GUILTY PLEA DEAL ACCEPTED - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #112

[LadyL]

According to Apple Books, I'm 88% through The Idaho Four. The G family does not come off well in this book. At all.

"[Maddie's grandmother] doesn't get why the Goncalves family seems to be making so many decisions for Maddie's family. She's puzzled about why Maddie's ashes are on their mantelpiece alongside Kaylee's."

how did they get a hold of Maddie's ashes??

 

[Lilibet]

That certainly sounds a little strange, especially the bit i bolded. I think the Goncalves said way back that Maddie was like an additional daughter to them or like Kaylee's twin sister or something along those lines, but still it ought to be obvious IMO that Maddie has her own real family, who would want her ashes themselves and who would want to make their own decisions regarding anything further in respect to her.

"That up there is Kaylee and Maddie, we are going to keep them together."
The Goncalves' intend to eventually divide the ashes and distribute them between the Goncalves family and Maddie's family, so that both families have ashes for both girls. It's a compromise that will keep the best friends together. The Goncalves' said they won't separate them, not even in death.

Kaylee Goncalves' parents remember her and best friend Maddie Mogen one year after their deaths

Up on a shelf in the Goncalves family home, Kaylee and Maddie's ashes rest side by side. Forever best friends, the two shared a bond like sisters.

www.ktvb.com

BBM

I don’t think it would be possible for the Goncalves family to have anything but a small amount of Maddie’s ashes that Maddie’s family would have given them. AFAIK ashes are only given to the family and anyone else the family designates. For example, when my MIL died, my FIL had her ashes put in small containers for her three children and one grandchild.

It sounds like the Goncalves family planned to give some of Kaylee’s ashes to Maddie’s family.

JMO

 

[Vaderman]

"That up there is Kaylee and Maddie, we are going to keep them together."
The Goncalves' intend to eventually divide the ashes and distribute them between the Goncalves family and Maddie's family, so that both families have ashes for both girls. It's a compromise that will keep the best friends together. The Goncalves' said they won't separate them, not even in death.

Kaylee Goncalves' parents remember her and best friend Maddie Mogen one year after their deaths

Up on a shelf in the Goncalves family home, Kaylee and Maddie's ashes rest side by side. Forever best friends, the two shared a bond like sisters.

www.ktvb.com

How horrible

Here's hoping MM's family is able to reclaim her ashes.

 

[seasideForest]

I don’t think it would be possible for the Goncalves family to have anything but a small amount of Maddie’s ashes that Maddie’s family would have given them

Yes, you're probably right. Maybe Maddie's parents and/or stepfather didn't give the grandmother these details, or maybe they did but the grandmother is still against these decisions.
MOO

 

[CLGM]

Side note: I just found out this weekend that a friend of mine is a photographer in the courtroom the last few appearances by BK. Small world isn't it?

What has their impression of BK been?

 

[PunishThenForgive]

This NewsNation video is from December 2, 2022:

Ashes of Idaho victims Mogen, Goncalves kept together

According to Brian Entin, “Maddie's parents wanted Maddie’s ashes to be by Kaylee’s ashes right now.” It brought both families comfort to have the girls next to each other in death as they were in life.

Kaylee and Maddie also had a joint Celebration of Life, not in Kaylee’s hometown of Rathdrum, ID, but in Maddie’s hometown, Coeur d'Alene, ID:

Celebration of Life held for Moscow murder victims, Kaylee Goncalves and Madison Mogen

It’s been almost three years since Kaylee and Maddie were murdered. Surely, the ashes would be shared as soon as Maddie’s parents asked them to be.

Keep in mind that Maddie’s paternal grandmother (Ben Mogen’s mother) was interviewed for The Idaho Four, and she clearly did not like the Goncalves family’s influence on Maddie or Maddie’s mother.

Her son did not raise Maddie (though he was present and loving), and she may have bristled over her own lack of control or influence. She certainly bristled at the press’ assumption that the “Mogen family” had a unified voice about the investigation.

IMO

 

[Sundog]

According to Apple Books, I'm 88% through The Idaho Four. The G family does not come off well in this book. At all.

"[Maddie's grandmother] doesn't get why the Goncalves family seems to be making so many decisions for Maddie's family. She's puzzled about why Maddie's ashes are on their mantelpiece alongside Kaylee's."

I always wondered the same thing, and was glad when Maddie's father started doing a few interviews, however hard it was to watch him in his pain.

ETA It was good to start hearing from Maddie's own family and not hear about Maddie through the G's. Maddie's father is soft-spoken and appears to be somewhat low key. It might have been hard for him to be heard with the G's outspokenness, especially SG.

 

[Sundog]

"That up there is Kaylee and Maddie, we are going to keep them together."
The Goncalves' intend to eventually divide the ashes and distribute them between the Goncalves family and Maddie's family, so that both families have ashes for both girls. It's a compromise that will keep the best friends together. The Goncalves' said they won't separate them, not even in death.

