I had a home phone and omg that’s all the calls I got!!!! I unplugged the dang phone from the wall after a few weeks until I shut it off completely

I was thinking the same only the older gen n even they know do not answer lol

My motto is just because it rings doesn't mean you have to answer it lol

If it doesn’t come up scam likely- I’ll answer it. Could be a new employer, could be a child, could be a family member in trouble. I take your point - but a lot of people do answer

People who are older typically.

He is very obviously guilty

DNA doesn't lie. The Evidence is clear

Agreed. so leeward

And they haven't even heard the defense's case yet. Change of venue needs to be approved.

@@leslied125uh, and nobody has heard all the evidence against Kohberger either.

I agree but not to the extent our media provides. Evidence should be reserved for the trial, in an open court

Ol' Bill has a lot bigger problems than that, he has no case 🤣 Just wait until the sham investigation get's brought out.

Right? That’s why he was so mad!

Best part of the whole thing 😂

He's fully transparent. When it helps his case. He doesn't even mind putting out false narratives. When it helps his case. But when it hurts his case he's always quick to wrap hiding it. In a nice safe veil of "protecting someone's rights". I really hate people like him. Either try him publicly or don't. Don't use your position to turn someone into a media pariah and then oh golly geez I've just now got to hide all this stuff the defense might want out. What sad is how well his very obvious hypocrisy still works.

Peter is absolutely disgusting. shameful

Same thing for me.

Peter is absolutely disgusting. shameful

I have to agree. When I first heard the questions, I was really put off by it and it seemed to go against the non dissemination order. After hearing from the expert about the research behind it and the process that was carried out, I really don't take issue with the survey anymore.

200% agree!

❤❤

Agreed 👌

Me too! Love their family.

Same

hahahaha!!!

😂 me too.

Just one more thing that’s going to make everyone feel like they have no time to slow down. Why? Patience? This type of thing will be contributing to what world the kiddos grow up. I guess nobody wants to help slow it down. Take time to actually think instead of impulsive thoughts behaviors because everyone needs to go go go. I can only imagine what this world is gonna look like in just 5years.

​@@EmShannonummmmm. Alot of the beaurocracy can be played 2x speed, maybe even skipped. I appreciate he does this. They aren't even close to Eminem rap God speed at 2x. 😂

What a joke 😡

And the state idaho has to pay.

I think it’s by design. They’re hoping memories fade and people lose interest. AT annoys me but she’s a good attorney. She’s doing her job

Dr Edelman stated that people are more likely to give socially desirable answers. Wouldn’t this work both ways? Example: if you keep asking a similar question aren’t you raising your odds of getting a desirable answer for the defense?

​@@blahblahblah1579precisely. Ann Taylor and her lapdogs are EXTREMELY manipulative and very good at playing the prosecution.

You are correct! Perfectly said.

Yes, I think Judge Judge will move forward with it if they add that caveat.

That's redundant. Most of what you read in the media is made up, that's the way the system works. Fake news.

And later ask prospective jurors if they have ever been polled on this case. Bing, bang, boom all this dust up was for nothing. Well not for nothing. It did exactly what the prosecutor wanted. Nobody really dug into exactly why potential jurors have so much bias. Why did things just happen to work out that the state could get out any and all information they wanted. No matter how untrue it was while the defense has virtual duct tape on their mouths? For his sake it's probably a good thing nobody started asking questions like that.

Me.too, she is excellant

Yes I agree and this is exactly how I felt but couldn’t put it into words!!!

@@colleen0229 I’m learning more and more that the justice system/trials are very similar to market research and marketing. It’s kinda crazy because marketing is basically a form of psychological manipulation lol! I try to use my powers for good tho by working with nonprofits and artists!

I can’t believe this is even a contested issue! It’s common sense. Plus as you stated, this info has been wide and spread in MSM, especially locally in letah county.

@@KrystinaLilyy right. It’s important to get an understanding of what people know, using headlines. Whether true or not. Maybe they shouldn’t have read the questions in open court? I guess they could also say “what have you heard about the weapon?” Or something like that?

Yes, I believe the judge wants the truth, I agree

Actually its not the same thing at all. They're not worried about our (public bias). That's doesn't matter we aren't going to make any choices. Only the JURY

These are going to be similar to the questions potential jurors are going to be asked when the vetting process happens. Its not what you know about the case its what you believe to be true or false.

How many people study with a Teacher who is an Expert on Serial Killers .. Like Bryan K did @ La Salle University ... It hasn't been asked since the beginning.. Because The case is a total cover up ..

