Odd but interesting.....about the "unconscious person" 911 report.

Quote:

---

Civilian employees at Whitcom 9-1-1, an agency in Pullman, Washington, handle the 911 calls to the Moscow Police Department as well as several other agencies, according to the report.

The agency is severely understaffed to such an extent that the dispatchers' guild has previously warned that "our ability to uphold public safety is at risk".

Under standard protocol, when callers "are agitated" the dispatcher will often assign the call with the generic label of "unconscious person" rather than waste valuable time and resources trying to gather specific details.

In this case, it is possible that the dispatcher assigned the generic label while speaking to the students who were panicked by what they saw and were passing the phone from one to the other.

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/new-explanation-emerges-about-mystery-911-call-alerting-police-to-idaho-student-murders/ar-AA16gewW?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=970c4b27fae445e2bb879eb79a377a1f

https://news.yahoo.com/explanation-emerges-mystery-911-call-174800997.html

yep, heard many an expert tag it as it being a generic catch-all, so all the earlier reports of one of the girls fainting, etc. likely not valid

Ghost91 said:

---

Question for Hawg - I've never been clear on the exact requirements for pre-trial 'Discovery'. This case is the perfect example of people saying the authorities are being tight-lipped, saving everything for the trial, don't dare want to put everything they have in the Probable Cause Affidavit, etc.
However, isn't the very definition/purpose of Discovery that the prosecution has to disclose everything it has to the Defense?
Appreciate your insight into a question I've long wondered about.

---

Reposting my question to aggiehawg from about 10 pages ago where I guess it got buried amidst all the stupidity.

Unless the evidence or witnesses are in the discovery very few judges will allow the new evidence to be allowed during trial. There are some exceptions but it is rare

Ghost91 said:

---

Ghost91 said:

---

Question for Hawg - I've never been clear on the exact requirements for pre-trial 'Discovery'. This case is the perfect example of people saying the authorities are being tight-lipped, saving everything for the trial, don't dare want to put everything they have in the Probable Cause Affidavit, etc.
However, isn't the very definition/purpose of Discovery that the prosecution has to disclose everything it has to the Defense?
Appreciate your insight into a question I've long wondered about.

---

Reposting my question to aggiehawg from about 10 pages ago where I guess it got buried amidst all the stupidity.

---

Basically everything the prosecution has has to be provided to the defense. Several Supreme Court cases on that, most often cited is Brady material which is exculpatory evidence and then Gigio wherein prosecution has to reveal if a deal has been made for a witness not to be prosecuted in exchange for testimony. It is a matter of due process. Prosecution has to show all of their cards to avoid any unfair surprise at trial and give the defense the opportunity to challenge certain evidence on admissibilty grounds. The usual type of evidence that is challenged is called character evidence, past bad deeds such as previous convictions. Some evidence may be admtted over objection but the judge has to determine if that evidence is more probative of an element that it is prejudicial to the defendant.

And the duty to provide the discovery to the defense continues throughout the trial as the investigation is on-going.

HTH.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Odd but interesting.....about the "unconscious person" 911 report.

Quote:

---

Civilian employees at Whitcom 9-1-1, an agency in Pullman, Washington, handle the 911 calls to the Moscow Police Department as well as several other agencies, according to the report.

The agency is severely understaffed to such an extent that the dispatchers' guild has previously warned that "our ability to uphold public safety is at risk".

Under standard protocol, when callers "are agitated" the dispatcher will often assign the call with the generic label of "unconscious person" rather than waste valuable time and resources trying to gather specific details.

In this case, it is possible that the dispatcher assigned the generic label while speaking to the students who were panicked by what they saw and were passing the phone from one to the other.

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/new-explanation-emerges-about-mystery-911-call-alerting-police-to-idaho-student-murders/ar-AA16gewW?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=970c4b27fae445e2bb879eb79a377a1f

https://news.yahoo.com/explanation-emerges-mystery-911-call-174800997.html

---

It is also a literal game of telephone. A distraught person calls 911, the 911 operator has difficulty deciphering all the details, and a condensed and potentially erroneous version gets transmitted to the responding police officers.

