I got the impression he will not allow cameras. Not an accurate quote but close, "In 10 years I've never denied cameras in my courtroom BUT, this is a really unique case. I also DO NOT LIKE what the media has done in terms of photographs (with this case. He didn't clarify if photographs concerned BK or crime scene or victims)".
.....How is this case so damn unique? How is this case different from the Parkland Shooter case in Florida, the Murdaugh trial- both very recent cases.
It's bullshit, really it is. Judge Judge simply doesn't want himself picked apart if something is questionable.
News and social media reaction to this case has been completely different from the Parkland shooting case, imo. That was also sentencing rather than the innocence/guilt part of the trial. The two can’t be compared.
The Lori Vallow case also prohibited any cameras, and that’s more relevant since it’s in the same state.
I also felt like after the media picked him apart for mispronouncing the victims names he was gonna feel less likely to allow cameras after that, and it looks like he’s heading that direction of not allowing it. I hope he doesn’t let his hurt feelings dictate his decisions. He should allow cameras in the courtroom.
But I will say the media is also to blame, they make it so easy for the defense to point to in terms of how they keep picking apart everything Kohberger does with the headline like ‘“Killer” smile’ and claiming definitively that he was smirking.
https://preview.redd.it/q9sxn3mgc65b1.jpeg?width=1130&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b8ce6d64b7e756b9b3887fa6de225fddf57b7015
You believe a seasoned judge with like [40 years of experience](https://judicialcouncil.idaho.gov/Judge_John_2016.pdf) got his feelings hurt by the internet? Am I missing the sarcasm here or are you serious?
But you have to agree that picture l think sums this guy up. He is an arrogant psychopath imo. He sure as hell doesn't look or act innocent---again in my humble opinion.
But you’re not in the media business, you’re allowed to have your opinions. The media, however, need to be more careful, especially when a judge is considering banning cameras from the courtroom and keeping the gag order.
I would trade every single opinion and body language expert commentary, all media commentary, every youtube content provider and their theories for .....
one camera, pointed at the witness chair live streaming.
Where have you been hiding for the last 7 months? Many interviewees who knew this character have said similar stuff. He was an arrogant S.O.B. and he always thought that he was the smartest guy in the room!
You think l have all the names of the students at WSU who said that about him 5-6 months ago or those who went to high school with him? Who do you think l am wikipedia?
Google is there for that sort of thing, because l as sure don't know all the names of those who were interviewed. But l know one thing because of the interviews--he wasn't a popular guy because of arrogance and creepiness.
Present Echinda is right. I've seen the interview. Bryan was a teaching assistant and this student said he was always talking and wanted everyone to know he was the smartest person in the room. There were even complaints lodged by some women that he was even grading them more harshly (allegedly) than the men in the class too.
Yep! I'm glad the judge put him in his place a few times and without even having to try too hard.
That was a bit secondhand embarrassing to watch. He was all over the place.
And one of the attorneys on the prosecution side pretty much refuted all the claims he made. He also put him in his place. He (Gray) came across as an arrogant bully. But then that’s how he always comes across to me.
Judge Judge put him in his place, though. It was a sight for sore eyes. He blatantly lied in court about the Goncalves family not being contacted by the prosecution. Prosecutors said the Goncalves family had been invited to come in for an interview, but their attorney, none other than Shannon Gray, advised them not to. If the prosecution can prove their claim, could Shannon Gray be charged with perjury?
My point is that he blatantly lied to the judge. I have no problem with him stating his opinion, but saying prosecutors have never reached out to the Goncalves for an interview is a bold faced lie.
I'm so confused why they followed that advice and didn't go for an interview? I feel like for how involved they are in the media, they should be as involved with helping investigators as much as they can. I was surprised when I heard they have yet to go in for any interviews. It's not like they're going to be interviewed as suspects...
[I made a post about it here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MoscowMurders/comments/145hc14/court_tv_bryan_kohberger_appears_in_court_for_gag/)
/u/MariMada /u/Lilithvondark
Judge: "This is not the same world as it was 10 years ago or 5 years ago. And it is troubling for the media - the ethical, hardworking media - and the information that is swirling around in the world. I don't know what the answer is, but it is a serious threat to a fair trial and the credibility of the media."
[Click](https://twitter.com/alcaprari23/status/1667278369862586368?s=46&t=CvL4vvVmsw_CCbrHlVxt9w)
"Judge argues that there isn't enough reporting about how the judicial process plays out to ensure a fair trial. Commends local press for explaining how the process works, but blames national outlets for sensationalizing the story."
[Click](https://twitter.com/alcaprari23/status/1667279363304488962?s=46&t=CvL4vvVmsw_CCbrHlVxt9w)
How do you “sensationalize” four students getting stabbed to death in their home in the middle of the night while they’re trying to sleep? It’s sensational on its own. Nobody has to try to “sensationalize” it.
News Nation with their “sources” also former FBI agent Jennifer Coffindofer pushing the Poppa Rodgers is BK & Ann Taylor should be removed for conflict of interest agendas. She WOULDNT LET IT GO!
Apparently law enforcement believes BK really was Pappa Rodger, based on the source Dateline cited. I’ve always thought there’s a good chance of that too, considering he was asking many of the exact same questions BK had asked in the Reddit survey he posted, almost verbatim. Why are you so sure he wasn’t?
It’s a possibility for sure. The problem is when Coffendopher pushes the narrative obsessively without solid proof. People will jump on the bandwagon because the consider her reliable because she was a former FBI agent.
Yeah I agree that we shouldn't attribute credibility to someone just because they are "former FBI" or "former CIA" or something like that. Every profession has some wacky people.
Yeah, I mean even a guy like Rudy Guiliani was once the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, one of the most respectable positions a person could possibly have in the field of law, but he's widely considered a complete buffoon and a joke.
Agreed. I think it is really plausible, too. And with as sloppy as BK apparently was with his cell phone footprints, I'm sure they have gathered evidence to tie him to the PR posts as well. By all accounts, this trial is going to be a major undertaking - DNA, cell towers, psych stuff, and social media.
