u/Accomplished-Day1614

I requested the interview of Yessi Rajo (Yesenia Rajo/Araujo), Bethany Funke’s friend. She’s the same witness the defense later attempted to subpoena and it was returned. I have assumed it’s due to the fact that she contacted MPD herself & reported that Dylan said around 12:00 to 12:30 a.m. on November 13 that she “wasn’t getting drunk” because she “wasn’t feeling it.”

In ISP Supplemental Report 0067, she further explains that she heard that Dylan said she had seen someone inside the house wearing a ski mask but didn’t know what was happening because she was “out of it.” The witness specifically told investigators this struck her as odd because she remembered Dylan saying earlier that night she wasn’t getting drunk and wasn’t feeling it.

That’s one reason Recording D-7 is so important. The actual audio would provide the complete context, the witness’s exact words, her tone, and the detectives’ follow-up questions, none of which are captured in a written summary.

Here’s where things get confusing.

ISP Supplemental Report 0067 explicitly states:
“Recording #D-7 was submitted into evidence at the Moscow Police Department. See recording for full details.”

Based on that, I submitted a public records request to the Moscow Police Department specifically requesting Recording D-7. Their initial response was that no recorded interview exists. After I pointed out that ISP’s own report states Recording D-7 was submitted into MPD evidence, the response changed. MPD then stated that any recorded interview does not exist and advised me that the Idaho State Police is the designated custodian for other investigative records.

I have since submitted the same request to ISP and I am waiting for their response.

However, when others have submitted similar public records requests to ISP, they have been advised that ISP had already turned the investigative materials over to the Moscow Police Department.

So that leaves me with a simple question.

If ISP Supplemental Report 0067 states “Recording #D-7 was submitted into evidence at the Moscow Police Department,” and others requesting records from ISP have been told those investigative materials were already turned over to MPD, where is Recording D-7?

I just find it very convenient!

I submitted a public records request to the City of Moscow seeking records related to Quinn Kelley in connection with MPD Case No. 22-08805, including interviews, supplementals, communications, phone/device analysis, and records involving Dylan Mortensen.

MPD’s response:

✅ Any publicly releasable information is already contained within the released police reports.

❌ FBI records must be requested directly from the FBI.

❌ Several requested record categories were reported as not existing or not being identified.

❌ Any records involving communications between Dylan Mortensen and Quinn Kelley were denied under privacy exemptions.

Request 26-208 is now closed.

Below is the Google Drive link to the entire request:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/161gxiVWEVzBri2dOswv4d1MaLtDHuZ-Y

I’ve updated the original timeline that is posted here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/idaho4uncensored/s/SjmSejlZ7M

The new timeline is saved in the same Google Drive that the original timeline is saved in:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12TJaXs8U-GFdnrpr9ZHCH2Bb9nQakn65

Since the original version was posted, more interviews have been released, along with new documents, and new information. So I’ve gone back through interviews, supplemental reports, phone records, social media activity, vehicle data, and recently released documents to make corrections, add sources, and document conflicts between witness accounts.

This post includes the first 20 pages of the updated 39-page timeline. If you spot an error, have a source that supports a correction, or notice something that should be added, please let me know. I’m continually updating the timeline as new information becomes available. 📄🔍

Credit to @JulezwithTrueCrimeReactions on YouTube for covering the FOIA knife sheath documents live. Go check her channel.

Last night she compared the official MPD Chain of Custody Report for the KA-BAR knife sheath (22M-1810) against the physical evidence bag photo (22M-1810 C.JPG) and found the two records do not fully match. I went through and did a complete comparison, so please see below:

🔴 Missing November 13 entry
The physical bag documents: SCENE → Det. Talbott on 11/13/22 the night the sheath was found. The official MPD chain of custody has no entry for November 13 at all. There is a gap of at least one day where the sheath’s custody is unaccounted for in the official system.

🔴 Booking vs. Reception gap
The bag shows Det. Payne sending it to MPD Evidence on 11/14/22. The official report shows it was BOOKED on 11/14 but not RECEIVED until 11/15 — a one-day gap between booking and reception at the same agency. No explanation given.

🔴 Kandy Florea
The top label on the physical bag shows a transfer from Kandy Florea/CMcKenna → C.McKenna on 12/16/22. Kandy Florea appears nowhere in the official MPD chain of custody report. The official report only shows “C.M[redacted].” Who is Kandy Florea and why is she on the bag but not the official record?

🔴 Duplicate timestamp entries
The official MPD report has two sets of identical duplicate entries at the exact same timestamp ROF entries both at 08:35:29 on 11/16/22, and FLAB entries both at 15:33:08 on 12/16/22. Duplicate entries at the same second in a chain of custody are a significant documentation red flag.

