Four students murdered at University of Idaho *ARREST*

1668706399688.png


Got my Masters degree from here. :(

Killer who stabbed 4 Idaho students to death still at large​

The killer — or killers — who stabbed four University of Idaho students to death remained at large Tuesday, prompting many students to leave the campus in the idyllic small town despite police assurances that there was no imminent risk to the community.

So many students had left the scenic tree-lined campus in Moscow, Idaho, by Tuesday that university officials said a candlelight vigil scheduled for the next day would instead be held after the Thanksgiving break.

The students, all close friends, were found dead in an off-campus rental home around noon on Sunday, and officials said they likely were killed several hours earlier. Latah County Coroner Cathy Mabbutt told the Spokane, Washington-based television station KXLY that her preliminary investigation showed the students were stabbed to death. There is no indication that substance use was involved in the deaths, Mabbutt said.
 
Last edited:
Click to expand...
Summer_Breeze said:
www.newsweek.com

Bryan Kohberger prosecutors find "game changer" audio recording

"This survey cannot stand," Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson said.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

Published Apr 05, 2024 at 9:29 AM EDT
By Matthew Impelli

Prosecutors in Bryan Kohberger's Idaho murder case said this week that they found a "game changer" audio recording that related to possible jurors in the case.

<snip>

On Thursday, Kohberger appeared in court for a hearing relating to a survey conducted among possible jurors by his defense team. According to The Lewiston Tribune, Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson spoke about the surveys and said that his team received information about them from police, including a "game changer" audio recording about what was asked during the survey.

Thompson said during the hearing that the survey questions violated gag orders in the case and possible jurors were "injected" with information, The Lewiston Tribune reported.

"This survey cannot stand," Thompson added.

The hearing on Thursday comes just a few days after Kohberger's attorney, Anne Taylor, filed a document in court alleging that the survey results showed that possible jurors in Latah County are "biased."

"Mr. Kohberger's life and liberty are at stake. This is a capital case and he is entitled to be heard on motions pending before this Court. Halting preparations for his Motion for Change of Venue denies his constitutional right to a fair trial. The survey work is complete for Latah County and it shows that the jury pool in Latah County is biased," Taylor wrote earlier this week in the filing. "The State's action that resulted in the cessation of the surveys prevents other county comparisons."

Judge responded to the polling conducted by Taylor on Thursday and said it "was a total shock" to him.

"Because this is a big deal, and I take it very, very seriously. And I was surprised, OK, that this was happening behind our backs—my back," he said.
Click to expand...
Shame on her!
 
Kimster said:
Shame on her!
Click to expand...
This defense atty supposedly was a "rock star" in the realm of defense attorneys or so I heard when first appointed. I don't mean sensational but that she's good at her job, does a great job and has quite the career and standing and so on so to speak or at least that is what initial talk was that I heard. I actually gave it a chance but it didn't take long before I changed my mind and it just gets worse and worse.

WHAT defense attorney is any superstar that actually isn't corrupt, or breaks the rules? I'm SERIOUS. EVery single one of them it is what they do. EIther they do no good job and don't defend their client at all or they do so by breaking every rule, influencing, breaking gag orders, yelling about publicity while the next moment they seek it and go after it, now jurors and far worse. They leak, they lie, they contact jurors as here with false info and intentional influencing.

Her whole GJ b.s. was beyond too. And basically NEVER do I believe it is for their client in these high profile cases. Or care for their client. Or belief in their innocence.

Little mass killer BK is probably one happy little clam with her. I hope she's 'never alone with him, he seems to have animosity towards blondes and it could even include older bleached ones, who knows. Plus there's just the fact she's a female.

SHAME is right. I actually bought that she had a really stellar reputation at first. Because one or two said such out of the gate. She's death qualified and all that.

She's now added to my sh*t list and has been for awhile but is permanently on now where most end up with defense attorneys. There's a few that never have. Not many but a few believe it or not.
 
I am so not a fan of what the defense did here but I am a back and forth on J Koffendoffer as well. I am not always a fan. I rarely am of defense attys and don't like the b.s. this one pulled but we don't know has discovery told her whether BK was stalking one victim or other things or not? Of course we don't know but does she and did they provide all?

I don't like being fair to defense attys and have NOT liked what AnnTaylor has done and tried to pull in this case but why is what talking head Koffendoffer saying to be taken as fact? I have seen her on NUMEROUS occasions as have many of us and I don't always agree. AT times I agree fully. We don't know enough here imo.

I DO NOT like the defense like polling and finding possible jury members and am in total disagreement with that, I think most know I would be and am certainly not pro defense almost ever and I'm not here. But nothing Jennifer talking head says either has an impact on me--and HAS the prosecution at least provided the defense with facts and discovery as to whether BK was stalking someone in particular?

It seems not. ANd that's my tired takeway on this....
 
