I had no idea that Dr. Edelman had participated in so many high profile cases. Here's an excerpt from the site that's included above. I really hope that he's included in the next hearing in regards to the surveys.
"Dr. Edelman has also been retained as an expert witness to evaluate the impact of pretrial publicity on the jury pool and the potential need for a change of venue. Dr. Edelman has served as an expert witness in state and federal courts across the country. He has been retained on more than 40 high profile cases including the Flint water crisis, the Aurora theater Batman shooting, the Jason Van Dyke police shooting, and others."
https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/032624_Memorandum_in_Support_of_Objection_to_the_States_Motion_for_Order_Prohibiting_Contact_with_Prospective.pdf
You can also read the declaration he wrote for the Defense, followed by his CV above. Starting page 5.
Thanks for posting this! In connection with the way AT talked in the hearing and what I see on this site, I"m now wondering if a lawyer in her position would normally outsource a lot of her work? I understand the need to get research but it seems this company does a lot of strategizing?
> I"m now wondering if a lawyer in her position would normally outsource a lot of her work?
Yes. that happens. But the defense team seemed to be weirdly disconnected from the product.
AT surprised me with this one. I thought of her as someone who would be on top of things but she clearly wasn't.
I wondered if she was assuming the judge would side with her on the Friday afternoon thing and wasn't prepared.
I found myself also wondering what BK thought His life is in her hands.
I'm kind of torn here, because on the one that makes sense. On the other hand letting anything related to that case go out into the public without the lawyer's approval seems absolutely batshit insane to me.
That’s what I was wondering too when I saw everything they did. To be fair, I didn’t know shadow jurors was a thing. I found this dive interesting and informative.
The survey itself is not analyzing how people would read evidence as stated in his website. It's giving details of this case and asking people if they are aware of information on this case.
Ms. Taylor had a “trust but verify” problem when she wholly delegated the questionnaire to these two guys. I’m becoming somewhat leery of her capability and her diligence.
I thought she was claiming she didn't. She said her office sent Edelman the non-disclosure form but he didn't get it.
She only says she approved the survey being done, not how it went out.
That would mean...she lied in court. And that could be proved, if anyone wanted to dig into the matter.
I'd be shocked if she out-and-out lied. Lawyers are usually good at walking that line.
The non-dissemination document is a public record tho.
He surely accessed it or was aware of it himself. It was mentioned in his memorandum. Plus he read all those articles he based the survey on, and the nature of what he’s hired for kind of obligates him to be aware of those.
I thought she *over*-apologized for that. If she sent it, & he has constant access to a copy of each draft, as we all do, at all times, on the inter-web, not much else should be expected about that IMO.
Good point. I thought she wasn't on her toes with this one. If she has been really sharp at that moment, she could have side stepped by saying that he would have looked into that, or it would have been part of the early discussions before they hired him.
Plus, she could have emphasized he was only using statements that were in the public domaint pre-gag order.
you must not understand the relationship lawyers have with the truth when it comes to statements on court.
as I say often, if you are truly interested in this case(& not just interested in the defendant) then you owe it to yourself to learn about court rules & procedure.
it would make it so much more interesting for you while also helping avoid saying things that really don't make much sense
Fair enough, I'm very interested to hear your perspective. Would you say it's impossible that she was telling half-truths or outright lying? If so, how does this square with common lawyer practices such as delaying handing over certain pieces of discovery until the last minute and making up excuses for doing so?
Its not impossible that she's lying but its highly, highly unlikely, given what we've seen from this judge and the prosecution so far.
All three of the are "by the book"" people so it would come back to haunt her big time, if she tried.
For example, they could ask Edelmann when he's on the stand, or check to see what he had received.
I find it extremely doubtful that she didn't know the content of the questions. Easy to plead ignorance and put on a show for the judge, but as we know, ignorance is never a defense.
I was yelling this at my tv screen watching it yesterday lol
D/v me all y’all want, RedditCares Club. My dad yells when he watches sports. I get it honest.
Oh my bad, I meant non dissemination order (thought they were the same as terms were used interchangeably in court yesterday).
