Well, my daughter is not stupid, so we can rule that out. It was just a theory that she thought held some weight. Oh, and she’s free to come and go as she pleases, but she’s respectful enough to keep us in the loop.
I was in college in LA at the time. Lotta scared coeds at school.
That also reminds me of my personal idea of the world record setting sick fuck:
Who somehow ended up w a sick Robin to his sick Batman. Or vice versa.
His vile heyday was not long after the Hillside Strangler cousins’.
Though in a weird way who was worse of Ng or his pal Lake is far from clear.
Normally, I don’t get into arguments with people about these kinds of things, but what was there about the description that specifically pointed to another person?
IIRC, the description was bushy eyebrowns and then a height and build that was compatible with Kohberger.
While the description doesn’t conclusively identity Kohberger, and given the circumstances, it’s quite reasonable that it wouldn’t, the description doesn’t necessarily suggest a second person.
This seems to be getting into CT territory because it’s “you can’t prove he acted alone so there must be someone else.”
There needs to be more evidence.
Peacock The Idaho Student Murders
Watching now. I’m curious if they tagged on the plea deal. This was probably already finished weeks ago.
I wouldn’t go out of my way to watch. But, I have a Peacock subscription. The interviews are heartbreaking 
.
Yes, she’s basing her theory of there perhaps being someone else involved entirely on speculation. Obviously, none of us know exactly how everything was carried out. Part of it is the time frame. To stab 4 people to death in a matter of 20 minutes, assuming, of course, that we have the time frame correct seems like it would be hard to carry out. We cannot imagine that stabbing someone to death is easy and that it would take a great deal of energy and strength combined with the fact that at least one of the victims had defensive wounds so she tried to fight back. Now, I’m sure a psychologist or someone more familiar with how the mind of a killer works, could explain that through some sort of adrenaline rush, I don’t know.
The two other reasons she brought up this theory were first, the surviving housemate could not clearly identify Kohberger. I don’t think that holds too much steam as it was dark and she was most likely in a state of shock. Finally, and I’m not familiar with this, but my daughter said there was other unidentified blood at the scene. Like I said, I didn’t read about that, but my guess is it could have been from anytime, it was a rental house and I’m sure if it was relevant, the prosecutor would have delved deeper into it.
So, no, I don’t think there was someone else, but I can understand why she might.
It apparently didn’t take Ted Bundy long to bludgeon two women to death and severely injure two others at a sorority house in 1978.
Apparently only traces of blood and ruled out by the police as irrelevent.
This won’t stop a CT from grabbing onto the tiniest of staws, and it’s not worth engaging.
There’s probably blood from other people in my home, too. And I haven’t committed even a single murder here!
Shhh! The first rule of Murder Club is you don’t talk about Murder Club.
I saw that when I was looking for jaws.
How was it?
I find this assertation head scratching. I mean, several if not all of the deceased had been partying or at the bar, presumably with some alcohol involved, got home late/early, and were presumably asleep when the murders were presumed to take place around 2am.
One or more (who didn’t have defensive wounds) could easily be killed in moments if caught while still asleep or just slow to react due to being at best half awake, even if fully sober. So killing four people in 20 minutes seems an extremely easy ask, especially if you assume all the ones without defensive wounds were killed in just a few minutes, leaving more time for the one who did at least partially wake up.
I would think if that there was another person involved, our killer would have tried that as a route before pleading guilty - shift the blame, say he was there, yes, but he wasn’t the killer, etc. before going for the guilty plea.
Since the convicted killer has confessed (and it’s of course possible they did so because they thought they’d loose and wanted the no-death-penalty option) and still hasn’t mentioned one - yeah, we’re really in the realm of a Conspiracy Theory.
Very interesting. There were extended interviews with the victims friends and family. Several friends were classmates.
Kohberger’s social media posts in high school were reported. He was overweight, very awkward and unpopular. It left him isolated.
I didn’t see anything new that would change views on the case.
This. Caveat: Without knowing how efficiently the non-struggling victims were stabbed.
You can deliver a quickly-fatal knife wound with one well-aimed stab or slash. Or you can hack and slash wildly in the dark, making a bloody mess of everything, while never inflicting a life-threatening wound, and meanwhile potentially waking the whole house.
Even allowing for less skill and sang froid than a ninja assassin or SF operative, a couple minutes to get in and get to the first room, a couple minutes killing each, a couple minutes to admire your handiwork, then back out fits easily within 20 minutes.