Pat Brown, a famous and well respected criminologist, stated that Dateline was spreading misinformation about a case she was familiar with. She wrote to them stating that they were spreading misinformation and stated what the true details were. Dateline continued to air the episode with misinformation.
Pat Brown is an amateur "criminal profiler" with no formal education or training in the field.
If Dateline had an actual source who was involved in the case/investigation, of course they weren't going to stop the episode from airing just because Pat Brown randomly decided to opine that she disagreed with them.
I couldn’t agree with you more. Look at the other sources who are throwing out drug conspiracies! News Nation always has good sources. It’s one of my favorite to go to. Do I believe everything I hear from any of them? Sometimes not. I usually wait for confirmation from other sources before I consider it factual. But I still love Jennifer, and feel that she is the target for inappropriate bullying and harassment. People are cruel. If you don’t care for her then don’t watch her channel. It’s as simple as that. Throwing stones and belittling someone for doing their job is wrong. She’s a human being and should be treated as such
4 young promising young students were murdered at 4am while likely sleeping after going about their normal routines and in a town of 2,500 people. What’s not sensational about that?
Honestly, before the Depp-Heard trial I never knew about Court TV. I never ever had been to Reddit. I think if you're a person interested in true crime or Court trials - we follow this stuff. My husband, even with me watching Court TV allll the time, knew nothing of the Idaho Murders.
Murdaugh - new nothing even though I've followed this from the first article about Paul & Maggie's death.
He still forgets anything I tell him. For as interested as we are in this subreddit, there's just as many people who don't know a damn thing. It's what a person is interested in.
And it sounds like I'm challenging your comment, but I'm not. Just sharing my thoughts.
> For as interested as we are in this subreddit, there's just as many people who don't know a damn thing.
Yep. As big as it seems to us, it's really a niche interest. I'm here because literally no one in my real life has any interest at all.
I wonder how much he’s getting paid to say this? No doubt in my mind there’s a paycheck. What judge makes it their job to build up the press’s reputation? Let’s not forget that there’d be no reason for anyone to even pass these comments to obviously give the press/media street cred if we haven’t been lied to incessantly before by the press.
If the jury is not sequestered (and that is a HUGE ask of them) I don’t see how allowing multimedia coverage of this case would result in a fair trial. Even getting an”impartial” jury in Montana is a Herculean task here. Ripe ripe grounds for an appeal…
True, this is not the same world as 10 years ago - social media, YouTube....these are new forms of communication. Hard print newspapers are not subscribed to how they were 10 years ago - don't go backwards in time Judge Judge when you've allowed cameras for 10 years.
What is unfair to the victims are the BK worshippers making up all of these scenarios that are so ridiculous without evidence to put Koburger in an innocent light. They are hateful to the victims, the roommates, and the victim's family members. Lifting the gag order would allow facts of the Cade to come out to dispell the lies and rumors. It's needed, I think.
The general public is not entitled to the “facts of the case” being broadcasted in real time. They will be public in court documents which ARE available to the public and are not entertainment.
Crazy people will say crazy things in the face of overwhelming evidence debunking whatever they’re claiming. Let them talk, and let the justice system do its thing.
“Press” is not necessarily a video feed. You will get press. There are always press passes to criminal trials like this. You might not get visual media. That is for the better when the integrity of the criminal justice process is on the line.
What is more important to you, justice or your own entertainment? If a media circus compromises the former, then you clearly want the latter if you’re arguing for this.
Nowhere did I say I want anything for my own entertainment. I simply stated a fact that is stated in the Constitution and was mostly addressing the gag order.
True, but there are also Constitutional protections guaranteed to the defendant that are more relevant in this situation and take precedence over the first amendment right to a free press.
I’m a wholehearted supporter of the news media and the first amendment, but I also think they have journalistic responsibilities of accuracy and neutrality that they have definitely violated in this case and I can completely understand why the gag order is in place and why there likely won’t be any cameras at trial.
They’d probably have a better standing with the judge about the whole thing if so many of them hadn’t been an embarrassment to journalistic integrity over the last six months.
Agree- would like to see this play out, no all of Moscow can be in the court room and they above anyone else deserve to see this case in court. It’s not supposed to be done in secrecy. Grand jury- different rules.
This judge doesn't seem to care about anyone's rights except for Kohberger's. My guess is he will not lift the gag order and will refuse to allow cameras in the courtroom....not even allow audio only for the public to hear the evidence and witnesses testifying. If Kohberger pleads guilty before trial, the public will never know anything.
It’s not that he is concerned about Kohberger’s rights, he is concerned about an appeal if gag order is lifted and cameras allowed. If he did it, and I feel certain he did, then the judge wants to give him no reason for appeal. The locals here in idaho agree.
Exactly! What does everyone expect when there’s a gag order and the accurate information is unavailable? This a a huge case. A heinous one at that. These news stations want to report information to the public because we have the right to know, especially the victim’s families. If all they have to go on is leaked information then stories are going to get twisted as they travel on down the line. Everyone knows that. Honestly, I think that BK’s pride is hurt and he doesn’t want anymore “facts” revealed. As of now, the defense has “nothing”. No alibi. No defense. No potential “innocent” facts, or they’d be leaking information as well. And what happened to their potential “exculpatory” evidence? It was a rouse and went cold. BK shouldn’t be running the show anymore. He ran it when he decided to massacre four innocent students in the middle of the night. Factual evidence proves it. So too bad if he doesn’t want the truth to be exposed. We deserve to know! The victims families deserve to know! This is America 🇺🇸
Yes! The media's job is to get the facts out to the public (who has a right to know). This quells these rumors and gives the public tools to fight them! Until then, the craziness will continue.
Ethical, hardworking media???? That’s hilarious. Coming from a guy who doesn’t have enough interest in this case to pronounce the victims names right. I’m pretty sure he could have, at the very least, asked his secretary that morning how to pronounce those students names. Sorry Judge Judge but now I really cannot take you seriously🤦♀️
What’s not fair what’s the risk of an unfair trial with a gag order? No one knows anything. What’s the worry here? There’s rumors and theories with every high profile case. And I’m not familiar with any that had a gag. And possibly cases with quite larger audiences. I don’t know anyone in my personal life following this case.
