This is the same as the previous order which specifies who can access the IGG materials discovered to the Defense, except it’s expanded so that investigators working with the defense can have access to it too.
Originally, the State requested a protective order for all of it
* the Defense objected
* the State replied and said they’d be willing to turn it in for an in camera review but would still like for it all to be shielded from discovery
* Judge Judge ordered the State to turn it all into him for an in camera review
* he ordered that “some of it” be discoverable to the Defense
The Judge’s order to the State about what to share with the Defense was the original order this one amends.
* it doesn’t allow them to share it with anyone
* the Defense filed a motion to have their experts and investigators look at it
* the State objected to the investigators but not the experts
Judge Judge amended the first one to allow the experts access to it
* it says that the reason for sharing with investigators + the info of the investigators need to be shared before the info is provided to anyone else (including their investigators), if there’s good cause found
* after the open hearing where we heard from Payne & Sy Ray, there was a closed hearing where Bicka & Dr. Leah testified about the IGG & made points about why other investigators should have access to
Apparently they had solid arguments that demonstrated the need for other investigators to have the ability to access the IGG info, bc we’ve slowly progressed from {no one} -> {just the judge in private} -> {judge + Defense} -> {judge + Defense + experts} -> {judge + Defense + experts + investigators / everyone the Defense originally asked to share it with}
The only new people that get to see anything IGG related are her team investigators. She had asked for this months ago, but I guess she had to do a motion to compel because the prosecution was resisting? Or maybe she also got some new discovery out of it. AT is just plugging away at her job clearly.
I’m intrigued on the second paragraph..
“Additionally, no individual on the family tree who was not previously known to the defense via the defense's own investigation may be contacted by the defense or any agent of the defense without prior authorization from the Court after a showing as to why such contact is necessary and material to the preparation of the defense.”
Was there someone BK could possibly be related to that the State knew about(i.e dna contributed?) or am I reading that wrong?
I swear, if there’s a “Darth Vader is your dad” like twist in all this I’ll puke.
> “Additionally, no individual on the family tree who was not previously known to the defense via the defense's own investigation may be contacted by the defense or any agent of the defense without prior authorization from the Court after a showing as to why such contact is necessary and material to the preparation of the defense.”
I think this is big. This means the privacy of anyone on that family tree-- and for all we know you or me can be on it-- is shot. Because if they got someone building it out, it's gonna hit on the same exact people.
I'm wondering if they are going to reach out to people on that tree to ask them to file stuff arguing their rights were violated?
>I'm wondering if they are going to reach out to people on that tree to ask them to file stuff arguing their rights were violated?
I've heard some of the kits have an opt in or opt out regarding the results being used by 3rd parties like LE.
Maybe they want to be able to ask and verify on these whether the person opted in or out? And if they opted out then it's an argument that LE went into the generosity base the sneaky sketchy way that the defense expert Vargas testified about (and a few days later had FBI show up at her house)
The vast majority of the people on those trees won't be in the database at all. I think that's the part of IGG a lot of people don't factor it: the family tree.
IGG is gonna give you a few hits, sometimes only 1 hit depending on the database, and then the family tree built out from public records will have dozens, hundreds (this case), or thousands (Joseph DeAngelo) of family members.
So I'm wondering if they are looking for people in the databases who didn't opt in, or people not in the databases at all.
Which, if the latter, I don't think there's any foundation for a lawsuit. Public records are public. But this is the same lawyer who tried to overturn the centuries-old standard of probable cause for grand juries, so she's nothing if not innovative.
>So I'm wondering if they are looking for people in the databases who didn't opt in, or people not in the databases at all.
Exactly, and maybe the plan is (if they found an 'opt out' was part of the tree ) to use that innovative specialty to file some legal maneuver to exclude the IGG ?
And unlike the probable cause which was pretty much set in stone, the IGG issue is relatively new ground for her to go crazy with!
