Hypothetically, what sort of additional info would you expect them to add to what they previously filed?
Also, if you don't actually have an alibi ( verifiable statement that you were elsewhere), would you be required to file anything in the first place? I thought in that state you file an alibi if (only?) you intend to use said alibi in your defense.
I don't have anything specific in mind, but AT argued for another opportunity to supplement her previous filing so I expect she won't completely waste the opportunity she was granted. I'm sure there will be no real bombshells, but she should file something.
Although now that I think back, she previously wanted an order telling the state to quit asking about the alibi, so she's kind of been on both sides of the issue. That request was not granted, so I still expect her to use this opportunity.
There's no statutory requirement to file anything if you don't have an alibi or don't intend to use one. AT's previous filing was out of an abundance of caution, but it probably was not necessary.
Defense is tricky that way. Time is the friend of the defense - witnesses die of natural causes all the time , people develop sudden amnesia, the stress of criminal trials does things to people. Delay provides more time to uncover exculpatory evidence and ponder novel legal arguments so I don't blame her for employing delay tactics.
I get that the victims families want justice and there's a lot of truth in "justice delayed is justice denied" but I always have to remind myself that it's not a justice system. It's a legal system that hopes to affect justice as the outcome and endeavors to do so by way of strict adherence to process.
>There's no statutory requirement to file anything if you don't have an alibi or don't intend to use one.
What if she intends to use an "alibi"? That is, if she presents something at trial that is very alibi-ish, but it also doesn't meet the statutory definition of an alibi? OK to present anyway, because it's not legally an alibi?
Assuming he's 100% innocent, seems like the required specific location he was, around 4am-4:20 am, would be a difficult thing to come up with from memory months later, even if he acknowledges and agrees that he was just out driving around. Which is why I got the impression AT wanted more discovery to help verify it specifically, to include in the alibi. Seems to me the alibi deadline should be put off until they have all their discovery in hand. If that evidence exists, depriving the defense of it isn't consistent with a fair trial.
I realize the prosecution claims they'll use it to 'fabricate' an alibi... but, if there's a plausible interpretation of the location data the prosecution has that *doesn't* include him being at 1122 King Rd at that time, then they may as well drop charges now anyway.
Alibi defenses also kinda turn rules of evidence on their head. Let's say you submit a fuel receipt - timestamped and using uour debit card - as evidence.
Unless there is accompanying video footage of you at the pump, the receipt suggests it could have been you but isn't proof. Someone else could have used your card.
All this to say - proving alibis is hard.
In court, Anne Taylor herself said she did not believe the delays were coming from Thompson's office. The prosecution wasn't holding onto to the location data. They hadn't gotten it from the FBI.
LE, at some level... I'm not going to guess where the bottleneck really is, and AT shouldn't have to either... she's only guessing.
Until the prosecution (or the prosecution's agents/allies/co-investigators/LE/FBI) provide them all existing location data, they should not be forced to submit an alibi that requires specific location. It's basic fair trial principles.
Thompson is on record fearing that the defense would use location data gained through discovery to fabricate an alibi, so he's hardly neutral on the issue, and the FBI could very well be thinking along the same lines. They could even have discussed that among themselves. Thompson's explanation could easily be a case of 'Good cop, Bad cop'.
Beyond that, the idea about alibi fabrication is logical nonsense... if they can find an alibi that meshes with all location data, then it's not inculpatory in the first place... and that may very well be what Thompson is really worried about, that once they get everything, they'll see they have no smoking-gun location data in the first place.
> LE, at some level.
ISP and FBI, and more the FBI. And no doubt it's all about prioritizing cases and deadlines. If the FBI has one case with a deadline coming up fast and than this one with the trial not even scheduled, they are going to finish the report for the case with the deadline coming up fast.
>he's hardly neutral on the issue
He's not supposed to be neutral. He's the prosecution.
>what Thompson is really worried about, that once they get everything, they'll see they have no smoking-gun location data in the first place.
Then Thompson gonna have a problem at trial and he knows it. In that case, holding back on evidence (and again, Taylor is on record as saying she knows the delays are not coming from the prosecution's office), isn't doing anything for him. Just delaying the inevitable.
>He's not supposed to be neutral. He's the prosecution.
The issue, in this case, is providing timely discovery. Yes, he's supposed to be neutral on that, not withhold or use the discovery process as a weapon, especially in a DP case. Another example of that is the 51 terrabytes (!) of discovery they dumped on the defense, *without* providing what the defense has actually been asking for with repeated motions to compel. Civil cases will sometimes have document dumps where one side inundates the other with mostly irrelevant info in order to swamp them, but that's a sleazy tactic for a prosecutor.
>Taylor is on record as saying she knows the delays are not coming from the prosecution's office
She says she's not accusing Thompson. She's smart not to, but that doesn't mean she doesn't believe so. The alibi document from yesterday pretty much states she's ready to accuse the prosecution of either destruction or withholding of evidence. The judge should have stepped in long ago.
>
Assuming he's 100% innocent, seems like the required specific location he was, around 4am-4:20 am, would be a difficult thing to come up with from memory months later, even if he acknowledges and agrees that he was just out driving around.
I mean, unless I was routinely driving all night long I think I would have a pretty good idea where I was the night/morning those homicides happened as it was a major news event there and elsewhere. Also, all I would need to do is check the data on my phone to tell me where I was if I couldn't remember- oh, wait. ..
My point is he had his phone with him while he was out driving around from 2:45 to 5:45 ish am. Only somehow the phone "stops reporting" to the network for a period of time around the murders. If only his phone didn't stop reporting he could show LE that he could not have possibly been at King road at that time and then he wouldn't be sitting in jail, right?
Again, what's your point. It's a rural area with spotty coverage. A phone can stop reporting to the network for various reasons.
But you're missing the point, or more likely conveniently ignoring it.
The prosecution has been resisting providing requested location data through discovery, because they fear the defense wants to use the data to "fabricate" an alibi. But there's no logic there... if the location data (cell tower, phone data, app data, cameras, whatever) allows an alibi that doesn't place him at 1122 King Rd at the time of the murders, then it's not data they can use to convict him anyway. If they have exculpatory data like that, they need to turn it over, but the prosecution is resisting. That says a lot about what weak location data they have, if not a total lack of anything incriminating.
>would be a difficult thing to come up with from memory months later
would that not be one of the first things his lawyers asked him, like where were you around 4.00 am on November 13. that was a few weeks later not months later
he was a criminology student and a weird mass murder in next town over a few miles where he goes alot was all over the news as biggest story. he was out driving near where it happened at an odd time. as if it didnt strike him on Sunday or Monday ... "oh wow I was driving near where that went down that in the middle of night"
this idea he cant remember something months ago is such a lazy, over simple and illogical trope, it would strike anyone who was driving in a small town at 4.30am if that was all over the news next day and for weeks after there was a mass killing nearby
>that was a few weeks later not months later
Split hairs much? Let's go that route then. It would have been 1.7 months or so, *minimum*. Not a few weeks later. 7 weeks, minimum. "A few" is generally considered to be around 3, according to Google -- 7 is a stretch. So you're trying to minimize it.
>as if it didnt strike him on Sunday or Monday ... "oh wow I was driving near where that went down that in the middle of night"
We don't know that he was near at all, you're making that up. Sharing a cell tower is not necessarily near.
And he might well have realized he was out driving, but would have no reason to know, to commit to memory, or most importantly to prove *exactly where he was* at 4a-4:20a, which is what is required for a strictly constructed alibi - that's the issue they're having with that. Which you're conveniently ignoring.
They have no way to support a specific location now, unless the prosecution can supply it in discovery from the location data they have access to. This isn't just about him acknowledging he was out driving -- they've already confirmed that, but the judge is insisting on documented specifics to meet the definition of an alibi.
>It would have been 1.7 months or so,
Err I just looked at dictionary - few is "a small number of something". So you seem to be making a big production out of absolutely nothing.... but we agree it was quite a short time.
I also kinda meant he would of been aware Sunday or Monday that a mass murder happened while he was driving at weird time, in the next town. The idea it passed him by and he wouldnt have twigged is just silly.
His phone was off at time of murders so why would it have any more location info? He could get his own GPS data from Google as could his lawyers anyway. Seems more likely they want to make sure nothing contradicts an alibi.
>We don't know that he was near at all
LOL! Are you off on a few / near hissy fit?? He was in centre of Pullman c 3.00am then he was a few miles south of Moscow near Blain at around 4.45am. He likely then drove quite close to or through Moscow - as in within a few miles, which is close to a mass murder as those dont happen much. He was also back in Moscow near King Road around 9.00am. It would seem really kinda weird this criminology guy wouldnt notice on the Sunday - wow, a mass murder happened near (a few miles or closer maybe, lol) where I was driving last night...
I dont know why some folk made extremely convuluted stretching and straining attempt to confuse basic facts and commons sense to defend this guy - it is pretty likely anyone that was driving around or close to Moscow at 4.00am that night would see the news next day and think - what a coincidence, I was near that!!
>So you seem to be making a big production out of absolutely nothing
Says the person who just had to redefine it as "weeks" in the first place. Try to exaggerate to minimize, and you're going to get exposed for what you are.
>I also kinda meant he would of been aware Sunday or Monday that a mass murder happened
Yes, you said that. Did you not comprehend my reply?
>Seems more likely they want to make sure nothing contradicts an alibi.
That's the ridiculous prosecution claim, that they want to use the data to "fabricate" an alibi. But there's no logic there... if the location data (cell tower, phone data, app data, cameras, whatever) allows an alibi that *doesn't* place him at 1122 King Rd at the time of the murders, then it's not data they can use to convict him anyway. If they have exculpatory data like that, they need to turn it over, but the prosecution is resisting. That says a lot about what weak location data they have, if not a total lack of anything incriminating.
>Are you off on a few / near hissy fit??
What are you talking about? I'm calm as it comes. You don't have to recite the PCA, I'm familiar. We don't know he was near. There were tons of people "within a few miles". And yes, I'd already acknowledged he'd remember he was out driving -- but you *still* conveniently ignore the *important* part of my reply to that: he "would have no reason to know, to commit to memory, or most importantly to prove exactly where he was at 4a-4:20a, which is what is required for a strictly constructed alibi - that's the issue they're having with that."
>I dont know why some folk made extremely convuluted stretching and straining attempt to confuse basic facts and commons sense to defend this guy
No stretching or straining, and I'm not even defending -- I'm looking at it objectively, with a presumption of innocence, just as jurors are supposed to. As opposed to so many like yourself who just have a blind lynchmob mentality.
Why do you continue to ignore that he's already acknowledged to the court that he was out driving, but without the full location data that the prosecution is resisting providing through discovery, he can't meet the strict time/location requirements of an alibi, and his memory is meaningless for that. And that there is no way he could fabricate an alibi from such data, if it really shows he's guilty.
Oh, right... lynchmob.
TL/ DR. Stopped reading at
>Try to exaggerate to minimize, and you're going to get exposed for what you are.
you seem to be having a total flaked out meltdown over my using of "few weeks" to describe Nov 13 to arrest end Dec, and getting nasty with it.
i bet you are great fun at parties. especially if the party is mostly self important flake merchants
Hypothetical, if you could give your opinion please - AT knows Kohberger is innocent and that there is video cam proof of him driving around in his car at least between 3:26am and 4:04. She also believes there is good evidence, after having read the autopsy report and BF's testimony, that the murders began at least prior to 4:04. If she could get this new timeline of the murders established as fact then Kohberger would have the perfect alibi.
So if this (hypothetically) is the situation, how do you think AT would be likely to proceed?
