4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #108

[PunishThenForgive]

Regarding Bundy, it's possible that Kohberger wanted to imitate his first murder, but also possible that he wanted to imitate the final sorority house murders ... even though (presumably) he had no personal experience with murder.

The sorority house murders did not involve or drugging, but they did involve sleeping. They were injured with a blunt force object.

This is interesting. In one of the sorority house murders, he walked past several private first-floor room and went upstairs. He committed several murders on the second floor. He is seen by a witness as he runs out of the house. That's very similar to Kohberger.

View attachment 589008

ST. JOHNS RIVER STATE COLLEGE

SJR State offers the best of both worlds – a quality education combined with a sense of community. Gain skills for the workforce, prepare for a university transfer with the A.A. degree, or continue your local education with one of our bachelor’s degrees.

www.sjrstate.edu

https://learningresources.sjrstate.edu/blogs/vikingsreadmore/bookblog/bright-young-women-defeat-a-law-school-drop-out

BK had access to a literal blueprint.

 

[otto]

Did Bryan Kohberger wish to copy Ted Bundy, or did he wish to best him? What if the only idol in BK’s mind is himself?

He could have murdered at home in Pennsylvania, or at school in Washington, but no, he chose to murder in Idaho, the only state of the three where he could receive the death penalty.

By committing such a brutal act, he knew Idaho would seek the death penalty. How could they not?

By committing such a brutal act, he knew he would be infamous. The press would be all over it, social media abuzz.

Perhaps he knew, too, that AT—the only death-qualified public defender in Northern Idaho—would be assigned to defend him. Did he relish forcing her, a blonde woman, to do so?

Now all eyes are on BK. Just where he likes them. Just where he deserves for them to be, in his eyes.

May the bright light of justice snap BK out of this delusion, as it finally did to Ted Bundy.

IMOO

I think Kohberger is a risk taker. He believes himself so clever that he wants a great challenge with murder. He chose a house with several occupants. Perhaps he chose a death penalty state because it seemed riskier, more fun to out smart investigators. I think he never expected to be arrested.

 

[PunishThenForgive]

I think Kohberger is a risk taker. He believes himself so clever that he wants a great challenge with murder. He chose a house with several occupants. Perhaps he chose a death penalty state because it seemed riskier, more fun to out smart investigators. I think he never expected to be arrested.

And being a risk-taker would explain why he went for broke, demanding a trial instead of a safer plea.

BK seems so driven by narcissism, though.

To truly best Ted Bundy, it makes sense that BK would try to elude capture at first. How else would he murder again?

Perhaps, for a while, being the mysterious, terrifying bogeyman would have satisfied him.

Eventually, though, he would need to be caught so he could be named—get full credit. So he could re-live every thrilling murder on livestream, all eyes on HIM, not some bogeyman.

IMOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

It’s absolutely true that our U.S. Constitution grants due process, and that someone on trial is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

We have more flexibility here, as we are on a discussion board and definitely NOT in a court of law.

The rules at WS are appropriately strict, and we cannot discuss someone’s guilt unless and until a suspect is named by LE.

I don’t agree, also respectfully, that we on a discussion board have to “officially treat defendants as if innocent.” Your next sentence proves why——we here at WS are not, in fact, the system to which you allude. We are not charged with finding him actually guilty or innocent——that will be the jury, and the jury alone.

Here, we are just chatting.

IMO

True, but the post you're replying to was responding to the assertion that he is being treated special in part by his attorney who filed motion after motion. So the poster isn't talking about posts here.

MOO.

 

[LetsSolvIt]

If lots of people click the report button and select an option like “violent, hateful or disturbing content,” Facebook will take the page down, at least temporarily.

People on social media were encouraging people to do this, and it worked.

View attachment 588777

@MassGuy, thank you for clarification of terms. Just shows you what kind of people the Probergers are.

That is not only total lies but so cruel to people who are already suffering. They are a bunch of cowards behind their screen names.

Wish there were some way to reverse report all of them so they lose FB access for a month or two. MOO.

 

[Helechawagirl]

Haven’t been on much recently but there’s something that’s been confusing me. If Dylan saw Xana’s body, why didn’t she see any blood? I’m wondering if she was in a panicked state and her mind blocked it out?

From what we’ve learned so far, my opinion is that she first thought Xana was passed out drunk and the next morning she was terrified that she had died of alcohol poisoning.

Even though none of the roommates responded to her texts—and she saw a stranger in a ski mask—IMO, her mind simply couldn’t conclude what had actually happened.