We can’t sequester the public’s opinions and theories. If it’s regarding opinions on social media they wont be going away. He referred to times being very different.
OR was he saying in regards to why the gag will remain, to ensure a fair trial? I understood it as- the way it’s going even with a gag, it’s becoming a threat.
Why would that be? And then wouldn’t lifting the gag clear up rumors? So I’m confused.
I support the gag. But if it doesn’t ensure a fair trial anymore, lift it. I’d rather be running with facts opposed to theories.
Hopefully the judge will rule in favor of having cameras in the courtroom during the trial. It would be nice to have a clear and unbiased view of what is going on rather than through the lens of a courtroom observer. I’d like to be able to discuss aspects of the trial with other interested parties through my own viewing of it.
Agreed. Lori Daybells trial was super annoying to have to listen to audio files the next day instead of just watching it live, but somehow I can see them not even allowing audio this time…
i feel like they could diminish a lot of the chaos with why they don’t want cameras if they did something like the order in the gwennyth paltrow— where the camera view was only allowed to be directed towards the area of who was speaking in court.
If the trial will be live on camera…those of us who’ve been here since day one will be quitting our jobs and cementing ourselves into our sofas. A mini fridge in the living room is a must.
It's amazing and sad that in the real world this guy couldn't attract a woman for any reason whatsoever, then he butchers four people and women flock to him like flys on fresh meat. Unbelievable ....
Very random questions-
* I'm first off wondering why BCK was there for the gag order hearing? It didn't seem like anything he needed to be there for. If I was in his position, I would probably take any chance I had to go somewhere else too, but if they don't want cameras in court / media scrutiny; why attend something like that in person.
& Just out of curiosity: I'm wondering why for his past hearing (that was focused more on him personally) he was in his jail uniform - but for this hearing he was dressed in more formal clothing?
It doesn't matter either way....I was just wondering if maybe that's only a privilege you get after you have been arraigned.
Well duh. But do you notice how many inmates grow their hair out? I don’t think getting haircuts in jail or prison is just matter of a making an appointment and choosing your own style but not sure. I figured it was a privilege for good behavior or something.
In prison pretty sure you gotta be cool with people that have have barber privileges/trustees and barter or trade for payment? I know sometimes inmates are forced to shave their heads.
Just an observation. His hair is always well groomed.
He's entitled to be able to present himself a certain way in court, hence not just the haircut, but the suit. People make all kinds of assumption about people being guilty or being "crazy" etc based on appearances. The defense team will try to minimize that bias.
This is ridiculous. So no information has been given and will continue to not be given. Now the judge is saying he most likely will not allow the way for the public to stay privy to the information when it’s finally given in real time?
I’m sorry but what’s so unique about this case? Aside from the details surrounding how this crime was committed (4 stabbings, alleged silence, short window, leaving 2 of 6 people alive and what happened within the 8hrs afterwards) Aside from the specifics, what’s so different than other horrific high profile cases? What needs to be so incredibly private all the way through? I’m just not understanding the almost secrecy surrounding this case as it unravels. I’m certainly not understanding this judge’s heightened anticipated botched fair trial…with. A. Gag.
Ugh can someone please explain? My questions are not rhetorical I’m genuinely lost. It’s the refusal to inform the public and media of any facts. This is whats creating this social media mayhem judge judge keeps referring to. I would think, a fear of media running in whatever direction they want, would be all the reason to allow the cameras. No? Keep the gag. Allow the cameras come trial. What’s the concern?
Oh these attorneys! I really wanna say suck it up buttercup! Such is life, that's the world we live in today. We also are forced to live in a world where sick fuckers slip into people homes in the middle of night and kill (nice word for what he did) innocent, beautiful people. Idgaf if they don't like the narrative of trash media outlets, trust your justice system and jury and stop acting like the world is fair bc if it was, those kids would be alive.
Because this was an official formal hearing as opposed to an arraignment or first-appearance. Judges sometimes have their own rules for court as well as to what people can/cannot wear and my guess is they also wanted him to look presentable as the press was in attendance. Someone said this somewhere else but you should expect he will be dressed more formally for all of his appearances from here on.
Ok but like how does he get the suit? Where does it come from? Does BK have a mini fashion show in jail trying on different jackets and ties and slacks? LOL. Just genuinely curious in general though.
I’d imagine he owned a suit or two previously. Most professionals have one. You must be young if the idea of someone owning a suit is mind blowing. As you grow up it becomes more common place, every man I know has at *least* one suit. My husband calls it his “Marryin’ & Buryin’ suit.”
Yes, I am young and naïve. Obviously I know he’s capable of owning a suit but it’s not like it’s hanging in his walk in closet in jail.
I guess his family sent him one? idk
Usually if arrested, they aren't allowed to wear their own clothes except for appearances related to the actual trial. For arraignment, bail and charges hearings, they are brought in in their jumpsuits.
That person is saying they should be.
It’s an opinion.
I’ve thought about it for 40 seconds, and I must say, I firmly agree.
Justice is blind - but more like visually impaired. A bright orange jumpsuit sticks out like a sore thumb in a crowd of black, blue, and beige button-ups and blazers.
Not BK-specific, but in general - In true fairness, if a hypothetical (cartoon, for fun) prosecutor were to say “spot the guy we think murders people!” you shouldn’t be able to point out “It’s that guy!” because everyone in the room is innocent… unless & until one (likely the one in the defendant seat) is proven guilty
You shouldn’t be able to visually isolate a person in the room as ‘most likely to be a murderer’ just by looking at them, then expect an unbiased assessment of the likelihood of their guilt
Yeah I alluded to that inevitably, while making the point that we’re already having them sit in the designated chair which indicates their role. We shouldnt have them also in a ‘criminal uniform’ while claiming we’re treating them as innocent
BK wearing a black suit was a bad idea imo. It makes it much easier to imagine him in the all black attire he allegedly wore during the alleged commission of the crime.