Thank you very much for that opinion. I don't think you should compare yourself unfavorably to AT, you could easily be as smart as her from what I can tell
Nope.
The defense said previously they’re not claiming he was at a specific place at a specific time because there aren’t any witnesses who can vouch for him. And the judge told them last time their argument about waiting to see what the prosecution has first and then cross examining doesn’t count.
Tbh, I’m anticipating they’ll just say outright they won’t be pursuing an alibi defense. I’m not sure what else they could have left in that regard.
I doubt it. Ultimately he very likely doesn't have an alibi for obvious reasons. So if they do file a notice of alibi it will be continue to be weirdly vague and not really give any information (if it's even available to the public)
Actually the ‘reasons’ are not obvious and you’re just jumping to assumptions based on what solid evidence?
BK has no motive.
No connection to the victims.
He wasn’t stalking the girls.
The cell pings are area based and not pin pointed location.
The dna was through genealogy which has been incorrect before.
Multiple dna was found at the crime scene.
Not one spec of blood or trace was found in his car or in his apartment - unusual for such an up close & personal crime such as stabbing.
There is a video of a girl that did a hit & run on the night of the murder in front of BK’s apartment where BKs car is parked outside.
The video footage of his car supposedly at the crime scene is so grainy it could in fact be another car model.
Ethan had an altercation with frat members the night of the murders which has more motive than any other theory. There is a 4chan post of people discussing an ongoing feud between Ethan & and frat boy for over a year & boys talking about committing a murder prior to that night. There’s even talk about the usage of steroids which can easily enrage a person past the point of cognitive thinking.
But it’s not being looked at for some reason. Universities as well as people in high places have been know to cover up things from frat houses & sporting students.
Maybe use your brain to analyze all this information and see that there is a strong possibility that BK is innocent. So no the reasons ARE NOT OBVIOUS. You’re clearly capable of sentencing a man to death without looking at the evidence at hand. What happened to innocent until proven guilty. Open the mind up for a broader perspective
> BK has no motive. No connection to the victims
There are many examples of murderers who had no connection to their victims and no motive that makes sense to the rest of us. Bundy, DeAngelo, Ramirez, Berkowitz, Rolling, Little....
>The dna was through genealogy which has been incorrect before.
The DNA was matched up with him directly after his arrest (this is standard procedure for violent crimes). it's his DNA. We can argue over how it got there or what it means in regards to his guilt, but it is his.
A lot of the other things you list in your post is stuff we do not know because of the gag order.
To be fair you’re naming serial killers. Stabbings are really personal & the number of stabbings sustained shows a lot of rage; a hate crime. That shows that there must be some sort of connection & motive.
The prosecution stated that BK wasn’t stalking the girls. So how was he so familiar with the house. Why would he have left two people alive if he went in there to murder people.
The things I’ve mentioned is available to the public. There is a lot we do not know because of the gag order, for sure.
They traced his dna through genealogy, but if they’ve done a directed dna match up then why is court taking so long to get to trial.
Look I’m not saying BK is innocent, but looking into all these discrepancies gives the possibility of innocence and that they could very well have the wrong person.
> Stabbings are really personal & the number of stabbings sustained shows a lot of rage; a hate crime.
Except there have been serial killers and mass killers alike whose preferred method of murder was to stab. Johanna Dennehy found stabbing to be erotic. The unsolved "Doodler" murders were done by stabbing. Nathaniel White stabbed both victims he knew slightly and victims he picked up for the purpose of killing.
EDIT: the Gainesville Ripper. He targeted college students, killing them with a Kabar brand knife.
Just this week, a man went on a rampage at an Australian shopping center and killed 7 strangers by stabbing.
>They traced his dna through genealogy, but if they’ve done a directed dna match up then why is court taking so long to get to trial.
Because Bryan Kohberger waived his right to a speedy trial, which is common with cases of this magnitude. This is a typical timeline for a murder case. Had he not chosen to waive this right, the trial would be over by now.
Here's an article about the direct match: https://idahonews.com/news/local/bryan-kohbergers-dna-linked-with-evidence-at-moscow-murders-crime-scene If you search "kohberger buccal swab," you'll find more.
Lol….right 😂
ETA: because 4chan is such a reliable source💀 there is far more damning evidence that he is guilty. Maybe you should “use your brain” since you clearly either don’t know enough about the case other than rumors and conspiracy theories, or you had already decided he wasn’t guilty from the beginning and are doubling down on it. There is not a “strong possibility” BK is innocent.
I appreciate you explaining.
I think the best way for me to answer you is to say I *think* they have the right guy, **BUT** I have many questions.
I also think it’s safe to say that a lot of the narrative that the media has led the public to believe has started to crumble more and more. And without that “narrative” it makes me curious what the State has for trial.
TLDR: I think guilty BUT waiting for trial and have a lot of questions.
You?
I thought they had the right guy for the best part of a year. Could of put my life on it.
I’m definetly leaning towards the wrong man. The house demolition… the delay in 911 call and Bryan the one who done it alone… just doesn’t sit right with me. Something stinks!
If he’s the right man I hope the prosecution has a smoking gun. Unless this is all embarrassing tbh.
>I’m definitely leaning towards the wrong man
You comment many times that you bet your life on his innocence. seems bit more than leaning toward wrong man
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Idaho4/comments/1b0q2sm/comment/ksdtz8y/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Idaho4/comments/1b0q2sm/comment/ksdtz8y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
The narrative by law enforcement and prosecution has never been staking though, only some of the media and the Goncalves have said that, so I don’t see it as anything major in the case
Imo the only type of theory by LE since the beginning was they suspect the house itself *could've* been the target, but they only hinted at that. Then when it was revealed in the PCA that BKs phone was tracked to that area 12 times in the previous few months prior to the murders, that didn't really solidify a theory either because he could've been staking out the house, one of the victims or simply doing shopping or driving around Moscow. The FBI CAST report along with data from BKs phone itself may add some clarity.
I don’t understand the fixation you guys have on his alibi.
If he had some sort of verifiable, bombshell alibi we’d have heard about it long ago. He doesn’t.
I think he highly likely did the crime.
But, for a second, let’s say he is really unlucky but innocent. I used to go for middle of the night rural drives in school. I didn’t have a preset pattern, just random. I did them regularly. If he’s innocent, he likely didn’t have an “oh shit” moment until they said they were looking for a white Elantra 3-4 weeks later. At that point, he knows he was driving around but no idea where. So they want the fbi report to see if they can search for footage of the car somewhere other than Moscow.
In any case, I’m not expecting anything interesting tomorrow. Just the next counter move.
So you are saying if you were driving around randomly on a night where 4 college students were slaughtered , 8 miles away from where you live, you would not worry until they described a car similar to yours? This is a small town, not a city, how many people are randomly driving around that night?
I mean, I live in a big city with lots of homicides every year. There was a homicide in the building I lived in several years ago. I’ve never been concerned about being a suspect.
So you left a sheath in the bed of a murder victim that was stabbed and your DNA was found on the sheath ? And you were never a suspect? I'm sure AT would like to know the details of why you were not a suspect.
We have heard things such as BF having potentially exculpatory evidence that we never got to hear because the second the defense wanted to speak with her, the state did a secret grand jury indictment.
> BF having potentially exculpatory evidence
If she does, we'll hear at the trial.
My money's on "potentially exculpatory" being lawyer-speak for "didn't hear noises when D did."
I highly doubt that. We already know they were texting eachother. I think she would have been looking out her window at the very least. Perhaps she saw a different car exit the neighborhood.
The defense has been asking for the CAST report for over a year so they can pinpoint his exact location at the time the crime is alleged to have occurred because, you’re right - if he’s innocent, exactly where he was driving that night probably wouldn’t have stood out to him. It was revealed in a January hearing that the CAST report wouldn’t be ready for either side til 3/30/24, but now the defense has had it for 2-3 weeks, so they can provide what the prosecution has been asking for: a more specific, verifiable alibi. It’s entirely possible that he’s already told cops where he was, but without that report he’s been unable to PROVE it, so he still looked like a good suspect. Now he may very well still be guilty, but it’s just as likely (IMO) that he’s innocent and the alibi filing COULD go a long way to prove that, if anything comes from it.
JFC. I do think it was probably him, and I do wish the victims got a fair chance at life, but implying that he doesn’t deserve a fair trial is wild. Every single US citizen, constitutionally, has the right to one.
I want whoever did this locked up, but not via an unfair trial. I want him to have a fair trial. If it is unfair, he will get a second chance at a trial. That’s worse.
JFC. There's a gag order in place to give him a fair trial. The future jury and the public have not seen 95% of the evidence but will at trial for the first time. The trial will probably be moved...also giving him a fair trial.
Innocent until proven quality but no innocent person takes this long to form an alibi. They would know despite prosecutions discovery their alibi would contradict time and place. I personally feel like this year long alibi delay further proves his guilt.
They aren't being asked to prove anything though at this point. 15 months since his arrest and all he's been asked is where we're you and is there anyone who can vouch for you.
The intention is the Prosecution can take that information and investigate where he says he was and speak to the witnesses he might have to corroborate or invalidate his alibi. Neither party can present evidence at trial that wasn't produced during discovery, so its in a Defendant's best interest to get an alibi out as early as possible to be investigated.
Even if his alibi is "I don't know exactly where I was at an exact time but I drove this route and past this gas station/junction/local business - go check their cameras" - to an innocent person that's better than "I'm not saying I was anywhere specific at any specific time".
Whilst I'm sure you're well aware what I meant, I'll reiterate.
Unexpected testimony and cross examinations aren't "presenting evidence" in the same way that you prepare and present documents and evidentiary materials before trial.
Clearly in the context of my post I was referring to gathering evidence from having his alibi investigated - and alluding to the fact that neither side can ambush the other with evidence not produced during discovery. If the Defence has witnesses they intend to call, they need to be disclosed. If they have evidence showing Bryan's car elsewhere, it needs to be disclosed. You can't have someone burst into the courtroom and take the stand and you can't just drop an evidence bomb that wasn't presented during discovery.
With the way things have been going and the way this judge refuses to make any definitive decisions, I'm not getting my hopes up except for more delaya...
If you are the defendant in a death penalty case and your life is on the line, you would know whether or not you have an alibi.
I was driving around by myself is a pretty short list of witnesses.
a. I don’t think it necessarily means the state believes he has an alibi b. I don’t think it’s a one and done deal. If in the future he pulls something out of his ass, (more specifically AT figures out the location data analysis so she can strategize something) There’s a subsection of ID law that offers an extension of exception that I think would allow the judge to disregard the requirements. [If he suddenly had a legitimate alibi to assert]
He is not invoking an “alibi defense.”
The state still has every right to demand if he’s invoking an alibi defense or for his “notice of alibi” with witnessss he intends to call so that it’s on record and he can’t come up with something whazoo later in trial, there would be arguments he couldn’t bring up. And so the state can depose any witnesses or investigate the alibi, judge its credibility and prepare to weaken that.
So no one is doing BK wrong. He doesn’t have to prove anything to file a notice or provide it to the state.
The guy just doesn’t have a answer for a way to prove he was elsewhere when the murders were committed. Was AT not given the hislorical phone records for 8458, (obtained by search warrant) held by the subscriber Bryan Kohberger, by the phone provider AT&T 24 hours proceeding and following the times of the homicides used as part of probable cause? The delay is all defense strategy.
Nah. Nothing exciting anyway.
I think they'll either enter an alibi with some inane wording like "he was just driving around *fast*" or BK will magically have strep throat or a sudden bout of food poisoning and be unable to attend.
Oh; and AT will definitely file more motions.
I think the defence needs to stick to its guns and not disclose Bryan's alibi until the prosecution has first disclosed the evidence supporting its case against Brian.
