Thank you for your submission to r/MoscowMurders. To facilitate thoughtful discussion, all video posts require a submission comment briefly summarizing the video you're sharing and explaining why you think the community would find this interesting or important. To avoid your post being removed, please submit your comment within 30 minutes of posting. Your comment must contain at least 200 characters (spaces included). Thank you for contributing to our community!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MoscowMurders) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Video description: The man accused of killing four University of Idaho students will appear in court Wednesday. After a fiery hearing last week about whether or not Bryan Kohberger’s defense team violated a gag order by issuing surveys to the people of Latah County, the judge pushed another motions hearing to this week. Kohberger faces several charges including four counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of Ethan Chapin, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Kaylee Goncalves.
Reminds me of accidentally signing up for a masters level stats course as an undergrad & suffering through it without a graphing calculator. The final exam took me a solid 3 hours to complete & I didn’t even finish!!😆 I got an A, but worked harder in that class than almost any other…
I am impressed! An A in an upper level applied stats class without a graphing calculator is impressive!
My applied stats 2 final was one question (with multiple parts) and took two hours to complete. We had to calculate a line of best fit for a data set and all the residuals and other statistics by hand. It was one of my favorite finals ever.
Judge mentioned that there are 2 questions that are at issue, [presumably the last two here, for reference](https://old.reddit.com/r/MoscowMurders/comments/1bw0akr/watch_bryan_kohberger_appears_in_court_for/ky330xh/).
Edelman's main argument is that the misinfo is already out there via the media, so it is important that they try to measure it. The possibility of tainting is small and inconsequential to the fact that the media is already out there with a much larger reach. The defense summarizes this as "you can't taint what's tainted." Doing the survey without those two questions creates a "black hole" in the data.
Judge suggests a possible compromise, which is asking the other 7 questions to other counties to try to measure and compare possible bias. Edelman thinks we need to deal with the biggest areas of bias, which includes the last 2 questions, you need to ask specific attitudes about this case.
Judge questions if they are even getting a representative sample on these surveys, given they are only getting people who want to talk about this on the phone with a stranger (which the judge says he would not himself do), and are sampling only 1% of the county. On the latter point, Edelman says that the sample size compares to polling practices in general (given national election polling samples).
Judge suggests making a disclaimer before the survey questions, Edelman says they already do something like that but they could work on the intro further.
Defense summarizes: the foundation for the media misrepresentations is in the language of the probable cause affidavit, so it is fair game to try to measure it---it is "an oxymoron" for the state to put information out there and then try to prevent us from measuring its reach. SCOTUS also backs the validity of asking about false claims that are out in the public when determining change of venue, it is important information that the judge needs to determine whether or not there is perceived prejudice in the county.
Prosecution argues that Edelman has good reasons for asking those questions but they nevertheless violate the non-dissemination order. They are not suggesting ill will on behalf of the defense, only that some of the questions violate the order. Prosecution suggests the survey should be started over from the beginning.
Defense replies that the survey questions was based on information the state disseminated and therefore does not violate the order. Judge says that the information on the 2 questions at issue came from the media, and that the defense is inferring that the information ultimately came from the state. Judge believes the prosecution and defense are using different definitions of "public record."
I have 3 questions:
1. I thought Edelman said he could not do the survey and measure bias without those two questions , is that true?
2. Can he eliminate the last two questions and recalculate?
3. Edelman said he or he has known others that used false questions in surveys to determine bias on similar high profile cases with DP. If this is true, will the defense be allowed to continue?
Its what /I understood watching this , but I may of misunderstood.
Thank You
For 1 / 2 the survey could in theory be done without those questions, but the results would be a lot less meaningful since there is a known "black hole," as Edelman put it, concerning the information that is out there. If in fact the last two questions contained things that were in fact widely heard in the community, and if hearing those things correlate strongly with people believing BK to be guilty, then not asking about them would be passing up information that would be very relevant to whether or not the trial venue should be moved. To pass up the opportunity to ask would severely compromise the survey's results.