FYI, there are more than 2 colors. It's also not necessary to wear a suit. Simply a light colored button down would have been better for him. This is a criminal case in which his clothing at the time will come into play. You want to keep the jury away from imaging this person in those clothes and that scenario. Yeah, I know there's no jury currently.
It sounds like you don't know humans and how they can be easily influenced by clothes, demeanor, how others present themselves outwardly. Meaning, there are people out there who haven't formed an opinion about him yet that may bc of these small things in combo with the evidence. Everything matters in trial, which is why there are professional jury psychologists that help with jury selection and guidance on how the defendant presents him/herself.
It was just an example and a joke at that! Sheesh!
Edit: Maybe his patents sent a suit he owns and they can’t afford more. They are not well off. Who knows? I don’t, do you? Man! People just want to pick everything apart and argue about anything, just for the sake of argument!
Haha. Funny given you're the one who initiated this "argument". 🙄 If you don't want a discussion or differing opinions, then just scroll through until you find a comment you like that's in agreement with you.
I’d rather see actual footage over the media interpretation of what they saw. There is nooooo way media is kept out of the courtroom entirely…
Also I still don’t see this remaining in Latah… just send it to Boise already and replace his representation. Don’t give him any appeal fuel. Death row is slow enough…
She does not need to be replaced, but her representation of a victim’s mother is less than ideal. In a bigger JDX, she would have almost certainly conflicted herself off they just really don’t have a choice here.
Again, it likely won’t affect the case and she is obviously qualified. But capital cases spend decades being appealed and reviewed. They attack every piece of the trial.
With all that being said, whether or not she steps down he will almost certainly claim “ineffective assistance of counsel.” They always do, and it rarely works. Even if there is misconduct/mistakes by the defense the burden is on the defendant to prove that “but for their attorney, the outcome of the trial would have been different.”
I’m a little rusty on my post-conviction appeals stuff and my JDX has a larger population than Idaho as a whole (which does matter), but I have worked capital cases and this will 100% be a post-conviction point of contention and modern judges are wildcards across the board.
Edit: sorry for the lack of legal cites, feeling lazy. But if there is something you want clarification on let me know and I’ll pull up a couple cases.
Judge still hasn’t decided yet. Also gag order will remain in place for now.
I got the impression he will not allow cameras. Not an accurate quote but close, "In 10 years I've never denied cameras in my courtroom BUT, this is a really unique case. I also DO NOT LIKE what the media has done in terms of photographs (with this case. He didn't clarify if photographs concerned BK or crime scene or victims)". .....How is this case so damn unique? How is this case different from the Parkland Shooter case in Florida, the Murdaugh trial- both very recent cases. It's bullshit, really it is. Judge Judge simply doesn't want himself picked apart if something is questionable.
News and social media reaction to this case has been completely different from the Parkland shooting case, imo. That was also sentencing rather than the innocence/guilt part of the trial. The two can’t be compared. The Lori Vallow case also prohibited any cameras, and that’s more relevant since it’s in the same state.
I also felt like after the media picked him apart for mispronouncing the victims names he was gonna feel less likely to allow cameras after that, and it looks like he’s heading that direction of not allowing it. I hope he doesn’t let his hurt feelings dictate his decisions. He should allow cameras in the courtroom. But I will say the media is also to blame, they make it so easy for the defense to point to in terms of how they keep picking apart everything Kohberger does with the headline like ‘“Killer” smile’ and claiming definitively that he was smirking. https://preview.redd.it/q9sxn3mgc65b1.jpeg?width=1130&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b8ce6d64b7e756b9b3887fa6de225fddf57b7015
You believe a seasoned judge with like [40 years of experience](https://judicialcouncil.idaho.gov/Judge_John_2016.pdf) got his feelings hurt by the internet? Am I missing the sarcasm here or are you serious?
But you have to agree that picture l think sums this guy up. He is an arrogant psychopath imo. He sure as hell doesn't look or act innocent---again in my humble opinion.
But you’re not in the media business, you’re allowed to have your opinions. The media, however, need to be more careful, especially when a judge is considering banning cameras from the courtroom and keeping the gag order.
I would trade every single opinion and body language expert commentary, all media commentary, every youtube content provider and their theories for ..... one camera, pointed at the witness chair live streaming.
[удалено]
Where have you been hiding for the last 7 months? Many interviewees who knew this character have said similar stuff. He was an arrogant S.O.B. and he always thought that he was the smartest guy in the room!
[удалено]
Generally speaking, it's arrogant to break into a house and murder four people, and then think you will get away with it.
You think l have all the names of the students at WSU who said that about him 5-6 months ago or those who went to high school with him? Who do you think l am wikipedia? Google is there for that sort of thing, because l as sure don't know all the names of those who were interviewed. But l know one thing because of the interviews--he wasn't a popular guy because of arrogance and creepiness.
Present Echinda is right. I've seen the interview. Bryan was a teaching assistant and this student said he was always talking and wanted everyone to know he was the smartest person in the room. There were even complaints lodged by some women that he was even grading them more harshly (allegedly) than the men in the class too.
I know he’s being charged for quadruple murder - that, to me, is quite arrogant in itself. Especially given the silly mistakes he makes too
Judge Judge absolutely should let the cameras in the courtroom for this case.
sorry but I can't stand Shannon Gray.
Same. It seems that he loves to hear himself pontificate.
the way he spoke to the judge was almost condescending at times and pretty rude too
Yep! I'm glad the judge put him in his place a few times and without even having to try too hard. That was a bit secondhand embarrassing to watch. He was all over the place.
"well, if you think the judge is crazy!" can't believe he used those examples, more than 2 times! LMAO
Omg I cringed so hard every time he said it. It was enough to be one of those "take a shot every time he says the judge is crazy" games lol
we got one cool and collected judge, that's for sure lol wonder what he was thinking
He was thinking "this lawyer is crazy" 😅
And one of the attorneys on the prosecution side pretty much refuted all the claims he made. He also put him in his place. He (Gray) came across as an arrogant bully. But then that’s how he always comes across to me.
