If it happened the way he says it did then she never saw the masked guy with bushy eyebrows in which case the authorities case against Kohberger is paper-thin, since they say the reason they focused in on him was the bushy eyebrows and the car. It also puts in doubt the over-hearing of "I'm going to help you" and it ignores the likelihood that Ethan was lying dying in the doorway of Xana's room. I have to admit that I couldn't listen to the whole thing. The guy's speaking style is one that I have come across several times in my life and always when somebody was blowing smoke up my ass about something completely irrelevant where I wondered why they were making such an effort to lie about something.
The Alex Murdough case is crazy. I remember years ago when he was shot on the side of the road they feared it was retaliation to a court case and they were executing lawyers and families involved in whatever it was. Ended up this guy got so deep into drugs and fraud that he snapped and killed his wife and kid.
It’s crazy, he was allegedly ripping off everyone, down to people he’s known all of his life. I think the shooting on the side of the road was someone he hired to kill him so his son could get the money.
Check this out: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23577712-murdaugh-motion-for-sanctions I do not know if the motion was upheld or denied but if it accurately described the evidence in question then odds are pretty good Murdaugh did not shoot his wife and son.
Was reported by banfield last night, that Ethan’s best friend hunter, was the one who discovered the bodies of Ethan and xana, and is the one who spoke to 911 on surviving roommates phone. He also tried to take Ethan’s pulse. not sure who banfields “sources” are, but the info that comes out, seems to go against previous released info. It was said by Kaylees father that the surviving roommate saw the bodies, ran out side and passed out. We’re not entitled to info, and the conflicting info could of course be on purpose. But man, what a mess of a case. It seems so many trampled through that crime scene. The original responders were said to not be wearing shoe covers.
Seriously, I don't trust anything that's not on an official document and I'm not sure I 100% trust the official documents we've seen in this case. I do know that based on what we've seen so far I would be an unmovable Not Guilty on the jury. They're going to have to put a much more credible presentation together than we've seen so far to make me think about changing that.
They haven't made any presentation yet, cases don't get tried on the internet. Trying to discern from social media what the evidence may or may not show is running a fool's errand. I hope that when a jury gets seated they make sure that no one who got their information from these goofball rumor mongers is anywhere near the courthouse.
So a jury of 75-90 year olds who don't use the internet? All I have to see at this point is evidence that the authorities leaked stuff to build up a prejudicial process around this case and I will go to never convict this guy whether he's guilty or not because even if guilty his crimes are less dangerous to society than the process that tried to convict him.
I’ve read that a lot of the internet YouTube “sleuths”, Already have air bnbs etc rented. It’s gonna be a mess
Well, I guess the defense would like to see that a whole lot more than you but even in Idaho I kind of think that the prosecutors would be cognizant enough to make sure that doesn't happen. And, as far as the jury, I kind of believe there are hordes of everyday internet users who are not interested in chasing unfounded gossip through freak show websites, regardless of their age.
Whenever jury selection begins (probably not for at least a year), the voir dire of potential jurors is likely to show that a lot of people just don't pay close attention to crime news, either in the newspapers or on the Internet, and they quickly forget what little they've read about the case. It happens all the time in cases that have attracted intensive publicity. They'll be able to pick a jury, and it won't be made up entirely of computer-illiterate octogenarians. As for the Internet sleuths renting bnbs for the trial, just how do they know when the trial will start? The judge doesn't know, and neither do the prosecutor or defense counsel.
One of my trigger points. That's been getting worse for a while, and I suspect the Duke lacrosse case is partly to blame. That, and the evolution of a social media monster with a bottomless appetite and declining standards for what it consumes. But, the Duke case highlighted the higher ethical standards on prosecutors when commenting publicly about defendants. Mike Nifong buried exculpatory evidence, but it was trashing the "three rich, white, lacrosse players" all over the national news that got him disbarred. Leaking avoids that problem. I'm sure prosecutors must go out of their freaking minds when they see defense attorneys ridiculing the prosecution on the courthouse steps. Tough shit. Our criminal justice system isn't supposed to have a level playing field.
And that's why there's a strict gag order in place in the Idaho case.. So far, it seems everyone's obeying it. You're right. Prosecutors DO go nuts when a defense attorney starts trying the case on the courthouse steps. The biggest sucker move for a prosecutor, however, is to respond in kind. Sometimes, you've just got to hold your tongue and wait until you get into the courtroom.
I think it is supposed to have a level playing field that leans towards the defense in all things that are not certain or ascertainable. The problem I have right now is all the ex-FBI agents and ex-prosecutors and ex-psych analysts that are weighing in with an angry villagers/witch hunter angle to the stuff they publish. The Nancy Grace-types who are ready to put their whole hand on the scales of Justice due to some past slight or in the case of the people making money just plain greed. We should have standards for those positions that preclude people in them from speaking in public about anything but the generalities of the position once they leave it. Not a total ban on free speech for them but a set of standards that prevents them from speaking on current or future cases. Their 'testimony' carries extra weight and they should not be able to freely dispense it without limits.
Ineptitude is baked into the criminal justice system. It is what it is... as much as I hate that phrase.
Yes, however it has gotten a better over the decades. Now prosecutors look for a case that is 90% winnable before they decide to take it on. Now defendants are less likely to get railroaded on a high profile case precisely because prosecutors have to justify their actions more than they used to. We have Miranda now, which for the most part has actually made the right not to be tortured by the authorities an actual right, as opposed to the suspect 'slipped' state of affairs before Miranda became law. Just this last year we got a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling that warrantless searches of homes were not valid with exceptions for immediate concerns about the welfare of individual inside the home. The problem is that we're entering a grey canyon with some of the social media aspects that surround criminal justice and we're going to have to address those in some way in the near future. A digital lynch mob is a lynch mob none the less.
That Idaho case is a really great study. For a few weeks - nothing. Pretty sure we didn't even hear one of those dopey statements about how "the police have identified a person of interest." Then, out of the blue, that creepy dude gets arrested. We find out that investigators quietly had him pegged as the killer for a while and were following him across the country. We still really don't know much about that case. Whatever info we have beyond public court filings comes from internet sleuths.
