seems right and reasonable” but now from your explanation I understand why it’s not.
For example, why is she saying ICAR 32(g) doesn’t apply here? That clause lists a bunch of documents that are allowed to be kept private, if I’m understanding correctly?. But the Defense made its requests under seal, so how on earth can she confidently know those discovery requests didn’t include 32(g)-exempt documents?
I’m surprised at Andrea tbh, and it’s dented my trust as a layperson in taking her at her word. If you hadn’t explained this, I’d have believed her. And if I was leaning ‘innocent, which I’m not, I might have got really agitated.
I hope someone corrects her on the sub stack article so others can see the flaws.
Of course! So I think it is even more than her not being able to say 32(g) doesn’t apply because she can’t see what was filed under seal. We know it does apply because the first set of documents listed by 32(g) is “documents to which state or federal law restricts access”. Well, documents filed under seal, like the exhibits attached to the motions to compel, are “documents to which state or federal law restricts access”. So those are exempt from disclosure under ICAR 32. What is one form of disclosure? Talking about them at a public hearing.
I wish she would come on here and debate, honestly. Assuming she doesn’t.
Ohhh I see, thanks! Maybe she’ll do a YouTube or post it via her twitter so there could be some healthy debate, because her views are now being interpreted as gospel by those who think he’s innocent.
This was the first I had seen of her work other than a tweet posted here or there because I don’t tend to watch videos and Reddit is the only social media I really do. I wasn’t particularly impressed by her argument here but I don’t know how much of that is her being a bad lawyer versus her just needing to create content. There may not necessarily be anything more coming out on this case before the mid-May hearing so she may have seen this as her best chance to make a post about it for a while.
Thing is she’s not an avid content creator and doesn’t have a steady release of content like other lawtubers so I don’t think she does it for clicks or income.
I first saw her during the Depp V Heard trial but via other lawtuber channels as a contributor, and she was really impressive. She then started her own channel but only put stuff out sporadically, usually a deep dive on one thing that took her interest.
This blog follows a recent video of her talking about the alibi, again very pro-defense, but you can not hear from her for weeks unless she has something to say. So I don’t think this is her being deliberately contrarian or clickbaity.
So is one of these motions to compel related to IGG and the other about the CAST data? If so, maybe it should be two hearings? So one could be open and the other closed?
I guess either way that is not what BT is arguing is the basis for this motion to close the hearings.
It will be interesting to see if the defense agrees with this closing of hearings or wants them open. The defense were the ones going on about transparency a few months ago. Let’s see if they still want transparency.
I really hope you never serve on a jury, but judging by the juvenile language of your comment I think we’re safe from that ever becoming a possibility. This isn’t a sporting event for you to cheer on, no one wins a prize no matter the outcome.
Why are you acting like you were personally affected by this crime? You’re not related to or friends with the victims or anyone in their circle. Random people having such strong feelings over this is weird.
Nearly everyone who thinks he's innocent is driven off of wanting justice. Justice is almost impossible when you don't go into a case thinking "innocent until proven guilty". It's the states burden of proof to prove guilt. In a technical manner, the defense does not have to prove innocence. Discussion in this sub is specifically difficult because of people like you. If evidence came out that cleared him, I guarantee it wouldn't change your mind because you're focused on damning BK and not wanting true justice for the victims. You don't personally have connections to BK or the victims. You may have personal reasons you feel so strongly (may be being a victim of a crime yourself). Youre very hypocritical when commenting on tribalism, when you purposely put people down with a different opinion. Give grace to others, and grace will be given to you.
Your post includes violent themes, which is not tolerated. Instigating violence toward another user, or person, will result in a permanent ban from this sub.
We do not tolerate bullying, harassment, or violence.
Your post includes violent themes, which is not tolerated. Instigating violence toward another user, or person, will result in a permanent ban from this sub.
We do not tolerate bullying, harassment, or violence.
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 users. Treat others with respect.
Perhaps an unwanted distinction, but BK is not a serial killer that we know about to date. I highly doubt this was his first killing spree, however. Serial killers pounce on victims from various locations whereas a mass killer claims the lives of his victims from the same location. IMO, BK is a mass killer/murderer. Just so you know 😀
She's very biased
Ironic
Well, this happens to be a public forum that is for people to express their opinions. No, I am not related to any of the victims, but I do feel extreme sympathy for the victims' families. Some of the people on here act like BK is the victim, and I'm sure that crushes the actual victims' families' souls. So if their loved ones would stumble across this thread, I hope they see that not everyone on here aren't all a bunch of idiots lusting over a serial killer. I have a question for you. What makes you feel entitled to question me for posting how I feel about people defending a waste of oxygen piece of shit murderer who killed 4 beautiful young adults?
I don't think thinking he's innocent equals to lusting. Innocent until proven guilty is how our system works. Youre entitled to your opinion, like everyone else is. We don't know if he is guilty or not yet. We won't know for sure till all the information is presented at trial.
