Talk:2022 University of Idaho killings

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access
— Assignment last updated by WikiEdit7205 (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Investigation Section
I'll try to get back to this eventually but don't have time any time soon, so maybe this mention will motivate someone else who has been following the court proceedings…

The details listed in this article seem to be from news sources and don't match the information that's come out in the pre-trial court events.

The court documents are all available on Idaho.gov If you scroll down on the main page they have a Cases of Interest page with all of the court documents available there. Jelly Garcia (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jelly Garcia This is common problem everywhere. The news gets something wrong, but it gets blasted everywhere and never corrected. It would take someone really dedicated to this case to make the corrections. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Name of the accused
It seems inconsistent to me to have the accused name present in this article. The policy WP:BLPCRIME seems pretty clear to me on not naming people until convicted unless they are already a person of note. Some may argue that the accused is well-known at this point, but there are other cases that are also widely reported on and the decision has been made to keep the accused out of the article. For example: Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German. In this case the accused is maintaining his innocence and again the policy seems quite clear to not name people until a conviction has been secured. Pictwe (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The policy does not say "to not name people until a conviction has been secured". Rather, it says "editors must seriously consider not including material ...". It would seem that editors have "considered", and determined, that the widespread publication of Kohberger's name warrants its inclusion here. WWGB (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet they decided the opposite in the case I linked to. Curious. Especially when in the other case the lawyers are giving press releases, and in this case the accused is trying to preserve his privacy and keep the media out. Pictwe (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Each article has its own local consensus. This article found consensus for including the suspect's name; the other article hasn't. See Talk:Murders_of_Abigail_Williams_and_Liberty_German. Some1 (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Please don't look to the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German article as an example of how to do things. The ongoing censorship of the criminal defendant's name in that article is a disgrace to the Wikipedia community.MiamiManny (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Says he pleaded not guilty. He didn’t
He stood silent. A plea was entered on his behalf Jelly Garcia (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jelly Garcia he did not enter a plea. The court entered a plea on his behalf. Idaho Pleas Rule 11 for reference. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "A plea was entered on his behalf" is literally what I said. Jelly Garcia (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

We should immediately remove the name of accused and section about him
It’s unethical to leave this up. I’ve read every single court document and watched all hearings. He likely did not commit the murders. Any logical person who reads all the documents and watches the hearings will understand the same.

May I please change it to remove the name of the accused?

There is no real evidence in this case whatsoever.

• The Defense hasn’t received any of the most crucial evidence mentioned in the PCA yet, which supposedly justified his arrest in Dec, 2022.

- The upcoming May 14 & 16 (2024) hearings are in regard to that.

• They don’t have the video of the vehicle in the neighborhood, the CAST report from the FBI (subpeonaed 05/02), all cell phone data, or the drive test,(confirmed in hearings: 01/26, 02/28, 05/02/2025); and there is something critically wrong with the SNP DNA info that supposedly led to him (08/18/2023 hearing, Fifth Motion to Compel, 05/02 hearing, upcoming 05/14 & 05/16 closed hearings)

• The state is not using most of the DNA evidence in the trial (State’s Motion for Protective Order) and attempted for 11 months to withhold it before being ordered in October to hand it over.

• Their method for obtaining it is highly questionable (taken from shared trash across the country where suspect was, instead of their empty apt near the investigation, where the trash is not shared, and no risk of being observed) and breaks many guidelines of the DoJ Interim Policy they’re bound by, including warrantless search, of the DNA database with surreptitiously-obtained third-party DNA (it’s not the trash that needs the warrant; it’s the genetic info)

• The only confirmed official identifications of the vehicle in the King Rd. neighborhood come from the FBI examiner and Chief Fry: 2011-2013.

- This includes the PCA. The PCA only identifies a 2011-2013 in the King Rd. neighborhood.

- He does not drive a 2011-2013. He had a 2015.

• Only the car on the WSU campus was identified as a 2014-2016.