@@BostonRoadGlide i understand that. It’s fine IF it was being done for jury selection. The issue is, defense is asking these questions of the same population of the jury pool. So they are planting the seed prior to the case being remotely ready for something like jury selection. Also, this survey, and jury selection for that matter, first go into what you may know about the case - what you may have watched, read or listened to concerning information/details about the Chad daybell case. It’s preemptively questioning the same population jury pool that will decide this case. Because the first thing anyone does after formally being asked what you know about something, is to immediately go look up the subject you were just asked about.

@@KalypsinsVixen so you are now an expert in jury selection and surveys? You can say whatever you want but you are not an expert on this. I would rather listen to the person who has more knowledge on this then take your word. You just can not accept the fact that they did nothing wrong. You need to justify yourself so that your pride is not hurt. The facts are the facts my friend. The expert did everything correctly but you choose to only hear yourself which is just plain arrogant.

I remember they got that from the fact that BK had a few IG accounts that were following one of the girls. So now I get that from that they assumed the rest, because I also remember hearing that there were messages from him in their inbox. I guess is like a snowball, people find something and as they continue saying the story, keeps growing.

A lot of it was false. Were any of media pundits talking about how the house/yard were full of kids for more than 3 hours before the cops were called? Did any of them talk about the linda lane audio tapes? Mainstream media is pushing a narrative here, and it's false.

It actually mentions stalking in pca, around page 15 or so. I believe that's where the stalking rumours came from

The portion of the PCA discussion about the phone pings is wholly intended to construe stalking. And actually states stalking.

@@moonvaleinteresting, then why they say now is not true? They talk about transparency, but this case is not transparent at all.

SAME

The state is worried about what it will cost to move it, which will be a chunk of change. And, I am sure the inconvenience for many involved in the future trial is being weighed. I agree they should skip all the ranting and move it.

I also agree that this case SHOULD ultimately have a change of venue, however I feel that the change in venue is TOO PREMATURE. There isn’t even a trial date set and there will be many other unanticipated delays to come as the defense and prosecution continue to argue over evidence and discovery and I think this trial will likely be pushed back even beyond Summer of 2025. It makes no sense to move the case NOW when none of the evidentiary hearings have even taken place. All that moving the trial to another venue RIGHT NOW is going accomplish is bringing more pretrial publicity coverage to whatever county this case is located in. The local news channels and newspapers in the other county will begin covering all the pretrial evidentiary hearings that will be taking place in their local courthouse, thereby ultimately prejudicing that new jury pool, which may then require yet another change in venue just ahead of trial. In my opinion, the smart thing to do is to grant the change of venue whenever the defense is ready to set an actual trial date, but that all the pretrial evidentiary hearings should be kept in Latah County to limit pretrial publicity exposure in the COV county and that the actual change of venue should officially take place just prior to jury selection. And I still stand by my opinion that Edelman’s push poll methodology is biased and non-scientific and that the survey questions need to be completely revised to be generic and to not reveal any details about this case to the respondents of the survey. That being said however, I DO ULTIMATELY AGREE that based on population size alone, this case DOES deserve a change of venue. Prospective venue counties on consideration of venue relocation be should be surveyed using a standard, scientific, unbiased survey methodology, but that, too, should be done only after a trial date is set because media publicity may change or escalate dramatically before then, which may ultimately make any survey results taken at this early juncture moot.

​@@CreaVidsMUSICagreed. It's of the utmost importance that BK get a FAIR TRIAL. Other than the victims , their loved ones and BKs loved ones, he is the most important person in this case

@@cynicalgirl3633 You are right! I am anxious to learn more as the case moves forward.

@@UnfilteredMind 100%!!

Can you explain the “Aha” feeling or moments if you have time ?! Thank you!

@@alexanderalexander6134 One of them was finding out that BK hadn't stalked the victims. That was misinformation/false, and it makes you lean in for the defense a bit. What else is false that the media put out there?

@@CreaVidsMUSIC That wasn’t an Aha For me because I knew it wasn’t in the PCA so that meant it was a rumour…I always had enough sense not to believe rumours without a source…

@@sallycinnamon5370 When that is all you've heard since the beginning that is what a lot of people believed. Even Kaylee's father said he learned that the students were hunted/stalked by BK. I am keeping an open mind, and watch what happens.

Thank you for keeping an open mind. I have a feeling we are eventually going to learn that a lot of what the media has reported on this case is not supported by the evidence.