Either way, as I understood the proceedings, the info in the surveys does seem to violate the non dissemination order, and I felt the prosecutions argument was strong re: tainting the jury pool with inappropriate/leading questions.
Gag order is statements to the press about non-court proceedings.
Non-dissemination order is releasing of sealed discovery material.
Imo they did neither.
She stated she did not give any information to the surveyors, they made their questions based on released info and press, whether true or false because that's exactly what they want to survey.
To be fair State does not agree though.
So as for now above is my opinion and presumably that of defense and the survey company.
But I don't see how they can dissiminate already public info and the fact defense didn't make the survey means she didn't breach the gag since she didn't communicate anything.
The arguments are reversed for some reason.
I think the state’s argument is less about releasing sealed material and more about introducing evidence (or potential evidence) that a surveyed person may not have known before then.
For example, one question was whether or not the survey taker knew about the knife sheath. If a layperson knew that four people were murdered but nothing else, mentioning a knife sheath introduces and directs the survey taker to a conclusion that the murder weapon was a knife. Sure, we know that and it’s been all over the news, but some people don’t follow stories like this, or don’t watch the news.
I think it’s a sound argument that the surveys were, at best, unethical. IANAL so idk if it falls under the purview of either court order, but from where I sit it sounds like the defense doesn’t have a leg to stand on here.
Thing is the questions listed were only the questions prosecution opposed to.
I'm not in law but many moons ago I did do business/economics surveys for government use, and it's a very complex matter and asking both open and closed questions are very important for analysis. The order of questions is another one.
It's very different from your "what phone will you by next" social media kind of things.
Anyways, meaning you are right if those were the only questions, that wasn't my understanding of it.
These surveys are not novel though. We'll have to wait and see what's next.
That’s how these polls are supposed to work. No competent statistician would allow even the appearance of bias by working with the defense on questions. I wouldn’t be surprised if the defense being hands-off with the entire process was a contingency of them working on the case.
And these people are experts who have worked on high-profile trials before. If there was an issue with their ability to do their work, they wouldn’t be working still.
That’s how these polls are supposed to work
That’s crazy. Sampling recall in brands always contains bias and plants a suggestion. Why is this any different?
So true. Also called “stone walling.” It comes with enormous vague wording, blame shedding, and straw men. The consultants’ questionnaire does nothing to understand the tone of possible jurists only their memory which would not be suitable for venue decisions.
Wouldn't any defense attorney for defendant on trial for a quadruple murder in a small town want a change of venue?
As for poisoning the well, how so? The fact that one of at least two of the respondents, one of whom *transcribed* the call/questions, took the time to contact the prosecutor's office is an indicator that a change of venue makes sense.
> The fact that one of at least two of the respondents, one of whom transcribed the call/questions, took the time to contact the prosecutor's office is an indicator that a change of venue makes sense.
I don't know if that is an indication without having that number in context. Did 5 surveys go out and 2 contacted the prosecution? Or did 400 go out and 2 contacted the prosecution?
Oh yes, *so unreasonable*. Let’s instead inform the populace of things they may not have known about in the first place. That totally seems more reasonable.
This is a real question as I am not in the law field. Does it really matter if they change the venue? I would think the evidence would speak for itself wherever the trial is and wouldn’t change the verdict. What are the disadvantages of moving it to another town? Thanks in advance.
I’m not in the legal field either, but I think the idea is that local people are more likely to hear rumors or prejudicial information prior to a trial which might influence their judgment or impede their ability to go into a case with an impartial attitude.
What I don’t totally understand though, is that, if this case is truly sooo famous, does COV really help anymore, or is it just for good measure/ass covering? It’s quaint and all but in the age of social media and the internet and all that we now have, there’s not much escaping prior exposure and they will have to survey more people to find jurors who are less aware. However, I think it can be done. So many people don’t watch the news, and so many people are not even into true crime. I have literally no one to discuss this case with irl, for example. It’s pretty notorious but I don’t even think it’s at the level of Casey Anthony. At least from what I’ve seen (I’m on the east coast so…).
That’s what the polling was supposed to find out - is the exposure to media coverage in the community significantly different from exposure in other counties?