There was a case recently where a guy killed his girlfriend in NC, then Facetimes a friend in TN to ask for help in disposing of the body. He even shows the dead body to the friend.

The friend panics and wisely calls he local TN police. They say call the the police in NC. When the friend does that, the NC 911 operator think it's a prank. They want details like the name of the person killed, the exact address, etc. The 911 call was released, and it was excruciating to listen to.

The friend in TN finally got someone to listen and helped set up a sting. The murderer was caught in TN driving the girlfriend's car with her body in the trunk.

NY Times has an article about BK. Behind a paywall but is excerpted at Hot Air.

Quote:

---

All of that seems pretty convincing but none of it really explains a possible motive for the crime. This story about Kohberger's self-described mental health issues seems to fill in that final gap. It seems he was aware that he felt no emotions toward others, not even his own family.

Quote:

---

The new revelations about the suspect, Bryan Kohberger, come from posts he made on an online forum in which he discussed his mental health struggles, as well as from interviews with those who knew him and messages he sent to friends that were obtained by The New York Times…
"I feel like an organic sack of meat with no self worth," he wrote in 2011, when he was 16, adding later, in the same post: "As I hug my family, I look into their faces, I see nothing, it is like I am looking at a video game, but less."…
"Nothing I do is enjoyable," Mr. Kohberger wrote. "I am blank, I have no opinion, I have no emotion, I have nothing. Can you relate?

---

---

Quote:

---

Kohberger complained about having a neurological problem/disease called visual snow which causes people to see floating dots like an overlay on their vision. The Times spoke to an expert on the problem who said its causes are not well understood.

In addition to his mental problems, Kohberger also had social problems in school. He was overweight as a child and was bullied by other kids. He eventually took on a strict diet to see if he could do something about his visual snow problem and claimed he lost half his body weight as a result. Even his friends at the time described him as awkward.

Later on, about the time he was graduating high school, Kohberger seemed to be more positive about his life and condition but it was also around this time that he became addicted to heroin, a habit he started with a friend who lived nearby. He eventually got clean and seemed to turn his life around.

---

Quote:

---

"I only used when I was in a deep suicidal state," Mr. Kohberger wrote in May 2018 to Mr. Baylis, with whom he had been friends since eighth grade. "I have since really learned a lot. Not a person alive could convince me to use it." Mr. Kohberger followed up later that day, telling Mr. Baylis that he had been off drugs for two years and telling him to not mention his drug use again, according to screenshots of their conversation on Facebook Messenger.

He told Mr. Baylis at one point that he thought he had been depressed since he was 5 years old, for so long that he had "developed a weird sense of meaning."

---

Quote:

---

You get the impression that this is a kid who had serious problems from the start which were never really dealt with. Even when he claimed things were improving he was self medicating with drugs. Those old feelings of detachment from others must have returned and for some reason he gave in to them.

What's still not clear is why he selected these particular students. So far as police can tell he didn't know them. What led him to select this house on this night? Since he's still claiming innocence, I'm not sure we're going to find out. Maybe police will turn up some link even if it's just a coincidental one, that can explain it.

---

Via Hot Air

Reads like a textbook sociopath.

aggiehawg said:

---

Reads like a textbook sociopath.

---

as a sociopath, i resent that association.

No offense intended, LOL.

aggiehawg said:

---

Ghost91 said:

---

Ghost91 said:

---

Question for Hawg - I've never been clear on the exact requirements for pre-trial 'Discovery'. This case is the perfect example of people saying the authorities are being tight-lipped, saving everything for the trial, don't dare want to put everything they have in the Probable Cause Affidavit, etc.
However, isn't the very definition/purpose of Discovery that the prosecution has to disclose everything it has to the Defense?
Appreciate your insight into a question I've long wondered about.

---

Reposting my question to aggiehawg from about 10 pages ago where I guess it got buried amidst all the stupidity.

---

Basically everything the prosecution has has to be provided to the defense. Several Supreme Court cases on that, most often cited is Brady material which is exculpatory evidence and then Gigio wherein prosecution has to reveal if a deal has been made for a witness not to be prosecuted in exchange for testimony. It is a matter of due process. Prosecution has to show all of their cards to avoid any unfair surprise at trial and give the defense the opportunity to challenge certain evidence on admissibilty grounds. The usual type of evidence that is challenged is called character evidence, past bad deeds such as previous convictions. Some evidence may be admtted over objection but the judge has to determine if that evidence is more probative of an element that it is prejudicial to the defendant.