Absolutely

Thats not the problem. Its what you believe what you hear in the media. Its okay to know about whats going on in the case but if you have a bias then its not okay.

Absolutely it proves Bill Thompson invited anyone and everyone to look at the PCA A prosecutor shouldn't ever do that in a case he's prosecuting it's prosecutorial misconduct and not to mention Bill Thompson even admitted while he was cross examining the expert that his claim of BK stalking the victims was a lie Bill Thompson got his butt handed to him He was ill prepared to the point the judge had to finish cross examining the expert witness

But he didn’t repeat any details in the PCA. You people act like the media wouldn’t have looked at the PCA if he hadn’t mentioned it. 😂

​I didnt know you could look at court documents til this case. Im new to this stuff.So, thats how I learned you could look stuff up. So i have to disagree with you there. ​@@UnfilteredMind my true crime following didn't start until Gabby Petito

@@becklesgeckles8323 the media does know you can look for court documents

@@UnfilteredMind but I didn't and a lot of others didn't. Now they know

They're ALL things that have been said, so no.I still see by genius 'experts' that he stalked maddy and that he was fired and these were the motives then they build a case around that. Just like the prosecution did. But when you built a case on nonsense then it turns out not to be true, that's it you are done there's no case.

THANK YOU!!!!

I'm surprised they don't do that !!

There are way too many people who interpret "have you heard..." as "OMG THIS HAPPENED!!!"

Bias is bias: Bias includes correct information as well as incorrect information. When you have a prejudice, your prejudice might be based on correct as well as incorrect data. It's not the survey's job to disseminate ANY information It's not the survey's job to educate the public, The survey is designed to get information FROM people, not to GIVE them information. The prosecutor is incapable of understanding this simple fact.

So you saw in the Depp case theyre both larger than life pos? That's what I saw.

Lol 😂 The trial hasn't even begun yet so, you haven't "read & seen " ALL of the evidence yet bc there is even more than the Stalking rumors. I hope you're NEVER subpoenad for Jury Duty but, good attorneys know how to weed, people like you, out!! (You'll probably say you've been a Juror many times 🤣)

@@LexiesLawthey never stated they have seen it all. All they said is even if they did being in there they would be unbiased. Have you never had a friend tell you something and you agree with them but then you get more info found out the facts and tell your friend that they are wrong? You are the one who should go read some books and maybe your comprehension skills can be developed more.

@@Mmlujan blah blah 🙄

Same

He understands doesnt agree with him

Bill is of the opinion that a proper survey, if taken, doesn’t exclude you from the jury pool if you otherwise would have been a good juror. There is the best way to get an accurate survey, which is what he did. And there is the best way to preserve the jury pools, which is no survey at all. The judge is trying to balance that and Anne Taylor should have been as well. The judge is of the opinion that there could have been less prejudicial ways to phrase questions. Might it have decreased positive responses? Maybe. But it wouldn’t be another confounding variable during actual voir dire.

Oh ....he understands and I'd bet my life on that one. He knows without a doubt what that survey will prove ....and he don't like it! Learning that BK was not proven to have been stalking the victims came from his mouth and not the survey! I want that CAST report for November 12-13th of 2022 ....where the heck is it?! He turned over the one for November 29th 2022 ....but doesn't have it for the most important night of all 🤔 Red flags on this one!

@@kellyj79 you know that no one is releasing any new information to anyone other than the defence. That information will be known to you at trial and not a second before regardless of when the defence gets it. People are so entitled.

Great point !

Me too. For the opposite. Disagree with the whole theory behind the so called science. Don't think it measures bias at all. Measures what people have been exposed to. Doesn't mean it creates bias. Might pick out some sheeple, but many will be labeled as biased erroneously.

I agree- it was a cringe moment for me. Maybe she’s too emotionally invested. BK must love this.

An attorneys first duty is to the truth. A defense attorney must defend vigorously, but cannot lie. I agree that Ann Taylor has been played by this perp and/or the lure of being a household name and having her career made for her for life.

@@TN-rf7nt I think he is innocent! Nothing suggests otherwise!

​@@TN-rf7nt"this perp"? Are u so detached you don't know the defendant's name? Come back when you're invested enough to contribute and not just stir the pot

Lol it’s her job to think that

Yes! Exactly 🎉

💯%! 🙌🏽

you are correct. i was called for jury duty about a year ago for a child s.a. case. unfortunately I know all about this from personal experience. during voir dire in the judge's chambers I was asked if I could put aside my personal view from what happened to me and only base my decision on the evidence heard during trial. because it was such a personal event for me, I said no. i might not be able to separate my experience from this child's experience and I was excused as a juror.

