Friday The 26th Is A Big Day. Will Judge Judge Do The Right Thing? Will He Unseal This Additional, Unique Argumentation Submitted By The Defense Not Covered By I.C.A.R. 32? Weâll See.
41 thoughts on “Bryan Kohberger: Against All Odds”
Hey Peeps & Peepertons,
I was just joking about the steam roller running over my face. If that happened, I wouldn't be here. I'd be six feet under. The point remains, my face doesn't matter. I could be a handsome devil, but it doesn't matter related to the message. The message is paramount and the face detracts from that.
Hey clue, did you see that News Nation segment about Scott Peterson with Ashley Bonerface on it? AB was strongly arguing with other panel members about SP's innocence. I was in frozen shock phase watching AB viciously argue the guys who robbed the neighbors house across the street are likely responsible. AB brings up a story about a cop wrongly accused of killing his girlfriend and they later find the ex boyfriend did it, in support of her argument that SP is wrongfully convicted. I just thought you would enjoy watching AB acting like a non evil bit*hđ˘đ˘ Btw, i wish you would get interested in covering the LA innocence project appeal of the railroad job if SP. It's wild. The motion the innocence project filed was outrageous.đđ
There was another issue in the original motion that stated "failure to disclose exculpatory evidence." Which I think was what the prosecutorial misconuct was about. I would think that failure to disclose exculpatory evidence would not fall under ICAR 32. Could this be the issue that she wants to be unsealed and reconsidered or go to interlocutory appeal? It was not mentioned in the judges ruling when he denied the motion originally. He only mentioned prosecutorial misconduct in his denial but made no mention of the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, but that was put into the wording of the original motion, which I kept a screenshot of.
đđŻThats the best part of this for me…I dont need to look at someones face all the timeđ¤ŁI love Radio Shows, where I have to imagine what the characters look like by their voices and the parts they play. . . Listening now…Looking forward to Friday..Take care Kane…
Looked up factually innocent – In factual innocence cases, that is because a factfinder erred in determining what the defendant did; in legal innocence cases, it is because there was an error as to what the criminal law did, or could, prohibit.(UMich) OR Being factually innocent of a crime simply means that you did not commit the crime. The term is used in several contexts. Generally, it means that there are facts that show that you did not commit, or could not have committed, the crime you were accused of committing. (Shouse Law Group)
We kno ..it's a Dirty Job …but Somebody has 2 do it ! Be our Hero ! eff the Trolls ! We R Listening 2 ur Voice of Reason …Helping Us. in this God forsaken Complicated Case ! Happy ur Back â¤
Listened to this on my way home from work. Great vid! Thank you! đ PS: I have a shirt that says :â Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantinoâ đ
Factually innocent means REALLY innocent !!! Not guilty is just not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Sheâs saying she thinks A.T. KNOWS he is truly innocent.
A pipe dream… I have lots of those. Thank you for this insightful lecture/disquisition/ clarification prof Clue/Streak/Kane and Clopenny! I think MercyWright means with factually innocent on paper he's guilty, but knows the evidence is not according to protocol obtained and is made to fit the defendant? I can't prove this to ne a fact of course. Or is Mercy in fact a guilter? I truly hope Anne Taylor is convinced of his innocence. What Mercy Wright says here about AT possibly not believing his factual innocence is her own projection imo.
Quentin Tarantino should do a re- make of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, casting Kohberger in Brad Pitts role, Amanda K. in Margot Robbies role, and Scott "the forehead" Green in the role of Chuck Manson, up on the hill. It might help the Kohbergers financially. Moscow is about as fkd up as the Manson situation was anyway. Damn, isn't there even one " good guy " in all of Moscow ? Step up, and you can have Decaprios role ! đ
Ann's original Motion to Dismiss listed Prosecutorial Misconduct "Due to Failure to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence." When the judge ruled on her motion, that part of the phrase was left out of his answer. He only refused and said that there was no Prosecutorial Misconduct, not one mention of "Failure to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence."" It is also not mentioned in Ann's list on the motion that you showed or the judge's hearing that is closed to the public. It is like that phrase just disappeared. Could that be the part of the motion that Ann feels does not fall under ICAR 32 and that she wants the public to see? Could that be the part of the motion that she is asking for reconsidering on and the interlocutory hearing?