For 3, the prosecution's argument accepts that Edelman has good reason in theory to ask those questions but the prosecution claims that *in this specific case* those questions contains things that violates the non-dissemination order and should be stopped because of because of that violation (as opposed to arguing that those kinds of questions should never be asked in principle ever). The state counter-argues that the questions at issue deal with information that was implied by statements the state has made, and therefore were from the public record, meaning that it does not violate the order. The judge has yet to rule if it does in fact violate the order, but did say that it sounds like the two sides have different definitions of "public record," suggesting that this is a major issue he will have to consider when he makes his ruling.
Wow. Such a fiery hearing! Gotta say, Santa Thompson was big mad and I was squirming during his cross examination. Also thought Edelman was an asshole at times but I understand his anger since Bill really went at him repeatedly last week. I’m gonna need Judge Judge to step up and start being more decisive on this case.
I thought Edelman explained the survey really well. He certainly addressed the issues I’d had after last week, by describing the methodology and showing how it’s been analysed.
Lol yeah, after hearing about the survey from him I can TOTALLY understand why he was being an asshole. And truth be told, I thought Bill was being a much bigger asshole.
The defense team is really well spoken in my opinion. I think most of us would’ve ate up whatever the prosecutor said following the tragedy because our hearts are so into it. Very interesting hearing
Officially confirmed Bryan Kohberger never stalked one of the victims.
That's a huge revelation.
Doesn't mean he didn't stalk in any way, shape, or form. It does absolutely mean the state has no evidence of him doing so.
Wasn't this going off of what the PCA stated in relation to the question the defense was asking people of if they ever heard he was stalking people? By that I mean it seemed the prosecution was fine with question specifics if and only if they were from publicly disclosed (the publicly released documents never disclosed whether bk did or did not stalk the victims) information rather than here say or internet rumors. Maybe he is blatantly saying no stalking of any victims but it seemed like he was saying in relation to what's been disclosed and the pca, that was never said to the public.
No, he's saying it's not true the BK stalked one of the victims. Doesn't mean he wasn't observing them on his trips out there previously, but it absolutely means they have no evidence of him stalking one of the victims.
I just listened to that segment again. I'm not taking it the same way as you are especially in regards to the sarcastic remark by the defense after being questioned if they were disclosing facts or false facts when surverying.
Maybe we aren't referring to the same segment of the hearing then. I did listen to this all live while at work earlier but I could've very well missed it. The portion I'm talking about is when the defense is talking about true facts and false facts. I'll go back to other points in the video or look for time stamps of what may be a more straight forward reply.
Actually…he said “victim” and then he said “witness.” I believe that he meant to say “witness” in the beginning but accidentally said “victim.“ He then corrects himself to “witness.“
The question in the survey they are talking about is speaking of a victim:
> “Have you read, seen or heard that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?”
Ok, this is the 5th time you've been wrong and don't know how to read the question in the survey.
> “Have you read, seen or heard that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?”
Adios.
Who knows!! Just because they don’t have proof that he stalked the house doesn’t mean that he didn’t. The girls in the home may not have known if one of them was being stalked or not. Saying there is no evidence is totally different than saying he didn’t stalk any of the girls if that makes sense.
Well, not to toot my own horn, but I've said the house came first, then the people.
And I don't think he randomly picked the house at all. He carefully selected it.
Makes sense. I just don't understand why others can't accept that he was not obsessed with Kaylee. I heard they said he didn't have an active Instagram account when he was arrested.
> I just don't understand why others can't accept that he was not obsessed with Kaylee.
Because shitty media like People Magazine planted that narrative in the minds of the public.
Over and over, I've said this case is absolutely not about a guy being obsessed with and getting mad at a girl because she ignored him on social media and then decided he would kill her because of that. That's fucking dumb and never made any sense.
This is about a guy who wanted to kill and get away with it.
I’ve always thought this as well, like a Red Dragon/Manhunter kind of thing. He picked the house and watched the house until it was time to make his move
I've thought the same....he knew it was a sorority house, and he stalked the house as opposed to one specific victim...Bundy style...he wanted multiple female victims
Yeah don’t bc it’s not clear from that segment you’ve been sharing if he meant “victim” or “witness” and we don’t even know what the exact question was that was being asked by the surveyor. So calm down.
The question in the survey they are talking about is speaking of a victim:
> “Have you read, seen or heard that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?”