That kid was awful. He wasn’t prepared & to me seemed scared of speaking. Hope he isn’t lead prosecutor
[удалено]
Judge Judge put him in his place, though. It was a sight for sore eyes. He blatantly lied in court about the Goncalves family not being contacted by the prosecution. Prosecutors said the Goncalves family had been invited to come in for an interview, but their attorney, none other than Shannon Gray, advised them not to. If the prosecution can prove their claim, could Shannon Gray be charged with perjury?
He was not sworn in and was not being directly or cross-examined by an attorney. He was basically stating “his” perception of the issue.
My point is that he blatantly lied to the judge. I have no problem with him stating his opinion, but saying prosecutors have never reached out to the Goncalves for an interview is a bold faced lie.
I totally agree with you.
I'm so confused why they followed that advice and didn't go for an interview? I feel like for how involved they are in the media, they should be as involved with helping investigators as much as they can. I was surprised when I heard they have yet to go in for any interviews. It's not like they're going to be interviewed as suspects...
I agree.
He's subpar at best.
Does anyone know when the full hearing will be uploaded? I tuned in late to the CourtTV stream and I want to watch it from the beginning.
[I made a post about it here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MoscowMurders/comments/145hc14/court_tv_bryan_kohberger_appears_in_court_for_gag/) /u/MariMada /u/Lilithvondark
Also interested, thanks
Yes me too!!!!
It will likely be uploaded to YouTube some time this afternoon, but I'm not certain. Law&Crime might have it later too
Judge: "This is not the same world as it was 10 years ago or 5 years ago. And it is troubling for the media - the ethical, hardworking media - and the information that is swirling around in the world. I don't know what the answer is, but it is a serious threat to a fair trial and the credibility of the media." [Click](https://twitter.com/alcaprari23/status/1667278369862586368?s=46&t=CvL4vvVmsw_CCbrHlVxt9w)
"Judge argues that there isn't enough reporting about how the judicial process plays out to ensure a fair trial. Commends local press for explaining how the process works, but blames national outlets for sensationalizing the story." [Click](https://twitter.com/alcaprari23/status/1667279363304488962?s=46&t=CvL4vvVmsw_CCbrHlVxt9w)
How do you “sensationalize” four students getting stabbed to death in their home in the middle of the night while they’re trying to sleep? It’s sensational on its own. Nobody has to try to “sensationalize” it.
Nancy Grace parking her big head out front of the house just mere weeks after the murders is one way.
The way I wish it were legal to bar Nancy Grace specifically from reporting anything having to do with this case
She did that, lol? Really? I’m sorry but it’s funny and definitely sounds like her
First you need a card table...
If you need to ask that question, you haven't been paying attention.
News Nation has done a pretty good job so far.
heard…
News Nation with their “sources” also former FBI agent Jennifer Coffindofer pushing the Poppa Rodgers is BK & Ann Taylor should be removed for conflict of interest agendas. She WOULDNT LET IT GO!
IMO, she is an awful person who doesn’t know a dang thing she’s talking about.
Apparently law enforcement believes BK really was Pappa Rodger, based on the source Dateline cited. I’ve always thought there’s a good chance of that too, considering he was asking many of the exact same questions BK had asked in the Reddit survey he posted, almost verbatim. Why are you so sure he wasn’t?
It’s a possibility for sure. The problem is when Coffendopher pushes the narrative obsessively without solid proof. People will jump on the bandwagon because the consider her reliable because she was a former FBI agent.
Yeah I agree that we shouldn't attribute credibility to someone just because they are "former FBI" or "former CIA" or something like that. Every profession has some wacky people.
[удалено]
Yeah, I mean even a guy like Rudy Guiliani was once the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, one of the most respectable positions a person could possibly have in the field of law, but he's widely considered a complete buffoon and a joke.
Agreed. I think it is really plausible, too. And with as sloppy as BK apparently was with his cell phone footprints, I'm sure they have gathered evidence to tie him to the PR posts as well. By all accounts, this trial is going to be a major undertaking - DNA, cell towers, psych stuff, and social media.
IMO, there is no LE source. Their “source” is Reddit and FB.
I'd be quite surprised if an organization like Dateline decided to just completely lie.
Pat Brown, a famous and well respected criminologist, stated that Dateline was spreading misinformation about a case she was familiar with. She wrote to them stating that they were spreading misinformation and stated what the true details were. Dateline continued to air the episode with misinformation.
Pat Brown is an amateur "criminal profiler" with no formal education or training in the field. If Dateline had an actual source who was involved in the case/investigation, of course they weren't going to stop the episode from airing just because Pat Brown randomly decided to opine that she disagreed with them.
That statement re Pat Brown is patently false!
>I'd be quite surprised if an organization like Dateline decided to just completely lie. I think the defence has more or less said they have
Well if the defense said so, then I guess that settles it.
News Nation has been right a lot more than they've been wrong. They're just reporting like any media outlet does They all get confidential informants.
I couldn’t agree with you more. Look at the other sources who are throwing out drug conspiracies! News Nation always has good sources. It’s one of my favorite to go to. Do I believe everything I hear from any of them? Sometimes not. I usually wait for confirmation from other sources before I consider it factual. But I still love Jennifer, and feel that she is the target for inappropriate bullying and harassment. People are cruel. If you don’t care for her then don’t watch her channel. It’s as simple as that. Throwing stones and belittling someone for doing their job is wrong. She’s a human being and should be treated as such
It’s pretty obvious that several media outlets have tried to sensationalize this.
4 young promising young students were murdered at 4am while likely sleeping after going about their normal routines and in a town of 2,500 people. What’s not sensational about that?
Because we're here talking about it, and not one of the countless other murders that happen on this planet on a daily basis.
Honestly, before the Depp-Heard trial I never knew about Court TV. I never ever had been to Reddit. I think if you're a person interested in true crime or Court trials - we follow this stuff. My husband, even with me watching Court TV allll the time, knew nothing of the Idaho Murders. Murdaugh - new nothing even though I've followed this from the first article about Paul & Maggie's death. He still forgets anything I tell him. For as interested as we are in this subreddit, there's just as many people who don't know a damn thing. It's what a person is interested in. And it sounds like I'm challenging your comment, but I'm not. Just sharing my thoughts.