Correct. Judge Judge would've been legislating from the bench if he tossed the Grand jury indictment based on reasonable doubt vs probable cause. He called it a historically interesting argument but must be dealt with legislation. We all say we don't want judges creating legislation from the bench. We'll here ya go judge J did the right thing in regards to that.
I'm so glad you can make sense of the legal mumbojumbo that sounds like a foreign language to us laymen. The simplest summation for me is that, for a prosecutor who supposedly feels he has such a sound case against the defendant, he sure has made it difficult to secure proper discovery. He has danced around the standard of judicial responsibility at every juncture, it seems; even stepping out of bounds by taking this case to the grand jury. Thanks for all you do. It's painstakingly difficult to make sense of the way in which these professionals are conducting themselves. Meanwhile, a man who has the presumption of innocence is rotting behind bars, unfairly, it seems. These arguements are necessary, I'm sure, but they seem to be taking a long time to the detriment of the defendant.
Great video btw. I love long form videos that dig into the weeds. 11 min videos are nothing more than pre chewed tiktoc fuel. Gotta eat your veggies sometimes
Factual innocence is when there is proof that you could not or did not commit the crime. Legal innocence is that a court did not find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Factually innocent means that YOU DID NOT DO IT. You may still not be able to prove it and could be found guilty. For instance, if someone saw BK somewhere else at the time of the crime, but they can't get their testimony, and other evidence points to their guilt enough to get a guilty verdict, you are factually innocent, but still found guilty by a jury.
Factually innocent means, there are facts that prove or show that u did NOT commit the crime ur being accused of. Ive said all along that i think AT believes hes innocent. U can tell by how they interact with eachother.
Are you like Hugh Laurie or do you look and sing like him⌠âUnchain My Heartâ Your video was way above my head but I watch it and most of all listened to your voice. Letâs hope dreams do come true. đ
I actually pray that moscow isnât harassing or threatening Ann Taylor in a round about way along with the pressure they seem to be putting on her or her staff as she seems to be inferring in prosecutions email to her.
What is the difference between legally innocent and factually innocent?
In factual innocence cases, that is because a factfinder erred in determining what the defendant did; in legal innocence cases, it is because there was an error as to what the criminal law did, or could, prohibit.
You say look it up for yourself. Well if you look up factually innocent means you did not commit the crime the facts show that you did not commit the crime you were accused of. Google
MR BILLY BOY THOMPSON IS A SNAKE. HE LIKES TO BE A STEP AHEAD NO TO PREPARE, TO INTERVENE AND CHEAT. RULES DON'T APPLY TO HIM. HE LIKES TO CONTROL THE COURTS RULING. HE IS A SNAKE.
how did Clue read âfactually" the other way around???? there is only one way for that sentence to make sense.đ
âAT believes BK factually innocent but also know heâll probably be convictedâ, if factually means âwith enough supported evidenceâinstead of âtruly, factâ, he will NOT be convicted
Iâm back here again to educate myself paying close attention to your explanations on Mercy Wrightâs comments. This is very interesting and educational. I kept rewinding making sure I understand this new information ID Trial Ct, Supreme Ct, then Appellate Ct. Iâve learned so much from this video. Thank you!
âYou know what my father said about innocent clients? … He said the scariest client a lawyer will ever have is an innocent client. Because if you fuck up and he goes to prison, it'll scar you for life … He said there is no in-between with an innocent client. No negotiation, no plea bargain, no middle ground. There's only one verdict. You have to put an NG up on the scoreboard. There's no other verdict but not guilty." – Michael Connelly, The Lincoln Lawyer
Hey Peeps & Peepertons,
I was just joking about the steam roller running over my face. If that happened, I wouldn't be here. I'd be six feet under. The point remains, my face doesn't matter. I could be a handsome devil, but it doesn't matter related to the message. The message is paramount and the face detracts from that.
Love,
Clue/Streak/Kane
Love the dream! Hope it's prophetic.â¤
Hey clue, did you see that News Nation segment about Scott Peterson with Ashley Bonerface on it? AB was strongly arguing with other panel members about SP's innocence. I was in frozen shock phase watching AB viciously argue the guys who robbed the neighbors house across the street are likely responsible. AB brings up a story about a cop wrongly accused of killing his girlfriend and they later find the ex boyfriend did it, in support of her argument that SP is wrongfully convicted.