And the duty to provide the discovery to the defense continues throughout the trial as the investigation is on-going.

HTH.

---

Thanks and yes, that helps a ton.

So I guess the only huge 'a-ha!' moments we see in court are a surprise to US (as viewers), but not to the defense?
And what would be the defense's motive to keep anything secret before it comes out in court? Just the gag order, or would there be anything in their own interest?

Quote:

---

So I guess the only huge 'a-ha!' moments we see in court are a surprise to US (as viewers), but not to the defense?

And what would be the defense's motive to keep anything secret before it comes out in court? Just the gag order, or would there be anything in their own interest?

---

Defense has to provide their witness list to the state. If the defense has retained an expert and that expert writes a report, summary, etc. That also is provided to the prosecution so that expert can be cross examined by the state.

Usually the parties invoke what is known as "The Rule" wherein prospective witnesses cannot be in the courtroom (nor watching/listening) before they testify. Also, if they testify but are subject to recall, they cannot be in the courtroom nor watching/listening until they are released. Sole exception to that would be expert witnesses as listening to the testimony is often within the scope of their employment.

Now as to exhibits both sides anticipate using at trial, they try to work out stipulations for each piece ahead of time to help streamline the trial but then other pieces of evidence may be objected to requiring a pre trial ruling by the judge on admissibility. Sometimes the judge doesn't make a ruling, takes it under advisement and then rules when it is offered. Most times the jury is dismissed while the parties argue it out and brought back after the judge rules.

There still can be a few surprises that happen at trial. Usually that's when a witness goes south and doesn't testify in accordance with what the attorneys calling them expected.

Although criminal trials are adversarial proceedings, defense attorneys and the prosecutors work together a lot in the interests of not wasting the court's time. So as much as they can get agreed to and out of the way beforehand the better and makes the judge (and even more importantly the judge's clerk who handles all of the exhibits) happy.

Did that answer your question?

20/20 has a 2 hour special on ABC at 8pm tonight

Hawk makes this thread tolerable especially during this ridiculous downtime. June is a long way off.

There's a dateline too at same time.

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

There's a dateline too at same time.

---

Ugh.

Judge wants a downtime. Prosecution wants that too. Jury panel related.

I don't like the delay at all but I understand it.

If Darrell Brooks hadn't been so nuts to insist on representing himself, that Waukesha trial would have ben happening well over a year after the murders. Not that would have changed the verdict in that trial. He was on repeated videos that showed him in the car driving through, over 72 people. He murdered six. He left multiple others permanently disabled and many more with the PTSD of witnessing that many deaths.

Everyone raves about Kaylee and Maddie's looks, but I think Xana was the prettiest. She had a natural beauty.

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

Everyone raves about Kaylee and Maddie's looks, but I think Xana was the prettiest. She had a natural beauty.

---

I kinda agree but at that age, the beauty runs so deep with each one in their own right.

What a shame, what a shame.

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

Everyone raves about Kaylee and Maddie's looks, but I think Xana was the prettiest. She had a natural beauty.

---

Two roommates. Patty was short but very thin. Debbie was very tall but had man shoulders and complexion problems.

Patty had the drop dead gorgeous BF. He was like the 12thMan Jesus at the football game a few years back. ( I hate it when you actually have to use your hand to raise your jaw and close your mouth.)

If BK was going back to Pullman after the break, why the hell would he have his dad fly out and drive his car across the country to PA when they could have just used that money for him to fly home and leave the car in WA?

Maybe he's terrified of flying. Just seems weird.

Billy Little (Capital Murder Defense Attorney x 17) knows a hell of a lot more about these types of situations that any Texags poster and he definitely feels that the father knew what was going on after the fact and that the authorities will be putting the full court press on him to explain text messages, long calls, etc. That doesn't mean they will charge the dad with accessory, but it's not off the table.

Knew, or suspected?

TexasRebel said:

---

Knew, or suspected?

