Murders of 4 Idaho College Students - suspect arrested

Professor Rebecca Scofield wins partial summary judgment against TikTok "psychic" Ashley Guillard. (No great surprise.)

From The Volokh Conspiracy:

Plaintiff's Idaho Murder Libel Claim Beats Defendant's "Tarot Readings" and "Psychic Intuition"
"[T]he only support for Defendant's statements about Plaintiff is that Defendant's 'spiritual investigation' into the murders using 'intuitive tarot readings' led her to Plaintiff."
EUGENE VOLOKH | 6.6.2024 6:58 PM

From today's decision by Judge Raymond Patricco in Scofield v. Guillard (D. Idaho):

This case arises out of the tragic murder of four University of Idaho students in November 2022. Plaintiff Rebecca Scofield is a professor at the University of Idaho. She alleges that, despite never meeting any of these students or being involved with their murders in any way, Defendant Ashley Guillard posted over 100 sensational TikTok (and later YouTube) videos falsely claiming that Plaintiff (i) had an extramarital, same-sex, romantic affair with one of the victims; and then (ii) ordered the four murders to prevent the affair from coming to light. Plaintiff sent cease-and-desist letters to Defendant in the following days and weeks. When Defendant did not stop, Plaintiff initiated this action. Plaintiff asserts two defamation claims against Defendant: one is premised upon the false statements regarding Plaintiff's involvement with the murders themselves, the other is premised upon the false statements regarding Plaintiff's romantic relationship with one of the murdered students….​

The court concluded that Guillard's allegations against Scofield (discussed in more detail in the full opinion) were defamatory as a matter of law, and that Scofield was entitled to summary judgment as to their being false—to the point that there was no need to leave the true-or-false question to the jury:

To begin, Plaintiff states in no uncertain terms that (i) Defendant's statements are false; (ii) she was never in a romantic relationship with [K.G.]; (iii) she was not involved in the murders of the four University of Idaho students; (iv) she never met any of the murdered students; (v) she never taught any of the murdered students; (vi) she did not personally know any of the murdered students; and (vii) she was in Portland, Oregon at the time of the murders. Moreover, in response to Plaintiff's subpoena, the University of Idaho confirmed that it has no records of the murdered students ever being enrolled in a class taught by Plaintiff, any investigation into Plaintiff having an inappropriate relationship with [K.G.], or any investigation into Plaintiff's involvement with the murders. Finally, there is no indication that Plaintiff is—or has ever been—even remotely considered a suspect in the murders…. To be sure, Mr. Kohberger was arrested and has been charged with the murders. . . .​

And the court also allowed Scofield to amend her complaint to add a claim for punitive damages:

Plaintiff has established a reasonable likelihood of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Defendant's conduct in accusing Plaintiff of an affair with a student before ordering that student's and three other students' murders was oppressive, fraudulent, malicious, and/or outrageous. As discussed above, those statements are defamatory as a matter of law and therefore represent a foundational set of bad acts. Further, those statements were based only on Defendant's spiritual intuition about the murders; there was never any objective basis to believe that Plaintiff did the things that Defendant publicly and repeatedly claims she did.

And while Defendant eventually took her theory about Plaintiff's involvement in the murders to law enforcement, she did so only after ignoring Plaintiff's cease-and-desist letters and going public with her claims on social media. Critically, Defendant's social media postings continued even after she learned from the Moscow Police Department that Plaintiff was not a suspect in the murders and after Mr. Kohberger had been arrested for and charged with the same. These circumstances combine to demonstrate that Defendant's social media postings were primarily self-serving, motivated by online viral attention, and made with an extremely harmful state of mind given the nature of the statements about Plaintiff….​
So now there will be a jury trial, solely for the purpose of determining damages. Maybe now Guillard will finally learn the First Rule of Holes, but I somehow doubt it. :rolleyes:
 
You'd think Guillard would have seen it coming. <punchline drum break>

I kinda hope she predicts a verdict of zero damages, and then the jury doubles their number out of spite.
 
It's not surprising that the victims' families are disappointed. Moving the venue to the capital, Boise, allows a bigger pool of jurors who may not have been as exposed to the case as those in the county where it happened.