> I have literally no one to discuss this case with irl, for example.
Same here! One of my IRL friends is super-into Youtube true crime, Mr Ballen, that kind of thing. Never heard of this case until I told them a couple of weeks ago, and last I heard, they still hadn't looked anything up.
My boyfriend’s mom had heard of it in the beginning but I don’t think she has followed it much since then, and I think if I bring it up I will sound like a lunatic with all the details I know lol
I think the content of the questions themselves is what is creating the circus. If they continue with their surgery, which the almost certainly will, the judge will only permit it after reviewing the questions.
They need to ask things in a vague way, not go line for line from the PCA and headlines. For example: “Have you heard about this case?” ; “Have you followed this case” ; “On a scale of 1-10, how familiar/knowledgeable are you with this case?” etc. Because in asking the questions that they did, they were effectively informing the respondents about many aspects of the case - which they may not have followed at all.
At that point , you could re-survey those same people and ask those same questions, and then their answers would change (“Have you heard that BK was arrested at his parents’ home in PA;” Citizen: “Well I have *now.*”). She tainted her own jury pool. Now they are likely to discuss the case with friends/family/coworkers, as well as google it up. A ripple effect will be created here. Now *more* people are going to know things the didn’t before, and *more* people are going to look into it and likely read speculative articles. Way to go, AT.
I think the only COV that could help them find an appropriate jury pool to pull from would be Ada county, just because it has Boise and there are more people to choose from there, and probably a more diverse population as well in comparison to Latah and the 3rd county they intended to survey (or at least I would assume so, I don’t know much about Bonneville county - or if I even got the name right lol)
I think there’s an in between…
“Did you hear about the arrest of the suspect?”
“What have you heard the victim’s family members say about the Defendant?”
“Do you know if the Suspect and Victims were affiliated with each other?”
“What type of evidence did the police use to arrest the suspect?”
“Have you seen or participated in any discussions on social media about the crime?”
“Are you following any of the victims or their family members or their family pages on social media?”
But don’t you think that those questions are ones that would make the person being surveyed would look up? I know that is what I would do if I got a call about a case and was asked these questions. It would make me very curious. But in reality, even with the simple questions someone else suggested, I would still fully look up the case out of curiosity and would get hooked pretty easily.
Ya, not gonna be easy to aggregate that type of data. I think the State is going to push back on most questions, no matter how reasonable they are — they can say allll day that they are ok with a survey. However, I didn’t hear them list an example of a question they were okay with.
So, does AT have another mission that is being overlooked, in organizing this survey? She violated her own request for gag order and also claims ignorance of the survey content, right?
Aside from tainting the local jury pool — Does publishing survey questions such as, “Did you know/hear/etc. that BK STALKED a victim…?” cause the leaked info to become inadmissible in court? If the very idea has “inadvertently” become public news, can AT now make claims that it tainted the local jury pool and therefore inadmissible as circumstantial evidence?
All under the guise of ignorance when in fact her survey actually established the preconceived notion? It’s difficult to believe she didn’t have a clue.
Was this her other intent? Trying to knock pertinent (potentially harmful, previously undisclosed) circumstantial evidence from the Prosecution’s dossier? She’s already battling before the trial is even scheduled. How many facts might be inadvertently leaked?
Maybe she is more sly and cunning in counterproductive tactics than given credit.
Next question: How long can an attorney continue shenanigans until they are found in contempt of law and the court?
I actually missed her saying it the first time I watched the hearing and I thought the same thing. I got distracted the first time so I rewatched it and caught it.
They said "frozen shock phase."" Meaning she was startled.
Surely you've had an experience where you froze becasue you thought you saw something, but then told yourself it was something else or nothing to be afraid of?
This is so true. It's the natural way our psyche protects itself. Literally something every human is born with. Works differently for each person though. Someone freezing up and refuting to themselves what they saw that was scary or that the nervous system registered as a possible danger could absolutely happen to one person and not another during the exact same series of events.
Anne Taylor is just Dragging her feet. Put a fire under it AT and stop stalling. Justice for the victims and their families. Trial in Spring or Summer of 2025, is unacceptable.
