Just some things the defense could potentially do here. There are a lot of issues with this, but it's possible they could make some of these arguments:
Defense Scenario: The Frame Job and Coincidental Movements
Overview: The defense could argue that Bryan Kohberger was framed by an unknown party who planted his DNA on the knife sheath, and that his car and phone movements on November 13, 2022, were unrelated to the crime, consistent with his habitual late-night drives and innocent activities.
Explaining the DNA on the Knife Sheath
- Transfer or Planting Hypothesis: The defense could assert that Kohberger’s DNA was inadvertently transferred to the knife sheath or deliberately planted by someone with access to his genetic material. For example:
- Kohberger, a criminology Ph.D. student, might have handled similar Ka-Bar knife sheaths during his studies, research, or casual interactions (e.g., at a store, a friend’s house, or a class demonstration). Someone could have collected an item he touched—like a discarded coffee cup or glove—and transferred his DNA to the sheath.
- Alternatively, the defense could suggest contamination during the investigation. With “hundreds of members of law enforcement” involved (as noted in prior defense filings), an officer might have unintentionally transferred Kohberger’s DNA from an unrelated item to the crime scene.
- A more conspiratorial angle could propose that an unknown party—perhaps the real killer—targeted Kohberger due to his proximity (living in Pullman, near Moscow) and academic background, making him a convenient scapegoat. This party could have obtained his DNA from trash (as was done later by police at his parents’ home) and planted it on the sheath.
- Lack of Victim DNA: The defense could emphasize that no DNA from the victims (Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, or Ethan Chapin) was found in Kohberger’s apartment, car, or personal belongings. In a bloody quadruple stabbing, one would expect the killer to have some trace of the victims’ blood or DNA on their person, clothing, or vehicle—yet none was reported. This absence supports the claim that Kohberger never entered the crime scene.
- Other DNA at the Scene: The defense could highlight the presence of unidentified male DNA, including blood on a handrail and a glove outside the house, as evidence of another perpetrator. This suggests the real killer left traces, while Kohberger’s DNA on the sheath was an anomaly introduced artificially.
Explaining the Car Movements
- Routine Late-Night Drives: Kohberger’s attorneys have claimed he was “driving alone” on November 13, 2022, to “look at the moon and stars” or to hike, a habit he often practiced. The defense could argue that his white Hyundai Elantra being spotted near Moscow was coincidental:
- As a graduate student in Pullman, just 10 miles from Moscow, it’s plausible he frequently drove through the area for leisure or to clear his mind, especially given his interest in criminology and the outdoors (e.g., Wawawai Park, mentioned in court filings).
- The white sedan captured on video near the Moscow-Pullman highway could belong to someone else. White Hyundai Elantras are common, and the defense could demand proof that the car’s license plate or specific features definitively match Kohberger’s vehicle.
- No Physical Evidence in the Car: The defense could point out that, despite a thorough search of Kohberger’s Elantra (including seat cushions, pedals, and floor mats), no blood, hair, or other incriminating evidence from the victims was found. If he had committed a messy stabbing, some trace should have remained, even after cleaning—yet the car was clean, supporting the idea that it was never at the crime scene.
Explaining the Phone Movements
- Cell Phone Expert Testimony: The defense has enlisted a cell phone data expert, Sy Ray, who claims Kohberger’s phone was south of Pullman and west of Moscow, not traveling east toward the crime scene on the Moscow-Pullman highway during the early morning hours of November 13. This could be framed as follows:
- Kohberger turned off his phone (noted as being off from 2:47 a.m. to 4:48 a.m.) not to evade detection, but because he was in a remote area with poor signal (e.g., Wawawai Park) or simply to disconnect during a stargazing outing. The defense could argue this was a routine practice for him, not a suspicious act tied to the murders.
- His phone pinging near his apartment at 2:42 a.m. and being seen on WSU surveillance at 2:44 a.m. places him in Pullman before the murders. The later return to Moscow at 9:12 a.m.–9:21 a.m. could be explained as a morning drive to get coffee or visit a friend—not a “jeering return” to the crime scene.
- Unreliable Cell Data: The defense could challenge the precision of cell tower data, noting that pings cover wide areas and don’t pinpoint exact locations. Without GPS data from his car (which lacked an infotainment system), the prosecution’s timeline relies on inference, not proof.
Tying It Together: The Alibi and Motive
- Alibi: Kohberger was driving alone, as he often did, in the rural areas around Pullman and Moscow, far from 1122 King Road. The defense could call witnesses (e.g., friends or classmates) to testify to his habit of late-night drives, or use his academic schedule to show he was preparing for a class or research project, needing solitude.
- No Connection to Victims: The defense could reiterate that Kohberger had no known link to the victims—no social media interactions, no prior contact, no motive—unlike a hypothetical real killer who might have left the unidentified DNA. This lack of connection supports the framing theory: someone chose Kohberger as a fall guy precisely because he was an outsider with no ties to the victims, making his DNA’s presence seem damning.
Reasonable Doubt
The defense could argue to the jury:
- If Kohberger’s DNA was planted or transferred, and no victim DNA ties him to the crime, the sheath evidence is unreliable.
- If his car and phone movements align with an innocent routine, not the prosecution’s timeline, he wasn’t at the crime scene.
- If other male DNA was present, the real killer remains at large, and Kohberger was a convenient target for a rushed investigation.
Critical Examination
This scenario hinges on speculation (e.g., planting DNA) and requires the defense to overcome strong prosecution evidence, like the single-source DNA match on the sheath and Kohberger’s proximity to the crime scene. The phone being off during the murder window and his car matching the description of one seen nearby are hard to dismiss as coincidence. However, the absence of victim DNA in his possession and the presence of other unidentified DNA could sow enough doubt to sway a jury, especially if the defense effectively challenges the investigation’s integrity.
Thanks for providing link to the traffic stop.