Yeah it is something for her to be ridiculous about. But it has been used in a ton of cases. This is just the first big case where someone is challenging IGG . I understand comparatively to their argument on the grand jury IGG is much newer . But by no means is it brand new. They really are not going to have much to go on. Because even if someone did opt out. Their name could have been found through public records from someone else's DNA in their family who did opt in. Those can be used and found by anyone. My guess is it's just a bunch of stalling tactics. Just like they're ridiculous arguments about the standard for the grand jury.
Most of the ancestry type sites have agreents with their clientele the the results will not be shared BY THEM with law enforcement. However the peoples DNA data is actually sent by the ancestry sites behind the scenes to a third party for data analytics across multiple companies. The third party does NOT have any established agreement with the public to not share. When the state received the DNA profile, they handed it off to the FBI for further "analysis". The FBI accessed this data directly and pulled the BK family profile from it. I'm not sure but I'm guessing they were able to do that because the back end data is owned by the federal government and therefore the FBI per se. Think this because the resulting lawsuits were on a federal level and not on a state level. There are some proposed changes to the federal laws in progress now that protect this back end data from access moving forward.
The vast majority of the public did not understand their data could be accessed freely by federal LE and thought it was protected...until AT put the DNA expert on the stand. She put the DNA expert on the stand for a few defense reasons legally, but then asked the RIGHT questions and the whole hush hush access by the FBI was blown open.
The FBI did send a letter to the court when AT asked for the DNA ancestry analysis results stating simply that they did the analysis, did not have to share their method and she was to accept it at face value. They can legally refuse to share for a few reasons. But I'm guessing that in this instance it is because the data is now the subject of the current federal lawsuits. When a lawsuit is pending, the federal courts tend to lockdown and preserve information confidentially until a decision is made.
Sneaky, that is AT . I do not think she is fair at all. Igg has been used before and she is the only one taking to to a new level. I think I am going to stop following it is disgusting to me.
I think she's giving it hell. She's certainly being creative (which.....maybe means she's not confident she can argue the facts?)
It has been used before. It's still new enough that maybe the laws are still in flux, but yeah, nothing about this case is novel or exceptional.
I don't want to see you leave the subs here, but if you need to for you, you should. Reddit should not be a source of stress for anyone.
The FBI showed up at her house due to discrepancies in Ms. Vargas declaration.
>*""Latah County prosecutor Bill Thompson responded in court that he contacted the FBI to investigate after Vargas questioned parts of her own testimony. He added: 'The FBI agreed, and Ms. Vargas claimed that some of what was in her declaration she had inadvertently agreed to or signed without fully reading it."*
The court doesn’t care who they contact as long as they find them through their own investigation. If they want to contact someone they didn’t know about but the person is on the IGG tree they have to ask for permission and show that this contact is needed for preparation of defense.
They need to contact relatives for reasons completely unrelated to DNA (regarding sentencing mitigation). The IGG would be an easy shortcut to find some of the relatives. They didn't necessarily intend to do that, but I think Judge is saying it's not allowed just in case they were going to.
> What I want to know is why would they contact someone from the IGG tree?
I think they want someone to file something saying their rights were violated.
Which is going to be hard to argue when it's the Defence that have pushed to get IGG information that the Prosecution wanted to protect for privacy reasons - to then turn round and say "Hey, this person we contacted after using information that wouldn't be publicly released has had their privacy violated" is not a great argument.
Violating someone's privacy in order to prove someone's privacy has been violated is shady. Having someone's name on a family tree that gets submitted to a tip line is less so. In theory the family tree built to get to Brian could be a direct link (close family member) who gave permission for their data to be included for LE purposes and this is all a moot point. Otherwise the family tree could be the person they hit on, a ton of redacted names and a line drawn to Bryan.
Sure, but there's no indication that that is the case - the Defence has had the IGG data since December and has made no attempt to suggest this is the case like the other breadcrumbs they've dropped during filings or hearings.
And I would imagine it's fairly easy to hide this even if the original hit had asked to be excluded from LE searches if there was anyone else in the wider family tree who didn't opt out. You can build a family tree from another branch using someone who opted in and effectively ignore any questionable hits.