I just thought you would enjoy watching AB acting like a non evil bit*hđ˘đ˘
Btw, i wish you would get interested in covering the LA innocence project appeal of the railroad job if SP. It's wild. The motion the innocence project filed was outrageous.đđ
There was another issue in the original motion that stated "failure to disclose exculpatory evidence." Which I think was what the prosecutorial misconuct was about. I would think that failure to disclose exculpatory evidence would not fall under ICAR 32. Could this be the issue that she wants to be unsealed and reconsidered or go to interlocutory appeal? It was not mentioned in the judges ruling when he denied the motion originally. He only mentioned prosecutorial misconduct in his denial but made no mention of the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, but that was put into the wording of the original motion, which I kept a screenshot of.
đđŻThats the best part of this for me…I dont need to look at someones face all the timeđ¤ŁI love Radio Shows, where I have to imagine what the characters look like by their voices and the parts they play. . . Listening now…Looking forward to Friday..Take care Kane…
I bet u are fine! And your wife gorgeous too! Thatâs my opinion. U gotta look better than the toothless meth addicts sorry
Looked up factually innocent – In factual innocence cases, that is because a factfinder erred in determining what the defendant did; in legal innocence cases, it is because there was an error as to what the criminal law did, or could, prohibit.(UMich)
OR
Being factually innocent of a crime simply means that you did not commit the crime. The term is used in several contexts. Generally, it means that there are facts that show that you did not commit, or could not have committed, the crime you were accused of committing. (Shouse Law Group)
We kno ..it's a Dirty Job …but Somebody has 2 do it ! Be our Hero ! eff the Trolls ! We R Listening 2 ur Voice of Reason …Helping Us. in this God forsaken Complicated Case ! Happy ur Back â¤
I got a face for Radio…
Listened to this on my way home from work. Great vid! Thank you! đ PS: I have a shirt that says :â Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantinoâ đ
Thank you for all of this. Thanks.
Factually innocent means REALLY innocent !!! Not guilty is just not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Sheâs saying she thinks A.T. KNOWS he is truly innocent.
These motions, orders and objections have more layers than a good Baklava!
Well done tackling the dense legal proceedings.
đ…great T.N.
A pipe dream… I have lots of those.
Thank you for this insightful lecture/disquisition/ clarification prof Clue/Streak/Kane and Clopenny!
I think MercyWright means with factually innocent on paper he's guilty, but knows the evidence is not according to protocol obtained and is made to fit the defendant? I can't prove this to ne a fact of course. Or is Mercy in fact a guilter? I truly hope Anne Taylor is convinced of his innocence. What Mercy Wright says here about AT possibly not believing his factual innocence is her own projection imo.
Looking forward to Friday!
Again, thank you! đâ¨đ
Quentin Tarantino should do a re- make of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, casting Kohberger in Brad Pitts role, Amanda K.
in Margot Robbies role, and Scott "the forehead" Green in the role of Chuck Manson, up on the hill. It might help the Kohbergers financially. Moscow is about as fkd up as the Manson situation was anyway. Damn, isn't there even one " good guy " in all of Moscow ? Step up, and you can have Decaprios role ! đ
Ann's original Motion to Dismiss listed Prosecutorial Misconduct "Due to Failure to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence." When the judge ruled on her motion, that part of the phrase was left out of his answer. He only refused and said that there was no Prosecutorial Misconduct, not one mention of "Failure to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence."" It is also not mentioned in Ann's list on the motion that you showed or the judge's hearing that is closed to the public. It is like that phrase just disappeared. Could that be the part of the motion that Ann feels does not fall under ICAR 32 and that she wants the public to see? Could that be the part of the motion that she is asking for reconsidering on and the interlocutory hearing?
Correct. Judge Judge would've been legislating from the bench if he tossed the Grand jury indictment based on reasonable doubt vs probable cause. He called it a historically interesting argument but must be dealt with legislation. We all say we don't want judges creating legislation from the bench. We'll here ya go judge J did the right thing in regards to that.