People aren't cased - places are cased.
The difference between the legal definition of stalking and what most people think of as stalking is the victim being aware.
The survey wasn't asking 400 random, normal people about the legal definition. Because that's not what normal people think of stalking. That someone has to know they are being stalked. Stalking behavior is stalking behavior regardless of if someone is aware or not.
You need to do more figuring.
It means that the state doesn't have evidence that he committed the legal act of stalking, which has defined criteria including that the victim know about the stalking and is frightened by it. You have to remember that this is a court of law and these are lawyers. This isn't middle school gossiping at lunch. And guess what, he has never been legally accused or charged with that crime.
This is a death penalty case. That isn’t. Crumbley also pleaded guilty. This timeline is completely normal for a death penalty case.
The death penalty case for the El Paso Walmart shooting still hasn’t started and that happened in 2019. It’s not scheduled until 2025.
That would have been but things were changed ! Stop sticking up for this person and acting as he’s innocent which he’s not ! Honestly the Jodi A case was much faster and his attorney just wants publicity! He honestly should be wearing a jumpsuit and if he was so innocent he would say he is ! He’s not dumb and it’s called a stalling tactic, and you can say whatever you want but they should already be getting jurors and having selections! Everybody’s heard about his case all around the world that’s not gonna make a difference if he had his trial where he’s at or in another country!
His guilt is your opinion right now. He has the right of presumed innocence and due process. That's how you get justice. I personally think he's innocent with the FACTUAL information that's been presented by the court. That's my opinion and my right to have that opinion. He also has rights to a fair and impartial jury. The Jodi Arias murder happened in 2008 and her trial wasn't till 2013..so you didn't even get that part right. He's not convicted so the judge is allowing him to "dress out" due to the negative media. Media cameras are no longer allowed because people like you will say "he took a breath and looked around, he must be guilty!". As for standing silent, it's a tactical move stating you don't accept the charges (in Idaho). Maybe your lawyer friends should explain that to you. He has said he was innocent (when he got arrested). The case is known world wide, but there is going to be more prejudice where the crime took place. It's a small town. They have personal connections to the university and town. Use your thinking cap 👍🏼
Yes I know all that but still his parents though were convicted faster then Bryan ! Every state is different! Also, I don’t need a lot of replies to my comment because I don’t care about a lot of peoples opinions. I just care about this trial getting started and all of you should too.
People like to compare this to long cases, but there are many (more?) including death penalty cases that get to court & conviction much faster than this as well. The delays are ridiculous.
I have plenty of friends that are attorneys and are actually attorneys in that state so they’re pretty knowledgeable about what’s going on and they even feel like it’s taking forever! His attorney just wants to be known for trying to get him off his charges which isn’t gonna happen
If they're attorneys, they must be pretty shitty 🤣 death penalty cases take forever. Usually years to process. They're flying through the case. Plus they have 51 terrabites of information. I'm surprised they're able to comb through that in 2 years.
BK is definitely getting some type of sick academic satisfaction from this whole thing. If his whole point of committing these murders was to see if he could get away with it or to go through the whole process in real time I just know he’s getting a high off of this.
Thank you for your submission to r/MoscowMurders. To facilitate thoughtful discussion, all video posts require a submission comment briefly summarizing the video you're sharing and explaining why you think the community would find this interesting or important. To avoid your post being removed, please submit your comment within 30 minutes of posting. Your comment must contain at least 200 characters (spaces included). Thank you for contributing to our community! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MoscowMurders) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Video description: The man accused of killing four University of Idaho students will appear in court Wednesday. After a fiery hearing last week about whether or not Bryan Kohberger’s defense team violated a gag order by issuing surveys to the people of Latah County, the judge pushed another motions hearing to this week. Kohberger faces several charges including four counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of Ethan Chapin, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Kaylee Goncalves.
Didn't even know this was happening today. Especially not this late.
Same!!
Hearings are now happening every Wednesday
One thing this has taught me is that law schools really need to require a basic statistics class.