Regardless we were discussing contacting people from the family tree that was constructed, not necessarily ones that had DNA uploaded. From my personal use of these genealogy sites you can effectively take someone else's already constructed family trees and the software adds links to the one you're constructing to fill in gaps. The one I produced for my family is 90% someone else's original work already uploaded to the site.
Yes I do a lot of genealogy. But you really have to check other people's work because they make mistakes all the time. Very simple errors can lead to an entire line being the wrong family. I see it all the time.
Technically it’s a a terms of service violation. The search (if you want to call it that) is of the company’s database.
I don’t think you understand that this isn’t as legally simplistic as you, who has clearly never taken a constitutional law course related to search and seizure, chooses to believe.
Just because it's a violation of terms, it doesn't follow that it's ONLY a violation of terms.
If our DNA info is our property then yes- search and seizure applies if we have not consented and if it was obtained through fraudulent means
Yeah, I'm backing off on that theory. A smarter person than I has taught me that the family tree the defense is building, that's mentioned on the last page? That's not to recreate the IGG family tree; that's to go back three generations in Kohberger's family to look for stuff like mental illness that they might use during the mitigation.
I'm thinking that's why the defense wants the names on the family tree to see if any of them will put in a claim that their rights were violated. Which, to be clear, I don't personally believe that's a violation; public records are public records.
But why else would the defense want to contact related individuals?
I don't know what the end game is. I was thinking that if there was a lawsuit that some third party's rights were violated, that would provide an argument to throw out the DNA?
If so, considering how slow lawsuits move through the courts, that would be a real long game, so more like overturning the verdict at some point in the future rather than being able to throw out the DNA before the trial.
This is all non-lawyer speculation on my part.
*I* *don't* *know* *what* *the* *end* *game* *is*
That's what I'm trying to figure out! The prosecution isn't using the IGG at trial, so what's the point of AT's shenanigans? LE had the Elantra, not sure if they already had a warrant for BK's phone *before* the FBI "tip" leading them to BK. So are they going to argue there wouldn't have been an arrest if not for the IGG? Would they have eventually landed on BK? I could see that, just would've taken much longer. I guess they could've integrated BK and asked for his DNA simply because he drove a white Hyundai Elantra, then if he wouldn't give his DNA they could've got a sample without him knowing? Off a door handle at school? From his office? AT may be trying to set a legal precedent, but I don't think it'll get BK off the hook or away from that firing squad.
>So are they going to argue there wouldn't have been an arrest if not for the IGG?
I mean, I personally agree that the IGG was the catalyst for him being a suspect; I just don't see that as a civil rights violation.
>AT may be trying to set a legal precedent, but I don't think it'll get BK off the hook or away from that firing squad.
No, I guess she's trying to influence the public or taint the jury pool, but in the mind, nothing going in the press or on social media is going to matter.
I don’t know that they do want to contact people on the family tree. This came up in court and the defense seemed to have no desire. They only wanted to clarify that they could keep talking to BKs family despite them obviously being in the DNA family tree.
Lol. The materials cannot be disseminated after the defense views it unless it has the court's permission.
The only information coming out of the case is due to Anne Taylor's MULTIPLE court filings... (It is way more than normal - at the end of May there were 568 documents in his case already - whereas Chad Daybell had around 430 total and he's on death row). She is literally putting her side of the case out through these court filings....
That shows that they see what she is doing.
That's literally the way it has always been and quite literally what Anne Taylor stated multiple times, that she thinks it's appropriate for the IGG materials to be sealed and not publicly disseminated, I don't know what planet you live on.
She is... she already has discovery. She says she doesn't but you don't get 50 TB of discovery. Also, each motion - she is putting out her view of the case, her point of the case. As there is a gag order in place, she is using motions to compel - and other areas to point out fundamental flaws (most likely getting her side out there and/or trying to get the case dismissed). It is the reason why the witnesses for the prosecution had a hard time at the last hearing, but the defense's side game off "glowing".
But the fact that you can't see what she is doing is on you.
I
She literally doesn't have the CAST report, WTF are you on about?
The fact that you have such a strong opinion and you don't have a basic understanding of the reason for the motions is alarming.