I'm so glad you can make sense of the legal mumbojumbo that sounds like a foreign language to us laymen. The simplest summation for me is that, for a prosecutor who supposedly feels he has such a sound case against the defendant, he sure has made it difficult to secure proper discovery. He has danced around the standard of judicial responsibility at every juncture, it seems; even stepping out of bounds by taking this case to the grand jury. Thanks for all you do. It's painstakingly difficult to make sense of the way in which these professionals are conducting themselves. Meanwhile, a man who has the presumption of innocence is rotting behind bars, unfairly, it seems. These arguements are necessary, I'm sure, but they seem to be taking a long time to the detriment of the defendant.
Great video btw. I love long form videos that dig into the weeds. 11 min videos are nothing more than pre chewed tiktoc fuel. Gotta eat your veggies sometimes
Raising your voice definitely makes me sit straight and listen with more attention haha you're great Get A Clue!
But I want to see you! đ
Factual innocence is when there is proof that you could not or did not commit the crime. Legal innocence is that a court did not find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Factually innocent means that YOU DID NOT DO IT. You may still not be able to prove it and could be found guilty. For instance, if someone saw BK somewhere else at the time of the crime, but they can't get their testimony, and other evidence points to their guilt enough to get a guilty verdict, you are factually innocent, but still found guilty by a jury.
Factually innocent means, there are facts that prove or show that u did NOT commit the crime ur being accused of.
Ive said all along that i think AT believes hes innocent. U can tell by how they interact with eachother.
Are you like Hugh Laurie or do you look and sing like him⌠âUnchain My Heartâ
Your video was way above my head but I watch it and most of all listened to your voice.
Letâs hope dreams do come true. đ
It's definitely better that people not see your face, it adds to the mystique, kind of like Daft Punk.
Moscow prosecutor makes me think of, If you walk a crooked line, you become a crooked man.
I actually pray that moscow isnât harassing or threatening Ann Taylor in a round about way along with the pressure they seem to be putting on her or her staff as she seems to be inferring in prosecutions email to her.
I picture you in my mind as looking like âGarfield The Catâsâowner⌠Jon ArbuckleâŚyou have a âpureâ voice
Awesome video! You are the king of Idaho4 analysis + research! 𤴠you go!!!đ
Sometimes criminal âdefenseâ means nothing more than ensuring that the defendant receives his due process. Thatâs *all*.
What is the difference between legally innocent and factually innocent?
In factual innocence cases, that is because a factfinder erred in determining what the defendant did; in legal innocence cases, it is because there was an error as to what the criminal law did, or could, prohibit.
18:48 âHeâs a real son of a bitchâ Hahahaha ⌠glad youâre back!
You say look it up for yourself. Well if you look up factually innocent means you did not commit the crime the facts show that you did not commit the crime you were accused of. Google
Free Brian
MR BILLY BOY THOMPSON IS A SNAKE. HE LIKES TO BE A STEP AHEAD NO TO PREPARE, TO INTERVENE AND CHEAT. RULES DON'T APPLY TO HIM. HE LIKES TO CONTROL THE COURTS RULING. HE IS A SNAKE.
how did Clue read âfactually" the other way around???? there is only one way for that sentence to make sense.đ
âAT believes BK factually innocent but also know heâll probably be convictedâ, if factually means âwith enough supported evidenceâinstead of âtruly, factâ, he will NOT be convicted
Iâm back here again to educate myself paying close attention to your explanations on Mercy Wrightâs comments. This is very interesting and educational. I kept rewinding making sure I understand this new information ID Trial Ct, Supreme Ct, then
Appellate Ct. Iâve learned so much from this video. Thank you!
What a fantastic podcast đone of your best, love and respect for Mercywright đ
âYou know what my father said about innocent clients? … He said the scariest client a lawyer will ever have is an innocent client. Because if you fuck up and he goes to prison, it'll scar you for life … He said there is no in-between with an innocent client. No negotiation, no plea bargain, no middle ground. There's only one verdict. You have to put an NG up on the scoreboard. There's no other verdict but not guilty." – Michael Connelly, The Lincoln Lawyer
(KIIDS) Kohberger Is Innocent Derangement Syndrome