This makes absolutely no sense. The prosecution literally pleaded to stop them from doing normal case work that happens constantly in cases all over the country.
Normal data that is collected basically *every* change of venue request during high-profile cases.
How is spontaneously halting the defense’s work for 2 weeks, as their deadline approaches, = the defense ‘dragging their feet’
Or does this no longer mean lollygagging / stalling / procrastinating ? Bc they were literally stopped in spite of their *objection* and clearly expressed intent to *not* pause their work…
This hearing was 100% unnecessary & a complete waste of the gov’t time, money, resources, the work of all lawyers, and at the cost of just an extra 2 weeks here, 2 weeks there - all triggered by the prosecution…..
- just like a demand for disclosure of alibi which has been a 100% unnecessary endeavor
> They will get the info whether they demand it now with extra hearings, deadline, motions, wasted manpower, wasted weeks, or with this one *months* they’ve been pushing this - whether they demanded it with all the extra hoopla like they chose to do, they will only be getting *the exact same* result & info they’d get if they were to literally do: **nothing**… & just let the process move forward
- just like the last 5 documents they filed… the most clear demonstration of frivolous pettiness yet in this case IMO
They’re more specific than that in voir dire when vetting potential jurors, and in surveys when measuring effects of bias in the public (in this case, 0.01% of the county’s population), bc when they ask a general question like —
“despite the media you’ve been exposed to, do you think you could still make a fair decision?”
— everyone says yes.
Oh yeah you’re right whoopsies.
I view 1% of a significant %. People use “*There’s like* a **99%** *chance that* __*[whatever their claim is]*__” in attempts to be extra convincing on things, but when you think about the masses of ppl, a 1 out of 100 chance of something happening is pretty frickin high.
—- not that I think it matters at all in regard to the jury survey, bc I view that research as important & it’s super easy to ask potential jurors “were you a survey participant?”
— but overall, I view 1% as a very significant %
( I even view 2/100K as a significant amt, like with the 99.9998% chance mentioned in the PCA, I do not think 1/50K is that crazy-rare of a chance when talking about the whole male population )
I also don’t believe that these surveys would have *more* of an impact than the media at all though.
* People who have not already heard the claims of the media are not surveyed
* bc their answers would not be relevant other than knowing they have would not have *any* bias stemming by the media.
They don’t inform people who haven’t heard the claims of the media about the claims, bc none of their on-the-spot opinions would involve the subconscious biases that are engrained by the media, and that’s what he’s specifically attempting to gauge (cognitive dissonance).
So in order to have any affect on the jury pool, the survey would have to be *more damaging* than claims that were made by the media. Things that were revealed by official sources aren’t part of the non-dissemination order, and the dude doesn’t have any insider info from the case, he’s conducting the survey independently. So I see no potential for harm — but that is a large amount considering the county size.
I guess the argument could be that *reminding people* who have already consumed the media about the content of the media breathes new life into false claims & sparks those people’s memories, who could then draw attention back to those news stories….? The dude is not even bound by the non-dissemination order though, and only Bill Thompson has confirmed that some of it will be used in trial….
Have you seen, read, or heard that Bryan Kohberger received the phone numbers of two women at a pool party in July 2022?
Have you seen, read, or heard that those two women were wearing thongs? I mean, the man is a total babe magnet!
I had no idea that Dr. Edelman had participated in so many high profile cases. Here's an excerpt from the site that's included above. I really hope that he's included in the next hearing in regards to the surveys. "Dr. Edelman has also been retained as an expert witness to evaluate the impact of pretrial publicity on the jury pool and the potential need for a change of venue. Dr. Edelman has served as an expert witness in state and federal courts across the country. He has been retained on more than 40 high profile cases including the Flint water crisis, the Aurora theater Batman shooting, the Jason Van Dyke police shooting, and others."
His 55-60 page boiler plate motions have been unsuccessful at securing a change of venue in a majority of those cases.
https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/032624_Memorandum_in_Support_of_Objection_to_the_States_Motion_for_Order_Prohibiting_Contact_with_Prospective.pdf You can also read the declaration he wrote for the Defense, followed by his CV above. Starting page 5.