---

Either. His point was the the authorities will find out and the dad is going to be explaining his every move as well since the murder.

There's a difference between BK telling his father, "Hey I did this," and his father beginning to suspect that the drive home was a manipulation.

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

There's a dateline too at same time.

---

I just watched both. The Dateline was pretty boring. Mostly old stuff and slow. 20/20 was much better for those that DVR'd them.

I don't think you understand the ignore function. It works very well.

aggiehawg said:

---

Came from this in The Daily Mail.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11624763/FBI-interviews-Bryan-Kohbergers-middle-school-crush.html

---

I suspect we will never find out the real motive on this whole thing or how the victims were selected. So there will just be continued speculation.

Comparing the pic of his middle school crush to the pic of her leaving work recently, she definitely peaked in high school considering she is still in her 20s. It appears she has put on some weight, which is kind of ironic.

Diet Cokehead said:

---

If BK was going back to Pullman after the break, why the hell would he have his dad fly out and drive his car across the country to PA when they could have just used that money for him to fly home and leave the car in WA?

Maybe he's terrified of flying. Just seems weird.

Billy Little (Capital Murder Defense Attorney x 17) knows a hell of a lot more about these types of situations that any Texags poster and he definitely feels that the father knew what was going on after the fact and that the authorities will be putting the full court press on him to explain text messages, long calls, etc. That doesn't mean they will charge the dad with accessory, but it's not off the table.

---

What long calls and text messages are up referring to?

Texasclipper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Came from this in The Daily Mail.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11624763/FBI-interviews-Bryan-Kohbergers-middle-school-crush.html

---

I suspect we will never find out the real motive on this whole thing or how the victims were selected. So there will just be continued speculation.

Comparing the pic of his middle school crush to the pic of her leaving work recently, she definitely peaked in high school considering she is still in her 20s. It appears she has put on some weight, which is kind of ironic.

---

Hmmm interesting especially the profile of the popular blondes.

The article notes:'All those girls he allegedly murdered were blond too,' Sandra noted. 'She is definitely creeped out, definitely.'

That's actually not true. Madison and Kaylee were blonde but Xana certainly was not.

This lends some credence to why I believe Madison and/or Kaylee were the targets and why he went directly to the top floor. Xana was likely killed because she saw and/or heard him and of course Ethan was just there when he went after Xana.

Those two were really close and were also seniors. If he wanted to target them specifically and selected them from social media or whatever - speculation - time was running out. Could be why he acted then even if it was hasty.

I would be absolutely shocked if his phone or computer did not reveal following/stalking one or more of them and specifically Madison and/or Kaylee on social media.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So I guess the only huge 'a-ha!' moments we see in court are a surprise to US (as viewers), but not to the defense?

And what would be the defense's motive to keep anything secret before it comes out in court? Just the gag order, or would there be anything in their own interest?

---

Defense has to provide their witness list to the state. If the defense has retained an expert and that expert writes a report, summary, etc. That also is provided to the prosecution so that expert can be cross examined by the state.

Usually the parties invoke what is known as "The Rule" wherein prospective witnesses cannot be in the courtroom (nor watching/listening) before they testify. Also, if they testify but are subject to recall, they cannot be in the courtroom nor watching/listening until they are released. Sole exception to that would be expert witnesses as listening to the testimony is often within the scope of their employment.

Now as to exhibits both sides anticipate using at trial, they try to work out stipulations for each piece ahead of time to help streamline the trial but then other pieces of evidence may be objected to requiring a pre trial ruling by the judge on admissibility. Sometimes the judge doesn't make a ruling, takes it under advisement and then rules when it is offered. Most times the jury is dismissed while the parties argue it out and brought back after the judge rules.

There still can be a few surprises that happen at trial. Usually that's when a witness goes south and doesn't testify in accordance with what the attorneys calling them expected.

Although criminal trials are adversarial proceedings, defense attorneys and the prosecutors work together a lot in the interests of not wasting the court's time. So as much as they can get agreed to and out of the way beforehand the better and makes the judge (and even more importantly the judge's clerk who handles all of the exhibits) happy.

Did that answer your question?

---

Yes ma'am it does, thank you.