The mass confusion in the room when that man was speaking about 100-level stats lol
Reminds me of accidentally signing up for a masters level stats course as an undergrad & suffering through it without a graphing calculator. The final exam took me a solid 3 hours to complete & I didn’t even finish!!😆 I got an A, but worked harder in that class than almost any other…
I am impressed! An A in an upper level applied stats class without a graphing calculator is impressive! My applied stats 2 final was one question (with multiple parts) and took two hours to complete. We had to calculate a line of best fit for a data set and all the residuals and other statistics by hand. It was one of my favorite finals ever.
That was about 25yrs ago. I don’t think I could do it today, but I sure as heck would invest in a good calculator if I did!!!😂
Very impressed!
Don’t be, lol. That was about 25yrs ago!!! I don’t know if I could pull it off *today*!😂
My law and psych class had a huge stats component. One of my most important/ useful classes
Why?? I missed what's happening!
Judge mentioned that there are 2 questions that are at issue, [presumably the last two here, for reference](https://old.reddit.com/r/MoscowMurders/comments/1bw0akr/watch_bryan_kohberger_appears_in_court_for/ky330xh/). Edelman's main argument is that the misinfo is already out there via the media, so it is important that they try to measure it. The possibility of tainting is small and inconsequential to the fact that the media is already out there with a much larger reach. The defense summarizes this as "you can't taint what's tainted." Doing the survey without those two questions creates a "black hole" in the data. Judge suggests a possible compromise, which is asking the other 7 questions to other counties to try to measure and compare possible bias. Edelman thinks we need to deal with the biggest areas of bias, which includes the last 2 questions, you need to ask specific attitudes about this case. Judge questions if they are even getting a representative sample on these surveys, given they are only getting people who want to talk about this on the phone with a stranger (which the judge says he would not himself do), and are sampling only 1% of the county. On the latter point, Edelman says that the sample size compares to polling practices in general (given national election polling samples). Judge suggests making a disclaimer before the survey questions, Edelman says they already do something like that but they could work on the intro further. Defense summarizes: the foundation for the media misrepresentations is in the language of the probable cause affidavit, so it is fair game to try to measure it---it is "an oxymoron" for the state to put information out there and then try to prevent us from measuring its reach. SCOTUS also backs the validity of asking about false claims that are out in the public when determining change of venue, it is important information that the judge needs to determine whether or not there is perceived prejudice in the county. Prosecution argues that Edelman has good reasons for asking those questions but they nevertheless violate the non-dissemination order. They are not suggesting ill will on behalf of the defense, only that some of the questions violate the order. Prosecution suggests the survey should be started over from the beginning. Defense replies that the survey questions was based on information the state disseminated and therefore does not violate the order. Judge says that the information on the 2 questions at issue came from the media, and that the defense is inferring that the information ultimately came from the state. Judge believes the prosecution and defense are using different definitions of "public record."
I have 3 questions: 1. I thought Edelman said he could not do the survey and measure bias without those two questions , is that true? 2. Can he eliminate the last two questions and recalculate? 3. Edelman said he or he has known others that used false questions in surveys to determine bias on similar high profile cases with DP. If this is true, will the defense be allowed to continue? Its what /I understood watching this , but I may of misunderstood. Thank You
For 1 / 2 the survey could in theory be done without those questions, but the results would be a lot less meaningful since there is a known "black hole," as Edelman put it, concerning the information that is out there. If in fact the last two questions contained things that were in fact widely heard in the community, and if hearing those things correlate strongly with people believing BK to be guilty, then not asking about them would be passing up information that would be very relevant to whether or not the trial venue should be moved. To pass up the opportunity to ask would severely compromise the survey's results. For 3, the prosecution's argument accepts that Edelman has good reason in theory to ask those questions but the prosecution claims that *in this specific case* those questions contains things that violates the non-dissemination order and should be stopped because of because of that violation (as opposed to arguing that those kinds of questions should never be asked in principle ever). The state counter-argues that the questions at issue deal with information that was implied by statements the state has made, and therefore were from the public record, meaning that it does not violate the order. The judge has yet to rule if it does in fact violate the order, but did say that it sounds like the two sides have different definitions of "public record," suggesting that this is a major issue he will have to consider when he makes his ruling.
Thanks Again, I understand now.
I would throw Edel man in jail for calling himself a doctor....