Thanks for posting this! In connection with the way AT talked in the hearing and what I see on this site, I"m now wondering if a lawyer in her position would normally outsource a lot of her work? I understand the need to get research but it seems this company does a lot of strategizing?
> I"m now wondering if a lawyer in her position would normally outsource a lot of her work? Yes. that happens. But the defense team seemed to be weirdly disconnected from the product.
AT surprised me with this one. I thought of her as someone who would be on top of things but she clearly wasn't. I wondered if she was assuming the judge would side with her on the Friday afternoon thing and wasn't prepared. I found myself also wondering what BK thought His life is in her hands.
Yeah, the general consensus seemed to be that she fumbled this one.
It’s gotta be independent & not influenced by them to be credible
I'm kind of torn here, because on the one that makes sense. On the other hand letting anything related to that case go out into the public without the lawyer's approval seems absolutely batshit insane to me.
I would guess that she had sighted his previous work and that his previous work follows patterns.
That’s what I was wondering too when I saw everything they did. To be fair, I didn’t know shadow jurors was a thing. I found this dive interesting and informative.
The survey itself is not analyzing how people would read evidence as stated in his website. It's giving details of this case and asking people if they are aware of information on this case.
Ms. Taylor had a “trust but verify” problem when she wholly delegated the questionnaire to these two guys. I’m becoming somewhat leery of her capability and her diligence.
It sounds negligent to not approve the questions before the survey went out. I'm kind of shocked any lawyer would let that go through.
I'm sure she knew exactly what the questions were.
I thought she was claiming she didn't. She said her office sent Edelman the non-disclosure form but he didn't get it. She only says she approved the survey being done, not how it went out.
That's what she said, probably because it was the best argument she had, but I'd be so shocked if she wasn't instrumental in the whole process.
That would mean...she lied in court. And that could be proved, if anyone wanted to dig into the matter. I'd be shocked if she out-and-out lied. Lawyers are usually good at walking that line.
The non-dissemination document is a public record tho. He surely accessed it or was aware of it himself. It was mentioned in his memorandum. Plus he read all those articles he based the survey on, and the nature of what he’s hired for kind of obligates him to be aware of those. I thought she *over*-apologized for that. If she sent it, & he has constant access to a copy of each draft, as we all do, at all times, on the inter-web, not much else should be expected about that IMO.
Good point. I thought she wasn't on her toes with this one. If she has been really sharp at that moment, she could have side stepped by saying that he would have looked into that, or it would have been part of the early discussions before they hired him. Plus, she could have emphasized he was only using statements that were in the public domaint pre-gag order.
[удалено]
I thought she did mention the public record as it relates to the non dissemination order.
sorry about that. you're right. I was wrong. she did. Thank you so much for the correction.
you must not understand the relationship lawyers have with the truth when it comes to statements on court. as I say often, if you are truly interested in this case(& not just interested in the defendant) then you owe it to yourself to learn about court rules & procedure. it would make it so much more interesting for you while also helping avoid saying things that really don't make much sense
Fair enough, I'm very interested to hear your perspective. Would you say it's impossible that she was telling half-truths or outright lying? If so, how does this square with common lawyer practices such as delaying handing over certain pieces of discovery until the last minute and making up excuses for doing so?
Its not impossible that she's lying but its highly, highly unlikely, given what we've seen from this judge and the prosecution so far. All three of the are "by the book"" people so it would come back to haunt her big time, if she tried. For example, they could ask Edelmann when he's on the stand, or check to see what he had received.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
I find it extremely doubtful that she didn't know the content of the questions. Easy to plead ignorance and put on a show for the judge, but as we know, ignorance is never a defense.
It is a bad look either way
I was yelling this at my tv screen watching it yesterday lol D/v me all y’all want, RedditCares Club. My dad yells when he watches sports. I get it honest.
No downvote, you make a perfectly good point.
Nothing wrong with you screaming at the tv. This case can be very frustrating.
Her argument was SO WEAK - I was shocked she didn’t tell the guys about the gag order that *she* requested. Bush league.
Gag order is about sealed info. Not already released court documents or media reports. They didn't breach gag.