My other “new” information was that Ethan’s legs were “carved.” And Kaylee was punch. I had not considered the force of the attacks too much but now I’m thinking there was considerable brute force. SG said Kaylee would have/or did die from the punches to her face.

Some have wondered why Xana didn’t scream—again I believe the shock of what she was seeing was so unexpected that her mind couldn’t process the input fast enough.

I’ll be surprised if the two survivors are able to have a happy life. Not sure there’s enough therapy in the world to heal the wounds of survivor’s guilt.

Part of me wonders if BK—having tried his whole life to be normal—subconsciously left the sheath so he would be caught, but I don’t think so. I think he only had one target—Maddie—and the others were collateral damage.

Just some late night thoughts and opinions.

 

[Justice101]

And being a risk-taker would explain why he went for broke, demanding a trial instead of a safer plea.

BK seems so driven by narcissism, though.

To truly best Ted Bundy, it makes sense that BK would try to elude capture at first. How else would he murder again?

Perhaps, for a while, being the mysterious, terrifying bogeyman would have satisfied him.

Eventually, though, he would need to be caught so he could be named—get full credit. So he could re-live every thrilling murder on livestream, all eyes on HIM, not some bogeyman.

IMOO

I personally don't think BK wanted to be caught. I think he thought he knew enough to not be named by LE. The trouble with that is you can plan it all out (like he did decently), then something unexpected happened and things go sideways. Which they did.

2 girls in one bed made for an unexpectedly LOUD event, that got the attention of multiple people. He probably felt trapped on the upper floor away from his exit.

I still hold out my thought that he truly wanted to be a (long term) serial killer that was just too clever to get caught. he wanted the mystique of being well known... but unidentified. That would be what excited him.

 

[Arkay]

I personally don't think BK wanted to be caught. I think he thought he knew enough to not be named by LE. The trouble with that is you can plan it all out (like he did decently), then something unexpected happened and things go sideways. Which they did.

2 girls in one bed made for an unexpectedly LOUD event, that got the attention of multiple people. He probably felt trapped on the upper floor away from his exit.

I still hold out my thought that he truly wanted to be a (long term) serial killer that was just too clever to get caught. he wanted the mystique of being well known... but unidentified. That would be what excited him.

I think so as well.

IMO he went through extensive planning and did NOT want to be caught.

I think he wanted to go down in the annals of the most successful murderers—- those whose names we still don’t know.

Then he could relish how he’d outwitted the world of criminology.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Did Bryan Kohberger wish to copy Ted Bundy, or did he wish to best him? What if the only idol in BK’s mind is himself?

He could have murdered at home in Pennsylvania, or at school in Washington, but no, he chose to murder in Idaho, the only state of the three where he could receive the death penalty.

By committing such a brutal act, he knew Idaho would seek the death penalty. How could they not?

By committing such a brutal act, he knew he would be infamous. The press would be all over it, social media abuzz.

Perhaps he knew, too, that AT—the only death-qualified public defender in Northern Idaho—would be assigned to defend him. Did he relish forcing her, a blonde woman, to do so?

Now all eyes are on BK. Just where he likes them. Just where he deserves for them to be, in his eyes.

May the bright light of justice snap BK out of this delusion, as it finally did to Ted Bundy.

IMOO

Good question. I personally don't think BK had a specific SK he wanted to emulate, Ted Bundy or BTK. I think he got caught up in the fantasy of committing the act. Was he planning on doing a IRL version of his sister's low budget horror film about the murders (by knife) of college kids? IDK

We know there was preplanning to some extent as BK purchased the KBAR knife and sheath months before moving to Washington. What was he doing with it during that time before the move?

Was BK already scoping out the 'SM hot babe scene' (gag) in Pullman and Moscow before leaving? We know he started driving by the house on Kings Road after the pool party in late June/July and racked up a whopping 23 times in total by the time of the murders.

I don't think there's any way he could have known he would be assigned AT. There are 13 total Death Qualified Defenders in ID as of April 2025, 5 State Public Defenders and 8 in Private Practice, but then again, he could have scoped that out beforehand and counted on the odds.

I agree it's all about Bry Bry. Look at me, I'm the smartest, scariest mass murderer that ever was. Like the scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, if he only had a brain. He's not a genius or criminal mastermind, he's not special at all. That's why he's sitting in Ada County Jail awaiting trial on 4 counts of Capital Murder charges and Burglary.