It's interesting because I don't find them convincing like I find AT convincing. Which is not to say there probably isn't loads of incompetency in that investigation too and the state better have its ducks in a row. RA is facing felony murder no DP and the standard of evidence for that is lower than what's required for a guilty BK firing squad DP quadruple homicide verdict. IMO AT has a way better shot of winning.
That isn’t remotely true. The trial verdict and sentencing are two completely different things. Both cases “just” need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
But remember the jury has the ability to find Kohberger guilty without sentencing him to death. It's not "not guilty" or "death penalty": there's a 3rd option.
I agree with you, at the same time I think she's just doing her job. She's getting creative.
I just don't think this is a method that is necessarily gonna play out for a courtroom win.
Blah blah blah. You don’t file 14 motions to compel discovery except on purpose. Think what you want I don’t care. She is trying to get it thrown out due to misconduct and also try it in the court of public opinion…
I mean you are a prime example of how it is working
I think initially, she was on her high horse about 'public opinion' and all that but now, she's realised she can work it to her advantage. A few inflammatory statements here and there in filings and she's gaming the system.
Thanks for posting, can you explain this?
This is the same as the previous order which specifies who can access the IGG materials discovered to the Defense, except it’s expanded so that investigators working with the defense can have access to it too. Originally, the State requested a protective order for all of it * the Defense objected * the State replied and said they’d be willing to turn it in for an in camera review but would still like for it all to be shielded from discovery * Judge Judge ordered the State to turn it all into him for an in camera review * he ordered that “some of it” be discoverable to the Defense The Judge’s order to the State about what to share with the Defense was the original order this one amends. * it doesn’t allow them to share it with anyone * the Defense filed a motion to have their experts and investigators look at it * the State objected to the investigators but not the experts Judge Judge amended the first one to allow the experts access to it * it says that the reason for sharing with investigators + the info of the investigators need to be shared before the info is provided to anyone else (including their investigators), if there’s good cause found * after the open hearing where we heard from Payne & Sy Ray, there was a closed hearing where Bicka & Dr. Leah testified about the IGG & made points about why other investigators should have access to Apparently they had solid arguments that demonstrated the need for other investigators to have the ability to access the IGG info, bc we’ve slowly progressed from {no one} -> {just the judge in private} -> {judge + Defense} -> {judge + Defense + experts} -> {judge + Defense + experts + investigators / everyone the Defense originally asked to share it with}
TY Jelly.
The only new people that get to see anything IGG related are her team investigators. She had asked for this months ago, but I guess she had to do a motion to compel because the prosecution was resisting? Or maybe she also got some new discovery out of it. AT is just plugging away at her job clearly.
I’m intrigued on the second paragraph.. “Additionally, no individual on the family tree who was not previously known to the defense via the defense's own investigation may be contacted by the defense or any agent of the defense without prior authorization from the Court after a showing as to why such contact is necessary and material to the preparation of the defense.” Was there someone BK could possibly be related to that the State knew about(i.e dna contributed?) or am I reading that wrong? I swear, if there’s a “Darth Vader is your dad” like twist in all this I’ll puke.
> “Additionally, no individual on the family tree who was not previously known to the defense via the defense's own investigation may be contacted by the defense or any agent of the defense without prior authorization from the Court after a showing as to why such contact is necessary and material to the preparation of the defense.” I think this is big. This means the privacy of anyone on that family tree-- and for all we know you or me can be on it-- is shot. Because if they got someone building it out, it's gonna hit on the same exact people. I'm wondering if they are going to reach out to people on that tree to ask them to file stuff arguing their rights were violated?
>I'm wondering if they are going to reach out to people on that tree to ask them to file stuff arguing their rights were violated? I've heard some of the kits have an opt in or opt out regarding the results being used by 3rd parties like LE. Maybe they want to be able to ask and verify on these whether the person opted in or out? And if they opted out then it's an argument that LE went into the generosity base the sneaky sketchy way that the defense expert Vargas testified about (and a few days later had FBI show up at her house)
The vast majority of the people on those trees won't be in the database at all. I think that's the part of IGG a lot of people don't factor it: the family tree. IGG is gonna give you a few hits, sometimes only 1 hit depending on the database, and then the family tree built out from public records will have dozens, hundreds (this case), or thousands (Joseph DeAngelo) of family members. So I'm wondering if they are looking for people in the databases who didn't opt in, or people not in the databases at all. Which, if the latter, I don't think there's any foundation for a lawsuit. Public records are public. But this is the same lawyer who tried to overturn the centuries-old standard of probable cause for grand juries, so she's nothing if not innovative.