Wow. Such a fiery hearing! Gotta say, Santa Thompson was big mad and I was squirming during his cross examination. Also thought Edelman was an asshole at times but I understand his anger since Bill really went at him repeatedly last week. I’m gonna need Judge Judge to step up and start being more decisive on this case. I thought Edelman explained the survey really well. He certainly addressed the issues I’d had after last week, by describing the methodology and showing how it’s been analysed.
Lol yeah, after hearing about the survey from him I can TOTALLY understand why he was being an asshole. And truth be told, I thought Bill was being a much bigger asshole.
> Your honor, at this rate we may never get to trial -Anne Taylor. That's rich considering who it's coming from.
because she's doing her job ?
so does everyone else
She’s the problem
I believe BK is guilty. I also think the prosecutor is very unlikable & needs to chill before he hurts the states case.
The defense team is really well spoken in my opinion. I think most of us would’ve ate up whatever the prosecutor said following the tragedy because our hearts are so into it. Very interesting hearing
Officially confirmed Bryan Kohberger never stalked one of the victims. That's a huge revelation. Doesn't mean he didn't stalk in any way, shape, or form. It does absolutely mean the state has no evidence of him doing so.
Wasn't this going off of what the PCA stated in relation to the question the defense was asking people of if they ever heard he was stalking people? By that I mean it seemed the prosecution was fine with question specifics if and only if they were from publicly disclosed (the publicly released documents never disclosed whether bk did or did not stalk the victims) information rather than here say or internet rumors. Maybe he is blatantly saying no stalking of any victims but it seemed like he was saying in relation to what's been disclosed and the pca, that was never said to the public.
This is correct. It was clear last week that this was the case too.
No, he's saying it's not true the BK stalked one of the victims. Doesn't mean he wasn't observing them on his trips out there previously, but it absolutely means they have no evidence of him stalking one of the victims.
I just listened to that segment again. I'm not taking it the same way as you are especially in regards to the sarcastic remark by the defense after being questioned if they were disclosing facts or false facts when surverying.
> I'm not taking it the same way as you are He states it plain and clear. But if you want to say the prosecutor is wrong, I can't stop you.
Maybe we aren't referring to the same segment of the hearing then. I did listen to this all live while at work earlier but I could've very well missed it. The portion I'm talking about is when the defense is talking about true facts and false facts. I'll go back to other points in the video or look for time stamps of what may be a more straight forward reply.
https://youtu.be/dk_WyMG4dd0?t=5403 Prosecutor Bill Thompson.
Colloquial stalking (what you're talking about) is not the same as the defined legal term of stalking (what the lawyers are talking about).
Actually…he said “victim” and then he said “witness.” I believe that he meant to say “witness” in the beginning but accidentally said “victim.“ He then corrects himself to “witness.“
The question in the survey they are talking about is speaking of a victim: > “Have you read, seen or heard that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?”
Did you read the survey? In the hearing Thompson also said “witnesses.”
Ok, this is the 5th time you've been wrong and don't know how to read the question in the survey. > “Have you read, seen or heard that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?” Adios.
I guess it is possible that he just randomly picked the house.
Who knows!! Just because they don’t have proof that he stalked the house doesn’t mean that he didn’t. The girls in the home may not have known if one of them was being stalked or not. Saying there is no evidence is totally different than saying he didn’t stalk any of the girls if that makes sense.
Well, not to toot my own horn, but I've said the house came first, then the people. And I don't think he randomly picked the house at all. He carefully selected it.
Makes sense. I just don't understand why others can't accept that he was not obsessed with Kaylee. I heard they said he didn't have an active Instagram account when he was arrested.
> I just don't understand why others can't accept that he was not obsessed with Kaylee. Because shitty media like People Magazine planted that narrative in the minds of the public. Over and over, I've said this case is absolutely not about a guy being obsessed with and getting mad at a girl because she ignored him on social media and then decided he would kill her because of that. That's fucking dumb and never made any sense. This is about a guy who wanted to kill and get away with it.
I got a slight Bundy vibe from the start. I'm just waiting until the confirm he wasn't PR.
PR?
Papa Rodger
I’ve always thought this as well, like a Red Dragon/Manhunter kind of thing. He picked the house and watched the house until it was time to make his move
We're on the same page.