Corn Pop said:

---

Diet Cokehead said:

---

If BK was going back to Pullman after the break, why the hell would he have his dad fly out and drive his car across the country to PA when they could have just used that money for him to fly home and leave the car in WA?

Maybe he's terrified of flying. Just seems weird.

Billy Little (Capital Murder Defense Attorney x 17) knows a hell of a lot more about these types of situations that any Texags poster and he definitely feels that the father knew what was going on after the fact and that the authorities will be putting the full court press on him to explain text messages, long calls, etc. That doesn't mean they will charge the dad with accessory, but it's not off the table.

---

What long calls and text messages are up referring to?

---

Assumed ones between father and son.

The parents likely were manipulated their entire parenthood years, so nothing new.

And surely the intent was to get rid of the car in PA and never bring it back. He probably thought he was in the precipice of getting away with this.

After watching the 20/20 episode, I agree Kaylee and Madison were the targets.

IMO, Xana ordering and receiving the Jack in the Box delivery. ultimately led to her and Etans murders.

It seems likely from DMs statement that when she cracked opened her door she saw the killer walking towards her before he exited through the kitchen and sliding door, that he was leaving Xana's room immediately before exiting the residence. The security camera next door, 50ft from Xanas room records a loud thud around 417 am.

IMO, the killer targeted Kaylee and or Madison (Kaylees dad said she confided in him about a Stalker in the weeks prior) .

He likely entered the second sliding door and was on the third floor, when Xana retrieved the food delievery dropped outside the front door on the first floor. (I'd like to know if the food was consumed)

IMO he killed K&M and when he went down to the second floor he noticed lights on in either the kitchen where the Jack in the Box bag was discovered, or he saw Xana walking away from the kitchen towards her room. That's when he decided he needed to kill any potential witnesses (Xana and Ethan were like Ron Goldman (OJ case); unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time to observe the killer)

As far as DM, I don't think he saw her. Perhaps the killer turned off the light in the kitchen, or else after Xana placed the food bag adjacent to kitchen.
sink, she turned off the light just as the killer went down the stairs from the 3 floor. If so, he followed Xana into her room killed Ethan (he was most likely asleep) then BK makes the statement I'm not going to harm you (that DM referenced) before killing Xana.

I missed the 20/20 I'll have to watch that.

neAGle96 said:

---

After watching the 20/20 episode, I agree Kaylee and Madison were the targets.

IMO, Xana ordering and receiving the Jaxk in the Box delivery. ultimately led to her and Etans murders.

It seems likely from DMs statement that when she cracked opened her door she saw the killer walking towards her before he exited through the kitchen and sliding door ,that he was leaving Xanas room. The security camera next door, 50ft from Xanas room hears a loud thud around 417 am.

IMO, the killer targeted Kaylee and or Madison (Kaylees dad said she confided in him about. Stalker in the weeks prior) . He likely entered the second sliding door and was on the third floor, when Xana retrieved the food delievery on the food on first. I'd like to know if the food was consumed.

IMO , he killed K&M and when he went down to the second floor he noticed lights on in either the kitchen where the Jack in the Box bag was discovered, or he saw Xana walking away from the kitchen toward her room. That's when he decided he needed to kill any potential witnesses.

As far as DM, I don't think he saw her. Perhaps the killer turned off the light in the kitchen, or else after Xana placed food bag in the kitchen., she turned off the light just as the killer went down the stairs. If so, he followed Xana into her room killed Ethan (most likely asleep) the. Mentioned he wasn't going to harm Cana (that DM referenced) before killin Xana.

---

I agree with this.

The question is why was he stalking the two girls.

Also found it interesting, during the Indiana police video of the first traffic stop when the officer asked where are y'all going, BK immediately says "where going to get Thai food".

As BK is responding w the above, his dad tells the officer, were coming from WSU. As dad says we're coming from WSU, BK immediately closes his eyes and looks down.

The officer asks, you're coming from Washington State University and going where? BK responds "we're headed to get Thai food right now"

Father then states were going to Pennsylvania

(Apologies for the grammatical errors… haven't had coffee yet and it seems the phone screen gets smaller everyday)

If he targeted K/M, do we know how he knew they were on the 3rd floor?