It's not about his childhood, it's not about VSS, ASD, OCD or any other suddenly diagnosed MH issue. BK is plain evil and wanted to harm someone deeply and violently, they were everything he could never be.

Yes, all eyes on BK while he's found Guilty and sentenced to the DP or LWOP. Coward

Peace and Comfort most of all to the survivors, the victim's families, his own family and the community for the deep trauma they will endure with this trial.

All MOO

#Justice4KayleeMaddieXana&Ethan

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I think so as well.

IMO he went through extensive planning and did NOT want to be caught.

I think he wanted to go down in the annals of the most successful murderers—- those whose names we still don’t know.

Then he could relish how he’d outwitted the world of criminology.

JMO

He killed at a university in a state where he didn't live and where he didn't go to school. He wore a mask and probably clothes/coverups he disposed of. He didn't know the victims in person. He killed in a house full of DNA from other people. He got in and out quickly at a time when no one outside saw him. So I agree that he didn't want to get caught.

But he bought the weapon online. He lost the sheath and left DNA on it. He went online looking for a sheath and a knife after the murders. He used his own car and took his phone with him. He didn't reckon with all the video and cell phone signatures not only on that night but the next morning and during a stalking period. I'm pretty sure he did not get rid of all the blood on him or his clothes before he got in his car or back to the apartment; we just haven't seen the evidence of that yet but the missing shower curtain is suggestive that BK knew or feared he brought blood home with them. He didn't realize that a mask didn't hide one of the most distinctive features of his face. He didn't realize until too late how much the absence of the front license plate narrowed the number of Elantras in the area.

He thought he was smart because he had been school-smart in a small place and had studied crime and criminals. But the serial and mass killers we know, and are available for study, like Bundy and Heuermann and BTK and Edward Surratt all got caught. Like BK did.

 

[Arkay]

He killed at a university in a state where he didn't live and where he didn't go to school. He wore a mask and probably clothes/coverups he disposed of. He didn't know the victims in person. He killed in a house full of DNA from other people. He got in and out quickly at a time when no one outside saw him. So I agree that he didn't want to get caught.

But he bought the weapon online. He lost the sheath and left DNA on it. He went online looking for a sheath and a knife after the murders. He used his own car and took his phone with him. He didn't reckon with all the video and cell phone signatures not only on that night but the next morning and during a stalking period. I'm pretty sure he did not get rid of all the blood on him or his clothes before he got in his car or back to the apartment; we just haven't seen the evidence of that yet but the missing shower curtain is suggestive that BK knew or feared he brought blood home with them. He didn't realize that a mask didn't hide one of the most distinctive features of his face. He didn't realize until too late how much the absence of the front license plate narrowed the number of Elantras in the area.

He thought he was smart because he had been school-smart in a small place and had studied crime and criminals. But the serial and mass killers we know, and are available for study, like Bundy and Heuermann and BTK and Edward Surratt all got caught. Like BK did.

All true.

I don’t think he wanted to get caught, based on not only the preparations he made pre-murder, but also post-murder in Pennsylvania, with trying to avoid touching his garbage with his own hands and bagging it up into the neighbor’s garbage.

In the end, he wasn’t as canny as he imagined himself to be. If he were, we wouldn’t know his name.

JMO

P.S. Way off topic but as a New Yorker, I hope you don’t get saddled with Aaron Rodgers. I’ll shut up now.

 

[MassGuy]

I plugged into a few different programs, 5 Pieces of evidence in the Kohberger case and the odds of them all occurring and BK being innocent.

Below you can see the odds that this program assigned to each event, which was the most conservative one I used.

Notice how I didn’t mention the DNA.

1. Ownership of the same type of car.
2. Driving at a time consistent with him being the killer.
3. Powering down his phone throughout the murder window.
4. Purchasing the same model knife and sheath, which are now missing.
5. Seeking to purchase the same model knife and sheath, beginning two days following the murders.

Combining the Probabilities
To estimate the odds of innocence, we consider the likelihood that all these events occur together by chance for an innocent person. In probability theory, if events are independent, their joint probability is the product of their individual probabilities. While these events are not entirely independent (e.g., owning a knife and searching for it are related), we can use rough estimates to illustrate the cumulative effect:
Car: ~1/100 (0.01)

Driving at 4 a.m.: ~1/50 (0.02)

Phone powered down: ~1/50 (0.02)

Owning and missing knife: ~1/5,000 (0.0002)

Searching for knife post-murder: ~1/10,000 (0.0001)

If we assume approximate independence for simplicity, the joint probability is:
0.01×0.02×0.02×0.0002×0.0001=8×10−120.01 \times 0.02 \times 0.02 \times 0.0002 \times 0.0001 = 8 \times 10^{-12}0.01 \times 0.02 \times 0.02 \times 0.0002 \times 0.0001 = 8 \times 10^{-12}

This translates to a 1 in 125 billion chance that an innocent person would match all these criteria by coincidence. Even if we adjust for partial dependence (e.g., knife ownership and searching being related), the combined probability remains extraordinarily low, likely on the order of 1 in millions.