You kind of missed the whole point of what the survey is trying to accomplish. The aim isn’t trying to find people that will answer “yes, I’m not a liar, I’ll be impartial” but rather how much info have they heard.

He can certainly take that approach with reasoning out the issues, but he also has to hold the attorneys accountable. I didn’t see that last night. I felt he was manipulated throughout the hearing. This hearing made a big mess bigger.

I consulted with Judge Judge on a case several years ago and he is amazing - kind, creative, healthy boundaries, and straight forward. He's the best for this case!

@@MaPrajna1maybe so but he has no experience dealing with capital murder cases ever and BT also had tried 2 murder cases in 30 years and both overturned. I don’t get the feeling the judge has control of courtroom and clearly seems to defer to AT demands. State doesn’t leave me hopeful that the team can counter aggressive defense who has expert to secure change in venue. This case will take forever as AT wants.

@deborahhanley2756 At some point he’s going to have to put the defense in their place

See this is the problem with Edelman’s survey: If someone says they don’t know anything about the case, the survey ends. If someone says they DO know about the case, he then exposes them to every single case specific data point thereby tainting them with this prejudicial case information to see how many items they know. But all these numbers are JUNK because the ONLY actually relevant or important statistic is: How many people NEVER read, saw or heard about the case and whether THAT sample size is large enough to be able to seat 12 jurors after going through the voir dire process. He said 3% of his survey never read, saw or heard anything about this case at all. So if there are 40,000 in the jury pool, 3% of 40,000 is 1200 people in the entire county that have never read, seen or heard anything about this case. They only need 12 unbiased, untainted jurors. Only 12 (15, including 2 alternates) need to be selected from the venire. A typical venire is less than 100 people to be able to voir dire and seat a jury. There are at least 1200 in Latah County according to this expert’s own numbers. This is the ONLY relevant statistic that really even matters here: The number of people within the jury pool population that have NEVER seen, read or heard about the case... Who cares about the ones who have? There are at least 100x the number of the pool population that have never seen, read or heard about the case than are required to seat a jury if 12. Of course, in reality, this 1200 potential jurors number is a lot smaller because some of these jurors will be too old, too sick, or are prejudiced for other unrelated personal reasons, or they simply don’t believe in the death penalty. However this 3% number is also a VERY conservative estimate of how many untainted potential jurors there are in the venire because just the simple fact that someone actually HAS already seen read or heard about the case does not necessarily mean they will ineligible to serve as jurors-but let’s just go with those who “never saw, read, or heard,” just to give the benefit of the doubt. This expert is nothing but a shill that creates non-scientific surveys specifically designed to produce these fear mongering statistics so that they can keep everyone focused on those big bias number stats instead of focusing on the only place they really need to be focused on. People are so easily wowed and distracted by his irrelevant statistics that they aren’t even realizing that this expert’s survey, by design, was to ONLY poll the potential jurors who have read, seen or heard about the case so he could then turn around and formulate these big number shock factor statistics that he claims proves there is too much bias to seat a jury. People are also completely ignoring that his survey intentionally and deliberately ignores the people who HAVEN’T seen read or heard a single thing about this case. If you notice, Edelman failed to include the most important statistic in his little PowerPoint presentation because if he dares focus on that specific super-important statistic, it would completely invalidate the rest of his bias demonstrating data. Since Edelman's survey is specifically designed to prove bias, it is ONLY actually surveying those that know anything about the case because there is an almost certain probability of proving bias if he only focuses on those. This junk number survey is nothing more than a fancy manipulation tactic by a professional gaslighter with a PhD. This is very much a case of the defense setting out a smokescreen and saying, “Hey everyone, look over HERE" so you won't look over there. Here's another little fun fact. Edelman says he only surveyed 400 people and he says 3% of the respondents had never seen, read or heard of the case. Guess what 3% of 400 is? 12. In an ironic turn of events, Edelman’s own survey may have just inadvertently proven that finding enough people to seat a jury might not be at all as difficult as he is certainly trying to make it appear. Edelman says he surveyed only 400 people and in just surveying those 400 people, he was able to identify 12 untainted prospective jurors who had zero exposure to this case. Now just imagine how many more you could find during voir dire in a town of 40,000…

​@@UnfilteredMindthis post should be required reading before anyone else chimes in. It is spot on. I wish the prosecution had been smart enough to make this point.