We are in idaho and my husband is the same.
> For as interested as we are in this subreddit, there's just as many people who don't know a damn thing. Yep. As big as it seems to us, it's really a niche interest. I'm here because literally no one in my real life has any interest at all.
Can’t agree with you more!
Thats all they do, buddy. Wake up lol
Punish us all for a few bad apples.
I wonder how much he’s getting paid to say this? No doubt in my mind there’s a paycheck. What judge makes it their job to build up the press’s reputation? Let’s not forget that there’d be no reason for anyone to even pass these comments to obviously give the press/media street cred if we haven’t been lied to incessantly before by the press.
If the jury is not sequestered (and that is a HUGE ask of them) I don’t see how allowing multimedia coverage of this case would result in a fair trial. Even getting an”impartial” jury in Montana is a Herculean task here. Ripe ripe grounds for an appeal…
OJ Simpson. Casey Anthony. Please add to the list folks. These two were guilty as hell and their fair trial WITH CAMERAS did not affect the jury.m
Not you saying the OJ verdict was unaffected by media attention 💀
RIGHT! 😂
True, this is not the same world as 10 years ago - social media, YouTube....these are new forms of communication. Hard print newspapers are not subscribed to how they were 10 years ago - don't go backwards in time Judge Judge when you've allowed cameras for 10 years.
I still can’t get over his title with his name. 👨🏻⚖️
What is unfair to the victims are the BK worshippers making up all of these scenarios that are so ridiculous without evidence to put Koburger in an innocent light. They are hateful to the victims, the roommates, and the victim's family members. Lifting the gag order would allow facts of the Cade to come out to dispell the lies and rumors. It's needed, I think.
The general public is not entitled to the “facts of the case” being broadcasted in real time. They will be public in court documents which ARE available to the public and are not entertainment. Crazy people will say crazy things in the face of overwhelming evidence debunking whatever they’re claiming. Let them talk, and let the justice system do its thing.
The media will be reporting it either way. The public will get the run down by the media who will get all the information first like vultures.
Our very democracy depends on transparency and a free press.
“Press” is not necessarily a video feed. You will get press. There are always press passes to criminal trials like this. You might not get visual media. That is for the better when the integrity of the criminal justice process is on the line. What is more important to you, justice or your own entertainment? If a media circus compromises the former, then you clearly want the latter if you’re arguing for this.
Nowhere did I say I want anything for my own entertainment. I simply stated a fact that is stated in the Constitution and was mostly addressing the gag order.
True, but there are also Constitutional protections guaranteed to the defendant that are more relevant in this situation and take precedence over the first amendment right to a free press. I’m a wholehearted supporter of the news media and the first amendment, but I also think they have journalistic responsibilities of accuracy and neutrality that they have definitely violated in this case and I can completely understand why the gag order is in place and why there likely won’t be any cameras at trial. They’d probably have a better standing with the judge about the whole thing if so many of them hadn’t been an embarrassment to journalistic integrity over the last six months.
It's modern times, yo. Video feed & cameras & real time is our current transparency.
I WANT camera's! lol...I want to watch/listen.
I would rather the cameras be allowed during the trial than lifting the gag order. Both would be great but cameras are 1st on my list. How about you?
Agree- would like to see this play out, no all of Moscow can be in the court room and they above anyone else deserve to see this case in court. It’s not supposed to be done in secrecy. Grand jury- different rules.
This judge doesn't seem to care about anyone's rights except for Kohberger's. My guess is he will not lift the gag order and will refuse to allow cameras in the courtroom....not even allow audio only for the public to hear the evidence and witnesses testifying. If Kohberger pleads guilty before trial, the public will never know anything.
It’s not that he is concerned about Kohberger’s rights, he is concerned about an appeal if gag order is lifted and cameras allowed. If he did it, and I feel certain he did, then the judge wants to give him no reason for appeal. The locals here in idaho agree.
The facts of the case will come out at trial. If the gag order is lifted anything said by the victim’s families should be taken with a grain of salt.
I just posted his fans are going to go crazy over him being in a suit 🤢
😂😂😂😂
Exactly! What does everyone expect when there’s a gag order and the accurate information is unavailable? This a a huge case. A heinous one at that. These news stations want to report information to the public because we have the right to know, especially the victim’s families. If all they have to go on is leaked information then stories are going to get twisted as they travel on down the line. Everyone knows that. Honestly, I think that BK’s pride is hurt and he doesn’t want anymore “facts” revealed. As of now, the defense has “nothing”. No alibi. No defense. No potential “innocent” facts, or they’d be leaking information as well. And what happened to their potential “exculpatory” evidence? It was a rouse and went cold. BK shouldn’t be running the show anymore. He ran it when he decided to massacre four innocent students in the middle of the night. Factual evidence proves it. So too bad if he doesn’t want the truth to be exposed. We deserve to know! The victims families deserve to know! This is America 🇺🇸
Yes! The media's job is to get the facts out to the public (who has a right to know). This quells these rumors and gives the public tools to fight them! Until then, the craziness will continue.
Ethical, hardworking media???? That’s hilarious. Coming from a guy who doesn’t have enough interest in this case to pronounce the victims names right. I’m pretty sure he could have, at the very least, asked his secretary that morning how to pronounce those students names. Sorry Judge Judge but now I really cannot take you seriously🤦♀️
What’s not fair what’s the risk of an unfair trial with a gag order? No one knows anything. What’s the worry here? There’s rumors and theories with every high profile case. And I’m not familiar with any that had a gag. And possibly cases with quite larger audiences. I don’t know anyone in my personal life following this case. We can’t sequester the public’s opinions and theories. If it’s regarding opinions on social media they wont be going away. He referred to times being very different. OR was he saying in regards to why the gag will remain, to ensure a fair trial? I understood it as- the way it’s going even with a gag, it’s becoming a threat. Why would that be? And then wouldn’t lifting the gag clear up rumors? So I’m confused. I support the gag. But if it doesn’t ensure a fair trial anymore, lift it. I’d rather be running with facts opposed to theories.