 

[Arkay]

I plugged into a few different programs, 5 Pieces of evidence in the Kohberger case and the odds of them all occurring and BK being innocent.

Below you can see the odds that this program assigned to each event, which was the most conservative one I used.

Notice how I didn’t mention the DNA.

1. Ownership of the same type of car.
2. Driving at a time consistent with him being the killer.
3. Powering down his phone throughout the murder window.
4. Purchasing the same model knife and sheath, which are now missing.
5. Seeking to purchase the same model knife and sheath, beginning two days following the murders.

Combining the Probabilities
To estimate the odds of innocence, we consider the likelihood that all these events occur together by chance for an innocent person. In probability theory, if events are independent, their joint probability is the product of their individual probabilities. While these events are not entirely independent (e.g., owning a knife and searching for it are related), we can use rough estimates to illustrate the cumulative effect:
Car: ~1/100 (0.01)

Driving at 4 a.m.: ~1/50 (0.02)

Phone powered down: ~1/50 (0.02)

Owning and missing knife: ~1/5,000 (0.0002)

Searching for knife post-murder: ~1/10,000 (0.0001)

If we assume approximate independence for simplicity, the joint probability is:
0.01×0.02×0.02×0.0002×0.0001=8×10−120.01 \times 0.02 \times 0.02 \times 0.0002 \times 0.0001 = 8 \times 10^{-12}0.01 \times 0.02 \times 0.02 \times 0.0002 \times 0.0001 = 8 \times 10^{-12}

This translates to a 1 in 125 billion chance that an innocent person would match all these criteria by coincidence. Even if we adjust for partial dependence (e.g., knife ownership and searching being related), the combined probability remains extraordinarily low, likely on the order of 1 in millions.

Yikes!

I can’t follow math at all, but I presume you ran this through one of your trusty A.I. programs.

As you note, this is with exempting the DNA, and yet the odds are still insurmountable.

IMO and based on the science.

 

[Boxer]

Haven’t been on much recently but there’s something that’s been confusing me. If Dylan saw Xana’s body, why didn’t she see any blood? I’m wondering if she was in a panicked state and her mind blocked it out?

From what we’ve learned so far, my opinion is that she first thought Xana was passed out drunk and the next morning she was terrified that she had died of alcohol poisoning.

Even though none of the roommates responded to her texts—and she saw a stranger in a ski mask—IMO, her mind simply couldn’t conclude what had actually happened.

My other “new” information was that Ethan’s legs were “carved.” And Kaylee was punch. I had not considered the force of the attacks too much but now I’m thinking there was considerable brute force. SG said Kaylee would have/or did die from the punches to her face.

Some have wondered why Xana didn’t scream—again I believe the shock of what she was seeing was so unexpected that her mind couldn’t process the input fast enough.

I’ll be surprised if the two survivors are able to have a happy life. Not sure there’s enough therapy in the world to heal the wounds of survivor’s guilt.

Part of me wonders if BK—having tried his whole life to be normal—subconsciously left the sheath so he would be caught, but I don’t think so. I think he only had one target—Maddie—and the others were collateral damage.

Just some late night thoughts and opinions.

Dark. There was neon light, which MOO has the quality of creating deep dark shadows.

 

[DizzyB]

I plugged into a few different programs, 5 Pieces of evidence in the Kohberger case and the odds of them all occurring and BK being innocent.

Below you can see the odds that this program assigned to each event, which was the most conservative one I used.

Notice how I didn’t mention the DNA.

1. Ownership of the same type of car.
2. Driving at a time consistent with him being the killer.
3. Powering down his phone throughout the murder window.
4. Purchasing the same model knife and sheath, which are now missing.
5. Seeking to purchase the same model knife and sheath, beginning two days following the murders.

