The home where 4 UI students were killed will be demolished this week. Here’s why the defense and prosecution are OK with that before Kohberger’s trial.
The home where four University of Idaho students were stabbed to death last November in Moscow is set to be demolished on Thursday, without a walk-through by a jury, because it is “so substantially different” now than at the time of the homicides, according to an email from Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson.
The demolition of the home, donated to the university after the students’ deaths, was allowed by both the prosecution and the defense, according to a release from the University of Idaho. The university planned to demolish the house in August but it was delayed.
The FBI returned to the property in October to scan the home and create visual models for trial and both sets of attorneys completed their final walk-throughs of the house last week.
The Goncalves family’s attorney, Shanon Gray, wrote a statement on behalf of the family about the decision to demolish the home, in which he writes the house is “one of the most critical pieces of evidence in the case” and that there is still value to keeping it up.
But Thompson, the lead prosecutor on Kohberger’s case, wrote in a Dec. 22 email to the university that the state-led team anticipates no further use of the home.
“Based on our review of Idaho case law, the current condition of the premises is so substantially different than at the time of the homicides that a ‘jury view’ would not be authorized,” Thomspon wrote. “We appreciate the UI’s help in facilitating the investigators gathering the necessary measurements, etc., to enable creation of illustrative exhibits that should be admissible and helpful to the jury.”
Jed Whitaker, former deputy prosecutor for Kootenai County, said “it’s rare” to have jury walk through crime scenes any more because of the advancement in technology. And 3D imaging, like the ones the FBI were taking of the home since the homicides, is “way more advanced than anything on Google,” he said.
Some of the 3D imaging law enforcement uses, according to a study from the University College London Department of Security and Crime Science, is able to overlap crime scene photos to the 3D scan of the home or crime area, reconstruct injuries on a body and even link to a drone for a full view of a street or property.
A setback, if the jury did walk through the home, would be that the defendant is required to be there with them, Whitaker said. The defendant has to be present for all aspects of trial, otherwise it is grounds for an appeal.
“If he is there, they will associate that house with him,” Whitaker said. “If I was a defense lawyer I’d object. If I was a prosecutor I wouldn’t go there.”
Whitaker has tried asking the court for a jury walk-through multiple times, he said. Every single time he was shut down because of 3D imaging and photographs.
Because all the evidence has been processed from the crime scene for trial, Whitaker believes there is no reason he could imagine to keep the house up.
He also has interacted with the defense and prosecutors in Kohberger’s case during other trials and believes each side are “excellent investigative units” that will leave no stone unturned.
“Evidence is what is admitted into trial. You can’t admit a house, but you can admit photos. People’s descriptions are also evidence. They’re not going to find new evidence in there,” Whitaker said. “I’m sure they looked at everything. Beyond that, you have law enforcement that’s under a gag order. The public doesn’t know what else they have as evidence.”
That all sounds so reasonable. But begs SEVERAL questions. I don't have it in me to cover them right now. But I'm sure all who think about it can see the same questions.
And it still just comes down to there was no desperate emegency of any kind to do this if the families did not endorse it and the trial and what may come up is still unkonwn. This is clearly an article meant to calm the backlash and criticism.
Oh both sides are so good he knows them both and trusts them, the home isn't/wasn't the same? Huh? They changed its location, doors and walls, etc.? 3D imaging etc. is so great. And overlays and so on. Sure until defense tears it apart as not actual like the do enhancing a surveillance video.
Every bit of this is trying to calm the complaints.
And even IF SO, there simply was NO NEED. WHO NEEDED IT DOWN SO DESPERATELY? No one I'd hope or think. It was a gift the U never owned prior. There just was no need. I can tell you firsthand that photos and other things are NOTHING like being there in a murder case. NOTHING.
Whatever. It's done. This is of course not at you but at the decision and go ahead. I've got some real opinions of ID these days and Moscow and its U has written its own chapter. Of course I am not dissing all the good people who live in the state.
And maybe this decision will end up not mattering at all in the case. Who knows. But that really isn't the point. Or the only point. It simply was not necessary. Or urgent. And if I or anyone sent their kid to school there or anywhere and such happened and this was the reaction of the school and decision when they should know the loss and devastation and hear the parents, well then that just says a lot about that entity. Imo.
And what it says is disgusting.
Again, not responding to anyone at all, jmo. I just don't like it.
But there is a flip side. Let this case have a THING to do with this house and what was possible at trial without having the actual house and I will have something to say and remind the U etc. of as will even more so the parents I'm sure and then it will be them telling them they told them so. And the U still won't care. But I will rub it in and rub it in which 85 percent likely will. I hope that doesn't happen.
I'll stop as it is over. Many may have guessed it, going into a long needed day off so defusing a bit and catching up. I'd feel the same though.
This was all general but it just popped into my head that you and
@Kimster talked of going to the actual area where Michael Bryson disappeared, seeing it and how it is and what is around it and where his clothes were found, etc. Why? Because we can hear about something and hear about something in detail but NOTHING is like seeing it first hand. I drive by a major crime scene quite a bit. I did so before the home came down and after. They didn't take it down until the perp was sentenced and case over. Regardless I felt the need to notice where it was on the road I was on and see the distance, proximity etc. to things to understand the whole case I followed. And several things surprised me and that was just from the outside and proximity to things.
Even though I KNEW it, I couldn't quite picture how close it was to town, etc.
I don['t even know what I am saying EXCEPT pretty much what Shannon Gray said paraphrased. WHY when no need would you do so when the possibility exists someone may wish they had it? The U had no NEED. I just don't like it when entities act as if they aren't people or human and they want to be an entity seen to care about students, espouse higher education and a community for students and more? Uh huh. They aren't human. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I say here and what 85 percent of others say falls on decision makes without concern or empathy.
Might be smart business in some cases, I don't think it is when you house people's children and those parents don't think like cold alien entities without human life.
Okay. Now I am rattling on so I will stop. I'll save this one and hope it NEVER matters later. If it does, I will have a lot to say as I think will others.
And let's see what's next. Are they really going to put some memorial or park in this small lot between other people's homes? Smh. In their names? I have my guess on that one but I'll keep it for now.
Hoping all can forgive my diatribe. It is entirely general as to anyone here and meant at the situation and the U, etc. only. ERR TO THE SIDE OF CAUTION is good advice.