Families always side with the prosecution when the defendant is not also a family member. It's understandable and predictable. However, that has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
 
I can't remember what podcast I heard it on, but I might bother to look it up, but it was spring or early summer. the person was talking about a local pastor of a well attended churching Latah County who was actively trying to poison the potential jury population in his congregation to be anti-prosecution because he hates the cops. He's one of those weirdo Idahoans that wants to start a new Christian (fascist/racist) Nation in the PNW.
 
gabeygoat said:
I can't remember what podcast I heard it on, but I might bother to look it up, but it was spring or early summer. the person was talking about a local pastor of a well attended churching Latah County who was actively trying to poison the potential jury population in his congregation to be anti-prosecution because he hates the cops. He's one of those weirdo Idahoans that wants to start a new Christian (fascist/racist) Nation in the PNW.
Click to expand...

Idaho is a beautiful state that has been ruined by a large group of crazy right-wing morons.
 
I oppose the death penalty in general on both moral and legal grounds. However, in the United States it's simply a non-starter to argue that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment or that contemplating one's impending execution is cruel and unusual.

As to the change of venue, the objection is subtle but palpable. There is no one Idaho. Everyone has his own private Idaho, to borrow a phrase. Latah County is not Boise. And specifically there are many who don't live in Boise who don't appreciate Boise's "big city" values. Moscow is a sleepy college town inhabited by people who check up on their neighbors, shovel each other's driveways, and otherwise take care of their own. Yes, there's a quiet liberal sophistication owing to the college presence—brew pubs, book shops, and pipe-smoking cafes. But it rests upon a salt-of-the-earth bedrock foundation that largely has no use for Boise.
 
JayUtah said:
I oppose the death penalty in general on both moral and legal grounds. However, in the United States it's simply a non-starter to argue that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment or that contemplating one's impending execution is cruel and unusual.

As to the change of venue, the objection is subtle but palpable. There is no one Idaho. Everyone has his own private Idaho, to borrow a phrase. Latah County is not Boise. And specifically there are many who don't live in Boise who don't appreciate Boise's "big city" values. Moscow is a sleepy college town inhabited by people who check up on their neighbors, shovel each other's driveways, and otherwise take care of their own. Yes, there's a quiet liberal sophistication owing to the college presence—brew pubs, book shops, and pipe-smoking cafes. But it rests upon a salt-of-the-earth bedrock foundation that largely has no use for Boise.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Some people deserve to die for their crimes, but courts don't always get it right and it's a fact that innocent people have been executed. The choice is down to either accepting innocent people being executed as collateral damage or life in prison without parole.

Austin, TX is another example of an island of blue surrounded by an ocean of red. But I could never live in a state that voted for Trump.
 
Stacyhs said:
Austin, TX is another example of an island of blue surrounded by an ocean of red.
Click to expand...
As are Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and El Paso. The residents of Austin have little to say about Texas law supporting the death penalty.
Stacyhs said:
But I could never live in a state that voted for Trump.
Click to expand...
Doesn't leave you with many choices.
 
Anne Taylor, Kohberger's defence lawyer, was arguing that the death penalty should be taken off the picture as (a) Kohberger had given up a 'speedy trial' - hence the waiting time becomes onerous, (b) Taylor wanted to present a study as to all that is wrong with the current method of injection, and (c) the state doesn't have any access currently to the newest injection. She also argues that having multiple murder victims, means that the jury might double count in effect the aggravating factors in each.

Judge Hippler countered the latter by remarking, well, isn't murdering more than one person more aggravating than murdering one?

The judge dismissed Taylor's request to submit the research paper.

Judge Hippler said if it cannot be injection, then there was death by firing squad. Taylor argued that Idaho doesn't have a firing squad set up and that it might take two years to do so.

Some are taking Judge Hippler's questioning as giving attorney Tayor a hard time and that he'll likely deny the application. IMV when a judge starts asking close questions of a barrister/attorney, it doesn't signify scepticism bur rather, he or she is taking the lawyer's argument seriously and the questioning is simply an attempt to test the strength of the logic behind the argument*. Judge Hippler dismissed looking at the study but has taken a keen interest in the feasibility and fairness of having the death penalty on the table.