He had the good luck, or good planning, to select a collection of victims who were all wasted to near unconsciousness in addition to being asleep. Had everyone been sober, and the first victim been a noisy difficult kill, that might well have roused the rest of everybody else to all the screaming and fighting down the hall. At which point the rest of this evolution would have proceeded very differently.
Do we even know the sequence in which the victims were killed and which of the 4 was the hard one?
Yeah, they know it, from a transcript of the hearing where the guilty plea was entered:
As you say, the victims were drunk and three of them were asleep.
A problem with adding a second defendant is then the logistics of it all. How are they going to get there? Two witnesses report seeing one person. There is only car there. etc.
The second killer theory is off in CT.
Thanks for that cite. That’s far more detailed narrative than I had seen before, although I haven’t been following the case attentively.
Which just about suggests that Kohberger had had his fill with the first two easy victims, and was on his way out, when he unexpectedly encountered Xana in the hall / stairs.
And that’s where his lovingly crafted careful plan turned into ad lib. Which is usually where crimes, unlike TV scripts, go horribly awry.
Of course the critical mistake of having lost his knife sheath at the scene had already occurred, though presumably he didn’t realize that until later. So he was still going to end up caught even if the 2nd pair of victims had, counterfactually, slept through the whole thing unmolested, just as the other occupants did.
IF there was a second killer & if that supposed second person was a couple of steps ahead of BK then they wouldn’t have been seen when the surviving roommate peeked thru her door, & if that supposed second person didn’t bring their phone with them (or left it in airplane mode the entire time they were out) & either came with BK but laid down in the back seat or parked a block away & was driving a car the cops didn’t know to look for then it’s possible.
I’m not saying I believe that, I don’t. What I’m saying is that a second person, not noticed at 4am, is not conclusive proof that there was no second person. If there was a doorbell cam only showing BK enter/exit of if there was only one set of footprints thru the mud from the direction that he entered that would be conclusive proof.
Conspiracy theorists are gonna theorize no matter how unlikely their theory may be. We just can’t prove them wrong in this case.
Looks like a second perpetrator is not ruled out but anybody proposing that theory should beware of that notorious bravo, Occam, and his sharp sharp razor.
True. But if two killers can’t be disproven, neither can three, or four, … or 200.
The largest gulf of improbability is between 1 & 2, not between 199 & 200.
I know you know that, but that’s another way this whole “Disprove a theory, rather than prove a fact” is simply a fundamentally flawed way to approach the world, and logic, and thinking, and …
And let me add my thanks as well @TokyoBayer, I hadn’t dug into the detailed timeline from the plea hearing, and that’s a whole lot more clear than the stuff pulled from the earlier reporting and investigation (duh).
@LSLGuy is correct, there were a lot of assumptions in my scenario, which I acknowledge but felt were very plausible, since killing someone with a knife is simultaneously both easier and harder than media makes it out to be (slitting throats vs. stabbing, awake vs asleep, drugged vs. defending) so my assumption was again based on the majority being defenseless with sleep and booze and only one capable of defending themselves but in a compromised state.
So, again, as LSLGuy puts it, a horrible combination of planning, luck and sheer cold-blooded willingness to kill. As an aside, I’ve done some self-defense training and they all talk about taking a long, hard look at yourself and figuring out if you are willing to kill, even in defense of yourself, or if the thought is going to make you freeze. They hammered this point over and over again during my CCW classes - because if you don’t think you can do it, you’re infinitely better off rabbiting then escalating.
After much thought, I was reasonably certain that I could pull the trigger to defend myself. My wife far less so, and neither of us can imagine what it takes to do what the killer in this thread has done.
This exactly. You can have completely proof that something happened (or something didn’t happen) and it will never convince a CT.
I disagree.
For argument’s sake, let’s assume there is an accomplice, X.
The problem is that the police had not found this supposed accomplice.
If Kohberger points to X, and the police find evidence that X is an accomplice, it’s going to be further evidence that Kohberger was actually there and had detailed knowledge of the crime.
In order to argue an alternative suspect, the defense needs to present evidence that another person did it. It can’t just be speculation. In real life, the defense actually tried to point the finger at four other possible suspects and the judge had ruled against him.
If X was really an accomplice, any evidence that Kohberger could present would have also worked against himself. If two of them entered the house for the purpose of committing a crime, and even if only one person actually kills someone, they both get charged for the murder.