If done clumsily, maybe, but logically if there’s moderately strong evidence for ten alternative suspects, that’s got to be better for the defense than moderately strong evidence for one alternative suspect.
I’m arguing just the opposite. Moderately strong evidence for ten suspects means that most of that evidence is wrong. Which raises the possibility that all of it is wrong.
I disagree. For the sake of argument let’s say the prosecution is arguing that A is the killer because
a) He has a gun with similar characteristics to the murder weapon
b) He was seen nearby on the day of the murder
c) He is known to have hated the victim
If the defense proposes B is a plausible alternative because
a) He has a gun with similar characteristics to the murder weapon
b) He was seen nearby on the day of the murder,
that’s good for the defense.
If the defense can point to B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K all of whom have similar guns and were nearby, that’s got to be awesome for the defense. Yes, it means that the evidence against B is weak - but the defense isn’t trying to prove that B is guilty, it’s arguing that A has not been proven to be guilty - and if there were 10 people wandering around near the murder scene with similar guns, a jury would have plenty of doubt that A is the killer
For saying Bob Jones did it- you need some evidence. For saying- other people could have done it and the police didnt look into them- all you need is the police reports, which the DA provides to you.
The answer should be-better be- in the police reports handed over to the defense.
It does fit the pattern of human nature, which may be one good reason to have a jury of 12 people rather than just a few, because people can be persuaded by stories, no matter how absurd. Look at all the scams out there. Lots of scams have very badly constructed stories, but people fall for them all the time.
At any rate, we will find out in May if the defense is allowed to argue that theory or not.
I side with @Andy_L on this one. Mostly.
If the evidence for the other possible perps is about as strong as that against the defendant, the defendant becomes just one of 11 possible equally valid suspects in the juries’ mind. “Why are we trying this guy, not all 11 of them?” will be uppermost in the jurors’ minds. In one easy rationalization: “I’ve got a 1-in-11 shot at convicting the right guy if I convict this guy.” Most jurors won’t take that gamble.
Taking @markn_1’s side …
Maybe, just maybe, if the evidence against the defendant is quite strong, and the evidence about other perp(s) is comparatively weak, it would be a better defense tactic to introduce only the strongest evidence pointing to a single other perp. Maybe.
Story time:
Five - ten years ago I served on a jury for a fairly minor non-violent felony case. Essentially there was one perp, and one mostly unwitting accomplice. We were trying the accomplice. The perp was absent, with no explanation as to why. Prosecution and defense both agreed the perp was the perp, the accomplice was the accomplice, and both agreed about the specifics of the harm to the victim, etc., etc.
But we’re here to address the guilt of the accomplice, and only the accomplice. As to the particularities of the law about accomplices for this particular offense.
The rationales of the various jurors, including me, was interesting. But the omnipresence of the absence of the actual agreed perp was the largest single issue in everyone’s mind.
The law on accomplices for this offense was pretty clear. And also a gross affront to everything America used to stand for.
In the end we acquitted in what might have amounted to a jury nullification. The evidence that this guy was clueless and did no bad acts himself was overwhelming. It totally smelled like the prosecution was trying to jail whoever they could catch, not the person they knew did it.
Bottom line
The relevance of that story to the instant case is that the ghostly presence of other possible perps will loom large in the juror’s minds if it’s well-planted by the defense’s actions and the prosecution’s omissions and inactions.
Yes, I agree with that (that’s more or less what I meant by a “clumsy” use of alternative suspects). The defense should focus on the strongest of the alternative suspects to avoid boring or annoying the jury. Using a particularly weak alternative suspect (he hated the victim, we don’t know if he was nearby or if he had a gun) could look like defense desparation - and that’s not good.
In that case, if you name them, the defense needs to submit evidence to the DA that they commit the murders. Nothing conclusive, mind you- but at least probable cause.
But if you just show the police fixated on one suspect, and didnt go after other, and show there are possible maybe others- that give reasonable doubt.
Really interesting story, but this just doesn’t look like it’s going to be what would likely happen in the case.
The case against Kohberger seems strong to the various attorneys commenting on YouTube and there just aren’t any other suspects named yet. As one YouTube attorney put it, the blood on the handrail just isn’t in the same class as the DNA evidence on the sheath of the murder weapon.
The combination of evidence against Kohberger with the DNA, the car in the neighborhood and cell phone records is going to be much stronger than some vague “well maybe we didn’t track down anyone who could possibly be remotely related.”