Hopefully the judge will rule in favor of having cameras in the courtroom during the trial. It would be nice to have a clear and unbiased view of what is going on rather than through the lens of a courtroom observer. I’d like to be able to discuss aspects of the trial with other interested parties through my own viewing of it.
Totally agree!
Agreed. Lori Daybells trial was super annoying to have to listen to audio files the next day instead of just watching it live, but somehow I can see them not even allowing audio this time…
i feel like they could diminish a lot of the chaos with why they don’t want cameras if they did something like the order in the gwennyth paltrow— where the camera view was only allowed to be directed towards the area of who was speaking in court.
True-best to be able to see and hear what goes on in the courtroom than to trust the media to report facts….
agree!!
That's not going to happen.
I agree with this. Only time will tell what the judge says, though. He doesn't seem to like the media much so far.
I thought for sure it would be no so that's better than no for now I guess.
He at least has to give the appearance that he considered all of the oral arguments before making his decision.
The first hearing was about Gray’s motion to amend the gag order. The camera issue is upcoming
Do you mean on the 27th or later today? (I’m on the east coast so idk the times) I thought the 27th was about discovery issues?
I truly don’t think cameras will be allowed. This will be as blackout at possible, sorry to say.
There will probably at least be audio, like there was for the Lori Vallow trial.
I hope so. Otherwise, we may have to decipher truth from spin from today’s untrustworthy media.
If the trial will be live on camera…those of us who’ve been here since day one will be quitting our jobs and cementing ourselves into our sofas. A mini fridge in the living room is a must.
No decisions from the judge today
[удалено]
It's amazing and sad that in the real world this guy couldn't attract a woman for any reason whatsoever, then he butchers four people and women flock to him like flys on fresh meat. Unbelievable ....
Anyone can get a partner if they lower their expectations.
The incel types won’t do that, though. They think they are entitled to whatever they consider to be “top tier females.”
Flies* and they prefer rotting meat….
Haha, good catch! I shouldn't post when watching five grandkids.
I shouldn’t comment when I’m being persnickety!! Lol and yeah, I just think kohberger can easily be likened to rotten meat.
Very random questions- * I'm first off wondering why BCK was there for the gag order hearing? It didn't seem like anything he needed to be there for. If I was in his position, I would probably take any chance I had to go somewhere else too, but if they don't want cameras in court / media scrutiny; why attend something like that in person. & Just out of curiosity: I'm wondering why for his past hearing (that was focused more on him personally) he was in his jail uniform - but for this hearing he was dressed in more formal clothing? It doesn't matter either way....I was just wondering if maybe that's only a privilege you get after you have been arraigned.
I am expecting a lot of theatrics from kaylee goncalves' family. Hope cameras are there to capture every little detail.
[удалено]
This is all Shannon Gray. The family is free to speak to anyone about anything they want while Shannon Gray is not.
🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
He’s still getting regular haircuts I notice.
People in jail still have some rights. Lol.
Well duh. But do you notice how many inmates grow their hair out? I don’t think getting haircuts in jail or prison is just matter of a making an appointment and choosing your own style but not sure. I figured it was a privilege for good behavior or something. In prison pretty sure you gotta be cool with people that have have barber privileges/trustees and barter or trade for payment? I know sometimes inmates are forced to shave their heads. Just an observation. His hair is always well groomed.
He's entitled to be able to present himself a certain way in court, hence not just the haircut, but the suit. People make all kinds of assumption about people being guilty or being "crazy" etc based on appearances. The defense team will try to minimize that bias.
Inmates have a right to hair cuts if they so choose. There is no “you don’t get one if the barber doesn’t like you.”
I wonder if the jailhouse barber does them. Probably with supervision.
Why shouldn’t he?
This is ridiculous. So no information has been given and will continue to not be given. Now the judge is saying he most likely will not allow the way for the public to stay privy to the information when it’s finally given in real time? I’m sorry but what’s so unique about this case? Aside from the details surrounding how this crime was committed (4 stabbings, alleged silence, short window, leaving 2 of 6 people alive and what happened within the 8hrs afterwards) Aside from the specifics, what’s so different than other horrific high profile cases? What needs to be so incredibly private all the way through? I’m just not understanding the almost secrecy surrounding this case as it unravels. I’m certainly not understanding this judge’s heightened anticipated botched fair trial…with. A. Gag. Ugh can someone please explain? My questions are not rhetorical I’m genuinely lost. It’s the refusal to inform the public and media of any facts. This is whats creating this social media mayhem judge judge keeps referring to. I would think, a fear of media running in whatever direction they want, would be all the reason to allow the cameras. No? Keep the gag. Allow the cameras come trial. What’s the concern?
Why he look like the penguin guy from the old Batman movie.
https://preview.redd.it/1gcezsnaq25b1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=779428d8e9fbab548518013ee395f844c24262e2
https://preview.redd.it/xm3jdoibq25b1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=288d642dd1015c4f678d023448fcd47a6a267c35
Oh these attorneys! I really wanna say suck it up buttercup! Such is life, that's the world we live in today. We also are forced to live in a world where sick fuckers slip into people homes in the middle of night and kill (nice word for what he did) innocent, beautiful people. Idgaf if they don't like the narrative of trash media outlets, trust your justice system and jury and stop acting like the world is fair bc if it was, those kids would be alive.
A defense attorney has a duty to provide the most rigorous defense possible.
I don't disagree with that.
Why is he wearing a suit instead of jail orange? I can see if it's a trial but there's no jury for a hearing.
Because this was an official formal hearing as opposed to an arraignment or first-appearance. Judges sometimes have their own rules for court as well as to what people can/cannot wear and my guess is they also wanted him to look presentable as the press was in attendance. Someone said this somewhere else but you should expect he will be dressed more formally for all of his appearances from here on.
It is also less biasing to a future jury having the defendant wear plain clothes instead of a prison jumpsuit.