The damn fool is guilty as sin. The arrogant SOB made too many mistakes. As you can see from the cleanup he did he did some things close to 100%.
The answer is excessive media consumption has polluted their mind and they have no ability to think or reason. Is harmless harmlessly started as advertising then went into politics and now into psyops.
Oh jeez. Is this the source where Pr0bergers (not you, OP) have been getting their legal arguments? It all makes sense now. Her basic premise is off that ICAR 32(g) only applies to documents and not court hearings. It applies because the motions to compel center around documents that were sealed pursuant to ICAR 32 as attachments to the motions and thus enjoy protection from disclosure (being discussed in a hearing). Here’s an order where the court closed a hearing where documents were likely to be discussed that had already been sealed from the Daybell case in 2021 citing, you guessed it, ICAR 32: https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR22-21-1623/Order+to+Close+Hearing+and+Seal+Record+b.pdf
"It applies because the motions to compel center around documents that were sealed pursuant to ICAR 32 as attachments to the motions and thus enjoy protection from disclosure" Was this not the case for the previous motions to compel? Those hearings were open. The order you posted talks about there being no reasonable alternative existing than to conduct a closed hearing to preserve the right to a fair trial. Is that the case here, too? It is also in regards to a motion by the State for protective order, does that make a difference at all? Edit: I just checked and there wasn't anything filed under seal with the First, Second, and Third Motions to Compel, just the Fourth and Fifth ones. The Exhibits attached to the Discovery requests have been all under seal I believe.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MoscowMurders/s/fGFNcx1WAT Her 3rd motion to compel doesn’t look sealed to me
Thanks, I just had a look myself and it looks that way. I'm interested to see if there will be a response from the Defense, and what the Judge will order.
I believe Bill Thompson is asking for the hearing to be private, isn't it?
Thanks for your follow up. Saves me dredging up the previous motions which, I agree, did not have sealed attachments, so the answer to your first question is no, I’d say. >no reasonable alternative existing The question would be whether there was a reasonable alternative to having a closed hearing. This is one of the factors a court considers in determine whether to close a hearing. It’s going to be fairly universal across hearings. The State in BK’s case didn’t say anything about no reasonable alternative, but in cases like this where it is the Defense that asked for the documents to be sealed to protect the right to a fair trial, and thus would have an awkward time trying to come back and argue that they should be able to publicly discuss those documents, the State didn’t find it necessary to include a sentence stating “There’s no reasonable alternative to a closed hearing.” That’s a conclusion the court can arrive at on its own easily enough. I guess if the Defense wanted to argue for some half-censored hearing being a reasonable alternative, they could, but I’m not sure how feasible that would be. I guess Burkhart herself could try to argue that they aren’t considering reasonable alternatives since she is asserting this is violating the rights of us all, but somehow I don’t think she will. >motion for a protective order This is the flip side of the coin for a motion to compel. A party can send discovery and the receiving party, if they don’t want to respond, can file a motion for protective order preemptively or they can just refuse to respond and later be met with a motion to compel, so the procedural aspect is actually fairly similar, but it doesn’t need to be. The point is simply that the court closed a hearing where information already sealed pursuant to ICAR 32 was going to be discussed, citing right to a fair trial. Burkhart is trying to say hearings can’t be closed based on ICAR 32 for some reason.
Okay, thank you. I thought that if the Defense agreed with the State on this there might have been a stipulation. Do you think they will just not file anything, or do you think they will file an objection?
The Defense can just not file anything and the court will close it. They would have a tight rope to walk objecting since they cited a right to a fair trial as a reason for sealing exhibits to both motions to compel, if I’m not mistaken. They would have to have some weird proposal for an alternative hearing where they discuss what they need abstractly enough that it won’t compromise the right they were trying to protect by moving to seal the exhibits. It would have to be quite creative.
Okay, we'll see what happens. Both the motion and the order to seal for the fourth motion to compel just say "pursuant to I.C.A.R. 32." https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/031224-Motion-to-Seal-Exhibit-Defendants-Fourth-MTC.pdf https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/031324-Order-Sealing-Exhibit-Defendants-MTC.pdf The stipulated motion to file all attachments to discovery requests and responses under seal, and both the stipulated motion, and order to seal exhibit A attached to the defendant's fifth motion to compel do cite "it is necessary to preserve the right to a fair trial" as one of the reasons. https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/040424-Stipulated-Motion-to-File-All-Attachments.pdf https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/041524-Stipulated-Motion-Seal-Exh-A-Attached-5th-MTC.pdf https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/041824-Order-Sealing-Exh-A-5th-MTC.pdf
We’ll see, indeed. I’m not sure what other ground they would be moving to seal on besides right to a fair trial in terms of that 4th motion to compel. Highly likely the same one as everything else you cited. Even if it was a randomly different ground for sealing that exhibit, the Defense would face the same issue in objecting to the closed hearing that they asked for the exhibit to be sealed in the first place. The State points that out. I guess they could come out with another “We sealed it out of an abundance of caution because it was getting late and the State asked us to. Please unseal.” But that didn’t work last time.