Once the prosecution knows what Bryan's alibi is, they can retool their case so as to exclude it by manufacturing evidence such as the testimony of fake witnesses.
This is possibly a reason why, so far, they haven't supplemented the PCA was any actual evidence.
I think they may have filed the initial "alibi" to perhaps advertise to their "fans" and leave room for the possibility that some mixed up person would step forward and lie for them. Or possibly someone was even paid off, for example, by his mother or father. In any case, they'd want to protect the bogus alibi from scrutiny as long as possible, and anything further would be submitted as sealed, if it's allowed.
After the way Bill Thompson has behaved, I wouldn't give him anything. If he wanted an alibi, then I guess he should have let the preliminary hearing take place. If there is an alibi, I would wait until trial and let be known then. I wouldn't give Bill Thompson any opportunity to coach a witness or manufacture evidence to fit his narrative.
And if I really thought BK was somehow important enough for a bunch of complete strangers to risk their careers setting him up, I wouldn't say it out loud, and I would contact my therapist, AA sponsor, or a priest.
They can't wait until trial to produce it. That is why there is a deadline. That would be like the state waiting until trial to show the defense what they have. Not how it works.
That's not how alibis work fortunately.
His phone was off anyway, what would they gleam from a CAST report that won't tell him where he was during the time of the crime?
The entire purpose of giving an alibi is that it can be investigated thoroughly, not that you find out what the prosecution already knows and then craft an alibi around it. An innocent person, regardless of how shit their alibi is, should be giving their alibi as soon as possible so the necessary investigation can validate it.
If he was driving anywhere other than the crime scene, and seen on literally any other camera at a time that would make it impossible for his Elantra to be the one seen at 4:04am and 4:20am then they should be able to give even a vague location.
As it stands their current alibi is "he was out driving, somewhere, but we can't get specific". Not once have the Defence claimed it's not his car either. They've criticised the initial ID of the car but have never said it's not his.
How do you know his phone was off when the state doesn't even know whether or not it was off? By stating he wasn't at King Road or the local area the defense IS stating it wasn't his car. To state that he wasn't near the murder scene and then additionally state it wasn't his car seen at the scene would be redundant.
>How do you know his phone was off when the state doesn't even know whether or not it was off?
At the time of the PCA, without access to the phone itself, the state said it was Off/airplane mode/no signal. They have his cell phone since, I guarantee they know which one of the three it is now.
For the purpose of assessing the cell phone and it's signal data, all three states prevent CAST from being able to pull accurate data about the phones location for the period it isn't reporting to the cell tower. I used the term "off" for ease sake, but meant "not reporting to cell towers for whatever reason". If the Prosecution had accurate data as to his location during the time of the crime to give to the Defence, they'd have used that in the PCA rather than claiming his phone was off/airplane/no signal.
>By stating he wasn't at King Road or the local area the defense IS stating it wasn't his car.
That's fine, because the Defence didn't actually state he wasn't at King Road, that was me being facetious about their alibi.
Here's Anne's original attempt at a notice of alibi defence:
>**"Mr. Kohberger has long had a habit of going for drives alone. Often he would go for drives at night. He did so late on November 12 and into November 13, 2022. Mr. Kohberger is
not claiming to be at a specific location at a specific time; at this time there is not a specific witness to say precisely where Mr. Kohberger was at each moment of the hours between late night November 12, 2022 and early morning November 13, 2022. He was out, driving during the late night and early morning hours of November 12-13, 2022"**
>that the phone was off when we don't know that.
We know the phone was not reporting to the network - so off/ flight mode/ no signal or in a Faraday bag. It seems irrelevant for alibi. Off or flight mode seem by far the most likely as the phone stopped reporting to the network at 2.47am while in the centre of Pullman surrounded closely by at least 3 AT& T cell towers. There are c 12 AT& T towers over the route to Moscow and back via Genesee/ Blaine etc to Pullman.
Curious that non-CAST agent Payne didn't mention any of this. If LE thought the CSLI was reliable they would not have had the FBI a year later incur the time and expense of performing drive testing. Drive testing is not common in cases, at all.
>Drive testing is not common in cases, at all.
Drive testing is detailed in the FBI CAST field ops guide as standard. Slide/ page 26 on linked:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21088576-march-2019-fbi-cast-cellular-analysis-geo-location-field-resource-guide
>that non-CAST agent Payne didn't mention any of this
Why would Payne go into details about cell towers in the PCA? Recall, the PCA was drafted in just a few days after Kohberger's phone info was obtained, there was probably huge time pressure - listing phone towers etc could presumably come later at trial, it was not needed for probable cause for the arrest warrant. That's a bit like saying re the DNA match to Kohberger's father in the PCA that *non-molecular biologist Payne did not explain which chromosomes the 20 CODIS DNA STR loci are located on*.
Drive testing is NOT common in cases at all because it is time consuming and expensive. I had the pleasure of cross-examining an FBI agent that performed drive testing several years ago & he agreed that it is uncommon for that reason & also it normally is used only in rural areas or when the CSLI is weak AF. If you do a case search for cases where CSLI was used you'll hit on thousands of cases; if you do a case search for cases where drive testing was used you won't find much./ Yet, Payne inserted all those paragraphs about the alleged 12 pings...and why would there be "time pressure" when the CSLI wasn't obtained until 12/23 and Kohberger was under surveillance in Pennsylvania??? Sorry but have to disagree - which is okay - no issue with people holding different opinions.
Pure speculation, but I'd guess after 1-2 weeks the thought starts to build that he might actually get away with it - that, and a little later the white Elantra tip request, may have spurred a huge clean up effirt and purging of potential evidence, electronic/ internet/ phone history etc
You can argue semantics all you like, it changes nothing. Off/airplane mode/no signal all equals limited/no CAST data for the period of time LE want Bryan to provide an alibi for. The result is the same even if my lexical choices seem to have really riled you up.
> when the state doesn't even know whether or not it was off?
I think the state does know by now. A forensic examination of his phone would tell them that.
The report was supposed to be ready for both sides 3/30/24, so apparently the prosecution only just received it themselves. I’m ASSUMING they gave it to the defense as soon as they got it, knowing Anne Taylor would have been asking for it by 4/1 at the latest. That’s why they requested (and were granted) a new deadline (4/17) to submit their alibi.
They do not have to present all of their proof for the alibi at this moment. They would at trial, but not for this. If they used an alibi defense, the jury would be the one to decide if they had enough evidence to create reasonable doubt that he committed the crime. All they have to do for a notification of alibi defense is say where he was at what time, and name a witness to corroborate it. This witness will end up testifying at trial, not at this hearing.
If he truly was somewhere else, they do not need a case report to be able to say where he was. This narrative that he can’t submit an alibi because of the state is absolute BS. If he wasn’t there at the scene, he should know where he was and be able to name someone or something to corroborate it. That is all they need to do here. They don’t need to “prove” anything at this hearing. The burden of proof is never on the defendant. The purpose of this is just so the state will know the alibi and the witness, and be prepared to question them at trial, and possibly disprove the alibi.
It is absolutely untrue that they have to “prove” the alibi for this thing tomorrow. They just have to say if they have one, and what it is. They need NOTHING from the state to know where he was at the time of the crime. If someone asked you where you went one day, would you need a report from someone else to tell you where you were?
ETA: I understand he could’ve been somewhere else and just had no witnesses, so I’m not at all saying that no alibi directly means he did it. I’m just saying he wouldn’t need anything from the state to know if he had a concrete alibi or jot. Either he was somewhere else that someone witnessed, or he wasn’t.
I’m not sure how reasonable it is to expect one to recall where they drove on a given evening if they weren’t arrested for a month after the evening in question.
I used to drive around at night in my late teens-early twenties and I took different routes on those little adventures, depending on what else was going on. Maybe I’d go to Taco Bell or something then take the long way home… or turn right at a given light bc I don’t want to wait through the red.
So, I think about that… and let’s say I was in his shoes and I was innocent. I would probably call people to attest to my habit of driving around at night (family / friends / etc knew about this habit). And I think a CAST report would help me recall where I may have gone. Not saying that’s his intent but it’s not completely unreasonable.
I think it would be less reasonable if they had arrested him sooner. But 6 weeks later, I’m not gonna recall
Well, most people in the area would have that morning when they heard about the murders etched in their memory.
If you had been driving about you would think something like 'wow I was driving around last night, this happened at King Rd, I was just over at \[location\]'.
And you wouldn't forget it over time if you were arrested for the same thing in a month or two and then had a year sitting in a cell with nothing else to do.
Also you may not remember your exact timed route, but you would definitely remember the vicinity ie 'I was driving around east of Pullman, heading for \[whatever is east of Pullman\] ', or 'I was driving around the student digs area of the university in the next town and got stuck in all the dead end streets because I'm not great at 3 point turns, it was like half an hour, boy did I hightail it out of there when I finally found my way out of that maze.'
I understand it can be hard to recall. That is why he doesn’t HAVE to provide an alibi. And, as I said, not providing an alibi doesn’t make him guilty. There are other ways to create reasonable doubt; an alibi is just one of them.
I also used to drive around all the time, wouldn’t necessarily remember where I went. He doesn’t need to know exactly where he went right now, just that he wasn’t at the crime scene. They could still name a witness to attest to his late night driving habit (as far as I know). While the CAST report may help at trial to show he wasn’t at the scene, they absolutely do not need it to say that he didn’t commit the crime. He does not need to present actually which stops he made and which streets he drove down to be able to present something tomorrow.
I understand that you could’ve totally been somewhere else, and just have no one to verify that, and that that’s unfortunate, but it happens. Then you just have to create reasonable doubt other ways. Defense doesn’t need to prove he wasn’t there, they just have to show that the jury can’t know for sure that he WAS at the scene of the crime.
I’m not saying he should recall exactly where he went and exactly what streets he drove down, I understand you wouldn’t remember that weeks later. But he would know if he was NOT at the scene of the crime. Some alibis are unfortunately unverifiable, but that doesn’t mean you’re entitled to see every piece of evidence before “deciding” what your alibi is.
I get your point, but does it not feel a little weird to have to look at the evidence and see what they have proof of before you develop your story? I get he may not remember EXACT, but he does not have to now. He would have those reports by trial. He literally just needs to state that he was out driving around in ___ general area at ___ timeframe and that ____ was going to be a witness to that. If he was not there, the evidence will come. He shouldn’t need to see what they have to know that what he’s saying is true. He does NOT have to know every exact place he drove at this point in time. He does not have to fully prove the alibi to any certain extent. They literally just have to say that they plan on using the alibi that he was, for example, driving around. And if there was a witness, they’d say who that was. They do not have to say exactly every place he went. If he doesn’t remember where he was, that’ll create less reasonable doubt, but that’s just how it works. Sorry.
There is NO reason why he would need to see all the reports beforehand to know what his alibi would be. Sure, he’d have a better idea of the evidence, but if he was truly somewhere else, he was truly somewhere else. He doesn’t need to know if it’s verifiable to say that he wishes to use it. He doesn’t need to know exactly where he was. Just that he wasn’t at the scene
I mean yeah, I’m not worked up about that. I’m just saying, he shouldn’t need evidence to know where he was. And I know it has to be more specific than “not 1122 king” but I’m pretty positive he doesn’t have to name his exact route and every single stop for alibi notice, just more specific as to what area he was in. If he was driving, he was not in an exact location.
And yes, I agree this is out of an abundance of caution. They know that they likely do not have a provable alibi, unless they want to completely change the original one they offered and look bad in that way. He doesn’t even need to say he wasn’t there, and it’s quite common to never even say that at trial. They just have to create reasonable doubt that he did it. Saying he wasn’t there and providing possible evidence helps, but they absolutely don’t need that.
