Kathy's InDieZoNe

Here we provide pure opinions, comments, and speculation based on the First Amendment concerning a court case that has been opened in Pasco County, Florida styled as Florida v. Jonathan Lee Riches. We provide an update relying on the First Amendment as to a forthcoming pre-trial conference in Pasco County, FL. Everything here represents the pure opinion, commentary, speculation and rhetorical questions per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states:Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The First Amendment is cited to and quoted in this presentation. It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright. A defendant in a criminal proceeding is clocked with the presumption of innocence at all times relevant until or unless he/she pleads guilty or is adjudicated guilty in a court of law. The government bears the burden of proof at beyond a reasonable doubt evidentiary standard to prove all elements of any alleged crime charged.

Idaho v. Kohberger was a high-profile, highly-sealed criminal case which proceeded in state court for over 2.5 years until July 2025 when Mr. Kohberger to the surprise of many agreed to plead guilty to all charges brought by a criminal indictment returned by an Idaho grand jury. When he did so he agreed to waive all appellate rights. At the present time, a case concerning the scope of "unwaivable" appellate rights is before SCOTUS called Hunter v. US which asks SCOTUS to consider a 2019 case called Garza v US and determine what exactly are the grounds where a defendant may still appeal. Everything presented here represents the pure opinions and comments of the host for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching and/or research per Amend. I, U.S. Const. and does not nor is it intended to provide legal advice. It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act,which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright. It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act,which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Here we provide pure opinions, comments, and speculation concerning the status of the lawsuit styled as Goncalves et al v. Washington State University including the status of the parties' refiled Motion for Protective Order (discovery) and who will resolve this issue - the district judge or the magistrate judge? Everything here represents the pure opinion, commentary, speculation and rhetorical questions per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states:Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright. All parties who are charged with crimes are considered innocent under the eyes of the law until or unless they (1) are adjudicated guilty in a court of law or (2) agree to plead guilty. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Here we provide an update as to documents ordered to be unsealed by Judge Hippler on Dec. 18, 2025 from January-March 2025.

Idaho v. Kohberger was a high-profile, highly-sealed criminal case which proceeded in state court for over 2.5 years until July 2025 when Mr. Kohberger to the surprise of many agreed to plead guilty to all charges brought by a criminal indictment returned by an Idaho grand jury. More than eight months after the closure of the criminal proceedings, the case remains largely under seal.

There has been significant discussion recently regarding defense trial expert Dr. Brent Turvey's opinions and what he might have testified to at trial had the case gone to scheduled jury trial in August 2025. Unfortunately, Dr. Turvey's 20-plus page expert report is under seal as is that of a second key defense expert Sy Ray.

Everything presented here represents the pure opinions and comments of the host for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching and/or research per Amend. I, U.S. Const. and does not nor is it intended to provide legal advice. It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act,which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright. It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act,which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

#Idaho4

#BryanKohberger

#IdahovKohberger

#FirstAmendment

#FreeSpeech

Here we provide pure opinions, comments, and speculation concerning the status of the lawsuit styled as Goncalves et al v. Washington State University including developments occurring in today's hearing and the re-filed Motion for Protective Order.

Everything here represents the pure opinion, commentary, speculation and rhetorical questions per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states:Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright. All parties who are charged with crimes are considered innocent under the eyes of the law until or unless they (1) are adjudicated guilty in a court of law or (2) agree to plead guilty. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Here we provide pure opinions, comments, and speculation per the First Amendment concerning the current status of State of Idaho v Stacy J. Wondra, dealing with the tragic Michael Vaughn case. The district judge has now set a scheduling conference as this proceeding heads toward trial following the defendant's recent arraignment.

Link to the Idaho cases of interest webpage where the State v. Wondra court records are published:https://coi.isc.idaho.gov (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?even...)

Everything here represents the pure opinion, commentary, speculation and rhetorical questions per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states:Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

#MichaelVaughn

#IdahovWondra

Here we provide pure opinions, comments, speculation as to what the public might expect to occur at the June 1, 2026 Pre-trial Case Management Conference with District Judge Kymberly Evanson, presiding.

Link to court's website for public access information:

https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/content/goncalves-et-al-v-washington-state-university-0

Everything here represents the pure opinion, commentary, speculation and rhetorical questions per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states:Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright. All parties who are charged with crimes are considered innocent under the eyes of the law until or unless they (1) are adjudicated guilty in a court of law or (2) agree to plead guilty.

Here we provide pure opinions, comments, and speculation concerning the catastrophic events at 1122 King Road which led to the initiation of one of the most high-profile cases in recent years of Idaho v. Kiohberger a case which was highly sealed with gag orders and multiple behind-closed-doors hearings in the more than 2.5 years it was actively prosecuted until July 2025.

Following the closure of the case, Judge Hippler announced a process concerning the potential unsealing of the case. On December 18, 2025, Judge Hippler entered an order directing the unsealing of dozens of sealed documents from January - March 2025. We provide an update here. Everything here represents the pure opinion, commentary, speculation and rhetorical questions per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states:Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright. All parties who are charged with crimes are considered innocent under the eyes of the law until or unless they (1) are adjudicated guilty in a court of law or (2) agree to plead guilty.

Court's order, a public document, is on our YT channel here:

https://www.youtube.com/@KathysIndieZoNe/posts

Everything here represents the pure opinion, commentary, speculation and rhetorical questions per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states:Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright.

All parties who are charged with crimes are considered innocent under the eyes of the law until or unless they (1) are adjudicated guilty in a court of law or (2) agree to plead guilty.

Here we provide pure opinions, comments, and speculation based on the First Amendment concerning a court case that has been opened in Pasco County, Florida styled as Florida v. Jonathan Lee Riches. We provide an update relying on the First Amendment which is quoted to and cited in this presentation regarding this matter that has been brought against the popular true crime content creator, JLR, concerning an arraignment scheduled to occur on June 2, 2026 regarding a one count battery charge.

Link to our prior presentation described herein:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHyp2i4noEg Everything here represents the pure opinion, commentary, speculation and rhetorical questions per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states:Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The First Amendment is cited to and quoted in this presentation. It is codified within Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright. A defendant in a criminal proceeding is clocked with the presumption of innocence at all times relevant until or unless he/she pleads guilty or is adjudicated guilty in a court of law. The government bears the burden of proof at beyond a reasonable doubt evidentiary standard to prove all elements of any alleged crime charged.