@@TN-rf7nt share this because people aren’t realizing that this expert’s survey, by design, was to ONLY poll the potential jurors who have read, seen or heard about the case and then formulate big number shock factor stats about bias but it deliberately and completely glosses over and intentionally ignores the people who HAVEN’T seen read or heard a single thing about this case because if they focus on that statistic, it completely invalidates all the rest of their bias-showing data. This is very much a case of them saying, “look over here, not over there”.

Expensive for the county.

Agreed, it wasn't just pointless it did everything they claimed not to want

@@alanstewart7340 Exactly, sure did!

You’re just mad because you don’t know everything and have to wait years to find out. It’s not your right to know right now

@@JJ-zr6fu 😂👌🏻

You might think you can. But after 3-5 weeks of you sitting in trial. It’s going to all start to blur together. You won’t remember where you heard certain information

That’s your opinion, that he’s not guilty. Legally, he has been found guilty. There was no need for Miu to slice kids open. He could’ve brandished the knife and threatened them with it. Instead, he viciously attacked, stealthily, and then totally lied about it. If Isaac were a relative of yours, I bet you’d feel differently.

​@@juniemoon1528The fact that a young man lost his life is sad but Mr Miu was afraid for his life. Who knows what would have happened if he did not have his knife. Thosr young people wete drunk, high and out of control. He defended himself.

@@NaomivanTonder-jr7jxalso the way the laws are now with self defense, even if you were in imminent death you could still be charged. So your best bet is to RUN away! And if you can’t or are chased use pepper spray and then run away again

@@NaomivanTonder-jr7jx Why’d he approach them and start messing with their tubes? Why didn’t he leave when they were telling him to? Why did he SMILE the whole time? And again, all he had to do was brandish the knife. He murdered that child. Plain and simple.

Where I live it’s even less!!!

That’s the biggest lie in juries a doctor on trail isn’t being judged by doctors he’s being judged by his patients

A jury of your peers means a jury of fellow citizens. Not a jury of your co-workers or members of the industry you work in or socio-economic status. Peers are adult US citizens.

AGREED

I'm not sure they have the right person(s)at all. I DO NOT believe he did this alone. He's a college student not Liam Neeson.

I know but can you imagine? It must be a fresh hell each time they learn something new.

@lawyer you know I appreciate your prospective… although Andrea burkhart left me with things to think about

@@BoiseGreatDanei watched Andrea’s feed too. However, Andrea felt the Defence did a great job which is the opposite to what you are saying. I think. Correct me if I am wrong. It's so interesting to hear different opinions.

all evidence shown BK is innocent and Anne is right to defend him. More importantly, your feeling of victims are irrelevant bc BK has zero to do with them

@@ElaraNightskyThere is literally no evidence that BK is innocent. But there has been no trial so…

