A good friend of mine's dog has CCL repair surgery two weeks ago (analogous to ACL " " in people). It was $5,200.00 with the tax, and we really shopped it. We found someone great for $3,800.00 less than the going rate who has a great reputation. Anyway, another well meaning friend of hers said hey, start a Go Fund Me. Now my friend is old school like me. My friend had to dip in to her retirement to pay for it. I'm not saying it wasn't financially painful, but she was able to drum up the cash that way without getting some shitty Care Credit Card (do NOT EVER do that). Anyway, her response was, "That would be dirty money. I am taking a big hit, but I managed to be able to do it to help my dog. If I could NOT help her, I would consider that." "But, you can put that money back that way." "Nope. Not doing that." It just goes to show you how dishonest some people are. Now her friend didn't mean anything by it, but she got it. Unless I actually knew the person personally or it came on good authority that xyz's circumstances were not bullshit, I would NEVER open my wallet online for some scamming asshole. There are more people pulling a Hornet as we speak than anyone could ever imagine. And fck people like that, btw. I read a horrific story about some sociopath who abused and maimed his own adolescent dog for "vet bills". I don't know why some folks are so against forced sterilization.
I still can’t get past his demeanor. It’s been said that he wasn’t shocked during his arrest , even in the middle of the night, and he seems to be right where he wants to be, like he is convinced he will find a hole
I have mixed felelings about that Idaho rule where a defendent has to present their alibi pre-trial. On one hand it stops some defense maneuvers during the trial meant to just create reasonable doubt but on the other hand, it seems to give an edge to the prosecution.
It's designed to prevent trial by ambush. It enables the prosecution to investigate the alibi when matters are fresh. Don't forget that the prosecution is required to turn over essentially its whole file to the defense. If a defendant has a legitimate alibi, it behooves him to present it even before the indictment. If it checks out, the prosecutor might not even go to the grand jury. Kohberger's motion to dismiss the indictment is really weird. He's claiming the grand jury could indict only if it found proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Actually, the applicable standard is the lesser standard of probable cause. Motions to dismiss are common but rarely granted. The usual bases are that the evidence before the grand jury failed to establish probable cause or that the prosecutor hid clearly exculpatory evidence from the grand jury. More and more, I'm getting the sense that Kohberger, not his attorney, is driving the defense bus and that he still thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. He's the nightmare client.
She did get arrested after all, two charges, both misdemeanors. Misdemeanors? That is some bullshit, how is that not stiffer? When resources are diverted because of a hoax someone else who truly needs help could die. What a bitch.
Kohberger has provided his alibi. He says he was out driving around that night alone. Maybe it’s just me, but that sounds like it will work against him. Sounds like an admission to a good portion of the pca.
He doesn't need an alibi, he's innocent until proven guilty; lots of innocent people drive around aimlessly. The affidavit does not lay out evidence, it lays out claims. The prosecution has the need to prove them with evidence. Having said that, I don't believe there will be a problem proving the case,
From my understanding, the state said he had to produce his alibi (after claiming to have one) by a certain date? His alibi was that he was driving around late that night. Which is what a good portion of the pca claimed . They used his car being caught on camera and his cell pings as a tie to the murders. All I was saying is that it’s not a very good alibi, givin that the claims against him in the pca center a lot around him driving around that night.
Killing people is a crime; driving around is not. He doesn't need an alibi for driving around. It could be that the case is not as strong as we might think.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. He provided an alibi that was requested by the state … that said he couldnt have committed the murders because he was out driving around. His problem is that his driving around put his cell phone en route to the scene, and on cameras at the scene.
And I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. They're going to need a lot more than putting his phone near the crime scene for a conviction. Remember, the burden of proof lies completely on the prosecution.