🔴 One month at the lab after testing was complete
Wilt’s biology report issued 11/18/22. Walthall’s latent print report issued 11/19/22. Both exams done within 3 days of the sheath arriving at ISP. The official record shows it wasn’t returned from the lab until 12/16/22 a full month later. What was it doing there for the remaining 27+ days?

🔴 Three different case numbers on the same piece of evidence
Physical bag uses ISP Field Case No. D22-30. Lab reports use M2022-4843. MPD uses 22-M09903. Three different tracking numbers creates serious documentation complexity and chain of custody tracking issues.

🔴 Brett Payne left MPD on approximately April 28, 2025
Yet he was handling this evidence on June 23, 2025
This may be the most alarming entry in the entire record. Brett Payne departed Moscow Police Department around April 28, 2025. Despite no longer being an active MPD employee, the official chain of custody shows him physically opening and re-packaging the knife sheath on June 23, 2025 — nearly two months after his departure — with the stated reason “Opened for re-packaging by Brett Payne.”

Under standard evidence protocols, only authorized custodians with active chain of custody standing should be accessing evidence. A former employee handling the most critical piece of physical evidence in this case with no explanation of what authority he was operating under is a serious chain of custody breach.

🔴 This re-packaging happened nine days before the guilty plea
June 23, 2025 → re-packaged by former MPD employee Brett Payne. July 2, 2025 → Kohberger pleads guilty. Nine days apart. Whether that timing is coincidental or not, the sheath was physically opened and handled by someone with no active custodial standing less than two weeks before the case closed without trial.

🔴 Defense expert Brent Turvey examined it December 2024
Chain shows “Opened for Defense Review Brent Turvey” on 12/12/24. Turvey is a well-known forensic consultant. This aligns with the defense’s MIL specifically challenging touch/contact DNA on the sheath they were clearly building a physical evidence challenge that never got to trial.

🟡 Subject field reads “UNK” (Unknown)
Consistent with the sheath being collected before Kohberger was identified but the tag was never updated after identification.

🔴 THE PHYSICAL BAG AND THE ELECTRONIC SYSTEM DON’T JUST DISAGREE ON WHO HANDLED IT THEY DISAGREE ON HOW MANY TIMES IT WAS ACCESSED

This may be the most important anomaly of all.

What the physical bag shows:

• 11/13/22 — Scene → Det. Talbott
• 11/14/22 — Det. Talbott → MPD Det. Payne
• 11/14/22 — Det. Payne → MPD Evidence
• 11/16/22 — Cpl. Willerford → Cpl. Turbott/Turba[?]
• 11/16/22 — Cpl. Turba[?]th → ISP F.S.

The physical bag stops there. Nothing after 11/16/22.

What the electronic system shows after 11/16/22 none of which appear on the physical bag:

• 12/16/22 — FLAB return from ISP lab (entered twice, same timestamp)
• 04/06/23 — VIEW — Jeff Talbott — “Opened for review by Legal Defense Team”
• 12/12/24 — VIEW — Brett Payne — “Opened for Defense Review Brent Turvey”
• 06/23/25 — VIEW — Brett Payne — “Opened for re-packaging”
• 07/07/25 — LCHG — Hold as Evidence

Every single time a sealed evidence bag is opened, standard protocol requires a new entry on the physical bag label itself who opened it, when, and why. That’s the whole point of the label. It’s a real-time contemporaneous record that travels with the evidence.

After 11/16/22 the physical bag goes completely silent. Yet the electronic system logs four separate access events spanning nearly three years including two openings by a man who was no longer employed by MPD.

This leaves three possibilities:

1. Nobody was updating the physical bag when they accessed it a serious protocol violation across multiple handlers over multiple years
2. The bag photographed is not the original bag the sheath was collected in which is a much bigger problem

Any of these three explanations is deeply problematic for the integrity of this evidence.

🔴 THE ELECTRONIC SYSTEM AND THE PHYSICAL BAG DON’T MATCH AND THAT’S THE WHOLE PROBLEM

Everyone keeps pointing to the electronic tracking system as the authoritative record. But look at what we actually have:

The physical evidence bag written in real time, by the person, at the moment of each transfer tells one story.

The electronic MPD chain of custody system entered later, editable, subject to data entry errors tells a different story.

They contradict each other on:

• The very first custody transfer (11/13 exists on the bag, missing from the electronic system)
• Who handled it (Kandy Florea is on the bag, doesn’t exist in the electronic record)
• Duplicate events (phantom duplicate entries in the electronic system that don’t appear on the bag)
• A former employee’s access (electronic system shows Brett Payne handling evidence nearly two months after leaving MPD)

The physical bag is a contemporaneous record. It was written on the spot. The electronic system was populated after the fact and clearly contains errors and omissions. If these two records were presented side by side at trial, the electronic system’s credibility would have been seriously challenged.

That trial never happened.