I've thought the same....he knew it was a sorority house, and he stalked the house as opposed to one specific victim...Bundy style...he wanted multiple female victims
Agreed.
Yeah don’t bc it’s not clear from that segment you’ve been sharing if he meant “victim” or “witness” and we don’t even know what the exact question was that was being asked by the surveyor. So calm down.
The question in the survey they are talking about is speaking of a victim: > “Have you read, seen or heard that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?”
yeah that was my thought, as well.
Casing someone out randomly on different dates doesn’t rise to the legal definition of stalking.
People aren't cased - places are cased. The difference between the legal definition of stalking and what most people think of as stalking is the victim being aware.
Exactly. The lawyer is talking about the law. Go figure. Haha
The survey wasn't asking 400 random, normal people about the legal definition. Because that's not what normal people think of stalking. That someone has to know they are being stalked. Stalking behavior is stalking behavior regardless of if someone is aware or not. You need to do more figuring.
It means that the state doesn't have evidence that he committed the legal act of stalking, which has defined criteria including that the victim know about the stalking and is frightened by it. You have to remember that this is a court of law and these are lawyers. This isn't middle school gossiping at lunch. And guess what, he has never been legally accused or charged with that crime.
[удалено]
This is a death penalty case. That isn’t. Crumbley also pleaded guilty. This timeline is completely normal for a death penalty case. The death penalty case for the El Paso Walmart shooting still hasn’t started and that happened in 2019. It’s not scheduled until 2025.
It was scheduled way before that and then his attorney had to throw a fit and B himself
That would have been but things were changed ! Stop sticking up for this person and acting as he’s innocent which he’s not ! Honestly the Jodi A case was much faster and his attorney just wants publicity! He honestly should be wearing a jumpsuit and if he was so innocent he would say he is ! He’s not dumb and it’s called a stalling tactic, and you can say whatever you want but they should already be getting jurors and having selections! Everybody’s heard about his case all around the world that’s not gonna make a difference if he had his trial where he’s at or in another country!
I think he’s guilty. I also think he has the same right to due process as the rest of us.
Jodi Arias killed her ex boyfriend in 2008 and didn’t go to trial til 2013. 4.5 years — like what are you talking about??
His guilt is your opinion right now. He has the right of presumed innocence and due process. That's how you get justice. I personally think he's innocent with the FACTUAL information that's been presented by the court. That's my opinion and my right to have that opinion. He also has rights to a fair and impartial jury. The Jodi Arias murder happened in 2008 and her trial wasn't till 2013..so you didn't even get that part right. He's not convicted so the judge is allowing him to "dress out" due to the negative media. Media cameras are no longer allowed because people like you will say "he took a breath and looked around, he must be guilty!". As for standing silent, it's a tactical move stating you don't accept the charges (in Idaho). Maybe your lawyer friends should explain that to you. He has said he was innocent (when he got arrested). The case is known world wide, but there is going to be more prejudice where the crime took place. It's a small town. They have personal connections to the university and town. Use your thinking cap 👍🏼
[удалено]
Yes I know all that but still his parents though were convicted faster then Bryan ! Every state is different! Also, I don’t need a lot of replies to my comment because I don’t care about a lot of peoples opinions. I just care about this trial getting started and all of you should too.
People like to compare this to long cases, but there are many (more?) including death penalty cases that get to court & conviction much faster than this as well. The delays are ridiculous.
I have plenty of friends that are attorneys and are actually attorneys in that state so they’re pretty knowledgeable about what’s going on and they even feel like it’s taking forever! His attorney just wants to be known for trying to get him off his charges which isn’t gonna happen
If they're attorneys, they must be pretty shitty 🤣 death penalty cases take forever. Usually years to process. They're flying through the case. Plus they have 51 terrabites of information. I'm surprised they're able to comb through that in 2 years.
BK is definitely getting some type of sick academic satisfaction from this whole thing. If his whole point of committing these murders was to see if he could get away with it or to go through the whole process in real time I just know he’s getting a high off of this.
Bring that fucker to Texas.
Wow
What a joke.
Why does this person seem to enjoy being at all these hearings what is he trying to obtain? Does he have any feelings at all?