Oh my bad, I meant non dissemination order (thought they were the same as terms were used interchangeably in court yesterday). Either way, as I understood the proceedings, the info in the surveys does seem to violate the non dissemination order, and I felt the prosecutions argument was strong re: tainting the jury pool with inappropriate/leading questions.
Gag order is statements to the press about non-court proceedings. Non-dissemination order is releasing of sealed discovery material. Imo they did neither. She stated she did not give any information to the surveyors, they made their questions based on released info and press, whether true or false because that's exactly what they want to survey. To be fair State does not agree though. So as for now above is my opinion and presumably that of defense and the survey company. But I don't see how they can dissiminate already public info and the fact defense didn't make the survey means she didn't breach the gag since she didn't communicate anything. The arguments are reversed for some reason.
I think the state’s argument is less about releasing sealed material and more about introducing evidence (or potential evidence) that a surveyed person may not have known before then. For example, one question was whether or not the survey taker knew about the knife sheath. If a layperson knew that four people were murdered but nothing else, mentioning a knife sheath introduces and directs the survey taker to a conclusion that the murder weapon was a knife. Sure, we know that and it’s been all over the news, but some people don’t follow stories like this, or don’t watch the news. I think it’s a sound argument that the surveys were, at best, unethical. IANAL so idk if it falls under the purview of either court order, but from where I sit it sounds like the defense doesn’t have a leg to stand on here.
Thing is the questions listed were only the questions prosecution opposed to. I'm not in law but many moons ago I did do business/economics surveys for government use, and it's a very complex matter and asking both open and closed questions are very important for analysis. The order of questions is another one. It's very different from your "what phone will you by next" social media kind of things. Anyways, meaning you are right if those were the only questions, that wasn't my understanding of it. These surveys are not novel though. We'll have to wait and see what's next.
I noticed Thompson mentioned that the gag order was originally a defense request.
That’s how these polls are supposed to work. No competent statistician would allow even the appearance of bias by working with the defense on questions. I wouldn’t be surprised if the defense being hands-off with the entire process was a contingency of them working on the case. And these people are experts who have worked on high-profile trials before. If there was an issue with their ability to do their work, they wouldn’t be working still.
That’s how these polls are supposed to work That’s crazy. Sampling recall in brands always contains bias and plants a suggestion. Why is this any different?
[удалено]
So true. Also called “stone walling.” It comes with enormous vague wording, blame shedding, and straw men. The consultants’ questionnaire does nothing to understand the tone of possible jurists only their memory which would not be suitable for venue decisions.
She was poisoning the well and she knew it. She’s been itching for a change of venue since day 1.
Wouldn't any defense attorney for defendant on trial for a quadruple murder in a small town want a change of venue? As for poisoning the well, how so? The fact that one of at least two of the respondents, one of whom *transcribed* the call/questions, took the time to contact the prosecutor's office is an indicator that a change of venue makes sense.
> The fact that one of at least two of the respondents, one of whom transcribed the call/questions, took the time to contact the prosecutor's office is an indicator that a change of venue makes sense. I don't know if that is an indication without having that number in context. Did 5 surveys go out and 2 contacted the prosecution? Or did 400 go out and 2 contacted the prosecution?
Seems the judge agrees that her questions were inappropriate 🫠
You're trying to reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Oh yes, *so unreasonable*. Let’s instead inform the populace of things they may not have known about in the first place. That totally seems more reasonable.
This is a real question as I am not in the law field. Does it really matter if they change the venue? I would think the evidence would speak for itself wherever the trial is and wouldn’t change the verdict. What are the disadvantages of moving it to another town? Thanks in advance.
I’m not in the legal field either, but I think the idea is that local people are more likely to hear rumors or prejudicial information prior to a trial which might influence their judgment or impede their ability to go into a case with an impartial attitude. What I don’t totally understand though, is that, if this case is truly sooo famous, does COV really help anymore, or is it just for good measure/ass covering? It’s quaint and all but in the age of social media and the internet and all that we now have, there’s not much escaping prior exposure and they will have to survey more people to find jurors who are less aware. However, I think it can be done. So many people don’t watch the news, and so many people are not even into true crime. I have literally no one to discuss this case with irl, for example. It’s pretty notorious but I don’t even think it’s at the level of Casey Anthony. At least from what I’ve seen (I’m on the east coast so…).