BOTTOM LINE

The key discrepancies:

• Missing 11/13/22 entry in the official electronic system
• One-day gap between booking and receipt at the same agency
• Kandy Florea on the physical bag, completely absent from the electronic record
• Duplicate timestamp entries only in the electronic system
• 27+ days unexplained retention at ISP lab after testing was complete
• Three different case numbers tracking the same item
• A former MPD employee — who left approximately April 28, 2025 — physically re-packaging the most critical piece of evidence nine days before the guilty plea

Any one of these might be explainable individually. Together they represent exactly the kind of chain of custody challenge that Brent Turvey was hired to scrutinize and that the MIL on touch/contact DNA was designed to litigate. None of it ever got tested at trial.

The electronic system everyone keeps citing doesn’t even match the bag that was on the evidence itself.

Make of that what you will.

After reading Christopher Whitcomb's book Broken Plea, one section has always stood out to me. Whitcomb writes:

"It did not help that DM blamed much of her confusion on being drunk when other witnesses found that confusing. On December 1, for example, a woman named Yesenia Rajo called police from the Delta Zeta sorority to report that she saw Mortensen the night of November 12, and DM was not drinking. Rajo told police she had heard from friends that DM was “too drunk to know what happened,” but that could not be correct because she had talked to her friend about being completely sober."

I tracked down the actual ISP document he’s referencing Supplement 0067 and here’s what it actually says.

⚠️Update**⚠️Yessi’s name is actually Yesi / Yessi / Yesenia Araujo. To explain Whitcomb’s discrepancy where he stated Rajo in the book, I have since found this document that settles it. A subpoena was filed in State v. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665) and attempted to be served by the Latah County Sheriff on June 11, 2025. The subject named on that subpoena is Yesenia Rajo — confirming Whitcomb’s spelling was correct all along. The return of service was stamped “Not Found,” meaning she could no longer be located at her last known address. Which further explains that her actual name is Yesenia A**raujo.

This also adds something important that wasn’t in the original post, Kohberger’s own defense team subpoenaed her for trial. This wasn’t just a tip that got buried. The people with the most at stake in this case thought her testimony was significant enough to pursue. The fact that she couldn’t be served is a separate matter entirely.

I have uploaded a copy of the subpoena in the Google Drive link below.
 
Yessi Araujo — ISP Supplement 0067:

Araujo called ISP on December 1, three weeks after the murders. She didn’t call in a general tip. She called specifically because the narrative circulating among friends that DM was “too drunk to know what happened” directly contradicted what DM had told her personally the night of the murders.

The document confirms that Araujo ran into DM at around 12:00–12:30 a.m. on November 12. DM told her she couldn’t get drunk and made a statement to the effect of "she wasn't feeling it."

Araujo told detectives this struck her as odd because she specifically remembered DM saying she wasn’t getting drunk that night.

At this point, I don’t understand how Yessi’s statements didn’t open the police’s eyes to what was going on here.
 
Why This Matters / The Full Pattern Across Every Interview

Whitcomb also notes that in 127 minutes of recorded statements, DM expressed doubt about her own recollection 62 times. I went through all of DM’s interviews myself and what I found is a clear pattern that evolves across every single one. Here’s the full breakdown.

One key thing to keep in mind throughout: drinking stopped at approximately 1:15–1:30 a.m. by DM’s own account. She got a sober ride home, made popcorn, put on Vampire Diaries. Her exact words when Det. Gooch asked: "No more alcohol." The encounter with the figure in the hallway happened at approximately 4:00 a.m. nearly 2.5 hours later.
 
Nov. 13 — First Interview (Det. Mowery) — Hours After the Murders

• "I'm in and out of it. I don't think anything of it. I just think everyone's asleep."
• "I don't know if it's real or if my mind's just drunk and awake. I just don't know really."
• "I don't know what's real and what's not, pretty much, from that moment."
 
Nov. 17 — Second Interview (Det. Gooch) — The Drunk Explanation Grows

That’s 8 separate invocations of alcohol in a single interview — four days after the murders, about a window that ended 2.5 hours after she stopped drinking.

• "We were obviously all very drunk."
• "I don't know if I was still drunk; probably was. I don't know for sure. I was really asleep."
• "Again, I believe I was also very drunk. I don't know how much of this is real. I don't know if my mind was doing whatever."
• "I don't know any of it. Half of this stuff I don't know if it's a dream or if it's real. I just have no clue."
• "When I am drunk, I fall asleep a lot better… a lot deeper sleep, I would say."
• "I was obviously probably still a little bit drunk. I just woke up. I don't remember fully."
• "I don't know fully how much I had to drink. I obviously was probably drunk at this point."
• "What if he wasn't even there? How much do I actually know is real? How much do I think is made up in my mind?"

Erin (FBI) Interview — "I Was Drunk" Gives Way to Dream & Dissociation

By this interview “I was drunk” is largely replaced by dream and dissociation language — but the effect is identical. Every critical memory is still unreachable.

• "I also was very out of it. Like I don't remember seeing anything weird."
• "Everything is just, like — I don't know what happened between those times. Like that time is just gone."
• "The dream keeps mixing it up… I don't remember if at that point that's when I thought it was a fireman or not."
• "I couldn't, like, fully understand when I woke up that that, like, was a dream or not."
• "I don't remember him coming downstairs at all. And there was never, like, screaming or help me. There's none of that, ever."

She also reveals in this interview that she forgot to tell police they had been drinking champagne that morning — the very first drink of the day.
 
Dec. 30 — Fifth/Sixth Interview (Det. Lake) — Seven Weeks Later

Seven weeks out, alcohol is still the explanation for something as basic as whether her own bedroom door was open or closed.

• "I don't know if I left my door or not that night. I usually did when I wasn't drunk, but I was drunk that night. So I have no clue."
• "I thought it was around 2:00 when I went to bed, but it could have been later. I don't fully remember. Again, I was kind of out of it. I was drunk."

What Yessi Araujo did was remarkable and underappreciated. She didn’t come forward with gossip or speculation she came forward with a direct, firsthand contradiction. She had spoken to DM personally that night, hours before the murders, and DM told her she couldn’t even get drunk. Then within 24 hours the story circulating among their friends was that DM was too drunk to know what happened. Yessi recognized that didn’t add up, picked up the phone, called the police, and told them exactly what she witnessed. That call is documented in ISP Supplement 0067.

The fact that it didn’t appear to change anything about how investigators approached DM’s account is something I keep coming back to. Yessi did everything right. The question is whether anyone was listening.

The google drive contains all documents and info related to the post: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1l8H8as\_0b19k7Tfrm1GLy\_zvVzbnJ1M0

The KaBar knife sheath is supposedly the cornerstone of the physical evidence against BK. His DNA was on the front strap. Blood from both Kaylee Goncalves and Madison Mogen was on the back, but the documentation surrounding how and where it was found deserves serious scrutiny.

FOUR OFFICERS. ZERO MENTIONS OF A SHEATH.

Four officers entered and documented the third floor SE bedroom where Mogen and Goncalves were found. Not one mentions a sheath.

Officer Nunes was first inside the residence. His report documents the victims, the blood, the injuries in detail. Evidence section: “None.” — No sheath mentioned.

Officer Warner didn’t just observe from the doorway. He observed Maddie and wrote: “I walked to the far side of the bed to determine if the female on the right was beyond help. I saw the female’s leg was off the edge of the bed and it had lividity. Once I noticed the lividity in the female’s leg, I backed out of the room.” He was standing essentially where the sheath was allegedly located. He was detail-oriented enough to note a poodle in the west bedroom. Evidence section: “None.” No sheath mentioned.

Officer Smith specifically described the comforter: “The comforter was soaked in blood and a pool of blood was still present.” Evidence section: “None.” — No sheath mentioned.

Cpl. Snyder took approximately 16 photographs of the victims’ bedroom the floor, the bed, above the bed, the walls, the closet, the desk. In his photo log he specifically labeled a steak knife on a beer pong table downstairs. He labeled nothing resembling a sheath across 16 photos of the victims’ room. Evidence section: “Photos burned to CD.” — No sheath mentioned.

Defense experts who reviewed unredacted body cam footage have stated the sheath is not visible in any of it.

TALBOTT ARRIVES — SHEATH APPEARS

ISP Detective Talbott arrived at approximately 2:41 PM, hours after the first responders. He was assigned lead crime scene investigator. The sheath first appears in documentation after his arrival.

Evidence Receipt D22-30, Item #4: “Knife (KBar) sheath on floor next to Vic #3”

This is the first mention of the sheath in any official document.

TALBOTT’S OWN DOCUMENTS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER

His evidence receipt: “on floor next to Vic #3”

His own narrative report (ISP Supplemental 0032): “Near MOGEN’s left hip was a tan-colored leather sheath partially covered by the comforter.”

The “REDACTED Exhibits S-1 through S-13 to States Amended Supp Resp to Req Discovery RE Expert Disclosure Court Document”: Places the sheath on the sheet near Mogen’s lower left back/thigh, with impact spatter noted on the sheet around it.

Floor. Bed. Sheet. Three different locations from the same investigator and subsequent analysis.

The cell phone and vape pen comparison make this worse. Look at that same evidence receipt:

•Item #19: Blue/pink iPhone — “bed under Vic #4”
• Item #20: Juul vape pen — “under Vic #4”
• Item #4: KaBar sheath — “on floor next to Vic #3”

Talbott used precise, specific language when items were underneath a victim in the bed. He documented it that way twice on the same receipt. If the sheath was found under or on Victim #3 as the state’s forensic evidence suggests, why doesn’t Item #4 read “under Vic #3” or “on bed next to Vic #3”?

Instead it says floor. Due to this I am not surprised that Dr. Turvey claimed the sheath was planted especially when 4 of the first arriving officers never saw or reported the sheath.

All mentioned files can be found saved here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wtyTUe\_BIDMYzDs24vGVgtydcICZ6p8F

⚠️UPDATE⚠️ I want to make something clear before because I probably should have included this from the beginning. I am only posting this to squash the claims that DM never said she could see the sliding door area from her room and that she never said she saw the guy go out the sliding door.

Because she absolutely did say those things. So regardless of what anyone believes about DM, the claim that she never said these things is simply false. She did. Multiple times.

Now, in my personal opinion, everything DM told LE was a fabricated lie. But that is not the point of this post. The point of this post is that Dylan absolutely did tell investigators she could see the sliding door area from her bedroom and that she saw the man dressed in black go out the sliding door and leave. Then she went on and LIED in her grand jury testimony, by claiming:

“I did not really see it.”

See the full original post below:

So to squash the argument I’ve seen across multiple posts about whether DM ever claimed she actually saw the man dressed in black leave through the sliding door:

Yes. She absolutely did.

According to Officer Nunes’ report, on 11/13/2022 DM stated she “observed a male” leave the second-floor patio area.”

In her November 13 interview with Detective Mowrey, she stated: “I could see, like, the window door that slides open back there.”

She then followed that up with: “And then I saw him go out the door and leave.”

That is not an assumption. That is not an inference. That is not “I think he went that way.” That is a direct statement that she saw him go out the door.

Four days later, in her interview with Detective Gooch, her certainty began to change: “But what I think was going on was that he was, like, slowly walking, like, across from the living room to the kitchen out the sliding door. That's what I think I remember..”

Then, during grand jury testimony, the statement changed again: “I can’t say I know he went out there, because I did not really see it, but I believed he had gone out that way.”

So the record from 11/13/2022 goes from: “I could see, like, the window door that slides open back there.”

to: “I saw him go out the door and leave.”

to: “But what I think was going on was that he was, like, slowly walking, like, across from the living room to the kitchen out the sliding door. That's what I think I remember..”

to: “I did not really see it.”

The photographs taken from DM’s room raise an obvious question about what was actually visible from her doorway and whether she could directly see the sliding door itself.

But one thing is not debatable: DM repeatedly told investigators that she saw the man go out the door before later testifying that she “did not really see it.” She also told Detective Mowery clearly, “I could see, like, the window door that slides open back there.”

CONCLUSION

As you can clearly see, the sliding glass door itself is not visible from D.M.’s bedroom doorway.

The only plausible way D.M. could have observed someone exiting through the sliding door would have been through the reflection in the window above the kitchen sink.

However, if that is what actually occurred, the kitchen lights would have had to be on, and D.M. would have had a relatively clear view of the individual.

On November 13, D.M. stated: “I saw him go out the door and leave.”

Yet during her grand jury testimony, she stated: “I did not really see it.”

The photographs, interviews, and testimony speak for themselves.

This is something else that has never sat well with me.

In the months leading up to November 13, MPD appeared to have a significant presence around the King Road area.

On September 1 and September 2, 2022, officers responded to noise complaints at 1122 King Road. Bodycam footage shows officers not only at the residence, but walking through the surrounding neighborhood on foot. One of those responses reportedly involved four officers, including one in plain clothes.

Then on the night of the murders, officers were conducting a plain-clothes alcohol enforcement detail in the King Road area. According to Officer Tesdahl’s report, he and another officer were operating out of a silver Ford Fusion and made several patrols through the area of King Street and Queen Road between approximately 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m.

What I found interesting is that Tesdahl specifically wrote:

“As we traveled north on the west side of the apartment complex, I saw several individuals approaching the residence at 1122 King Street.”

He later added:

“As I turned onto Queen Road and traveled west, I continued to view the individuals. From my recollection, there were at least two individuals, possibly three. I recall one of the individuals having blonde hair.”

He went on to state that he could not recall exactly how many individuals there were, what they were wearing, or other details because he was focused on looking for alcohol violations.

The same report states that shortly afterward, officers contacted three individuals near the Band Field/Taylor Avenue area around 2:55 a.m. and did not clear that contact until 3:32 a.m.

Another detail that stood out to me is that the plain-clothes officers were driving a silver Ford Fusion throughout the patrol on 11/13/2022. Looking at some of the footage released in this case, it’s hard not to notice the similarity between that vehicle and what many people have referred to as “SV1.” I’m not saying they’re the same vehicle, only that it seems like a relevant detail that doesn’t get discussed very often.

Taken together, you have multiple noise complaint responses at 1122 King Road, officers walking the neighborhood on foot, plain-clothes patrols in the area, officers observing people approaching the house, and a contact with three individuals in the Band Field. Most notably, these plain-clothes officers were actively patrolling the King Road area during the early morning hours of November 13, the same night the murders occurred.

Am I the only one who finds the amount of police activity around King Road before and during the early morning hours of November 13 to be interesting and this plain clothes patrols strange?

These are several of the questions and issues I have related to this case. All sources: State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665.

THE WOUND COUNT

150+ documented wound entrances. Four victims. Two floors. 13 minutes. How?

THE BLOOD TRAIL

No victim left their bedroom after being attacked — official forensic conclusion. Yet blood from all four victims was carried throughout the house, deliberately diluted and in motion. Someone carried it. Who?

THE SHOE PRINT

A bloody shoe print outside DM’s bedroom door — Vans type sole pattern — described in a Room Search report as believed to belong to Kohberger. Never forensically confirmed. No evidence Kohberger owned Vans shoes. Who made that print?

THE UNKNOWN MALE DNA

A bloodstain on the stairway handrail contained unknown male DNA excluding all 18 reference samples. Only one profile searched through CODIS. Who is he?

THE SHEATH

Original evidence receipt documents it found on the floor — not the bed. New and unused. No fingerprints anywhere on it. DNA on the front strap described by the ISP lab as naturally occurring environmental trace DNA. The murder weapon was never recovered.

THE KA-BAR CONCLUSION

The autopsy reports don’t mention a Ka-Bar anywhere. The identification came six months later when MPD brought a purchased sample knife to Dr. Singh. The expert disclosure that followed adds details never in the original reports and softens documented findings. That opinion was never cross examined.

THE AMAZON EVIDENCE

Det. Payne confirmed under sworn testimony that he first heard Kohberger’s name on December 19, 2022. 11 days after Amazon returned the broad warrant data. If Kohberger purchased the Ka-Bar through Amazon his name would have appeared in that return. The actual order history Excel file is sealed. No verified purchase receipt has ever been made public.

THE EYEWITNESS

DM said “I have no clue” when shown Kohberger’s mugshot. Her account changed in every interview over 18 days. She could not distinguish dreams from reality. She never called anyone, Bethany called her. She locked her door instead of helping her roommates. This was the foundation of the prosecution’s eyewitness case.

THE FINGERNAIL DNA

The defense’s independent lab excluded Kohberger entirely from the fingernail scrapings. The state’s expert presented his inconclusive result without disclosing the same result applied to virtually everyone tested — including a victim herself.

THE ALTERNATE PERPETRATORS

Defense identified four individuals connected to the victims, three at social events with them the night before, all within walking distance of the scene. All four cooperated. All four were excluded from crime scene DNA testing. A jury never heard about any of them.

THE CRIME SCENE

ISP forensic team handwritten notes document that detectives moved beds and furniture before the forensic team arrived. Evidence swabs were zip-tied and left at the scene overnight. The forensic team was directed by police on where evidence was and was not.

THE BOTTOM LINE

He could not get a single thing thrown out. He faced the death penalty. He took the plea.

None of this was ever tested in open court. There was no trial.

Feel free to add any questions I missed in the comments.

UPDATED: HE RESPONDED TO ME AND BASICALLY STATED: He was talking about the pre-plea posture of the case, not the current posture, and acknowledged that his wording made it sound like he was saying the case was still headed to trial.

I came across a comment from Crime Talk/Scott Reisch today that left me genuinely confused.

A commenter pointed out that Judge Hippler accepted Kohberger’s plea in open court and that the case is no longer headed to trial unless there is some future appeal.
In response, Crime Talk stated:

Kohberger has entered not guilty pleas and is headed toward trial.

There has been no change-of-plea hearing.

There is no accepted guilty plea on the record.

The case is still in a pretrial posture.

There is no conviction, sentence, or appeal clock running.
The thing I can’t reconcile is that this comment was posted recently, not before the plea proceedings.

Am I misunderstanding what he’s trying to say?

Is he referring to an earlier procedural stage of the case and just didn’t make that clear, or is he actually arguing that the plea hearing and Judge Hippler’s acceptance of the plea did not occur?

I’ve attached screenshots because I feel like I’m reading something completely different than everyone else.

What am I missing here?

I went ahead and commented back to him to ask him what in the world he is talking about! I’ve pointed to the comment I made in red.

Here is the source: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14d2Kpcvf8S/?mibextid=wwXIfr

After reading all the transcripts and listening to all the interviews, I find what D.M. told the police very concerning. She was the only eyewitness to the intruder at 1122 King Road on November 13, 2022. Her account changed materially every time.

