SBMFF
1. We don't even know whose knife was used.
2. If he had a white Bugatti and it was the only one around, then maybe you could call it a coincidence.
3. The late-night drive might seem odd, but in that town, partying and ordering food at 4 am is the norm, isn't it?
4. His cell phone goes dark during the murder window. Have you checked his logs?
5. Sure, criminals often return to the crime scene, we hear. But not that soon. This is more like an anxious guy checking things out.
<modsnip - speculation outside the bounds of the known facts of the case> Here, coincidences are possible. But there's no murder - no motive, no purpose, no propensity. We'll know more at trial. MOO
Let's use a bit of common sense here. It will never let you down like fanciful, baseless narratives will.
1. The knife sheath belonged to a Kbar. It was bloody, indicating that it was present at the same time the knife was. We can solidly conclude that it does in fact belong to the murder weapon, and that weapon is a Kbar.
2 and 3. It's not just the white car, but the timing as well. It fits perfectly with him being the killer, even if one can come up with some bizarre reason for him going for a drive at that hour, like stargazing. LOL.
4. His cell phone wasn't going in and out of service. It was completely out of service within minutes of him leaving. If it was out of service, then it should have been out of service on his return trip (at the same point). It was not. This means the phone was powered down, or put into airplane mode. Law enforcement has the actual device, so they would be able to confirm this.
5. How can this be "an anxious guy checking things out?" The crime wasn't discovered until hours later. The only person who would know a crime was committed at that stage, was the person who committed that crime.
I'm going to ignore the whole drug scenario, as there is no basis to that whatsoever.
"Here, coincidences are possible. But there's no murder - no motive, no purpose, no propensity. We'll know more at trial."
As far as motive, one can look at history, his history, and the crime scene itself.
He creeped women out. He was condescending towards them. He graded them harshly. He allegedly followed one to his car. From that, we can draw the conclusion that he hated women, likely because they rejected him.
What does the crime scene tell us? This killer hated women.
What does history tell us about killers who commit crimes like this? It's about power, control, and revenge.
His job was in jeopardy, and his life was unraveling. He would have lost his scholarship, and thus likely lost his ability to finish his education.
History tells us that most killers who commit crimes like this have a precipitating stressor - a traumatic life event that triggers the crime.
He was an angry person, as demonstrated by his outbursts at school. He knew better than everyone, even his professor.
Stabbing 4 people to death is a crime of rage. This was about revenge on the women who had rejected him, and about showing how much smarter he was than everyone else, namely law enforcement.
This guy ticks so many boxes, we need more boxes.
Do you genuinely believe this quite straightforward theory of the crime, with Kohberger as the killer, put forth by the police, is less likely than what you put forth?
One is a theory based on evidence and inference. Another appears to be a complete work of fiction.
www.kxly.com