Combining the Probabilities
To estimate the odds of innocence, we consider the likelihood that all these events occur together by chance for an innocent person. In probability theory, if events are independent, their joint probability is the product of their individual probabilities. While these events are not entirely independent (e.g., owning a knife and searching for it are related), we can use rough estimates to illustrate the cumulative effect:
Car: ~1/100 (0.01)

Driving at 4 a.m.: ~1/50 (0.02)

Phone powered down: ~1/50 (0.02)

Owning and missing knife: ~1/5,000 (0.0002)

Searching for knife post-murder: ~1/10,000 (0.0001)

If we assume approximate independence for simplicity, the joint probability is:
0.01×0.02×0.02×0.0002×0.0001=8×10−120.01 \times 0.02 \times 0.02 \times 0.0002 \times 0.0001 = 8 \times 10^{-12}0.01 \times 0.02 \times 0.02 \times 0.0002 \times 0.0001 = 8 \times 10^{-12}

This translates to a 1 in 125 billion chance that an innocent person would match all these criteria by coincidence. Even if we adjust for partial dependence (e.g., knife ownership and searching being related), the combined probability remains extraordinarily low, likely on the order of 1 in millions.

Mathlete.

 

[SteveP]

I plugged into a few different programs, 5 Pieces of evidence in the Kohberger case and the odds of them all occurring and BK being innocent.

Below you can see the odds that this program assigned to each event, which was the most conservative one I used.

Notice how I didn’t mention the DNA.

1. Ownership of the same type of car.
2. Driving at a time consistent with him being the killer.
3. Powering down his phone throughout the murder window.
4. Purchasing the same model knife and sheath, which are now missing.
5. Seeking to purchase the same model knife and sheath, beginning two days following the murders.

Combining the Probabilities
To estimate the odds of innocence, we consider the likelihood that all these events occur together by chance for an innocent person. In probability theory, if events are independent, their joint probability is the product of their individual probabilities. While these events are not entirely independent (e.g., owning a knife and searching for it are related), we can use rough estimates to illustrate the cumulative effect:
Car: ~1/100 (0.01)

Driving at 4 a.m.: ~1/50 (0.02)

Phone powered down: ~1/50 (0.02)

Owning and missing knife: ~1/5,000 (0.0002)

Searching for knife post-murder: ~1/10,000 (0.0001)

If we assume approximate independence for simplicity, the joint probability is:
0.01×0.02×0.02×0.0002×0.0001=8×10−120.01 \times 0.02 \times 0.02 \times 0.0002 \times 0.0001 = 8 \times 10^{-12}0.01 \times 0.02 \times 0.02 \times 0.0002 \times 0.0001 = 8 \times 10^{-12}

This translates to a 1 in 125 billion chance that an innocent person would match all these criteria by coincidence. Even if we adjust for partial dependence (e.g., knife ownership and searching being related), the combined probability remains extraordinarily low, likely on the order of 1 in millions.

So, for those who "don't do maths", he's guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. JMO

Can you imagine what the odds become if you add in the DNA on the knife sheath in Maddie's bed?

 

[Justice101]

I plugged into a few different programs, 5 Pieces of evidence in the Kohberger case and the odds of them all occurring and BK being innocent.

Below you can see the odds that this program assigned to each event, which was the most conservative one I used.

Notice how I didn’t mention the DNA.

1. Ownership of the same type of car.
2. Driving at a time consistent with him being the killer.
3. Powering down his phone throughout the murder window.
4. Purchasing the same model knife and sheath, which are now missing.
5. Seeking to purchase the same model knife and sheath, beginning two days following the murders.

Combining the Probabilities
To estimate the odds of innocence, we consider the likelihood that all these events occur together by chance for an innocent person. In probability theory, if events are independent, their joint probability is the product of their individual probabilities. While these events are not entirely independent (e.g., owning a knife and searching for it are related), we can use rough estimates to illustrate the cumulative effect:
Car: ~1/100 (0.01)

Driving at 4 a.m.: ~1/50 (0.02)

Phone powered down: ~1/50 (0.02)

Owning and missing knife: ~1/5,000 (0.0002)

Searching for knife post-murder: ~1/10,000 (0.0001)

If we assume approximate independence for simplicity, the joint probability is:
0.01×0.02×0.02×0.0002×0.0001=8×10−120.01 \times 0.02 \times 0.02 \times 0.0002 \times 0.0001 = 8 \times 10^{-12}0.01 \times 0.02 \times 0.02 \times 0.0002 \times 0.0001 = 8 \times 10^{-12}

This translates to a 1 in 125 billion chance that an innocent person would match all these criteria by coincidence. Even if we adjust for partial dependence (e.g., knife ownership and searching being related), the combined probability remains extraordinarily low, likely on the order of 1 in millions.

