(CNN) Bryan Kohberger’s defense team has had a difficult week.
The alternate perpetrator argument, which holds that someone else killed the four University of Idaho students in their Moscow, Idaho, house in November 2022, has long been put up by defense attorneys for Kohberger, the 30-year-old man accused of killing them.
However, the defense was handed a crushing setback on Thursday when Judge Steven Hippler denied their plea to name specific alternate offenders in front of the jury. According to Idaho law, a judge must adopt the other perpetrator theory before the trial can start.
According to the judge’s order, the defense presented four people as alternate perpetrators; some of these were redacted. The public cannot view the defense’s motion because it is sealed. The judge decided that the defendant’s supply of proof did not satisfy state law criteria and could only lead to irrational speculation that any one of these four people might have committed the murders.
According to Hippler’s decision, there is no evidence that these people were involved in the killings or that they were the perpetrators of the crime. In fact, the jury’s decision would require nothing less than blatant conjecture.
Additionally, the judge denied Kohberger’s defense team’s request to postpone the trial’s August 11 start date, stating that the defense had not provided sufficient justification. Due to disagreements over witnesses and evidence, the trial has already seen multiple delays. Additionally, the location was moved from Latah County to Boise, the state capital.
In court last week, lead defense lawyer Anne Taylor contended that the defense team is still not prepared for trial because of the obstacles and hardships that have been faced over the past two and a half years.
Hippler’s earlier ruling that Kohberger could not provide an alibi defense since no one could attest to his whereabouts at the time of the murders dealt a blow to Kohberger’s case.
According to his defense team, the students were stabbed as he was driving alone in the early hours of November 13, as he frequently did to run, walk, and/or watch the moon and stars.
If found guilty of the quadruple murders, Kohberger, on whose behalf a not guilty plea was filed, might be executed.
Here are some further facts on the alternate perpetrator theory and the future directions Kohberger’s defense team can pursue as their client’s defense options continue to dwindle.
Defense hoped to pin killings on one of 4 possible alternate perpetrators
According to the judge’s decision, the defense put out four potential suspects for the killings, all of whom had some sort of relationship or contact with the victims in the days prior to their fatal stabbing.
According to Hippler, three of the defense’s alternate suspects lived within walking distance of the crime scene, had social ties to one or more of the victims, had interacted with one or more of the victims at social gatherings in the hours before the murder, and knew the layout of the victims’ home from previous social gatherings.
However, the judge stated that there is no strong evidence that any of the potential offenders had the means or motivation to kill the victims, much less injure them physically, and that the chance to perpetrate the crime was shared by dozens of other members of the victims’ social circles.
According to the verdict, a fourth potential alternate offender did not know the victims but had observed one of them five weeks prior to the killings while shopping at a supermarket. Surveillance cameras caught the moment.
“He thought about going up to her to talk, but he followed her out of the store for a little while,” Hippler said. Before he even spoke to her, he turned away.
According to the judge’s decision, all of the potential substitute offenders had complied with law enforcement by supplying fingerprints and DNA samples. According to Hippler, lab tests have not included their DNA in samples taken from the crime site.
Alternate suspect theory has been front and center for defense
As the trial draws near, the defense has emphasized a number of tracks, including the other perpetrator. At a crucial pre-trial hearing in April, the defense team declared that they were looking into and considering seriously a tip about an additional suspect.
During the last pre-trial hearing in May, Hippler stated that he had received the defendant’s offer or proffer on a different offender.
The court at the time stated that he would seal the documents but requested more details, requesting concrete proof of a different offender rather than only accusations. Additionally, he asked the defense to demonstrate their belief that their offering was admissible.
The defense is now allowed to cross-examine law enforcement over their investigation and exclusion of other leads, but they are not allowed to inquire about specific individuals as possible alternate perpetrators, according to the court’s final order.
Judge also denied Kohberger s alibi
Judge Hippler’s earlier decision that Kohberger could not establish an official alibi defense dealt the defense even another setback.
Prosecutors told the court in August 2023 that Kohberger’s alibi was limited to the fact that he was driving around the night of the murders and that he had not complied with Idaho’s alibi statute, which expressly calls for him to give the names and addresses of witnesses who could be called to vouch for the alibi. They claimed that it was too late to do so now.
The defense has persisted in advocating for the use of an alibi defense since 2023, claiming that cross-examination or expert testimony on Kohlberger’s cell phone tower data may provide the alibi. However, the court has repeatedly instructed the defense that they must adhere to the statue’s precise criteria.
The alibi defense was contested once more in April during a motion hearing. Prosecutors reaffirmed their claim that the defense may only claim Kohberger was driving that evening and that the murders occurred at the same moment his phone was switched off.
They emphasized that the defendant is the only one who can attest to Kohberger’s alibi. Kohberger’s principal lawyer, Taylor, stressed that her client is entitled to silence.
“If not Kohberger, who is going to say he was driving around looking at the stars?” Hippler then questioned Taylor.
The judge decided that although the defense expert could demonstrate that Kohberger was at a specific location until 2:50 a.m. on November 13, 2022, no alibi witness would be permitted to testify, and the jury would not receive an alibi instruction.
Additionally, he decided that the defense should alert the court right away if it discovers evidence in favor of an alibi. Since that court ruling in April, the defense has not submitted any motions pertaining to the alibi.
Defense can turn to reasonable doubt
The defense will probably concentrate on creating a reasonable doubt that Kohberger committed the murders as they are unable to provide an official alibi or name specific potential killers.
The defense will probably try to demonstrate that Kohberger had nothing to do with the victims or the crime scene throughout the cross-examination of each witness. When prosecution specialists testify, they will also attempt to cast doubt on surveillance footage purportedly showing Kohberger’s automobile traveling to Moscow in the months prior to the murders and in the early hours of the morning when the students were discovered dead.
The defense will probably attempt to undermine security footage from nearby businesses as well as any mobile phone tower data that could be used to pinpoint Kohberger’s phone’s location the night of the murders.
One of the defense’s experts will contend that Kohberger was not in the vicinity when the murders occurred, based on his phone records.
The defense may also be able to use unidentified DNA from blood discovered on a railing within the house to cast further doubt on Kohberger’s guilt and imply that investigators did not carry out their duties to the fullest extent possible.
The two surviving roommates of the victim will probably be subjected to hostile cross-examination, particularly Dylan Mortensen. Mortensen reported to the police that on the night of the murders, she observed a man in their home dressed all black, masked, and sporting bushy eyebrows. Intoxication and post-event media exposure had clouded Mortensen’s memory of the night, making him an untrustworthy witness, according to Kohberger’s defense.
Both parties decided not to concentrate on investigative genetic genealogy, which is the method used to identify Kohberger as a possible suspect.
However, defense attorneys have suggested in court documents that the actual murderer may have planted the knife sheath discovered in the Moscow residence. Adjacent to Maddie Mogan’s torso, a single male DNA source on the sheath was identified as a statistical match for Kohberger.
Additionally, Kohberger could testify in his own defense and address the numerous unresolved issues surrounding the case, even if he has the right to remain silent.