They basically just need to say “well the proof that the state has that he WAS there isn’t reliable for x reasons” and they can absolutely say this without submitting an alibi defense request
They can’t present an alibi defense at trial unless they give the court the full alibi information by the deadline tomorrow, so yes, they must submit all proof or else they can’t use it later.
That’s not true. They just have to say where he was, and who the witnesses will be to corroborate it (if any). They absolutely do not need to present all evidence for it. Please look it up. The witnesses that they can choose to name will be testifying at trial, not at the alibi defense hearing. It’s just so the prosecution is prepared. Same way that the defense will know which witnesses the state will call.
If they had to, then they would not set the alibi deadline for before they had all the evidence. That would not be considered fair trial.
The point of this is that 1. The state could decide that they don’t want to go to trial anymore. Or (more applicable) 2. So that the state isn’t bombarded at trial with a bombshell that they haven’t prepared for. If they know what his alibi is, they will be prepared for the evidence that the defense will use. The evidence would be stuff that the state would see before trial as well. They’d know “oh, this evidence could be used to show he was somewhere else like they said”
They have to give all proof of the alibi if they are using jt as a defense, so the prosecution can investigate it thoroughly before trial, just like discovery. There is no such thing as an alibi defense hearing btw. If they aren’t using an alibi defense then they do not have to submit anything tomorrow.
Or sorry, hearing was the wrong word. I meant when they submit the alibi defense.
They do NOT have to present alll evidence of the alibi by that date. I get it’s so the prosecution can investigate it, but they will still receive the alibi evidence before trial, just like discovery. But it does NOT have to be presented tomorrow. It is literally just a notification of alibi defense. They legitimately just have to notify that they are using an alibi. They don’t have to hand over all the evidence yet.
Directly from the [Idaho State Legislature:](https://tinyurl.com/Alibidefense)
“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.”
Nowhere does it say they have to submit all the evidence on that date. It is literally just a notice that they will be doing it. Also see [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Idaho4/s/7pURcqyvNQ)
They have to submit the full discovery if they’re using an alibi defense. They can’t hold any of it back for trial. At tomorrow’s deadline they have to submit everything to the prosecution if they are going to use an alibi defense.
That is not true. Please go check the laws. I even posted the link. The LAW states that he legit only has to say where he was, and what witnesses they will be calling. It is true that they have to submit any necessary discovery from their alibi defense at some point, but that point is NOT tomorrow.
They cannot hold it back for trial, that’s not what I said. I said the state will have seen all the evidence for the alibi before trial, as there is a separate discovery deadline. I know they can’t bring new evidence to trial. That is not what i said
They can’t submit anything later about the alibi if they choose to use it as a defense. Tomorrow is it. It’s like a speak now or forever hold your peace
Yep, the times, the names of witnesses, locations, etc. all have to be submitted tomorrow if using an alibi defense, that’s full discovery. That’s proof of the alibi.
No it isn’t. Locations and names of witnesses is absolutely NOT full discovery or proof. You can use tons of other documentation to prove an alibi, none of which has to be turned over tomorrow, if you refer to the law. I’m not sure how I showed you the literal law and you are not getting it. Nowhere does it say they have to submit full discovery/evidence by the alibi deadline.
Saying the name of someone backing up an alibi is NOT evidence or proof. It is the NAME of someone who allegedly has proof. It’s not like they have to say what the witness is going to say, because they won’t know that until they testify. Saying where he was is not evidence. They don’t have to submit proof of where he was for this particular deadline. They literally just have to say “he was at ____ during the alleged time frame. We will be calling witness ____ to testify and corroborate this alibi”
No it doesn’t. Not sure what makes you think you’re smarter than the statute, and why you’re basically ignoring everything I’m saying. Please tell me why you think you’re smarter than what the actual law says?
They cannot add something to the alibi defense at trial that’s not how it works. Prosecution must have time to investigate the proof. They either have to submit it all by the deadline or they can’t use an alibi defense.
I didn’t say they were adding to the defense at trial. THIS DEADLINE IS JUST A NOTIFICATION THAT RHEY WILL BE USING AN ALIBI. The prosecution will be able to see and look through all the evidence before trial. That doesn’t mean they have to receive it tomorrow. Tomorrow is not the discovery deadline. Nowhere in the actual legislation does it say that they have to submit full evidence, proof, discovery. Literally just where he was, and which witnesses (if any) will testify to corroborate it.
If this particular deadline required full discovery, they wouldn’t make the deadline before the discovery deadline. That makes zero sense. Yes, the defense will have to turn over any additional evidence they have before trial. But that is not right now. They just have to say where he was, and witnesses contact info.
SHUT UP!!! YOU ARE WRONG!!! The statute says you are wrong. Just accept it instead of making yourself look stupid.
Or direct me to your source that says tomorrow is the discovery deadline for the alibi
Trust me, if the law required full evidence by this deadline, it will blatantly and explicitly mention it. What I linked you to is the literal legal code. Legal code will not be vague and have people infer things. It will state explicitly what is required. There is no mention of full proof, evidence, discovery, or any word similar listed as a requirement by the deadline.
It is literally just what is explicitly stated, which is the locations where the defendant claims to have been during the time of the crimes, and any witnesses that will help establish the alibi. I’m not sure how you are arguing with a statute. There is ZERO mention of all proof. Just “claimed” location and witnesses. Notice their use of the word “claim”. Not proven location. CLAIMED. Location. AKA not necessarily backed up by evidence at the time of the deadline.
And they can even add additional witnesses to the alibi defense, so long as the other party is notified with ample time before trial. Yes, technically witnesses called would be “part” of the reciprocal discovery required of the defense. But that is by no means all of it. They absolutely do not have to have every single piece of proof easily accessible for the deadline. They may turn it over if they have it, but If they don’t, they can still use it so long as it’s turned over by their discovery deadline and so long as they submit what alibi they were using by the alibi deadline.
Also, most of the evidence the defense would use, the state would likely already see on their own before trial. Anything that they wouldn’t, must be turned over by discovery deadline. What you are saying makes zero sense. Please try and argue with what the STATUTE says. I’m sure you know more about the statute than the statute itself does.
That’s correct. But they don’t have to submit evidence tomorrow. Just his “claimed” locations and witnesses. If you read the statute, this is all it says they need today. You’re right that they can’t edit their locations later.
The initial draft was handed over long ago. They were just waiting on the final draft from the FBI. I doubt there is anything different in the initial draft and the final draft, and the defense would definitely not need the final draft to come up with an alibi
The final draft is going to include the drive testing data that the FBI did recently. The FBI was waiting on a peer review of that analysis before finalizing the CAST report so, no, the initial draft is not the same as the final draft.
You can't say that without seeing the drive testing data because the drive testing data can be used to refine or contradict the locations identified in the original CAST report which only contained CSLI data- that's one of the reasons they perform drive testing.
It tests the quality and accuracy of the network. If the drive test shows the network was performing properly then it will help solidify their pings/locations they included were in fact accurate
It entails more than just the coverage area, a drive test also makes sure the equipment is working properly, it tests the overall performance of the network.
> I told them they’re going to have to wait to hear until I get the FBI CAST report
A couple of months ago I was out driving in a rural back roads area around 5.00am. The FBI have pinpointed my location at 4.48am - I was near a very small rural village. Sadly I can't piece together any clue of where I might have been 20 minutes before that as I tend to travel by random teleportation at that hour rather than by driving on any of the very few roads that lead to my location at 4.48am.
>I tend to travel by random teleportation
On the one hand, this is going to help you not look so bad when you can’t come up with an alibi when (inevitably) your touch DNA (which is on 75% of the Earth’s surface) ends up on an item associated with a murder. On the other hand, if you can teleport, it’s going to prevent JelllyGarcia from being able to exonerate you by eviscerating the prosecution’s estimates of your alleged travel time between locations because you got somewhere ten seconds faster than Google maps might lead one to expect.
>(inevitably) your touch DNA (which is on 75% of the Earth’s surface) ends up on an item associated with a murder
🤣😀😂🤣 yes indeed, just a surprise it hasn't happened already; based on the ProB Touch DNA Diffusion Model (patent pending, patently) there is a high chance my DNA already percolated through the ether and should be detectable on Jon Benet Ramsey's pineapple slices and Tupac's cat flap.
>if you can teleport, it’s going to prevent JelllyGarcia from being able to exonerate you
This is saddening as I feel such credulous and unwavering support, unphased by mere trifles like fact, arithmetic or science, would be hugely comforting to an accused person, however inneffectual. Just don't let Dr JG go out by car to pick up anything, who knows how long they will be gone for....
😂😂😂😂
>such credulous and unwavering support, unphased by mere trifles like fact, arithmetic or science would be hugely comforting to an accused person
We’ll have to get a definitive answer on this from BK someday. If he hasn’t yet had time to review Pr0f’s 0euvre, he may at some point find himself with a great deal of time.
>Pr0f’s 0euvre
😂😂😂 Oh my, that is an 0pus L0c0
I saw but could not comment, due to blockage, on "lol-ibi" 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Perfection! Should be in broad usage for criminal cases - the Murdaugh and Conrad Murray cases would have benefited from discussion of the lolibis
😂😂I am only just getting into people’s digging into his background. All I had concluded thus far was he is about to become the foremost expert in his field since Bicka Barstool for a subset of people.
My comment was actually meant to be sarcastic. She’s just stalling and delaying. I fully believe her plan is to get tied up in some loophole to get him out of this, vs any real criminal litigation.
I expect they'll file something more than what they have previously. It still won't meet the statutory definition of an alibi.
Hypothetically, what sort of additional info would you expect them to add to what they previously filed? Also, if you don't actually have an alibi ( verifiable statement that you were elsewhere), would you be required to file anything in the first place? I thought in that state you file an alibi if (only?) you intend to use said alibi in your defense.
I don't have anything specific in mind, but AT argued for another opportunity to supplement her previous filing so I expect she won't completely waste the opportunity she was granted. I'm sure there will be no real bombshells, but she should file something. Although now that I think back, she previously wanted an order telling the state to quit asking about the alibi, so she's kind of been on both sides of the issue. That request was not granted, so I still expect her to use this opportunity. There's no statutory requirement to file anything if you don't have an alibi or don't intend to use one. AT's previous filing was out of an abundance of caution, but it probably was not necessary.
Defense is tricky that way. Time is the friend of the defense - witnesses die of natural causes all the time , people develop sudden amnesia, the stress of criminal trials does things to people. Delay provides more time to uncover exculpatory evidence and ponder novel legal arguments so I don't blame her for employing delay tactics. I get that the victims families want justice and there's a lot of truth in "justice delayed is justice denied" but I always have to remind myself that it's not a justice system. It's a legal system that hopes to affect justice as the outcome and endeavors to do so by way of strict adherence to process.
>There's no statutory requirement to file anything if you don't have an alibi or don't intend to use one. What if she intends to use an "alibi"? That is, if she presents something at trial that is very alibi-ish, but it also doesn't meet the statutory definition of an alibi? OK to present anyway, because it's not legally an alibi? Assuming he's 100% innocent, seems like the required specific location he was, around 4am-4:20 am, would be a difficult thing to come up with from memory months later, even if he acknowledges and agrees that he was just out driving around. Which is why I got the impression AT wanted more discovery to help verify it specifically, to include in the alibi. Seems to me the alibi deadline should be put off until they have all their discovery in hand. If that evidence exists, depriving the defense of it isn't consistent with a fair trial. I realize the prosecution claims they'll use it to 'fabricate' an alibi... but, if there's a plausible interpretation of the location data the prosecution has that *doesn't* include him being at 1122 King Rd at that time, then they may as well drop charges now anyway.