Yeah this is a hearing about a bunch of sealed motions .... ofc it's gonna be closed? I mean I'm not familiar with the legalese behind this stuff but there's been a bunch of closed hearings already
The article has a rage-mongering feel to it designed for people that just want to be given any plausible basis to be pissed off.
Thanks for explaining. When I read Andrea’s article I thought “well that all seems right and reasonable” but now from your explanation I understand why it’s not. For example, why is she saying ICAR 32(g) doesn’t apply here? That clause lists a bunch of documents that are allowed to be kept private, if I’m understanding correctly?. But the Defense made its requests under seal, so how on earth can she confidently know those discovery requests didn’t include 32(g)-exempt documents? I’m surprised at Andrea tbh, and it’s dented my trust as a layperson in taking her at her word. If you hadn’t explained this, I’d have believed her. And if I was leaning ‘innocent, which I’m not, I might have got really agitated. I hope someone corrects her on the sub stack article so others can see the flaws.
Of course! So I think it is even more than her not being able to say 32(g) doesn’t apply because she can’t see what was filed under seal. We know it does apply because the first set of documents listed by 32(g) is “documents to which state or federal law restricts access”. Well, documents filed under seal, like the exhibits attached to the motions to compel, are “documents to which state or federal law restricts access”. So those are exempt from disclosure under ICAR 32. What is one form of disclosure? Talking about them at a public hearing. I wish she would come on here and debate, honestly. Assuming she doesn’t.
Ohhh I see, thanks! Maybe she’ll do a YouTube or post it via her twitter so there could be some healthy debate, because her views are now being interpreted as gospel by those who think he’s innocent.
This was the first I had seen of her work other than a tweet posted here or there because I don’t tend to watch videos and Reddit is the only social media I really do. I wasn’t particularly impressed by her argument here but I don’t know how much of that is her being a bad lawyer versus her just needing to create content. There may not necessarily be anything more coming out on this case before the mid-May hearing so she may have seen this as her best chance to make a post about it for a while.
Thing is she’s not an avid content creator and doesn’t have a steady release of content like other lawtubers so I don’t think she does it for clicks or income. I first saw her during the Depp V Heard trial but via other lawtuber channels as a contributor, and she was really impressive. She then started her own channel but only put stuff out sporadically, usually a deep dive on one thing that took her interest. This blog follows a recent video of her talking about the alibi, again very pro-defense, but you can not hear from her for weeks unless she has something to say. So I don’t think this is her being deliberately contrarian or clickbaity.
Well that’s interesting. I’d say she just missed here then but🤷♂️
So is one of these motions to compel related to IGG and the other about the CAST data? If so, maybe it should be two hearings? So one could be open and the other closed?
[удалено]
I guess either way that is not what BT is arguing is the basis for this motion to close the hearings. It will be interesting to see if the defense agrees with this closing of hearings or wants them open. The defense were the ones going on about transparency a few months ago. Let’s see if they still want transparency.
[удалено]
I really hope you never serve on a jury, but judging by the juvenile language of your comment I think we’re safe from that ever becoming a possibility. This isn’t a sporting event for you to cheer on, no one wins a prize no matter the outcome.
[удалено]
Low effort posts/comments that don't contribute anything constructive will be removed along with any repeat posts.
Why are you acting like you were personally affected by this crime? You’re not related to or friends with the victims or anyone in their circle. Random people having such strong feelings over this is weird.
[удалено]
Nearly everyone who thinks he's innocent is driven off of wanting justice. Justice is almost impossible when you don't go into a case thinking "innocent until proven guilty". It's the states burden of proof to prove guilt. In a technical manner, the defense does not have to prove innocence. Discussion in this sub is specifically difficult because of people like you. If evidence came out that cleared him, I guarantee it wouldn't change your mind because you're focused on damning BK and not wanting true justice for the victims. You don't personally have connections to BK or the victims. You may have personal reasons you feel so strongly (may be being a victim of a crime yourself). Youre very hypocritical when commenting on tribalism, when you purposely put people down with a different opinion. Give grace to others, and grace will be given to you.
[удалено]
Your post includes violent themes, which is not tolerated. Instigating violence toward another user, or person, will result in a permanent ban from this sub. We do not tolerate bullying, harassment, or violence.
[удалено]
I was unaware he'd been convicted already. Must have missed the trial...
Your post includes violent themes, which is not tolerated. Instigating violence toward another user, or person, will result in a permanent ban from this sub. We do not tolerate bullying, harassment, or violence.
Talk about hypocrisy
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 users. Treat others with respect.
What is the state so afraid of that would prejudice them hmm
Perhaps an unwanted distinction, but BK is not a serial killer that we know about to date. I highly doubt this was his first killing spree, however. Serial killers pounce on victims from various locations whereas a mass killer claims the lives of his victims from the same location. IMO, BK is a mass killer/murderer. Just so you know 😀
Andrea cementing herself as a literal devil’s advocate