There is zero evidence that he is guilty ​@@sallycinnamon5370

If someone says they don’t know anything about the case, the survey ends. If someone says they DO know about the case, he then exposes them to every single case specific data point thereby tainting them with this prejudicial case information to see how many items they know. But all these numbers are JUNK because the ONLY actually relevant or important statistic is: How many people NEVER read, saw or heard about the case and whether THAT sample size is large enough to be able to seat 12 jurors after going through the voir dire process. He said 3% of the people he surveyed responded that never read, saw or heard anything about this case at all. So if there are 40,000 in the jury pool, 3% of 40,000 is 1200 people in the entire county that have never read, seen or heard anything about this case. They only need 12 unbiased, untainted jurors. Only 12 (15, including 2 alternates) need to be selected from the venire. A typical venire is less than 100 people to be able to voir dire and seat a jury. There are at least 1200 completely case-ignorant, untainted jurors in Latah County, according to this expert’s own numbers. This is the ONLY relevant statistic that really even matters here: The number of people within the jury pool population that have NEVER seen, read or heard about the case... Who cares about the ones who have? There are at least 100x the number of the pool population that have never seen, read or heard about the case than are required to seat a jury if 12. Of course, in reality, this 1200 potential jurors number is a lot smaller because some of these jurors will be too old, too sick, or are prejudiced for other unrelated personal reasons, or they simply don’t believe in the death penalty. However this 3% number is also a VERY conservative estimate of how many untainted potential jurors there are in the venire because just the simple fact that someone actually HAS already seen read or heard about the case does not necessarily mean they will ineligible to serve as jurors-but let’s just go with those who “never saw, read, or heard,” just to give the benefit of the doubt. This expert is nothing but a shill that creates non-scientific surveys specifically designed to produce these fear mongering statistics so that they can keep everyone focused on those big bias number stats instead of focusing on the only place they really need to be focused on. People are so easily wowed and distracted by his irrelevant statistics that they aren’t even realizing that this expert’s survey, by design, was to ONLY poll the potential jurors who have read, seen or heard about the case so he could then turn around and formulate these big number shock factor statistics that he claims proves there is too much bias to seat a jury. People are also completely ignoring that his survey intentionally and deliberately ignores the people who HAVEN’T seen read or heard a single thing about this case. If you notice, Edelman failed to include the most important statistic in his little PowerPoint presentation because if he dares focus on that specific super-important statistic, it would completely invalidate the rest of his supposed bias-demonstrating data. Because Edelman's survey is specifically designed to prove bias, it is ONLY actually surveying those that know anything about the case because there is an almost certain probability of proving bias if he only focuses on those. This junk-number survey is nothing more than a fancy manipulation tactic by a professional gaslighter with a PhD. This is very much a case of the defense setting out a smokescreen and saying, “Hey everyone, look over HERE”…so that you won't be looking over there. Here's another little fun fact: Edelman says he only surveyed 400 people and he says 3% of the respondents had never seen, read or heard of the case. Guess what 3% of 400 is? 12. In an ironic turn of events, Edelman’s own survey may have just inadvertently proven that finding enough people to seat a jury might not be at all as difficult as he is certainly trying to make it appear. Edelman says he surveyed only 400 people and in just surveying those 400 people, he was able to identify 12 untainted prospective jurors who had zero exposure to this case. Now just imagine how many more you could find during voir dire in a town of 40,000… And you have to be pretty desperate as a defense attorney to try to imply that the media frenzy surrounding this case was caused by that one comment in that one press conference by the prosecutor as though the media wasn’t going to pounce on that PCA the second it hit the public record. Sounds like she’s scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to deflect attention off her client if she needs to stoop that low.

the ones least interested in delaying anthing is DEFENSE. funny how you all trust THE ALL POWERFUL STATE that will screw you, too, at the next possible opportunity.

peter even said this is normal timing as far as the defense the DA side has until sept 2024 to get discovery and I think bk was involved but I think there is more

@@Deceptiondismantled peter had also said it’s completely abnormal how many hearings they have .

no but they also would not say a statement like she did I think he could be involved but there are more IMO

@Deceptiondismantled mafia boss lawyers said their client was innocent as well

The expert said that the survey has strict protocols: if a respondent says they have not heard about the case, the questions STOP. Only a followup demographic question is asked. Nothing about the case is asked after that point

There is a strict protocol. Listen to the expert's full testimony. He explains he does do what you are suggesting. They start with OPEN questions: as in do you know about this murder case (if the person says no, than all the questions immediate stop). Only after a few steps does the arrest of BK ever make it in. If at any point the respondent says No i have not heard about this step, then the questions STOP.

I think it's pretty normal. Even the Delphi trial has jurors from a different county, and Judge Gull doesn’t give way on much

She will do what is required of her ....defend her client to the best of her ability. The survey has been done many times and proven to be effective. The questions came from media coverage ....just like all others he has done the survey on. There was nothing new done here ffs 🙄🤦‍♀️

Yep. Another flaw in the underlying "science"

I agree, it taints the jury pool.

Particularly when you know some of them are from “facts” presented in court documents and the rumours are presented right after. It joins them in legitimacy.

Nah I disagree just because my family don't care about true crime. They don't follow anything or know anything when asked. I have to remind them sometimes the storyline. 🙁

pool*^ And I totally and completely agree.

Not really. During the trial people determine their opinion of the truthfulness of the facts, what they believe to be true, not necessarily what objectively is true.

Exactly. He only included public information and the thousands of stories that spun from that information.

Which is why prefacing the survey with a disclaimer about these “items” having not been proven in a court of law.

And she spent 7 months trying to fight against the grand jury standards that have been in place for 150 years!

I feel sorry for the tax payers that are funding all of these superfluous additional expenditures.

@@UnfilteredMind well since the pca basically says he stalked the victims or one of them and the judge even says he did not, there is a problem,

@@UnfilteredMind also did all of yall miss where BT said in the hearing before this survey stuff he would not have all the discovery to her but will by sept 2024

@@sngray11 they should be screaming why the university got 1 mil from state and paid 1 mil for the 1122 house