- that’s where the defendant lives, works, and keeps his car.

• There are obvious differences and the camera mentioned in the PCA is directly in front of the intersection at King & Queen where the car is stated to have made a 3-pt. turn.

• Chief Fry of the Moscow PD & the FBI examiner, who are the only officials who have identified the car, have a combined 65+ years of experience and confirmed it as being a 2011-2013.

- No official statement confirms a 2015 Elantra as being in the neighborhood.(All officials avoid definitively identifying the vehicle starting 1 day after the arrest.)

• There is no phone evidence for the time of the crime whatsoever. - The phone evidence that exists from the surrounding hours points toward being elsewhere.

• The prosecutors confirmed the allegations of stalking are false in the 04/10/2024 hearing.

• The claims accompanying the STR DNA are completely anomalous and have a huge, obvious indication of an error (misidentified complex mixture) as it’s astronomically outside of what is practical from a trace single-source sample (no comparable result exists in any study or case, and I don’t think they’re rewriting the text books over this claim).

- PCAST report on validity of forensic evidence: “Because many different DNA profiles may fit [superimpose] within some mixture profiles, the probability that a suspect ‘cannot be excluded’ as a possible contributor to complex mixture may be much higher (in some cases, millions of times higher) than the probabilities encountered for single-source DNA profiles.”

- this is octillions of times higher than what’s encountered for trace single-source.

• Not a trace of any of the victim’s DNA was found in his home, office, or the car he’s alleged to have entered mere moments after the murders when he’d presumably be drenched in blood or transporting bloody clothing.

• The claim in the State’s Motion for Protective Order, that the (12” long leather) sheath was found after being sandwiched “partially under the body of Madison Mogen & her comforter” for 12 hours, but only had male DNA on it, logically, makes no sense. • No connection has been found to any of the victims in any way and that’s been confirmed in open court with prosecutor’s acquiescence.

• The phone pings in the PCA actually make it impossible for him to have been there at the times stated. - See Aug 21 traffic stop: he’s said to ping “utilizing cell phone resources shared by the King Rd. residence” til 11:35; he’s pulled over at 11:37 much farther than 2 mins from their house (he got a $10 seatbelt ticket right outside of the 24 hr grocery store in Moscow).

- cell towers give ranges of miles, not feet.

• There’s no evidence that he’s ever been to that neighborhood or was aware of the victims until after their deaths.

The PCA is a joke once you see the prosecutors assert stalking is false in their attempt to have the defense expert’s survey thrown out for asking about “false information” - stalking… which is only suggested in the PCA they advised the public to “share far and wide,” which states they sought phone evidence to determine if he “stalked” a victim …then goes on to list (completely irrelevant) phone “evidence.” …It’s an oxymoron (04/04 hearing)

The judge’s remarks on 05/02 included “if this ever makes it to trial,” and that something else (we don’t know of) that’s missing discovery is “a big deal,” and issued the FBI a subpoena deuces tecum for what the State didn’t turn in.

I would not be surprised if this doesn't make to to trial.

This seems to be a case built around a DNA mistake - false positive from misidentified complex mixture (likely why they hired Stephen Mercer, additional advising expert on PCAST report, top litigator on complex mixtures) but that hasn’t been stated yet. Bicka Barlow, another of the experts, viewed the STR DNA they aim to use in trial & referred to it as “partial and ambiguous” (Declaration in Support of Third Motion to Compel Discovery).

The evidence is completely unsubstantial and this article is wildly inappropriate while he is still considered innocent, and likely is factually innocent.


 * it goes against Wikipedia’s guidelines to name him
 * He’s not notable otherwise
 * has not been found guilty
 * and there’s currently no reason to believe that he’s even involved in these murders.

This case is getting horribly biased treatment already and this article furthers the harm against someone whose rights are supposed to be protected at this stage.