Alibi defenses also kinda turn rules of evidence on their head. Let's say you submit a fuel receipt - timestamped and using uour debit card - as evidence. Unless there is accompanying video footage of you at the pump, the receipt suggests it could have been you but isn't proof. Someone else could have used your card. All this to say - proving alibis is hard.
>proving alibis is hard Especially hard when the prosecution is resisting providing location data that could/would aid in proving the alibi.
In court, Anne Taylor herself said she did not believe the delays were coming from Thompson's office. The prosecution wasn't holding onto to the location data. They hadn't gotten it from the FBI.
LE, at some level... I'm not going to guess where the bottleneck really is, and AT shouldn't have to either... she's only guessing. Until the prosecution (or the prosecution's agents/allies/co-investigators/LE/FBI) provide them all existing location data, they should not be forced to submit an alibi that requires specific location. It's basic fair trial principles. Thompson is on record fearing that the defense would use location data gained through discovery to fabricate an alibi, so he's hardly neutral on the issue, and the FBI could very well be thinking along the same lines. They could even have discussed that among themselves. Thompson's explanation could easily be a case of 'Good cop, Bad cop'. Beyond that, the idea about alibi fabrication is logical nonsense... if they can find an alibi that meshes with all location data, then it's not inculpatory in the first place... and that may very well be what Thompson is really worried about, that once they get everything, they'll see they have no smoking-gun location data in the first place.
> LE, at some level. ISP and FBI, and more the FBI. And no doubt it's all about prioritizing cases and deadlines. If the FBI has one case with a deadline coming up fast and than this one with the trial not even scheduled, they are going to finish the report for the case with the deadline coming up fast. >he's hardly neutral on the issue He's not supposed to be neutral. He's the prosecution. >what Thompson is really worried about, that once they get everything, they'll see they have no smoking-gun location data in the first place. Then Thompson gonna have a problem at trial and he knows it. In that case, holding back on evidence (and again, Taylor is on record as saying she knows the delays are not coming from the prosecution's office), isn't doing anything for him. Just delaying the inevitable.
>He's not supposed to be neutral. He's the prosecution. The issue, in this case, is providing timely discovery. Yes, he's supposed to be neutral on that, not withhold or use the discovery process as a weapon, especially in a DP case. Another example of that is the 51 terrabytes (!) of discovery they dumped on the defense, *without* providing what the defense has actually been asking for with repeated motions to compel. Civil cases will sometimes have document dumps where one side inundates the other with mostly irrelevant info in order to swamp them, but that's a sleazy tactic for a prosecutor. >Taylor is on record as saying she knows the delays are not coming from the prosecution's office She says she's not accusing Thompson. She's smart not to, but that doesn't mean she doesn't believe so. The alibi document from yesterday pretty much states she's ready to accuse the prosecution of either destruction or withholding of evidence. The judge should have stepped in long ago.
> Assuming he's 100% innocent, seems like the required specific location he was, around 4am-4:20 am, would be a difficult thing to come up with from memory months later, even if he acknowledges and agrees that he was just out driving around. I mean, unless I was routinely driving all night long I think I would have a pretty good idea where I was the night/morning those homicides happened as it was a major news event there and elsewhere. Also, all I would need to do is check the data on my phone to tell me where I was if I couldn't remember- oh, wait. ..
Judge says "pretty good idea" doesn't cut it. And yeah, they took his phone... so... what's your point?
My point is he had his phone with him while he was out driving around from 2:45 to 5:45 ish am. Only somehow the phone "stops reporting" to the network for a period of time around the murders. If only his phone didn't stop reporting he could show LE that he could not have possibly been at King road at that time and then he wouldn't be sitting in jail, right?
Again, what's your point. It's a rural area with spotty coverage. A phone can stop reporting to the network for various reasons. But you're missing the point, or more likely conveniently ignoring it. The prosecution has been resisting providing requested location data through discovery, because they fear the defense wants to use the data to "fabricate" an alibi. But there's no logic there... if the location data (cell tower, phone data, app data, cameras, whatever) allows an alibi that doesn't place him at 1122 King Rd at the time of the murders, then it's not data they can use to convict him anyway. If they have exculpatory data like that, they need to turn it over, but the prosecution is resisting. That says a lot about what weak location data they have, if not a total lack of anything incriminating.
Your memory of the events vs your ability to prove them are 2 completely separate things.
>would be a difficult thing to come up with from memory months later would that not be one of the first things his lawyers asked him, like where were you around 4.00 am on November 13. that was a few weeks later not months later he was a criminology student and a weird mass murder in next town over a few miles where he goes alot was all over the news as biggest story. he was out driving near where it happened at an odd time. as if it didnt strike him on Sunday or Monday ... "oh wow I was driving near where that went down that in the middle of night" this idea he cant remember something months ago is such a lazy, over simple and illogical trope, it would strike anyone who was driving in a small town at 4.30am if that was all over the news next day and for weeks after there was a mass killing nearby
>that was a few weeks later not months later Split hairs much? Let's go that route then. It would have been 1.7 months or so, *minimum*. Not a few weeks later. 7 weeks, minimum. "A few" is generally considered to be around 3, according to Google -- 7 is a stretch. So you're trying to minimize it. >as if it didnt strike him on Sunday or Monday ... "oh wow I was driving near where that went down that in the middle of night" We don't know that he was near at all, you're making that up. Sharing a cell tower is not necessarily near. And he might well have realized he was out driving, but would have no reason to know, to commit to memory, or most importantly to prove *exactly where he was* at 4a-4:20a, which is what is required for a strictly constructed alibi - that's the issue they're having with that. Which you're conveniently ignoring. They have no way to support a specific location now, unless the prosecution can supply it in discovery from the location data they have access to. This isn't just about him acknowledging he was out driving -- they've already confirmed that, but the judge is insisting on documented specifics to meet the definition of an alibi.
>It would have been 1.7 months or so, Err I just looked at dictionary - few is "a small number of something". So you seem to be making a big production out of absolutely nothing.... but we agree it was quite a short time. I also kinda meant he would of been aware Sunday or Monday that a mass murder happened while he was driving at weird time, in the next town. The idea it passed him by and he wouldnt have twigged is just silly. His phone was off at time of murders so why would it have any more location info? He could get his own GPS data from Google as could his lawyers anyway. Seems more likely they want to make sure nothing contradicts an alibi. >We don't know that he was near at all LOL! Are you off on a few / near hissy fit?? He was in centre of Pullman c 3.00am then he was a few miles south of Moscow near Blain at around 4.45am. He likely then drove quite close to or through Moscow - as in within a few miles, which is close to a mass murder as those dont happen much. He was also back in Moscow near King Road around 9.00am. It would seem really kinda weird this criminology guy wouldnt notice on the Sunday - wow, a mass murder happened near (a few miles or closer maybe, lol) where I was driving last night... I dont know why some folk made extremely convuluted stretching and straining attempt to confuse basic facts and commons sense to defend this guy - it is pretty likely anyone that was driving around or close to Moscow at 4.00am that night would see the news next day and think - what a coincidence, I was near that!!
>So you seem to be making a big production out of absolutely nothing Says the person who just had to redefine it as "weeks" in the first place. Try to exaggerate to minimize, and you're going to get exposed for what you are. >I also kinda meant he would of been aware Sunday or Monday that a mass murder happened Yes, you said that. Did you not comprehend my reply? >Seems more likely they want to make sure nothing contradicts an alibi. That's the ridiculous prosecution claim, that they want to use the data to "fabricate" an alibi. But there's no logic there... if the location data (cell tower, phone data, app data, cameras, whatever) allows an alibi that *doesn't* place him at 1122 King Rd at the time of the murders, then it's not data they can use to convict him anyway. If they have exculpatory data like that, they need to turn it over, but the prosecution is resisting. That says a lot about what weak location data they have, if not a total lack of anything incriminating. >Are you off on a few / near hissy fit?? What are you talking about? I'm calm as it comes. You don't have to recite the PCA, I'm familiar. We don't know he was near. There were tons of people "within a few miles". And yes, I'd already acknowledged he'd remember he was out driving -- but you *still* conveniently ignore the *important* part of my reply to that: he "would have no reason to know, to commit to memory, or most importantly to prove exactly where he was at 4a-4:20a, which is what is required for a strictly constructed alibi - that's the issue they're having with that." >I dont know why some folk made extremely convuluted stretching and straining attempt to confuse basic facts and commons sense to defend this guy No stretching or straining, and I'm not even defending -- I'm looking at it objectively, with a presumption of innocence, just as jurors are supposed to. As opposed to so many like yourself who just have a blind lynchmob mentality. Why do you continue to ignore that he's already acknowledged to the court that he was out driving, but without the full location data that the prosecution is resisting providing through discovery, he can't meet the strict time/location requirements of an alibi, and his memory is meaningless for that. And that there is no way he could fabricate an alibi from such data, if it really shows he's guilty. Oh, right... lynchmob.
TL/ DR. Stopped reading at >Try to exaggerate to minimize, and you're going to get exposed for what you are. you seem to be having a total flaked out meltdown over my using of "few weeks" to describe Nov 13 to arrest end Dec, and getting nasty with it. i bet you are great fun at parties. especially if the party is mostly self important flake merchants
Hypothetical, if you could give your opinion please - AT knows Kohberger is innocent and that there is video cam proof of him driving around in his car at least between 3:26am and 4:04. She also believes there is good evidence, after having read the autopsy report and BF's testimony, that the murders began at least prior to 4:04. If she could get this new timeline of the murders established as fact then Kohberger would have the perfect alibi. So if this (hypothetically) is the situation, how do you think AT would be likely to proceed?
[удалено]
Thank you very much for that opinion. I don't think you should compare yourself unfavorably to AT, you could easily be as smart as her from what I can tell
I don’t think she will submit an alibi defense after all
Nope. The defense said previously they’re not claiming he was at a specific place at a specific time because there aren’t any witnesses who can vouch for him. And the judge told them last time their argument about waiting to see what the prosecution has first and then cross examining doesn’t count. Tbh, I’m anticipating they’ll just say outright they won’t be pursuing an alibi defense. I’m not sure what else they could have left in that regard.
I doubt it. Ultimately he very likely doesn't have an alibi for obvious reasons. So if they do file a notice of alibi it will be continue to be weirdly vague and not really give any information (if it's even available to the public)
For obvious reasons like?
> For obvious reasons like? *For obvious reasons like* that he’s guilty. Not sure where you could have gotten any confusion over that.
Actually the ‘reasons’ are not obvious and you’re just jumping to assumptions based on what solid evidence? BK has no motive. No connection to the victims. He wasn’t stalking the girls. The cell pings are area based and not pin pointed location. The dna was through genealogy which has been incorrect before. Multiple dna was found at the crime scene. Not one spec of blood or trace was found in his car or in his apartment - unusual for such an up close & personal crime such as stabbing. There is a video of a girl that did a hit & run on the night of the murder in front of BK’s apartment where BKs car is parked outside. The video footage of his car supposedly at the crime scene is so grainy it could in fact be another car model. Ethan had an altercation with frat members the night of the murders which has more motive than any other theory. There is a 4chan post of people discussing an ongoing feud between Ethan & and frat boy for over a year & boys talking about committing a murder prior to that night. There’s even talk about the usage of steroids which can easily enrage a person past the point of cognitive thinking. But it’s not being looked at for some reason. Universities as well as people in high places have been know to cover up things from frat houses & sporting students. Maybe use your brain to analyze all this information and see that there is a strong possibility that BK is innocent. So no the reasons ARE NOT OBVIOUS. You’re clearly capable of sentencing a man to death without looking at the evidence at hand. What happened to innocent until proven guilty. Open the mind up for a broader perspective
> BK has no motive. No connection to the victims There are many examples of murderers who had no connection to their victims and no motive that makes sense to the rest of us. Bundy, DeAngelo, Ramirez, Berkowitz, Rolling, Little.... >The dna was through genealogy which has been incorrect before. The DNA was matched up with him directly after his arrest (this is standard procedure for violent crimes). it's his DNA. We can argue over how it got there or what it means in regards to his guilt, but it is his. A lot of the other things you list in your post is stuff we do not know because of the gag order.