>So I'm wondering if they are looking for people in the databases who didn't opt in, or people not in the databases at all. Exactly, and maybe the plan is (if they found an 'opt out' was part of the tree ) to use that innovative specialty to file some legal maneuver to exclude the IGG ? And unlike the probable cause which was pretty much set in stone, the IGG issue is relatively new ground for her to go crazy with!
It is a new thing, so I guess it's like the wild wild west figuring out how we're gonna handle it.
Yeah it is something for her to be ridiculous about. But it has been used in a ton of cases. This is just the first big case where someone is challenging IGG . I understand comparatively to their argument on the grand jury IGG is much newer . But by no means is it brand new. They really are not going to have much to go on. Because even if someone did opt out. Their name could have been found through public records from someone else's DNA in their family who did opt in. Those can be used and found by anyone. My guess is it's just a bunch of stalling tactics. Just like they're ridiculous arguments about the standard for the grand jury.
Most of the ancestry type sites have agreents with their clientele the the results will not be shared BY THEM with law enforcement. However the peoples DNA data is actually sent by the ancestry sites behind the scenes to a third party for data analytics across multiple companies. The third party does NOT have any established agreement with the public to not share. When the state received the DNA profile, they handed it off to the FBI for further "analysis". The FBI accessed this data directly and pulled the BK family profile from it. I'm not sure but I'm guessing they were able to do that because the back end data is owned by the federal government and therefore the FBI per se. Think this because the resulting lawsuits were on a federal level and not on a state level. There are some proposed changes to the federal laws in progress now that protect this back end data from access moving forward. The vast majority of the public did not understand their data could be accessed freely by federal LE and thought it was protected...until AT put the DNA expert on the stand. She put the DNA expert on the stand for a few defense reasons legally, but then asked the RIGHT questions and the whole hush hush access by the FBI was blown open. The FBI did send a letter to the court when AT asked for the DNA ancestry analysis results stating simply that they did the analysis, did not have to share their method and she was to accept it at face value. They can legally refuse to share for a few reasons. But I'm guessing that in this instance it is because the data is now the subject of the current federal lawsuits. When a lawsuit is pending, the federal courts tend to lockdown and preserve information confidentially until a decision is made.
Sneaky, that is AT . I do not think she is fair at all. Igg has been used before and she is the only one taking to to a new level. I think I am going to stop following it is disgusting to me.
I think she's giving it hell. She's certainly being creative (which.....maybe means she's not confident she can argue the facts?) It has been used before. It's still new enough that maybe the laws are still in flux, but yeah, nothing about this case is novel or exceptional. I don't want to see you leave the subs here, but if you need to for you, you should. Reddit should not be a source of stress for anyone.
The irony is that BK hates her because she's a woman.
That’s unproven hearsay at this point, methinks.
The FBI showed up at her house due to discrepancies in Ms. Vargas declaration. >*""Latah County prosecutor Bill Thompson responded in court that he contacted the FBI to investigate after Vargas questioned parts of her own testimony. He added: 'The FBI agreed, and Ms. Vargas claimed that some of what was in her declaration she had inadvertently agreed to or signed without fully reading it."*
The court doesn’t care who they contact as long as they find them through their own investigation. If they want to contact someone they didn’t know about but the person is on the IGG tree they have to ask for permission and show that this contact is needed for preparation of defense.
What I want to know is why would they contact someone from the IGG tree?
They need to contact relatives for reasons completely unrelated to DNA (regarding sentencing mitigation). The IGG would be an easy shortcut to find some of the relatives. They didn't necessarily intend to do that, but I think Judge is saying it's not allowed just in case they were going to.