Primary example: They have not provided Notice of Alibi yet - only a response and a supplemental response to the demand which are being grossly misconstrued as they both explicitly refuse to submit alibi defense until and unless they're provided with the discovery evidence their alibi is supposed to refute. All the Idaho court docs for this case are available here: Idaho Cases of Interest - See State’s Motion to Compel Disclosure of Alibi Defense or Alternatively to Bar Certain Evidence - 07/27/2023

- Defendants Response to Alibi Demand, 07/24/2023

- Defendants Supplemental Respknse to Alibi Demand, 04/17/2024

The 07/27 Motion prevents them from telling their side of the story unless they agree to attempt to blindly refute unknown evidence while facing the death penalty - and hope the state doesn’t say anything else - and forfeit their ability to defend against it if they do.

• The grand jury indictment caused the cancellation of the preliminary hearing where their unsolicited alibi could have been delivered.

• The alibi defense in Idaho requires the defendant to take on the burden of proof, which would be extremely unwise Idaho Supreme Court criminal jury trial rules (see ‘Burden of Proof Defenses’)

His defense lawyer is right about this: Anne Taylor 05/02 Hearing

This Wikipedia page hurts his chances of receiving a fair trial.

It’s not right.

Elisa Massoth 04/10 Hearing

Anne Taylor 04/10 Hearing

May I please change it by removing all references to the accused, or would someone else like to? Jelly Garcia (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Considering the name is all over the internet and media, avoiding it here would be rather pointless.
 * Giving a balanced and sourced account of the state of the evidence would be reasonable - but obviously immensely difficult. Nø (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed his name but not the sources that state his name. Jelly Garcia (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the removal of his name; his name is widely disseminated by the media (and reliable sources). Your arguments sound like WP:Original research. Some1 (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This removal seems more of a differing point of view based edit than a BLP based edit, with a pro-defense based stance. A discussion on this had happened a while back with regards to including the name and the consensus was to include. We have to balance what is widely reported (see WP:BLPSTYLE) in order to provide an article written from a neutral point of view, concealing the name if that is what both the sources and the courts do (see WP:BLPNAME). Further, your edits break redirects that have existed to the article for quite some time for the accused persons name, and as far as I was able to tell you did not have any issues with it when you made this edit and it was present.
 * Awshort (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, do not remove his name. The censorship of a well-known criminal defendant's name in a highly publicized court case is inconsistent with an online encyclopedia. Your extraneous comments proclaiming Mr. Kohberger's innocence also suggest that your request is rooted more in advocacy than improving this encyclopedia.MiamiManny (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia wouldn’t publish the name of someone who hasn’t been convicted! Most countries don’t even allow the news to publish their names, because it’s UNETHICAL and it’s not how the justice system is supposed to work. It’s cruel, and it literally HARMFUL to a living person who has not yet been convicted of the crime, which is against Wikipedia’s guidelines. Jelly Garcia (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jelly Garcia An encyclopedia would publish all relevant facts related to a subject. If a crime was being discussed, it would be a terrible article if it didn't cover the arrests and court proceedings related to the event as well.
 * Most non-US countries don't publish the name for legal reasons, but also because equating someone with a crime can be dangerous. And if this topic was about a crime happening in one of those countries, that would be a completely valid argument to take into account. This is about a crime that happened in America, and how the sources are reflecting on both the event and the amount of coverage the individual has received, so the 'this is what other countries do' argument has less relevance.
 * Wikipedias policy on Biographies of living people, not guideline, is what requires us to take into account what can happen to an individual and equating them with a crime. However, to my knowledge, no one has outright said that the individual did this crime or is guilty and we still refer to him as the accused, which is in line with WP:BLPCRIME as well as naming him based on the amount of coverage he has had in the media along with WP:BLPNAME.
 * I do find it somewhat concerning that you initially wanted to remove information from the article based on your interpretation of the court proceedings/filings/evidence, and not based on what sources are saying about the case or what is verifiable. That seems to be completely against WP:NOR.
 * Awshort (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)