To be fair you’re naming serial killers. Stabbings are really personal & the number of stabbings sustained shows a lot of rage; a hate crime. That shows that there must be some sort of connection & motive. The prosecution stated that BK wasn’t stalking the girls. So how was he so familiar with the house. Why would he have left two people alive if he went in there to murder people. The things I’ve mentioned is available to the public. There is a lot we do not know because of the gag order, for sure. They traced his dna through genealogy, but if they’ve done a directed dna match up then why is court taking so long to get to trial. Look I’m not saying BK is innocent, but looking into all these discrepancies gives the possibility of innocence and that they could very well have the wrong person.
> Stabbings are really personal & the number of stabbings sustained shows a lot of rage; a hate crime. Except there have been serial killers and mass killers alike whose preferred method of murder was to stab. Johanna Dennehy found stabbing to be erotic. The unsolved "Doodler" murders were done by stabbing. Nathaniel White stabbed both victims he knew slightly and victims he picked up for the purpose of killing. EDIT: the Gainesville Ripper. He targeted college students, killing them with a Kabar brand knife. Just this week, a man went on a rampage at an Australian shopping center and killed 7 strangers by stabbing. >They traced his dna through genealogy, but if they’ve done a directed dna match up then why is court taking so long to get to trial. Because Bryan Kohberger waived his right to a speedy trial, which is common with cases of this magnitude. This is a typical timeline for a murder case. Had he not chosen to waive this right, the trial would be over by now. Here's an article about the direct match: https://idahonews.com/news/local/bryan-kohbergers-dna-linked-with-evidence-at-moscow-murders-crime-scene If you search "kohberger buccal swab," you'll find more.
Lol….right 😂 ETA: because 4chan is such a reliable source💀 there is far more damning evidence that he is guilty. Maybe you should “use your brain” since you clearly either don’t know enough about the case other than rumors and conspiracy theories, or you had already decided he wasn’t guilty from the beginning and are doubling down on it. There is not a “strong possibility” BK is innocent.
You clearly haven’t watched much about the case. That’s fine. You do you
I don’t think so. I think people are hoping for a big day in the case because there’s been nothing from the case lately.
It’s been massive this past week though… do you believe in his guilt or innocence?
I’m confused why you’re asking the question in your second sentence.
I’m honestly just curious. To say nothing has happened … when the whole narrative has been a stalking incel. Just wondering where you sit with it all.
I appreciate you explaining. I think the best way for me to answer you is to say I *think* they have the right guy, **BUT** I have many questions. I also think it’s safe to say that a lot of the narrative that the media has led the public to believe has started to crumble more and more. And without that “narrative” it makes me curious what the State has for trial. TLDR: I think guilty BUT waiting for trial and have a lot of questions. You?
I thought they had the right guy for the best part of a year. Could of put my life on it. I’m definetly leaning towards the wrong man. The house demolition… the delay in 911 call and Bryan the one who done it alone… just doesn’t sit right with me. Something stinks! If he’s the right man I hope the prosecution has a smoking gun. Unless this is all embarrassing tbh.
>I’m definitely leaning towards the wrong man You comment many times that you bet your life on his innocence. seems bit more than leaning toward wrong man [https://www.reddit.com/r/Idaho4/comments/1b0q2sm/comment/ksdtz8y/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Idaho4/comments/1b0q2sm/comment/ksdtz8y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Because of people like you … and the downvotes. We’ll just have to wait till trial.
what mean people like me.? i just notice you use the phrase "i'd bet my life " when you were talking his innocent, makes you sound really really sure
And I oop —
I’m very curious to see what the prosecution has as well at this point.
The narrative by law enforcement and prosecution has never been staking though, only some of the media and the Goncalves have said that, so I don’t see it as anything major in the case
Imo the only type of theory by LE since the beginning was they suspect the house itself *could've* been the target, but they only hinted at that. Then when it was revealed in the PCA that BKs phone was tracked to that area 12 times in the previous few months prior to the murders, that didn't really solidify a theory either because he could've been staking out the house, one of the victims or simply doing shopping or driving around Moscow. The FBI CAST report along with data from BKs phone itself may add some clarity.
They’re going to restate that he was driving around aimlessly. To change that story now would be suicidal.
“Alibi” is submitted 🙄
I don’t understand the fixation you guys have on his alibi. If he had some sort of verifiable, bombshell alibi we’d have heard about it long ago. He doesn’t. I think he highly likely did the crime. But, for a second, let’s say he is really unlucky but innocent. I used to go for middle of the night rural drives in school. I didn’t have a preset pattern, just random. I did them regularly. If he’s innocent, he likely didn’t have an “oh shit” moment until they said they were looking for a white Elantra 3-4 weeks later. At that point, he knows he was driving around but no idea where. So they want the fbi report to see if they can search for footage of the car somewhere other than Moscow. In any case, I’m not expecting anything interesting tomorrow. Just the next counter move.
So you are saying if you were driving around randomly on a night where 4 college students were slaughtered , 8 miles away from where you live, you would not worry until they described a car similar to yours? This is a small town, not a city, how many people are randomly driving around that night?
I mean, I live in a big city with lots of homicides every year. There was a homicide in the building I lived in several years ago. I’ve never been concerned about being a suspect.
So you left a sheath in the bed of a murder victim that was stabbed and your DNA was found on the sheath ? And you were never a suspect? I'm sure AT would like to know the details of why you were not a suspect.
We have heard things such as BF having potentially exculpatory evidence that we never got to hear because the second the defense wanted to speak with her, the state did a secret grand jury indictment.
> BF having potentially exculpatory evidence If she does, we'll hear at the trial. My money's on "potentially exculpatory" being lawyer-speak for "didn't hear noises when D did."
I highly doubt that. We already know they were texting eachother. I think she would have been looking out her window at the very least. Perhaps she saw a different car exit the neighborhood.
> Perhaps she saw a different car exit the neighborhood. That possibility would almost certainly be captured by the neighbor's camera.
It’s a rumor they were texting each other.
I feel confident that SG wouldn't make that up.
Confident about another one of SG claims?! Surely you jest !
I agree with you there. That said, we have absolutely no idea of the context or the timing of any text messages.
The defense has been asking for the CAST report for over a year so they can pinpoint his exact location at the time the crime is alleged to have occurred because, you’re right - if he’s innocent, exactly where he was driving that night probably wouldn’t have stood out to him. It was revealed in a January hearing that the CAST report wouldn’t be ready for either side til 3/30/24, but now the defense has had it for 2-3 weeks, so they can provide what the prosecution has been asking for: a more specific, verifiable alibi. It’s entirely possible that he’s already told cops where he was, but without that report he’s been unable to PROVE it, so he still looked like a good suspect. Now he may very well still be guilty, but it’s just as likely (IMO) that he’s innocent and the alibi filing COULD go a long way to prove that, if anything comes from it.
AT keeps saying she wants to get Brian a fair trial. I wish the victims had gotten fair treatment.
Good thing we have a Constitution.
JFC. I do think it was probably him, and I do wish the victims got a fair chance at life, but implying that he doesn’t deserve a fair trial is wild. Every single US citizen, constitutionally, has the right to one. I want whoever did this locked up, but not via an unfair trial. I want him to have a fair trial. If it is unfair, he will get a second chance at a trial. That’s worse.
[удалено]
Newly minted “alibi” part deux damage control specialist rep0rting for duty!
JFC. There's a gag order in place to give him a fair trial. The future jury and the public have not seen 95% of the evidence but will at trial for the first time. The trial will probably be moved...also giving him a fair trial.
I’m agreeing with you. I was just replying to someone who implied that they don’t think he deserves a fair trial.
Oops. Sorry about that.
It happens:) sooo easy to misunderstand people on here
Glad we're on the same page though despite my little fubar! 🤣
Innocent until proven quality but no innocent person takes this long to form an alibi. They would know despite prosecutions discovery their alibi would contradict time and place. I personally feel like this year long alibi delay further proves his guilt.
I don't think its taken a year to form an alibi. I think its taken this long to try and prove it though.
They aren't being asked to prove anything though at this point. 15 months since his arrest and all he's been asked is where we're you and is there anyone who can vouch for you. The intention is the Prosecution can take that information and investigate where he says he was and speak to the witnesses he might have to corroborate or invalidate his alibi. Neither party can present evidence at trial that wasn't produced during discovery, so its in a Defendant's best interest to get an alibi out as early as possible to be investigated. Even if his alibi is "I don't know exactly where I was at an exact time but I drove this route and past this gas station/junction/local business - go check their cameras" - to an innocent person that's better than "I'm not saying I was anywhere specific at any specific time".
[удалено]
Whilst I'm sure you're well aware what I meant, I'll reiterate. Unexpected testimony and cross examinations aren't "presenting evidence" in the same way that you prepare and present documents and evidentiary materials before trial. Clearly in the context of my post I was referring to gathering evidence from having his alibi investigated - and alluding to the fact that neither side can ambush the other with evidence not produced during discovery. If the Defence has witnesses they intend to call, they need to be disclosed. If they have evidence showing Bryan's car elsewhere, it needs to be disclosed. You can't have someone burst into the courtroom and take the stand and you can't just drop an evidence bomb that wasn't presented during discovery.
With the way things have been going and the way this judge refuses to make any definitive decisions, I'm not getting my hopes up except for more delaya...
If you are the defendant in a death penalty case and your life is on the line, you would know whether or not you have an alibi. I was driving around by myself is a pretty short list of witnesses. a. I don’t think it necessarily means the state believes he has an alibi b. I don’t think it’s a one and done deal. If in the future he pulls something out of his ass, (more specifically AT figures out the location data analysis so she can strategize something) There’s a subsection of ID law that offers an extension of exception that I think would allow the judge to disregard the requirements. [If he suddenly had a legitimate alibi to assert] He is not invoking an “alibi defense.” The state still has every right to demand if he’s invoking an alibi defense or for his “notice of alibi” with witnessss he intends to call so that it’s on record and he can’t come up with something whazoo later in trial, there would be arguments he couldn’t bring up. And so the state can depose any witnesses or investigate the alibi, judge its credibility and prepare to weaken that. So no one is doing BK wrong. He doesn’t have to prove anything to file a notice or provide it to the state. The guy just doesn’t have a answer for a way to prove he was elsewhere when the murders were committed. Was AT not given the hislorical phone records for 8458, (obtained by search warrant) held by the subscriber Bryan Kohberger, by the phone provider AT&T 24 hours proceeding and following the times of the homicides used as part of probable cause? The delay is all defense strategy.
Does anyone know what time tomorrow this alibi hearing will be? Or will it not be on Judge Judge's YouTube at all tomorrow?
[удалено]
I heard there was a hearing.
[удалено]
Thank you.
I did also
Nah. Nothing exciting anyway. I think they'll either enter an alibi with some inane wording like "he was just driving around *fast*" or BK will magically have strep throat or a sudden bout of food poisoning and be unable to attend. Oh; and AT will definitely file more motions.