I found this article that covers both sides of the case.
Kohberger’s car and apartment were searched and couldn’t be linked to the crime scene.
He could have cleaned up and changed clothes at another location. But he had to get in that car first.
Link https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article299620254.html#storylink=cpy
Great cite-
“There’s no blood in his car,” she added. “He wasn’t connected to that house, to the people in the house.” During their court-approved search, police pulled apart components, including the brake, gear shift and key fob remote, of Kohberger’s car, Taylor said. Nothing tying Kohberger to the victims was found on his steering wheel either, she said.
But-“There may be, as you say, other people that creates concern or issues about that need to be investigated further,” Hippler said. “But I’m not sure that that diminishes the probable cause for Mr. Kohberger if his DNA is found on a knife sheath found on or near the victim — who was stabbed with said alleged knife, that would have been in said alleged sheath.”
Unless the DNA evidence is tainted or a biased tech or he was framed or something- that is gonna be hard to refute.
I think that the comments from the judge
This is the important point, that even if somehow some other person was also involved, it doesn’t take away the DNA on the knife sheath, the car in the neighborhood and the cell phone locations.
Pointing fingers at some unknown person isn’t going to erase away Kohberger’s involvement.
Unlike @LSLGuy’s case, Kohberger’s involvement wouldn’t be a minor part. It’s his sheath in the bed of the victim. That’s got to be hard to wave away.
I could have missed it. Is the defense challenging the sheath DNA itself? However they try to pin the murders on somebody else, there really only one reason his DNA would be present at the scene… on a knife sheath.
He was framed!
But seriously, I am sure the defense will trot out their own expert who will explain how it is that the accused’s DNA could have ended up on that sheath without him being the perpetrator, and some of the alternatives may even seem plausible, if only they could also explain away all the other evidence that would tend to incriminate the accused. While the DNA on the sheath is damning, it is most damning in the context of all the supporting evidence (the videos of coming/going from campus, the cell phone evidence, etc). If the only evidence were the *DNA on the sheath, and literally nothing else, reasonable doubt becomes much easier to create. But that is simply not the case here.
*Not unlike how some rando’s blood being on the stairs in a house that is rented to freaking college kids, by itself, is hardly damning. Lots of ways some rando’s blood could end up on the stairs when the house is rented to freaking college kids. All kinds of people bleed all over the place for perfectly innocent (or at least non-homicidal) reasons all the time.
Now, show me that the same rando whose blood was on the stairs (or a railing?—whatever) also was out and about during the time of the murders, and show me comparable cell phone evidence (eg: cell phone pinging along the way before/after the murders, but conveniently not pinging anymore around the time of the murders) and maybe I start giving more weight to the “actually, some rando [other than the accused] did it” theory.
A brick is not a wall and the DNA by itself is hardly conclusive, but there sure are a lot of bricks stacking up against the accused here.
They tried to exclude the DNA evidence on various grounds but the judge denied all their motions. One challenge was that the police didn’t obtain a search warrant to test the sheath but the judge ruled suspects don’t have an expectation of privacy for things left at a crime scene.
As posted earlier, they added an attorney with experience in DNA evidence to the team so they are obviously looking at it carefully.
As @ASL_v2.0 notes, it’s part of the overall picture and being able show that Kohberger owned a similar knife and sheath is going to make it harder to discredit it.
Many many people had their cell phones and cars in that area. The sheath is the one damning solid piece of evidence so far.
Did you read the rest of the thread? The relative significance of the other points was addressed by both @ASL_v2.0 and I.
Did you read my posts? I posted here 36 times. But we will see what the Judge says.
“Mr. Kohberger’s autism spectrum disorder (ASD) reduces his culpability, negates the retributive and deterrent purposes of capital punishment, and exposes him to the unacceptable risk that he will be wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death,” defense attorneys wrote in court papers. They argued that executing someone with autism would constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Prosecutors argued that under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the only mental disability that precludes imposition of the death penalty is an intellectual disability — and Kohberger’s diagnosis was of mild autism “without accompanying intellectual … impairment.”
The judge agreed. “Not only has Defendant failed to show that ASD is equivalent to an intellectual disability for death penalty exemption purposes, he has not shown there is national consensus against subjecting individuals with ASD to capital punishment,” Hippler wrote.
Impressive! You have just coined the ultimate litotes. Or something like that.