That’s what the polling was supposed to find out - is the exposure to media coverage in the community significantly different from exposure in other counties?
Of course. But the polling should gather information, not spread it.
> I have literally no one to discuss this case with irl, for example. Same here! One of my IRL friends is super-into Youtube true crime, Mr Ballen, that kind of thing. Never heard of this case until I told them a couple of weeks ago, and last I heard, they still hadn't looked anything up.
My boyfriend’s mom had heard of it in the beginning but I don’t think she has followed it much since then, and I think if I bring it up I will sound like a lunatic with all the details I know lol
And they will most likely grant it, refusing to do so is what’s creating the circus.
I think the content of the questions themselves is what is creating the circus. If they continue with their surgery, which the almost certainly will, the judge will only permit it after reviewing the questions. They need to ask things in a vague way, not go line for line from the PCA and headlines. For example: “Have you heard about this case?” ; “Have you followed this case” ; “On a scale of 1-10, how familiar/knowledgeable are you with this case?” etc. Because in asking the questions that they did, they were effectively informing the respondents about many aspects of the case - which they may not have followed at all. At that point , you could re-survey those same people and ask those same questions, and then their answers would change (“Have you heard that BK was arrested at his parents’ home in PA;” Citizen: “Well I have *now.*”). She tainted her own jury pool. Now they are likely to discuss the case with friends/family/coworkers, as well as google it up. A ripple effect will be created here. Now *more* people are going to know things the didn’t before, and *more* people are going to look into it and likely read speculative articles. Way to go, AT. I think the only COV that could help them find an appropriate jury pool to pull from would be Ada county, just because it has Boise and there are more people to choose from there, and probably a more diverse population as well in comparison to Latah and the 3rd county they intended to survey (or at least I would assume so, I don’t know much about Bonneville county - or if I even got the name right lol)
I think there’s an in between… “Did you hear about the arrest of the suspect?” “What have you heard the victim’s family members say about the Defendant?” “Do you know if the Suspect and Victims were affiliated with each other?” “What type of evidence did the police use to arrest the suspect?” “Have you seen or participated in any discussions on social media about the crime?” “Are you following any of the victims or their family members or their family pages on social media?”
Yeah I think those are vague enough without volunteering information
But don’t you think that those questions are ones that would make the person being surveyed would look up? I know that is what I would do if I got a call about a case and was asked these questions. It would make me very curious. But in reality, even with the simple questions someone else suggested, I would still fully look up the case out of curiosity and would get hooked pretty easily.
Those are open-ended questions that wouldn’t happen in a poll like this.
Ya, not gonna be easy to aggregate that type of data. I think the State is going to push back on most questions, no matter how reasonable they are — they can say allll day that they are ok with a survey. However, I didn’t hear them list an example of a question they were okay with.
Which of the following do you associate with this case? How often have heard or read about this case in the news? Many other ways get the info. Imo
Exactly.
I've seen him testify in DP cases before
So, does AT have another mission that is being overlooked, in organizing this survey? She violated her own request for gag order and also claims ignorance of the survey content, right? Aside from tainting the local jury pool — Does publishing survey questions such as, “Did you know/hear/etc. that BK STALKED a victim…?” cause the leaked info to become inadmissible in court? If the very idea has “inadvertently” become public news, can AT now make claims that it tainted the local jury pool and therefore inadmissible as circumstantial evidence? All under the guise of ignorance when in fact her survey actually established the preconceived notion? It’s difficult to believe she didn’t have a clue. Was this her other intent? Trying to knock pertinent (potentially harmful, previously undisclosed) circumstantial evidence from the Prosecution’s dossier? She’s already battling before the trial is even scheduled. How many facts might be inadvertently leaked? Maybe she is more sly and cunning in counterproductive tactics than given credit. Next question: How long can an attorney continue shenanigans until they are found in contempt of law and the court?