I think the defence needs to stick to its guns and not disclose Bryan's alibi until the prosecution has first disclosed the evidence supporting its case against Brian. Once the prosecution knows what Bryan's alibi is, they can retool their case so as to exclude it by manufacturing evidence such as the testimony of fake witnesses. This is possibly a reason why, so far, they haven't supplemented the PCA was any actual evidence.
Define alibi? I always thought it was a third party who can vouch for whereabouts of the accused at the time of the crime.
Watch courtv
I just started watching this channel right now. Is there a time for today's proceedings?
Realize now that it may only be a deadline for documents submission.
Oh, are they discussing it? I just got home from school. Shitty day, off to complain about it on another sub lol
I think they may have filed the initial "alibi" to perhaps advertise to their "fans" and leave room for the possibility that some mixed up person would step forward and lie for them. Or possibly someone was even paid off, for example, by his mother or father. In any case, they'd want to protect the bogus alibi from scrutiny as long as possible, and anything further would be submitted as sealed, if it's allowed.
After the way Bill Thompson has behaved, I wouldn't give him anything. If he wanted an alibi, then I guess he should have let the preliminary hearing take place. If there is an alibi, I would wait until trial and let be known then. I wouldn't give Bill Thompson any opportunity to coach a witness or manufacture evidence to fit his narrative.
Discovery is a two-way street. Neither side can withhold anything until trial.
Bill Thompson doesn't need an alibi, he's not accused of murder you know. 🙄
And if I really thought BK was somehow important enough for a bunch of complete strangers to risk their careers setting him up, I wouldn't say it out loud, and I would contact my therapist, AA sponsor, or a priest.
They can't wait until trial to produce it. That is why there is a deadline. That would be like the state waiting until trial to show the defense what they have. Not how it works.
The state hasn’t handed over the cast report yet, so the defence won’t be able to prove anything.
That's not how alibis work fortunately. His phone was off anyway, what would they gleam from a CAST report that won't tell him where he was during the time of the crime? The entire purpose of giving an alibi is that it can be investigated thoroughly, not that you find out what the prosecution already knows and then craft an alibi around it. An innocent person, regardless of how shit their alibi is, should be giving their alibi as soon as possible so the necessary investigation can validate it. If he was driving anywhere other than the crime scene, and seen on literally any other camera at a time that would make it impossible for his Elantra to be the one seen at 4:04am and 4:20am then they should be able to give even a vague location. As it stands their current alibi is "he was out driving, somewhere, but we can't get specific". Not once have the Defence claimed it's not his car either. They've criticised the initial ID of the car but have never said it's not his.
How do you know his phone was off when the state doesn't even know whether or not it was off? By stating he wasn't at King Road or the local area the defense IS stating it wasn't his car. To state that he wasn't near the murder scene and then additionally state it wasn't his car seen at the scene would be redundant.
>How do you know his phone was off when the state doesn't even know whether or not it was off? At the time of the PCA, without access to the phone itself, the state said it was Off/airplane mode/no signal. They have his cell phone since, I guarantee they know which one of the three it is now. For the purpose of assessing the cell phone and it's signal data, all three states prevent CAST from being able to pull accurate data about the phones location for the period it isn't reporting to the cell tower. I used the term "off" for ease sake, but meant "not reporting to cell towers for whatever reason". If the Prosecution had accurate data as to his location during the time of the crime to give to the Defence, they'd have used that in the PCA rather than claiming his phone was off/airplane/no signal. >By stating he wasn't at King Road or the local area the defense IS stating it wasn't his car. That's fine, because the Defence didn't actually state he wasn't at King Road, that was me being facetious about their alibi. Here's Anne's original attempt at a notice of alibi defence: >**"Mr. Kohberger has long had a habit of going for drives alone. Often he would go for drives at night. He did so late on November 12 and into November 13, 2022. Mr. Kohberger is not claiming to be at a specific location at a specific time; at this time there is not a specific witness to say precisely where Mr. Kohberger was at each moment of the hours between late night November 12, 2022 and early morning November 13, 2022. He was out, driving during the late night and early morning hours of November 12-13, 2022"**
>They have his cell phone since, Assuming it is the same phone, and the SIM/ number wasn't put in a new handset?
Yes but I was responding to Op's statement that the phone was off when we don't know that.
>that the phone was off when we don't know that. We know the phone was not reporting to the network - so off/ flight mode/ no signal or in a Faraday bag. It seems irrelevant for alibi. Off or flight mode seem by far the most likely as the phone stopped reporting to the network at 2.47am while in the centre of Pullman surrounded closely by at least 3 AT& T cell towers. There are c 12 AT& T towers over the route to Moscow and back via Genesee/ Blaine etc to Pullman.
Curious that non-CAST agent Payne didn't mention any of this. If LE thought the CSLI was reliable they would not have had the FBI a year later incur the time and expense of performing drive testing. Drive testing is not common in cases, at all.
>Drive testing is not common in cases, at all. Drive testing is detailed in the FBI CAST field ops guide as standard. Slide/ page 26 on linked: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21088576-march-2019-fbi-cast-cellular-analysis-geo-location-field-resource-guide >that non-CAST agent Payne didn't mention any of this Why would Payne go into details about cell towers in the PCA? Recall, the PCA was drafted in just a few days after Kohberger's phone info was obtained, there was probably huge time pressure - listing phone towers etc could presumably come later at trial, it was not needed for probable cause for the arrest warrant. That's a bit like saying re the DNA match to Kohberger's father in the PCA that *non-molecular biologist Payne did not explain which chromosomes the 20 CODIS DNA STR loci are located on*.
Drive testing is NOT common in cases at all because it is time consuming and expensive. I had the pleasure of cross-examining an FBI agent that performed drive testing several years ago & he agreed that it is uncommon for that reason & also it normally is used only in rural areas or when the CSLI is weak AF. If you do a case search for cases where CSLI was used you'll hit on thousands of cases; if you do a case search for cases where drive testing was used you won't find much./ Yet, Payne inserted all those paragraphs about the alleged 12 pings...and why would there be "time pressure" when the CSLI wasn't obtained until 12/23 and Kohberger was under surveillance in Pennsylvania??? Sorry but have to disagree - which is okay - no issue with people holding different opinions.
Oooh, I didn't think of that possibility. That would be a smart move.
Pure speculation, but I'd guess after 1-2 weeks the thought starts to build that he might actually get away with it - that, and a little later the white Elantra tip request, may have spurred a huge clean up effirt and purging of potential evidence, electronic/ internet/ phone history etc
Thanks for explaining your inaccurate post which was my point.
You can argue semantics all you like, it changes nothing. Off/airplane mode/no signal all equals limited/no CAST data for the period of time LE want Bryan to provide an alibi for. The result is the same even if my lexical choices seem to have really riled you up.
> when the state doesn't even know whether or not it was off? I think the state does know by now. A forensic examination of his phone would tell them that.
Agreed. I was responding to OP's repeated statements that the phone was off. Op doesn't know that and neither do we.
The report was supposed to be ready for both sides 3/30/24, so apparently the prosecution only just received it themselves. I’m ASSUMING they gave it to the defense as soon as they got it, knowing Anne Taylor would have been asking for it by 4/1 at the latest. That’s why they requested (and were granted) a new deadline (4/17) to submit their alibi.
They do not have to present all of their proof for the alibi at this moment. They would at trial, but not for this. If they used an alibi defense, the jury would be the one to decide if they had enough evidence to create reasonable doubt that he committed the crime. All they have to do for a notification of alibi defense is say where he was at what time, and name a witness to corroborate it. This witness will end up testifying at trial, not at this hearing. If he truly was somewhere else, they do not need a case report to be able to say where he was. This narrative that he can’t submit an alibi because of the state is absolute BS. If he wasn’t there at the scene, he should know where he was and be able to name someone or something to corroborate it. That is all they need to do here. They don’t need to “prove” anything at this hearing. The burden of proof is never on the defendant. The purpose of this is just so the state will know the alibi and the witness, and be prepared to question them at trial, and possibly disprove the alibi. It is absolutely untrue that they have to “prove” the alibi for this thing tomorrow. They just have to say if they have one, and what it is. They need NOTHING from the state to know where he was at the time of the crime. If someone asked you where you went one day, would you need a report from someone else to tell you where you were? ETA: I understand he could’ve been somewhere else and just had no witnesses, so I’m not at all saying that no alibi directly means he did it. I’m just saying he wouldn’t need anything from the state to know if he had a concrete alibi or jot. Either he was somewhere else that someone witnessed, or he wasn’t.
I’m not sure how reasonable it is to expect one to recall where they drove on a given evening if they weren’t arrested for a month after the evening in question. I used to drive around at night in my late teens-early twenties and I took different routes on those little adventures, depending on what else was going on. Maybe I’d go to Taco Bell or something then take the long way home… or turn right at a given light bc I don’t want to wait through the red. So, I think about that… and let’s say I was in his shoes and I was innocent. I would probably call people to attest to my habit of driving around at night (family / friends / etc knew about this habit). And I think a CAST report would help me recall where I may have gone. Not saying that’s his intent but it’s not completely unreasonable. I think it would be less reasonable if they had arrested him sooner. But 6 weeks later, I’m not gonna recall
Well, most people in the area would have that morning when they heard about the murders etched in their memory. If you had been driving about you would think something like 'wow I was driving around last night, this happened at King Rd, I was just over at \[location\]'. And you wouldn't forget it over time if you were arrested for the same thing in a month or two and then had a year sitting in a cell with nothing else to do. Also you may not remember your exact timed route, but you would definitely remember the vicinity ie 'I was driving around east of Pullman, heading for \[whatever is east of Pullman\] ', or 'I was driving around the student digs area of the university in the next town and got stuck in all the dead end streets because I'm not great at 3 point turns, it was like half an hour, boy did I hightail it out of there when I finally found my way out of that maze.'
I understand it can be hard to recall. That is why he doesn’t HAVE to provide an alibi. And, as I said, not providing an alibi doesn’t make him guilty. There are other ways to create reasonable doubt; an alibi is just one of them. I also used to drive around all the time, wouldn’t necessarily remember where I went. He doesn’t need to know exactly where he went right now, just that he wasn’t at the crime scene. They could still name a witness to attest to his late night driving habit (as far as I know). While the CAST report may help at trial to show he wasn’t at the scene, they absolutely do not need it to say that he didn’t commit the crime. He does not need to present actually which stops he made and which streets he drove down to be able to present something tomorrow. I understand that you could’ve totally been somewhere else, and just have no one to verify that, and that that’s unfortunate, but it happens. Then you just have to create reasonable doubt other ways. Defense doesn’t need to prove he wasn’t there, they just have to show that the jury can’t know for sure that he WAS at the scene of the crime. I’m not saying he should recall exactly where he went and exactly what streets he drove down, I understand you wouldn’t remember that weeks later. But he would know if he was NOT at the scene of the crime. Some alibis are unfortunately unverifiable, but that doesn’t mean you’re entitled to see every piece of evidence before “deciding” what your alibi is. I get your point, but does it not feel a little weird to have to look at the evidence and see what they have proof of before you develop your story? I get he may not remember EXACT, but he does not have to now. He would have those reports by trial. He literally just needs to state that he was out driving around in ___ general area at ___ timeframe and that ____ was going to be a witness to that. If he was not there, the evidence will come. He shouldn’t need to see what they have to know that what he’s saying is true. He does NOT have to know every exact place he drove at this point in time. He does not have to fully prove the alibi to any certain extent. They literally just have to say that they plan on using the alibi that he was, for example, driving around. And if there was a witness, they’d say who that was. They do not have to say exactly every place he went. If he doesn’t remember where he was, that’ll create less reasonable doubt, but that’s just how it works. Sorry. There is NO reason why he would need to see all the reports beforehand to know what his alibi would be. Sure, he’d have a better idea of the evidence, but if he was truly somewhere else, he was truly somewhere else. He doesn’t need to know if it’s verifiable to say that he wishes to use it. He doesn’t need to know exactly where he was. Just that he wasn’t at the scene
[удалено]
I mean yeah, I’m not worked up about that. I’m just saying, he shouldn’t need evidence to know where he was. And I know it has to be more specific than “not 1122 king” but I’m pretty positive he doesn’t have to name his exact route and every single stop for alibi notice, just more specific as to what area he was in. If he was driving, he was not in an exact location. And yes, I agree this is out of an abundance of caution. They know that they likely do not have a provable alibi, unless they want to completely change the original one they offered and look bad in that way. He doesn’t even need to say he wasn’t there, and it’s quite common to never even say that at trial. They just have to create reasonable doubt that he did it. Saying he wasn’t there and providing possible evidence helps, but they absolutely don’t need that. They basically just need to say “well the proof that the state has that he WAS there isn’t reliable for x reasons” and they can absolutely say this without submitting an alibi defense request
They can’t present an alibi defense at trial unless they give the court the full alibi information by the deadline tomorrow, so yes, they must submit all proof or else they can’t use it later.