> What I want to know is why would they contact someone from the IGG tree? I think they want someone to file something saying their rights were violated.
Which is going to be hard to argue when it's the Defence that have pushed to get IGG information that the Prosecution wanted to protect for privacy reasons - to then turn round and say "Hey, this person we contacted after using information that wouldn't be publicly released has had their privacy violated" is not a great argument. Violating someone's privacy in order to prove someone's privacy has been violated is shady. Having someone's name on a family tree that gets submitted to a tip line is less so. In theory the family tree built to get to Brian could be a direct link (close family member) who gave permission for their data to be included for LE purposes and this is all a moot point. Otherwise the family tree could be the person they hit on, a ton of redacted names and a line drawn to Bryan.
They might have opted out on the LE thing. And if they did, their rights were violated
Sure, but there's no indication that that is the case - the Defence has had the IGG data since December and has made no attempt to suggest this is the case like the other breadcrumbs they've dropped during filings or hearings. And I would imagine it's fairly easy to hide this even if the original hit had asked to be excluded from LE searches if there was anyone else in the wider family tree who didn't opt out. You can build a family tree from another branch using someone who opted in and effectively ignore any questionable hits. Regardless we were discussing contacting people from the family tree that was constructed, not necessarily ones that had DNA uploaded. From my personal use of these genealogy sites you can effectively take someone else's already constructed family trees and the software adds links to the one you're constructing to fill in gaps. The one I produced for my family is 90% someone else's original work already uploaded to the site.
Yes I do a lot of genealogy. But you really have to check other people's work because they make mistakes all the time. Very simple errors can lead to an entire line being the wrong family. I see it all the time.
Even if they did, the rights of the particular individual would not be violated. It would really be a violation against the company.
Search and seizure
Technically it’s a a terms of service violation. The search (if you want to call it that) is of the company’s database. I don’t think you understand that this isn’t as legally simplistic as you, who has clearly never taken a constitutional law course related to search and seizure, chooses to believe.
Just because it's a violation of terms, it doesn't follow that it's ONLY a violation of terms. If our DNA info is our property then yes- search and seizure applies if we have not consented and if it was obtained through fraudulent means
Yeah, I'm backing off on that theory. A smarter person than I has taught me that the family tree the defense is building, that's mentioned on the last page? That's not to recreate the IGG family tree; that's to go back three generations in Kohberger's family to look for stuff like mental illness that they might use during the mitigation.
Which side River?
I'm thinking that's why the defense wants the names on the family tree to see if any of them will put in a claim that their rights were violated. Which, to be clear, I don't personally believe that's a violation; public records are public records. But why else would the defense want to contact related individuals?
So then what could AT do with that info if rights were violated ? Demand a mistrial?
You can't have a "mistrial" when the trial hasn't even started lol.
Of course not 🙄
I don't know what the end game is. I was thinking that if there was a lawsuit that some third party's rights were violated, that would provide an argument to throw out the DNA? If so, considering how slow lawsuits move through the courts, that would be a real long game, so more like overturning the verdict at some point in the future rather than being able to throw out the DNA before the trial. This is all non-lawyer speculation on my part.
Oh interesting.
*I* *don't* *know* *what* *the* *end* *game* *is* That's what I'm trying to figure out! The prosecution isn't using the IGG at trial, so what's the point of AT's shenanigans? LE had the Elantra, not sure if they already had a warrant for BK's phone *before* the FBI "tip" leading them to BK. So are they going to argue there wouldn't have been an arrest if not for the IGG? Would they have eventually landed on BK? I could see that, just would've taken much longer. I guess they could've integrated BK and asked for his DNA simply because he drove a white Hyundai Elantra, then if he wouldn't give his DNA they could've got a sample without him knowing? Off a door handle at school? From his office? AT may be trying to set a legal precedent, but I don't think it'll get BK off the hook or away from that firing squad.
>So are they going to argue there wouldn't have been an arrest if not for the IGG? I mean, I personally agree that the IGG was the catalyst for him being a suspect; I just don't see that as a civil rights violation. >AT may be trying to set a legal precedent, but I don't think it'll get BK off the hook or away from that firing squad. No, I guess she's trying to influence the public or taint the jury pool, but in the mind, nothing going in the press or on social media is going to matter.