Judgement is reserved and will come later.

I don't know if Taylor is leading up to some kind of plea deal whereby once the death penalty is off the table, her client might agree to plead guilty...?

As to the question of should there be a death penalty: that is another issue. However, it is somewhat galling when one looks at the BTK Killer locked up for life but enjoying all kinds of mod cons in his cell apartment - TV, Netflix, wi-fi, visitors, educational courses, entertainment, etcetera (I assume), all because the death penalty didn't apply in his state. (Don't look up BTK's crimes unless you have a strong stomach.) Interestingly, BTK is linked to Kohberger via Kohberger's former psychology lecturer, as mentioned earlier in the thread.

Whoever killed those four students at Idaho did so without mercy and with maximum brutality.

*A court cannot find for something that has not been pleaded, so the interrogation of a barrister/attorney by a judge could be seen as an attempt to get arguments which he or she can legitimately present in his or her decision as the basis for being allowed or dismissed.
 
Last edited:
Judge Hippler ruled against the defense, and the death penalty remains on the table. Must point out these motions were all mostly procedural for the defense attorneys to cover their butts, legally, to protect from future lawsuits based on negligent representation. We see these anti-death penalty motions quite often. The change of venue was a huge mistake. Kohberger would have received a more sympathetic jury in Latah County. The other mistake was waving a speedy trial. Had they gone last October there was a good chance he would have walked, based on some holes in the prosecution's case (cell data being the biggest). But now the prosecution has had time to shore up those holes.

Last week the defense posted a ton of "Motions to Suppress" and are making a Frank's motion to toss out the DNA evidence. Judge Hippler issued a reply wherein he told the defense to get their crap together, stating they'd dumped 2,000 pages on the motion but failed to point to specific issues. He said it's not the court's job to go look for it. (Document 112224). They're not dealing with a small town/rural county judge any more.


As far as the death penalty goes, if ever there was a case which warranted execution this is it.
 
So now some of the text messages between survivors Dylan Mortensen & Bethany Funke have been released.

Frantic text messages between two roommates on the night that four University of Idaho students were fatally stabbed have been released, providing a chilling new window into the mystery of what happened in those final moments.

A recently unsealed defense motion in the case against Bryan Kohberger revealed new information on Thursday about what Dylan Mortensen and Bethany Funke were doing on November 13, 2022 – when a masked attacker slaughtered their four roommates. INDEPENDENT
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1897811001384350011

In other news, it seems Kohberger's attorney, Anne Taylor, is focussing on Dylan's pics of eyebrows. Presumably to challenge her description of the 'man in black' she says she saw.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1898155285539103218
 
Other recent update, a witness statement transcript from the courts reveals Dylan Mortensen saw Xana's body lying on the floor as she fled to Bethany Funke's room. It appears she thought Xana was lying on the floor drunk. Plus of course she would have been in a state of fear mixed with great anxiety as she couldn't get a reply from Ethan, Madison or Kaylee.


1745584133008.jpeg
 
Last edited:
gabeygoat said:
I don't get the eyebrow thing?
Click to expand...
It's the defence trying to get evidence excluded on the grounds they re specious. for example, that bushy eyebrows weren't relevant because Dylan Mortensen had a thing about them, also the selfie Kohberger took in his bathroom hours after the crime showing a clear set of bushy eyebrows. Judge Hippler ruled that the eyebrow evidence WAS relevant and permissible.

The defence also tried to get the 911 call transcript thrown out as not really showing alarm by the caller/s, again rejected on the grounds it was authentic but some bits will be redacted.

The defence stance is that it unfairly sways the jury but of course others see it as a cynical ploy to prevent any incriminating evidence.


.
 
It is as if the defense is throwing spaggetti at the
wall to see what sticks. This guy is a monster and should be treated like a rabid animal.
 
wasapi said:
It is as if the defense is throwing spaggetti at the
wall to see what sticks. This guy is a monster and should be treated like a rabid animal.
Click to expand...


In a way it's good as it means the defence can't complain it was an unfair trial later.


.
 
Vixen said:
In a way it's good as it means the defence can't complain it was an unfair trial later.