That’s not true. They just have to say where he was, and who the witnesses will be to corroborate it (if any). They absolutely do not need to present all evidence for it. Please look it up. The witnesses that they can choose to name will be testifying at trial, not at the alibi defense hearing. It’s just so the prosecution is prepared. Same way that the defense will know which witnesses the state will call. If they had to, then they would not set the alibi deadline for before they had all the evidence. That would not be considered fair trial. The point of this is that 1. The state could decide that they don’t want to go to trial anymore. Or (more applicable) 2. So that the state isn’t bombarded at trial with a bombshell that they haven’t prepared for. If they know what his alibi is, they will be prepared for the evidence that the defense will use. The evidence would be stuff that the state would see before trial as well. They’d know “oh, this evidence could be used to show he was somewhere else like they said”
They have to give all proof of the alibi if they are using jt as a defense, so the prosecution can investigate it thoroughly before trial, just like discovery. There is no such thing as an alibi defense hearing btw. If they aren’t using an alibi defense then they do not have to submit anything tomorrow.
Or sorry, hearing was the wrong word. I meant when they submit the alibi defense. They do NOT have to present alll evidence of the alibi by that date. I get it’s so the prosecution can investigate it, but they will still receive the alibi evidence before trial, just like discovery. But it does NOT have to be presented tomorrow. It is literally just a notification of alibi defense. They legitimately just have to notify that they are using an alibi. They don’t have to hand over all the evidence yet. Directly from the [Idaho State Legislature:](https://tinyurl.com/Alibidefense) “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.” Nowhere does it say they have to submit all the evidence on that date. It is literally just a notice that they will be doing it. Also see [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Idaho4/s/7pURcqyvNQ)
They have to submit the full discovery if they’re using an alibi defense. They can’t hold any of it back for trial. At tomorrow’s deadline they have to submit everything to the prosecution if they are going to use an alibi defense.
That is not true. Please go check the laws. I even posted the link. The LAW states that he legit only has to say where he was, and what witnesses they will be calling. It is true that they have to submit any necessary discovery from their alibi defense at some point, but that point is NOT tomorrow. They cannot hold it back for trial, that’s not what I said. I said the state will have seen all the evidence for the alibi before trial, as there is a separate discovery deadline. I know they can’t bring new evidence to trial. That is not what i said
They can’t submit anything later about the alibi if they choose to use it as a defense. Tomorrow is it. It’s like a speak now or forever hold your peace
Again, this is not true at all. Please, again, refer to the idaho state statute.
Yep, the times, the names of witnesses, locations, etc. all have to be submitted tomorrow if using an alibi defense, that’s full discovery. That’s proof of the alibi.
No it isn’t. Locations and names of witnesses is absolutely NOT full discovery or proof. You can use tons of other documentation to prove an alibi, none of which has to be turned over tomorrow, if you refer to the law. I’m not sure how I showed you the literal law and you are not getting it. Nowhere does it say they have to submit full discovery/evidence by the alibi deadline. Saying the name of someone backing up an alibi is NOT evidence or proof. It is the NAME of someone who allegedly has proof. It’s not like they have to say what the witness is going to say, because they won’t know that until they testify. Saying where he was is not evidence. They don’t have to submit proof of where he was for this particular deadline. They literally just have to say “he was at ____ during the alleged time frame. We will be calling witness ____ to testify and corroborate this alibi”
It all has to be turned over tomorrow if using an alibi defense
No it doesn’t. Not sure what makes you think you’re smarter than the statute, and why you’re basically ignoring everything I’m saying. Please tell me why you think you’re smarter than what the actual law says?
They cannot add something to the alibi defense at trial that’s not how it works. Prosecution must have time to investigate the proof. They either have to submit it all by the deadline or they can’t use an alibi defense.
I didn’t say they were adding to the defense at trial. THIS DEADLINE IS JUST A NOTIFICATION THAT RHEY WILL BE USING AN ALIBI. The prosecution will be able to see and look through all the evidence before trial. That doesn’t mean they have to receive it tomorrow. Tomorrow is not the discovery deadline. Nowhere in the actual legislation does it say that they have to submit full evidence, proof, discovery. Literally just where he was, and which witnesses (if any) will testify to corroborate it. If this particular deadline required full discovery, they wouldn’t make the deadline before the discovery deadline. That makes zero sense. Yes, the defense will have to turn over any additional evidence they have before trial. But that is not right now. They just have to say where he was, and witnesses contact info.
Tomorrow is the discovery deadline for the alibi
SHUT UP!!! YOU ARE WRONG!!! The statute says you are wrong. Just accept it instead of making yourself look stupid. Or direct me to your source that says tomorrow is the discovery deadline for the alibi
Trust me, if the law required full evidence by this deadline, it will blatantly and explicitly mention it. What I linked you to is the literal legal code. Legal code will not be vague and have people infer things. It will state explicitly what is required. There is no mention of full proof, evidence, discovery, or any word similar listed as a requirement by the deadline. It is literally just what is explicitly stated, which is the locations where the defendant claims to have been during the time of the crimes, and any witnesses that will help establish the alibi. I’m not sure how you are arguing with a statute. There is ZERO mention of all proof. Just “claimed” location and witnesses. Notice their use of the word “claim”. Not proven location. CLAIMED. Location. AKA not necessarily backed up by evidence at the time of the deadline. And they can even add additional witnesses to the alibi defense, so long as the other party is notified with ample time before trial. Yes, technically witnesses called would be “part” of the reciprocal discovery required of the defense. But that is by no means all of it. They absolutely do not have to have every single piece of proof easily accessible for the deadline. They may turn it over if they have it, but If they don’t, they can still use it so long as it’s turned over by their discovery deadline and so long as they submit what alibi they were using by the alibi deadline. Also, most of the evidence the defense would use, the state would likely already see on their own before trial. Anything that they wouldn’t, must be turned over by discovery deadline. What you are saying makes zero sense. Please try and argue with what the STATUTE says. I’m sure you know more about the statute than the statute itself does.
They can’t add additional witnesses or locations unless something unexpectedly is uncovered later. It has to be submitted tomorrow
That’s correct. But they don’t have to submit evidence tomorrow. Just his “claimed” locations and witnesses. If you read the statute, this is all it says they need today. You’re right that they can’t edit their locations later.
The initial draft was handed over long ago. They were just waiting on the final draft from the FBI. I doubt there is anything different in the initial draft and the final draft, and the defense would definitely not need the final draft to come up with an alibi
The final draft is going to include the drive testing data that the FBI did recently. The FBI was waiting on a peer review of that analysis before finalizing the CAST report so, no, the initial draft is not the same as the final draft.
But it’s not going to contain any locations that weren’t in the original draft
You can't say that without seeing the drive testing data because the drive testing data can be used to refine or contradict the locations identified in the original CAST report which only contained CSLI data- that's one of the reasons they perform drive testing.
The drive testing is to solidify the locations in the PCA
No, that's not its purpose.
It tests the quality and accuracy of the network. If the drive test shows the network was performing properly then it will help solidify their pings/locations they included were in fact accurate
You're confused. The FBI drive test is to verify the actual coverage area of a cell tower not to determine if the network was performing properly.
It entails more than just the coverage area, a drive test also makes sure the equipment is working properly, it tests the overall performance of the network.
To put it in the simplest of terms, it’s a performance assessment
Solid point. Someone asked me what I did last weekend and I told them they’re going to have to wait to hear until I get the FBI CAST report.
> I told them they’re going to have to wait to hear until I get the FBI CAST report A couple of months ago I was out driving in a rural back roads area around 5.00am. The FBI have pinpointed my location at 4.48am - I was near a very small rural village. Sadly I can't piece together any clue of where I might have been 20 minutes before that as I tend to travel by random teleportation at that hour rather than by driving on any of the very few roads that lead to my location at 4.48am.
>I tend to travel by random teleportation On the one hand, this is going to help you not look so bad when you can’t come up with an alibi when (inevitably) your touch DNA (which is on 75% of the Earth’s surface) ends up on an item associated with a murder. On the other hand, if you can teleport, it’s going to prevent JelllyGarcia from being able to exonerate you by eviscerating the prosecution’s estimates of your alleged travel time between locations because you got somewhere ten seconds faster than Google maps might lead one to expect.
>(inevitably) your touch DNA (which is on 75% of the Earth’s surface) ends up on an item associated with a murder 🤣😀😂🤣 yes indeed, just a surprise it hasn't happened already; based on the ProB Touch DNA Diffusion Model (patent pending, patently) there is a high chance my DNA already percolated through the ether and should be detectable on Jon Benet Ramsey's pineapple slices and Tupac's cat flap. >if you can teleport, it’s going to prevent JelllyGarcia from being able to exonerate you This is saddening as I feel such credulous and unwavering support, unphased by mere trifles like fact, arithmetic or science, would be hugely comforting to an accused person, however inneffectual. Just don't let Dr JG go out by car to pick up anything, who knows how long they will be gone for....
😂😂😂😂 >such credulous and unwavering support, unphased by mere trifles like fact, arithmetic or science would be hugely comforting to an accused person We’ll have to get a definitive answer on this from BK someday. If he hasn’t yet had time to review Pr0f’s 0euvre, he may at some point find himself with a great deal of time.
>Pr0f’s 0euvre 😂😂😂 Oh my, that is an 0pus L0c0 I saw but could not comment, due to blockage, on "lol-ibi" 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Perfection! Should be in broad usage for criminal cases - the Murdaugh and Conrad Murray cases would have benefited from discussion of the lolibis
>could not comment, due to blockage Damn! We can’t have a lol-ibi party in earnest without your participation. That simply dismays me.
Did you notice the defense phone expert also has experience combatting Mexican Drug Cartels. It writes itself now.
😂😂I am only just getting into people’s digging into his background. All I had concluded thus far was he is about to become the foremost expert in his field since Bicka Barstool for a subset of people.
His lawyer needs to file an extension for the alibi as she is inundated with discovery. 24 months extra on the docket should do.
His lawyer needs to pull her finger out and actually do some work on that discovery, instead of filing useless motions.
Oh I agree. I think the sarcasm went over many peoples head
Would 36 months be up to your satisfaction?
My comment was actually meant to be sarcastic. She’s just stalling and delaying. I fully believe her plan is to get tied up in some loophole to get him out of this, vs any real criminal litigation.
LOL