Add a couple more:
1) Only 1 license plate on the car given both Idaho and Washington require 2 plates. 29 of 50 states require 2 tags.. and both Idaho and Wash state require 2. But PA only 1 tag. I'd say odds are 1 in 200 that murderer had one plate = = 0.005

2) Athletic build and bushy eyebrows (1 in 10) .10

 

[chipwhitley]

I plugged into a few different programs, 5 Pieces of evidence in the Kohberger case and the odds of them all occurring and BK being innocent.

Below you can see the odds that this program assigned to each event, which was the most conservative one I used.

Notice how I didn’t mention the DNA.

1. Ownership of the same type of car.
2. Driving at a time consistent with him being the killer.
3. Powering down his phone throughout the murder window.
4. Purchasing the same model knife and sheath, which are now missing.
5. Seeking to purchase the same model knife and sheath, beginning two days following the murders.

Combining the Probabilities
To estimate the odds of innocence, we consider the likelihood that all these events occur together by chance for an innocent person. In probability theory, if events are independent, their joint probability is the product of their individual probabilities. While these events are not entirely independent (e.g., owning a knife and searching for it are related), we can use rough estimates to illustrate the cumulative effect:
Car: ~1/100 (0.01)

Driving at 4 a.m.: ~1/50 (0.02)

Phone powered down: ~1/50 (0.02)

Owning and missing knife: ~1/5,000 (0.0002)

Searching for knife post-murder: ~1/10,000 (0.0001)

If we assume approximate independence for simplicity, the joint probability is:
0.01×0.02×0.02×0.0002×0.0001=8×10−120.01 \times 0.02 \times 0.02 \times 0.0002 \times 0.0001 = 8 \times 10^{-12}0.01 \times 0.02 \times 0.02 \times 0.0002 \times 0.0001 = 8 \times 10^{-12}

This translates to a 1 in 125 billion chance that an innocent person would match all these criteria by coincidence. Even if we adjust for partial dependence (e.g., knife ownership and searching being related), the combined probability remains extraordinarily low, likely on the order of 1 in millions.

Wow what a compelling breakdown! What stands out most to me is the cumulative weight of behavior that aligns so closely with the timeline of the murders, especially powering down the phone during the window of time and then actively searching for the same knife model shortly afterward. Even if some elements like owning the car are more common, when you start layering these behaviors together, the odds of coincidence really start to collapse. This highlights just how statistically unlikely it is that all of these red flags could line up around someone who is innocent.

 

[Megnut]

I think so as well.

IMO he went through extensive planning and did NOT want to be caught.

I think he wanted to go down in the annals of the most successful murderers—- those whose names we still don’t know.

Then he could relish how he’d outwitted the world of criminology.

JMO

RBBM

No doubt still proud of his outwittedness, in reality, it was a dimwitted plan because he failed to brush up on DNA, CCTV, CAST, etc.

It's too bad he didn't trip on the step, mid-house, and fall on his own sword.

JMO

 

[gremlin444]

Haven’t been on much recently but there’s something that’s been confusing me. If Dylan saw Xana’s body, why didn’t she see any blood? I’m wondering if she was in a panicked state and her mind blocked it out?

From what we’ve learned so far, my opinion is that she first thought Xana was passed out drunk and the next morning she was terrified that she had died of alcohol poisoning.

Per Bethany, Xana had been wearing all black the last time she saw her before heading to bed.

In pictures from the various roommates and friends, we can see there was a large circular rug directly across from her bedroom door--and it was primarily black with thin white lines outlining shapes. It's likely her upper body would have come to rest on top of it making the blood less obvious than it would be on a wood floor.

My assumption is also that Xana was face down--again, concealing some of the blood and if she was on her rug, making it more likely that a good majority of the blood was absorbed by it and not spreading in a visible pool on the floor around her.

Poor lighting--Xana only had one window and it had blinds, which likely would have been shut given that the window faced out to the street in front. From pictures, it looks like the weather that Sunday midday was fairly overcast, so there wouldn't be much natural light getting through the blinds. Her room has that little hallway leading to it with a bathroom with no window on one side. So unless the bathroom light was on or there was a hall light that was on (both highly doubtful) the closest illumination to the room would be from the Good Times living room light, living room fairy lights, and the living room window....and that wouldn't provide a lot of illumination on an overcast day to be able to help you see much into Xana's room.