.
Click to expand...
A lot of this is also client management, Raising an issue and having it smacked down by a judge is often better than wasting a ton of time explaining to a defendant that the issue is a non-starter and having to do so repeatedly and having it be a lingering issue. Just raise it, lose, and move on.

That and when it comes to the more novel or optimistic defense claims it is wise to preserve as much as possible. If for some reason down the line the law were to take a weird turn about death penalty issues or anything else a defendant may need to have preserved that issue to get the benefit of a change in law. So best to get everything remotely plausible in the record. In some small case no big deal, but in a death penalty case that could be in the post conviction process for decades it is huge.

One if the less desirable aspects of criminal defense work is that if you are doing it right you often look really foolish to people not in the biz.
 
Suddenly said:
A lot of this is also client management, Raising an issue and having it smacked down by a judge is often better than wasting a ton of time explaining to a defendant that the issue is a non-starter and having to do so repeatedly and having it be a lingering issue. Just raise it, lose, and move on.

That and when it comes to the more novel or optimistic defense claims it is wise to preserve as much as possible. If for some reason down the line the law were to take a weird turn about death penalty issues or anything else a defendant may need to have preserved that issue to get the benefit of a change in law. So best to get everything remotely plausible in the record. In some small case no big deal, but in a death penalty case that could be in the post conviction process for decades it is huge.

One if the less desirable aspects of criminal defense work is that if you are doing it right you often look really foolish to people not in the biz.
Click to expand...


The US system seems to be so much more cumbersome than the UK one, but perhaps that is an illusion as a lot of pre-hearing stuff goes on in the UK that the papers can't report on due to subjudice - contempt of court - laws. There was another closed hearing yesterday or today, this time to discuss mental health issues of Kohberger. He was trying to get the death penalty taken off the table because of recently diagnosed autism. That didn't wash with Judge Hippler. And now the defence don't want Kohberger to undergo psychological investigation...but were all for the autism opt-out clause.



.
 
Vixen said:
The US system seems to be so much more cumbersome than the UK one, but perhaps that is an illusion as a lot of pre-hearing stuff goes on in the UK that the papers can't report on due to subjudice - contempt of court - laws. There was another closed hearing yesterday or today, this time to discuss mental health issues of Kohberger. He was trying to get the death penalty taken off the table because of recently diagnosed autism. That didn't wash with Judge Hippler. And now the defence don't want Kohberger to undergo psychological investigation...but were all for the autism opt-out clause.



.
Click to expand...
Where the US system gets cumbersome is that we have in theory a ton of protections for criminal defendants and a long and rich legal tradition of creating a patchwork justification to not enforce these protections. Which leads to something that looks inane to those not in the biz and that is because it is probably more inane than they think.

It's like someone trying to quit smoking by hiding cigarettes from themselves and then developing a web of rules about when and how they can look for and/or have a cigarette. Furthermore, each rule is clearly motivated to justify whether or not that person really needed a smoke at the time. All the while claiming that all these rules are intellectually consistent.

Mostly it is that last bit that makes analyzing the law like gazing into the face of pure madness.
 
Last edited:
Suddenly said:
Where the US system gets cumbersome is that we have in theory a ton of protections for criminal defendants and a long and rich legal tradition of creating a patchwork justification to not enforce these protections. Which leads to something that looks inane to those not in the biz and that is because it is probably more inane than they think.

It's like someone trying to quit smoking by hiding cigarettes from themselves and then developing a web of rules about when and how they can look for and/or have a cigarette. Furthermore, each rule is clearly motivated to justify whether or not that person really needed a smoke at the time. All the while claiming that all these rules are intellectually consistent.

Mostly it is that last bit that makes analyzing the law like gazing into the face of pure madness.
Click to expand...


Part of the problem stems from the fact the judge cannot make a decision unless it has been pleaded. So, suppose Kohberger is found guilty and the defence appeals on the grounds the defendant was autistic, hence, the jurors misread his unempathic body language. The judge would then have to say, well, you never mentioned it. So all this stuff is to ensure there is a record on file of possible appeal points of law.


The latest is that Kohberger has named the 'real killer/s'. Judge Hippler has sealed this but it is bound to get the Bethany and Dylan accusers talking.



(The CT'ers always have an 'alternative theory'.)


.








.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom