u/Artissin

Ethan's mom says that 5 girls lived there - who is the 5th?

Source: https://youtu.be/y8HEiOuOzkk?si=ObGbp1fWnuRTsh8e

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.

Maddie had two wounds that are deeper in depth than the length of a standard kabar knife.

A kabar knife such as the one the state claims BK purchased only has a 7 inch blade, plus a guard to protect your hand (and keep the knife from going in deeper than the length of the blade…). Kabar does produce knives that have longer blades, however none of those models match the one the state alleges BK purchased. So how were they going to explain this?

None of the other wounds were this deep. Sure skin is elastic and maybe the argument could be made that with enough force the knife could go deeper thus creating the illusion of a longer blade, sure maybe. But it doesn’t explain how none of the other victims had wounds this deep. The deepest we see in the other 3 victims are wounds of 6 and 7 inches.

The same question could be asked as to how Xana is the only one with wounds consistent with a serrated knife…

Got this from Phoenix Talks - Screen shot from police body cam
Here's the link to actual video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inv6JgFmwuQ

Pav posted this in his most recent video. Who this KA-BAR belong to?
It matches the shorter 4" blade alleged to be one of the weapons used on the victims.

This Payne cop is one evil and corrupt cop as he tries to bury evidence.