I’ve gone through all of her official interview transcripts and the court exhibits filed in support of Defense Motion in Limine #7 and documented the contradictions across each session. This is a 16-slide series covering everything from the eyebrow identification, to what Kaylee actually said, to Murphy, to what D.M. told law enforcement on the night of the murders versus what she said a year later.

All quotes are sourced directly from official transcripts, her interviews, and court filings. The full documents are linked below — read and listen to them yourself.

📁 Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ehQlFuEl7U5TIL6GtYA\_N0ghtyPYEkix

I am really tired of having the same argument with all of these people so I am making this post.

I have been reading through all of the documents in this case carefully and there is a critical sequence of events that is being overlooked in every discussion about the weapon.

Fact 1 — The actual autopsy reports do not identify the Ka-Bar

Nowhere in any of the four autopsy reports dated November 16, 2022 does it state the type of knife used. Not one of the four reports mentions a Ka-Bar. The primary autopsy documents only describe blade characteristics dimensions and edge profiles. No specific weapon is ever identified.

Fact 2 — Each autopsy independently documents different blade characteristics

When you read each report individually:

• Ethan: thickness only — 5/32 to 3/16 inch. No width. No edge type
• Madison: width 1-3/16 to 1-1/4 inch and thickness. No edge type
• Kaylee: same dimensions PLUS a double-edged segment and single-edged segment
• Xana: same as Kaylee PLUS wounds consistent with a partly serrated blade

Four reports. Four distinct blade descriptions. No knife identified in any of them.

Fact 3 — The Ka-Bar conclusion comes from a meeting 6 months later

This is documented in a police supplemental narrative dated June 28, 2023 over 6 months after the autopsies.

On that date investigators physically brought the Ka-Bar knife (evidence item #733) to Dr. Singh at the Spokane County Medical Examiner’s Office. They brought pre-selected photos from each victim. Dr. Singh then went through those photos with investigators and explained how the Ka-Bar could have caused the injuries.

PER MPD INVESTIGATIVE REPORT 208: The #733 Evidence Item was a Ka Bar knife that GILBERTSON FROM ISP purchased from Amazon to use as a SAMPLE on June 13, 2023.

The actual documented sequence:

1. November 16, 2022 — autopsies performed. Four distinct blade descriptions documented. No knife identified anywhere in the reports

2. June 28, 2023 — investigators bring the Ka-Bar to Dr. Singh and show her pre-selected photos walking her through how it could have caused the wounds

3. January 27, 2025 — prosecution files expert disclosure stating one Ka-Bar could explain all wounds

The bottom line:

The Ka-Bar conclusion does not originate from the autopsy reports. It originates from a meeting six months later where investigators brought Dr. Singh a specific knife and pre-selected crime scene photos.

That is not an independent forensic conclusion formed at autopsy. That is an opinion formed after investigators presented her with a specific weapon and specific evidence.

That opinion was never cross examined. Never challenged by defense experts. Never tested in open court.

There was no trial.

One final point that cannot be disputed:

Every time someone cites the Ka-Bar as the proven weapon they are citing the prosecution’s expert disclosure document not the autopsy reports themselves.

The four primary autopsy reports signed by Dr. Singh on November 16, 2022 do not mention a Ka-Bar anywhere. You can read all four reports cover to cover and the words Ka-Bar do not appear in any of them.

The Ka-Bar identification came from a meeting six months later where investigators brought the knife to Dr. Singh and showed her pre-selected photos. That subsequent opinion was then incorporated into the prosecution’s expert disclosure filed in January 2025 nearly two and a half years after the autopsies were performed.

So when people say the ME says it was a Ka-Bar they are conflating two completely different documents created two and a half years apart under very different circumstances.

The autopsy reports say no such thing. That is a fact that can be verified by anyone who reads them.

For years, one of the biggest questions in this case has been: “Why didn’t DM text or call anyone outside the house?”

People have criticized her, questioned her, and used it as a reason to doubt her account.

The answer has been sitting in her interview transcripts this entire time. She did.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/022425+Exhibits+in+Support+of+Motion+in+Limine+RE+Witness+Identification+by+Bushy+Eyebrows.pdf

What the transcript says:

While the murders were happening, DM texted her boyfriend Quinn telling him:

“There’s someone in our house” and that “Kaylee said someone was here and someone was crying in the bathroom, but I don’t understand what’s going on.”

His response? He told her it was probably just a drunk person who knew the house code explaining that the girls before them had the same code and it had been passed around to friends.

The big question: Did investigators ever contact Quinn?

• His texts would have an exact timestamp potentially placing the murders within a specific window of time
• His phone records could help establish a more precise timeline of when the murders were occurring
• DM mentioned texting him casually in her interview and investigator Erin Williamson never pressed her on it — no follow-up questions about what exactly was said or when
• There is no public record of Quinn ever being interviewed or his phone being examined

This is from page 36 of the transcript filed as Defendant’s Motion in Limine Exhibit No. 7 in State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger.