Last edited:
Well I don't know what kind of trickery or paid whore of an expert this but I guess we will see. This is the side that could not provide an alibi until they found something to give him one and decide where he was since apparently they wanted choices on where he was. Let's not even talk this jury b.s.

So the cell did not travel over or near is the claim but they can't state the car did not, the car could not be his because the cell didn't. Well they've locked themselves in now right?

I'll take a wait and see and hopefully someone dives into this "expert' and gives a good opinion of what they are going to say here or do or try to claim.
 
I can't recall what they said about the phone if anything in the charging docs etc. at the time of the murder, I recall the car. And I believe he next morning he was dumb enough the phone went with him back. Don't quote me though, I'd have to look back.

What I do know is they didn't want to give an alibit until they "found one" and I guess now they've found someone to say such and give him one. Maybe they needed time to come up with the bribe money. Half in jest.

What I do know is they couldn't and wouldn't provide one until now and I certainly didn't go panic over reading this and yeah, I will take a wait and see on it.

I have/had absolutely no impressiont they rushed to charge someone in this case but that they waited until they had enough evidence to charge and more than a little.

As she said he'd be out if this was a provable alibi. At best it is his phone and not him and not his car either. Good luck to Ann Taylor, so if so slam dunk get him out as you now have proof evident. That's a good point actually.
 
Funny they'd file such then though... Now they are committed so they've got someone who will state something re the phone records... or he truly did drop his phone or leave it before continuing to the home. I can't recall if they have the phone or not that night in that area. Anyone? I know the have the car... and of course the DNA.

Answer or don't if you do or don't know.

Again did not even shock me or give pause as I don't buy it but just looking to see what the heck they think they can do with this as she is purportedly so very good. Haven't seen it but that's why was said about her at the outset.
 
Can someone explain as to why he had to submit an alibi at this stage of the game? I missed some background on this case and can't seem to easily locate the reasoning.
 
Kimster said:
Can someone explain as to why he had to submit an alibi at this stage of the game? I missed some background on this case and can't seem to easily locate the reasoning.
Click to expand...
They were required to provide a notice of alibi far before this if they intended to have one but his atty said they couldn't know yet until they learn more or something like that, paraphrasing. WAs a bunch of b.s.., like let' us just wait and see til we see what evidence they have to form an alibi around those facts, evidence and time frame.

I did miss how long they were given or if they were given time but it was to be filed far earlier than now and I am guessing they were under the gun to get one in...

That's my recollection but am fine with anyone correcting it or if I missed a stage. Coverage hasn't been perfect here.
 
OMG wrong thread but I just heard Linda sound honestly really angry at John Prior. I mean irate. Lol. Never in my years of watching her have I seen her show a tuly honest P O'd side. I love Nate but she is the place to watch Daybell. LOL. Sorry wrong thread. Just where I'm at when I heard her.
 
GrandmaBear said:
They were required to provide a notice of alibi far before this if they intended to have one but his atty said they couldn't know yet until they learn more or something like that, paraphrasing. WAs a bunch of b.s.., like let' us just wait and see til we see what evidence they have to form an alibi around those facts, evidence and time frame.

I did miss how long they were given or if they were given time but it was to be filed far earlier than now and I am guessing they were under the gun to get one in...

That's my recollection but am fine with anyone correcting it or if I missed a stage. Coverage hasn't been perfect here.
Click to expand...
That's really strange. I've never heard of having to file a notice of alibi before.
 

Section 19-519 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov legislature.idaho.gov

19-519. NOTICE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI. (1) At any time after arraignment before a magistrate upon a complaint and upon written demand of the prosecuting attorney, the defendant shall serve, within ten (10) days or at such different time as the court may direct, upon the prosecuting attorney, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. 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.
(2) Within ten (10) days after receipt of the defendant’s notice of alibi but in no event less than ten (10) days before trial, unless the court otherwise directs, the prosecuting attorney shall serve upon the defendant or his attorney a written notice stating the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution intends to rely to establish the defendant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offense and any other witnesses to be relied on to rebut testimony of any of the defendant’s alibi witnesses.
(3) If prior to or during trial a party learns of an additional witness whose identity, if known, should have been included in the information furnished under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, the party shall promptly notify the other party or his attorney of the existence and identity of such additional witness.
(4) Upon the failure of either party to comply with the requirements of this section, the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness offered by such party as to the defendant’s absence from or presence at, the scene of the alleged offense. This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf.
(5) For good cause shown the court may grant an exception to any of the requirements of subsections (1) through (4) of this section.

I.R.C. 12.1. Notice of Alibi. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov isc.idaho.gov
If the defendant intends to rely on the defense of alibi, the defendant must comply with Idaho Code § 19-519.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,006
Messages
240,530
Members
965
Latest member
tanya
Back
Top Bottom