Kathy's InDieZoNe

Here we provide pure opinions, comments, and speculation concerning the high profile criminal case of Idaho v. Kohberger relative to its unsealing a year after the case was closed.

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.

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.A lawsuit has been filed by EWU Media LLC who has alleged the City of Moscow/Moscow Police Dept. wrongfully withheld information from the Kohberger investigation records after they filed public records requests into the crimes at 1122 King Road. Defendants Moscow/MPD have filed correspondence from the federal authorities concerning records provided in assisting in the investigation of the crimes at 1122 King Road and are asking to have the currently pending hearing (oral argument) set for May 18, 2026 to be rescheduled for the reasons set forth in the Defense's motion to continue. This is a current status of the case. Here we provide an update as to the status of the EWU Media v. City of Moscow/MPD public records requests lawsuit and a current status of litigation. 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. 

#Idaho4

#EWUvMoscowMPD

#IPRA

#PublicRecords

#FirstAmendment

Here, we provide pure opinions, commentary and speculation regarding defense expert Sy Ray's statements in a recent interview that Mr. Kohberger might be considering a potential appeal of his conviction; and the compelling use of the term "miscarriage of justice" while doing so, a possible reference to the June 2026 Supreme Court landmark ruling of Hunter v US.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. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Here, we discuss the issue that defense expert Sy Ray who published a book and gave a recent podcast interview on the Idaho v Kohberger case which appears to be in conflict with his role as a defense expert and more critically as part of Mr. Kohberger's proposed alibi.

Link to Defense's March 2025 filing RE: Mr. Ray as alibi to Mr. Kohberger - Nov. 13, 2022:

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxQfnpg3br9LNYiaX1h7aslsdbpnm6rk_E

verything 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. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Here, we discuss the issue that defense expert Sy Ray who published a book and gave an interview on Custody Queens podcast on the Idaho v Kohberger case which appears to be in conflict with his role as a defense expert and more critically as part of Mr. Kohberger's proposed alibi.

A playlist of our past content regarding Mr. Kohberger, Mr. Ray and the alibi defense:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLc40a647c19kEverything 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. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

#Idaho4

#IdahovKohberger

#SyRay

#AlibiDefense

#FreeSpeech

Here we provide pure opinions, comments, and speculation concerning the high profile federal civil lawsuit brought by the families of the four students who were tragically lost at 1122 King Road, Goncalves et al. v. Washington State University. While the docket reveals no filings since June 12, 2026, an important deadline is coming up on July 27, 2026 with discovery ongoing that suggests the case in proceeding without formal docket updates. 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 the high profile, highly-sealed criminal case of Idaho v. Kohberger deemed closed on July 23, 2025.

A public records lawsuit was filed by EWU Media against the City of Moscow and Moscow Police Department concerning allegations of violations of the Idaho Public Records Act and. The Respondents have now filed a Supplemental Response denying allegations of wrongdoing supported by the Moscow PD's Chief of Police Declaration. Here we discuss the Conclusion of the Response(more than 30 pages) to help orient the reader on why they deny all wrongdoing in responding to Public Records Requests.

Link to Part I: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpLvXzSj5iE

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.

The First Amendment 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 based on the First Amendment concerning the high profile, highly-sealed criminal case of Idaho v. Kohberger deemed closed on July 23, 2025. A public records lawsuit was filed by EWU Media against the City of Moscow and Moscow Police Department concerning allegations of violations of the Idaho Public Records Act and. The Respondents have now filed a Supplemental Response denying allegations of wrongdoing supported by the Moscow PD's Chief of Police Declaration.

Here we discuss the Introduction of the Response(more than 30 pages) to help orient the reader of what follows. LINK to YT Channel Community Page Discussed Here: https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxSyO2kziC1CSHqCT6AbKWkFTHbL1244iB

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. 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.

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 a notice sent to him to appear at a pre-trial conference, warning if he does not to so a warrant will be issued.

LINK to Notice Sent to Defendant by Court: https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxkWjpm9YCmG1uyAnYpWYj5t8Ow9qPX3AD

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 clothed 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.

#FLvJLR

#JonathanLeeRiches

#DueProcess

Here we provide pure opinions, comments, and speculation based on the First Amendment concerning the high profile, highly-sealed criminal case of Idaho v. Kohberger deemed closed on July 23, 2025. A public records lawsuit was filed by EWU Media against the City of Moscow and Moscow Police Department concerning allegations of violations of the Idaho Public Records Act and. The Respondents have now filed a Supplemental Response denying allegations of wrongdoing supported by the Moscow PD's Chief of Police Declaration.

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. 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.