Has anyone ever seen her boyfriend, Quinn mentioned in any discovery documents?

In this document that was just released it contains excerpts from the Grand Jury Testimony from DM Exhibit 10 pp. 176, 177, and 199 (5/15/2023) along with the photos showing the view from D.M.’s bedroom door.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/022425+Exhibits+in+Support+of+Motion+in+Limine+RE+Witness+Identification+by+Bushy+Eyebrows.pdf

After reviewing the document I have some questions about what she stated during the Grand Jury. DM testified:

“I guess, when I saw the person, there was like two snares in my head, there was someone running with high knees, and then someone walking towards the sliding door.”

To me this sounds like she is describing two people?

She then added:

“It could have been like they’re both the same thing happening, he maybe started running and then walking.”

What’s interesting to me is that she also testified:

“Honest, I don’t know for sure.”

regarding the direction the person’s body was facing, and later said:

“I couldn’t say for sure. I can’t fully remember that.”

She also stated:

“I wouldn’t say I fully remember their face, but I remember seeing his eyebrows…”

Then after seeing the photos taken from D.M.‘s bedroom doorway, I’m trying to understand exactly what she could have seen from that position. She never could have seen the person or people leave out of the sliding door if she had just been peeking out of her door from her room.

📸 Photo 1 (Photo 4 attached): Looking out from D.M.’s room toward the kitchen/hallway.

📸 Photo 2 (Photo 5 attached): Looking out from D.M.’s room with the door only partially open, similar to how she described peeking out.

Based on this testimony alone, I think a fair question is whether D.M. was recalling one individual whose movements she couldn’t clearly reconstruct, or whether her memory left her uncertain as to whether she may have observed more than one person.

Let me know your thoughts!

The autopsy reports have been released:

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/012725+Exhibits+S-1+and+S-1+a-e+to+States+Supp+Resp+to+Rqst+for+Disc+RE+Penalty+Phase+Experts.pdf

Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hFN8NIvmLwTktmiOCrSwFdHPOrW2x\_V-/view?usp=drivesdk

⚠️Warning ⚠️ the autopsy reports are graphic and it’s incredibly sad what happened to these victims, but I have read all four autopsy reports in their entirety. Below are the facts directly from the documents that I think deserve more attention.

Weapon characteristics - this is important

The medical examiner documented different blade characteristics across the four victims:

• Ethan and Madison: wounds consistent with a single-edged blade
• Kaylee and Xana: wounds consistent with a single-edged and/or double-edged blade
• Xana: additional wounds consistent with a partially serrated blade

These are not the same weapon profile. The ME noted the serration could potentially be from a knife handle, but the double-edged finding on Kaylee and Xana vs single-edged on Ethan and Madison is documented and distinct.

Total wound counts directly from the reports:

• Ethan: 17 wounds
• Madison: 28 wounds
• Kaylee: 38+ wounds
• Xana: 67+ wounds

That is over 100 individual wound tracks across four victims on different floors of the house.

Kaylee’s wounds specifically:

The reports document 24+ wounds to her head and neck alone including:

• Multiple wounds that penetrated the outer table of the skull creating actual bone defects
• A wound complex that caused a posteriorly displaced segment of skull bone
• At least 5 stab wounds clustered on the left cheek, 2 of which penetrated the maxillary bone and entered the maxillary sinus
• Multiple upper and lower teeth sharply divided including at least 8 teeth
• The tongue lacerated to 3/4 inch depth with strips of oral mucosa cut away
• Her fixed dental retainer was displaced onto her tongue
• 2 gaping neck wounds each approximately 4 inches long
• A chest wound that caused 1,000 mL of blood in the left chest cavity
• A right chest wound 7 inches deep that penetrated the lung, diaphragm and liver
• The ME documented blunt force and asphyxial injuries as significant contributors to death meaning she was also struck and showed signs of oxygen deprivation on top of the stab wounds
• Petechial hemorrhages were present in her eyes and mouth

Xana’s defensive wounds specifically:

The reports document:

• 15 wounds on her right arm and hand alone
• 10 wounds on her left arm and hand
• Her thumb tip was partially amputated
• Bones of her hand were incised
• Both her shoulder and elbow joint capsules were exposed by wounds
• Tendons and muscles of the hand were transected
• A single chest wound penetrated the left atrium of the heart with 1,000 mL of blood in the left chest cavity and 500 mL in the right
• Additional wounds penetrated the right ventricle of the heart

This level of defensive wounding indicates a significant and prolonged struggle.

The timeline question:

With over 100 wounds across four victims on different floors, Xana showing evidence of an extensive fight, different blade characteristics documented across victims, and the level of injury to Kaylee suggesting prolonged and focused attack, the forensic evidence raises legitimate questions about how long this actually took and whether one person could have done this alone.