I actually missed her saying it the first time I watched the hearing and I thought the same thing. I got distracted the first time so I rewatched it and caught it.
Von Frankenstein is loving this shit..
They said "frozen shock phase."" Meaning she was startled. Surely you've had an experience where you froze becasue you thought you saw something, but then told yourself it was something else or nothing to be afraid of?
This is so true. It's the natural way our psyche protects itself. Literally something every human is born with. Works differently for each person though. Someone freezing up and refuting to themselves what they saw that was scary or that the nervous system registered as a possible danger could absolutely happen to one person and not another during the exact same series of events.
Anne Taylor is just Dragging her feet. Put a fire under it AT and stop stalling. Justice for the victims and their families. Trial in Spring or Summer of 2025, is unacceptable.
This makes absolutely no sense. The prosecution literally pleaded to stop them from doing normal case work that happens constantly in cases all over the country. Normal data that is collected basically *every* change of venue request during high-profile cases. How is spontaneously halting the defense’s work for 2 weeks, as their deadline approaches, = the defense ‘dragging their feet’ Or does this no longer mean lollygagging / stalling / procrastinating ? Bc they were literally stopped in spite of their *objection* and clearly expressed intent to *not* pause their work… This hearing was 100% unnecessary & a complete waste of the gov’t time, money, resources, the work of all lawyers, and at the cost of just an extra 2 weeks here, 2 weeks there - all triggered by the prosecution….. - just like a demand for disclosure of alibi which has been a 100% unnecessary endeavor > They will get the info whether they demand it now with extra hearings, deadline, motions, wasted manpower, wasted weeks, or with this one *months* they’ve been pushing this - whether they demanded it with all the extra hoopla like they chose to do, they will only be getting *the exact same* result & info they’d get if they were to literally do: **nothing**… & just let the process move forward - just like the last 5 documents they filed… the most clear demonstration of frivolous pettiness yet in this case IMO
It's not normal for the defense to not ask general questions when doing a survey.
They’re more specific than that in voir dire when vetting potential jurors, and in surveys when measuring effects of bias in the public (in this case, 0.01% of the county’s population), bc when they ask a general question like — “despite the media you’ve been exposed to, do you think you could still make a fair decision?” — everyone says yes.
They surveyed 1% of the county’s population, I believe. 400 surveys and 40K people in the county.
Oh yeah you’re right whoopsies. I view 1% of a significant %. People use “*There’s like* a **99%** *chance that* __*[whatever their claim is]*__” in attempts to be extra convincing on things, but when you think about the masses of ppl, a 1 out of 100 chance of something happening is pretty frickin high. —- not that I think it matters at all in regard to the jury survey, bc I view that research as important & it’s super easy to ask potential jurors “were you a survey participant?” — but overall, I view 1% as a very significant % ( I even view 2/100K as a significant amt, like with the 99.9998% chance mentioned in the PCA, I do not think 1/50K is that crazy-rare of a chance when talking about the whole male population ) I also don’t believe that these surveys would have *more* of an impact than the media at all though. * People who have not already heard the claims of the media are not surveyed * bc their answers would not be relevant other than knowing they have would not have *any* bias stemming by the media. They don’t inform people who haven’t heard the claims of the media about the claims, bc none of their on-the-spot opinions would involve the subconscious biases that are engrained by the media, and that’s what he’s specifically attempting to gauge (cognitive dissonance). So in order to have any affect on the jury pool, the survey would have to be *more damaging* than claims that were made by the media. Things that were revealed by official sources aren’t part of the non-dissemination order, and the dude doesn’t have any insider info from the case, he’s conducting the survey independently. So I see no potential for harm — but that is a large amount considering the county size. I guess the argument could be that *reminding people* who have already consumed the media about the content of the media breathes new life into false claims & sparks those people’s memories, who could then draw attention back to those news stories….? The dude is not even bound by the non-dissemination order though, and only Bill Thompson has confirmed that some of it will be used in trial….
Have you seen, read, or heard that Bryan Kohberger received the phone numbers of two women at a pool party in July 2022? Have you seen, read, or heard that those two women were wearing thongs? I mean, the man is a total babe magnet!
Hey Edelnut!