I seriously doubt Bryan Kohberger has a strong alibi. No one would withhold that information and spend this much time in custody.
I am curious if his attorney offers anything before the judges deadline.
You offered a simple video from an ATM and I replied. I didn’t know you were going to add a bunch of if and and buts to your scenario.
Your tunnel vision would need at least two, possibly four, law enforcement agencies to willfully ignore evidence. You have the Idaho PD, the PD from wherever they got the garbage from and possibly two state labs intentionally messing up the DNA. Not to mention the defense has the same lab reports and can do their own if they want to.
I don’t really trust police, but I really don’t think there is some giant conspiracy to convict an poor innocent college student. Especially a white one.
It’s such a weak defense that it would be difficult to use. A cell phone is not attached to a person so they would have to establish it was in the same vicinity as the owner and they were somewhere else at the time.
As I said in my post regarding the expert witnesses, I think the most it could be used for is to undermine cellphone evidence used by the prosecution to establish a pattern of the defendant frequenting the area of the house. But that’s not establishing an alibi–I’m still confused as to why the defense brought up expert witnesses in the context of an alibi.
WAG: They have paid experts that will testify that cellphone location data is highly unreliable. And different paid experts that will establish that some recorded pattern of his car driving as seen on traffic cams or something-or-other definitively puts him elsewhere on the night in question. Heck they might even hire a floozy to say they were together in some other city.
You’re saying that his lawyers are prepared to suborn perjury?
Not really. That was a stretch for humor.
At least in the USA “expert” witnesses can be hired to say all sorts of rather cockamamie things, calling into question basic well-settled science and so forth. Where exactly that shades from “expert opinion” to “perjury for sale” can be hard to determine and in many actual cases hard to believe how far out the judges permitted the line to be drawn.
A floozy being an “expert” in where somebody unrelated was at night was simply the limit case of “expert testimony for hire.”
I don’t know if an Amazon original movie counts as a cite, but that’s exactly what happened in the one I saw about the Phil Spector trial. “Don’t say there’s a 97 percent chance against it happening! That means there’s a 3 percent chance it did happen!”
“He was trying to stab me in a different city that night”.
So assault with a dead weapon?
Good luck finding a, um, “floozy” willing to cover for a man who murdered three women. I mean, there’s probably a homeless addict who would do it for cash and a hotel room, but I think the jury would see through that.
ETA: Seriously though, in addition to the sexism, the 1930s called and they want their slang back. Make sure to warn them about Hitler. He’s a bad egg!
Floozy?
“Will the witness please state their name”
“Trixie Delite”
“What is your occupation?”
“Floozy”
Obviously both of us are not experts, so it seems to be silly to argue something we both don’t know much about.
However, you are mistaken about the assumptions you are making about the videos I have watched where it’s routine for normal cases.
There are plenty of sites on the web from attorneys showing why it may be advantageous, including this:
But I have to admit that theory that the poor lawyer uses this to as a last resort to deal with a recalcitrant client is much more entertaining.
[Norm Macdonald] His Airtight Alibi? He was Murdering People in the OTHER ROOM! [/Norm Macdonald}
Judge also established October 2 as the start date for the trial, denying a defense request to stay the proceedings to investigate potential procedural issues with the grand jury.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/18/us/idaho-killings-kohberger-court/index.html
Why is this entity getting so much time for a defense? Here’s the evidence. Refute it. It’s not like it isn’t going to be reviewed until the accused is 90.
One thing that’s been forgotten…
That house left many wonderful memories for the college alumni for several decades. Perhaps over a hundred former students and graduates lived in that house for several semesters.
I hope they can eventually separate their college memories from the tragedy that occurred. 
I appreciate that for now it’s impossible. Perhaps after the trial the healing can began.
I always considered college as the most important time of of my life. It’s when I found my identity that’s separate from my parents. I stay in contact with 7 people from college. I’ve visted 4 of them at their homes across the country.
Kohberger can’t permanently steal that from alumni. I’d imagine the tragedy will be a big topic of discussion at reunions for years to come.
Did you read the article?
When he waived speedy trial, it became in the court’s interest to delay just for the court’s scheduling convenience. They set the trial for summer '24 so it won’t interfere with the educations of the witnesses, plus other logistical reasons.
The defense wanted even more time to dig into ways to attack the grand jury process on procedural grounds, but that request was denied.