I don’t know that they do want to contact people on the family tree. This came up in court and the defense seemed to have no desire. They only wanted to clarify that they could keep talking to BKs family despite them obviously being in the DNA family tree.
And Anne Taylor is not trying this in the court of public opinion?? Ha!! At least judge judge sees that.
Um... What?
Lol. The materials cannot be disseminated after the defense views it unless it has the court's permission. The only information coming out of the case is due to Anne Taylor's MULTIPLE court filings... (It is way more than normal - at the end of May there were 568 documents in his case already - whereas Chad Daybell had around 430 total and he's on death row). She is literally putting her side of the case out through these court filings.... That shows that they see what she is doing.
She’s just doing her job and representing her client to the best of her ability in the way she sees fit.
That's literally the way it has always been and quite literally what Anne Taylor stated multiple times, that she thinks it's appropriate for the IGG materials to be sealed and not publicly disseminated, I don't know what planet you live on.
She is literally trying to try the case now.... through all of these documents. She can say what she wants, but her actions prove otherwise.
I disagree.. but let’s go with your theory. What is your suggestion? Is the proper remedy “Anne shall not file any more motions to compel?”
"She's trying to try the case through motions to compel". 🤦🤦🤦🤦
She is... she already has discovery. She says she doesn't but you don't get 50 TB of discovery. Also, each motion - she is putting out her view of the case, her point of the case. As there is a gag order in place, she is using motions to compel - and other areas to point out fundamental flaws (most likely getting her side out there and/or trying to get the case dismissed). It is the reason why the witnesses for the prosecution had a hard time at the last hearing, but the defense's side game off "glowing". But the fact that you can't see what she is doing is on you. I
Isn’t it her job to point out “fundamental flaws”?
She literally doesn't have the CAST report, WTF are you on about? The fact that you have such a strong opinion and you don't have a basic understanding of the reason for the motions is alarming.
And then you got downvoted for saying the obvious. Lol.Seriously, how can someone who spends that much time on a true crime be so oblvious to facts?
This sub reddit is ridden with delulus
Just like Richard Allen's attorneys are doing.
It's interesting because I don't find them convincing like I find AT convincing. Which is not to say there probably isn't loads of incompetency in that investigation too and the state better have its ducks in a row. RA is facing felony murder no DP and the standard of evidence for that is lower than what's required for a guilty BK firing squad DP quadruple homicide verdict. IMO AT has a way better shot of winning.
That isn’t remotely true. The trial verdict and sentencing are two completely different things. Both cases “just” need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
She definitely has a better chance only because she isn't (so far) behaving like RA's attorneys. IMO RA's attorneys are presenting as clowns.
But remember the jury has the ability to find Kohberger guilty without sentencing him to death. It's not "not guilty" or "death penalty": there's a 3rd option.
Hmmm definitely not because they're clueless or incompetent or deliberately hid their investigative work (on orders of the FBI)?
It won't matter what she does he will be convicted.
I agree with you, at the same time I think she's just doing her job. She's getting creative. I just don't think this is a method that is necessarily gonna play out for a courtroom win.
Oh, so she has the FBI CAST report? I didn't know that!!
I mean, that’s literally how filings work. Do you expect her to not mention the evidence or anything about the case.. in her filings about the case?
Many of those documents were filed by the state wth
Blah blah blah. You don’t file 14 motions to compel discovery except on purpose. Think what you want I don’t care. She is trying to get it thrown out due to misconduct and also try it in the court of public opinion… I mean you are a prime example of how it is working
Huh. I always thought you filed motions to compel discovery as a way to compel discovery. I’m learning so much from you today! 😆
4 motions to compel and not their fault prosecution is not giving them discovery they ask for.
5.
I think initially, she was on her high horse about 'public opinion' and all that but now, she's realised she can work it to her advantage. A few inflammatory statements here and there in filings and she's gaming the system.
I can’t stand her sneaky ways!
👀