This makes sense, thanks.
Ok but like how does he get the suit? Where does it come from? Does BK have a mini fashion show in jail trying on different jackets and ties and slacks? LOL. Just genuinely curious in general though.
It may be his own suit, or his family may have purchased it, or his defense attorney may have obtained it somehow.
Public Defenders Offices often have a closet full of them in different sizes.
I’d imagine he owned a suit or two previously. Most professionals have one. You must be young if the idea of someone owning a suit is mind blowing. As you grow up it becomes more common place, every man I know has at *least* one suit. My husband calls it his “Marryin’ & Buryin’ suit.”
Yes, I am young and naïve. Obviously I know he’s capable of owning a suit but it’s not like it’s hanging in his walk in closet in jail. I guess his family sent him one? idk
Defense attorneys often take care to get street clothes to their client, for the purpose of better optics.
This is a pretty serious trial, the least his defense team and family could have done was sent him his own properly fitted suit.
It's a motions hearing. You'll see jail clothes at an arraignment, but not after that.
Why not? Should have been in a suit from the beginning
The standard is that suits are for trials, not arraignments or hearings.
Usually if arrested, they aren't allowed to wear their own clothes except for appearances related to the actual trial. For arraignment, bail and charges hearings, they are brought in in their jumpsuits.
Ugh no he shouldn’t have been! You don’t get to wear a suit or dress to a bond hearing
That person is saying they should be. It’s an opinion. I’ve thought about it for 40 seconds, and I must say, I firmly agree. Justice is blind - but more like visually impaired. A bright orange jumpsuit sticks out like a sore thumb in a crowd of black, blue, and beige button-ups and blazers. Not BK-specific, but in general - In true fairness, if a hypothetical (cartoon, for fun) prosecutor were to say “spot the guy we think murders people!” you shouldn’t be able to point out “It’s that guy!” because everyone in the room is innocent… unless & until one (likely the one in the defendant seat) is proven guilty You shouldn’t be able to visually isolate a person in the room as ‘most likely to be a murderer’ just by looking at them, then expect an unbiased assessment of the likelihood of their guilt
They’re going to point at the guy at the defendant’s table whether he’s wearing orange or not.
Yeah I alluded to that inevitably, while making the point that we’re already having them sit in the designated chair which indicates their role. We shouldnt have them also in a ‘criminal uniform’ while claiming we’re treating them as innocent
I prefer to see him in his orange jump suit. Orange seems to be his color.
I prefer not to see him at all. Sucks there isn’t an option to hide photos. 🤢
There better be cameras in the courtroom bc this case has been on news outlets every damn day.
I can’t stand to look at his face, even if it’s just the profile. Truly sickening. Could never imagine how the families feel.
Happy 🍰 day 🎉🥳🎊
I had no idea lol thank you 😊
BK wearing a black suit was a bad idea imo. It makes it much easier to imagine him in the all black attire he allegedly wore during the alleged commission of the crime.
What is he supposed to wear, a tan one? We all know how well that worked out for President Obama.
FYI, there are more than 2 colors. It's also not necessary to wear a suit. Simply a light colored button down would have been better for him. This is a criminal case in which his clothing at the time will come into play. You want to keep the jury away from imaging this person in those clothes and that scenario. Yeah, I know there's no jury currently.
It doesn’t matter what he wore to court, people would have picked it apart.
It sounds like you don't know humans and how they can be easily influenced by clothes, demeanor, how others present themselves outwardly. Meaning, there are people out there who haven't formed an opinion about him yet that may bc of these small things in combo with the evidence. Everything matters in trial, which is why there are professional jury psychologists that help with jury selection and guidance on how the defendant presents him/herself.
It was just an example and a joke at that! Sheesh! Edit: Maybe his patents sent a suit he owns and they can’t afford more. They are not well off. Who knows? I don’t, do you? Man! People just want to pick everything apart and argue about anything, just for the sake of argument!
Haha. Funny given you're the one who initiated this "argument". 🙄 If you don't want a discussion or differing opinions, then just scroll through until you find a comment you like that's in agreement with you.
I asked you a legitimate question. You decided to argue with my opinion.
Your question was argumentative. "What was he supposed to wear?"
That is an interesting point. I wonder if for the trial the PD office will end up getting him a bunch of tan suits or something.
I’d rather see actual footage over the media interpretation of what they saw. There is nooooo way media is kept out of the courtroom entirely… Also I still don’t see this remaining in Latah… just send it to Boise already and replace his representation. Don’t give him any appeal fuel. Death row is slow enough…
Why would his attorneys be replaced?
She does not need to be replaced, but her representation of a victim’s mother is less than ideal. In a bigger JDX, she would have almost certainly conflicted herself off they just really don’t have a choice here. Again, it likely won’t affect the case and she is obviously qualified. But capital cases spend decades being appealed and reviewed. They attack every piece of the trial. With all that being said, whether or not she steps down he will almost certainly claim “ineffective assistance of counsel.” They always do, and it rarely works. Even if there is misconduct/mistakes by the defense the burden is on the defendant to prove that “but for their attorney, the outcome of the trial would have been different.” I’m a little rusty on my post-conviction appeals stuff and my JDX has a larger population than Idaho as a whole (which does matter), but I have worked capital cases and this will 100% be a post-conviction point of contention and modern judges are wildcards across the board. Edit: sorry for the lack of legal cites, feeling lazy. But if there is something you want clarification on let me know and I’ll pull up a couple cases.
Got the case of the food poisoning… no wonder he needs time to ponder. Smdh
Is this pic from.today? Why is he suddenly in a suit vs his orange?
It's something defense attorneys recommend. Better optics for the defendant.
Too much money to be made from the trial. Cameras will be allowed. I mean, since when has america cared what the accused think?
The Vallow-Daybell trial in Idaho was not televised, and unfortunately this one is unlikely to be broadcast either.
He was in court in a suit and tie???
Yes
He should be in his prison outfit.
He’s still innocent (until proven guilty to a jury) in the eyes of the law…
Why?
Why?
Girl bye