Kaylee Goncalves' parents remember her and best friend Maddie Mogen one year after their deaths

Up on a shelf in the Goncalves family home, Kaylee and Maddie's ashes rest side by side. Forever best friends, the two shared a bond like sisters.

www.ktvb.com

Does Maddie's family support that plan, are they part of that decision? If not, the G's should return Maddie's ashes to her family, if they haven't already.

 

[PunishThenForgive]

Reminder:

The hearing for the Motion to Vacate Nondissemination Order takes place today, Thursday, August 17, 2025 at 10:30 am Mountain Time via Zoom.



Source: Case Summary

According to this page, the Description/Defendant is "Confidential" so we may not be able to watch the hearing:



If the hearing is streamed, then we should be able to use this link: Watch Hearings Live

As @MassGuy said yesterday, the State, "upon further reflection," withdrew its request for the Nondissimination Order to remain in effect through sentencing. However, Bill Thompson adds:

Nevertheless, out of respect for the integrity of the judicial process and the privacy of the victims and their families as they consider their rights to provide victim impact statements at sentencing, the prosecution team does not intend to make any public statements about this case until after sentencing has concluded.

BBM

Source: States Response to Coalition of Media Organizations Motion to be Heard Motion to Vacate Order.

The Defense, on the other hand, strongly opposes the media's motion to vacate the Nondissimination Order. According to the Case Summary (see screenshot above), Anne Taylor's "Opposition to Motion to Vacate Nondissimination Order" is locked and its link does not appear on the Idaho Cases of Interest page, State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger.

Nonetheless, Angenette Levy somehow got a hold of Anne Taylor's Opposition. She shows and discusses it during this episode of her video podcast:

New: Bryan Kohberger Faces Death Threats As Chilling Details Revealed
(Start at 13:37 to see discussion of Anne Taylor's Opposition)

Here are the sections of AT's Opposition:

1. The language of the Revised Amended Nondissimination Order issued on June 23, 2023, specifically ran through sentencing
2. The ongoing publicity in the case threatens Mr. Kohberger's safety
3. The Court has issued a records hold order, and a special inquiry is ongoing

Referencing the State's Response quoted above, Anne Taylor makes the following dig in Section 3 of her Opposition:

The State's promise rings hollow given the previous leaks from sources "close to law enforcement."

And here is AT's (sarcastic) footnote in the same section:

From the language, who is "promising" is vague. Does this mean the attorneys, staff members of the prosecutor's office, and/or all of the 150 law enforcement officers involved in the investigation? On July 2, 2025, an entire row in the courtroom galley was occupied by law enforcement who were watching the proceedings. Will a third of the courtroom now be allotted to law enforcement, free to provide media interviews as they enter and exit the courthouse?

BBM

Imagine that: Law enforcement officers, who worked so hard and were surely traumatized by investigating the heinous murder of four university students, actually wanted to witness the accused admitting what he did.

I suppose Dylan Mortensen, at least, was relieved so many police officers were in attendance with BK only feet away from her.

IMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Reminder:

The hearing for the Motion to Vacate Nondissemination Order takes place today, Thursday, August 17, 2025 at 10:30 am Mountain Time via Zoom.

View attachment 602158

Source: Case Summary

According to this page, the Description/Defendant is "Confidential" so we may not be able to watch the hearing:

View attachment 602161

If the hearing is streamed, then we should be able to use this link on the Idaho Cases of Interest page for the State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger:

Watch Hearings Live

As @MassGuy said yesterday, the State, "upon further reflection," withdrew its request for the Nondissimination Order to remain in effect through sentencing. However, Bill Thompson adds:


BBM

Source: States Response to Coalition of Media Organizations Motion to be Heard Motion to Vacate Order.

The Defense, on the other hand, strongly opposes the media's motion to vacate the Nondissimination Order. According to the Case Summary (see screenshot above), Anne Taylor's "Opposition to Motion to Vacate Nondissimination Order" is locked and its link does not appear on the Idaho Cases of Interest page, State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger.

Nonetheless, Angenette Levy shows Anne Taylor's Opposition and discusses it on her video podcast:

Start at 13:37

Here are the sections of AT's Opposition

1. The language of the Revised Amended Nondissimination Order issued on June 23, 2023, specifically ran through sentencing
2. The ongoing publicity in the case threatens Mr. Kohberger's safety.
3. The Court has issued a records hold order, and a special inquiry is ongoing.

Referencing the State's Response quoted above, AT makes the following dig in Section 3:



Here's AT's just peachy footnote in the same section:



Imagine that: LE officers, who worked so hard and were surely traumatized by investigating the heinous murder of four university students, actually wanted to witness the accused admitting what he did.

IMO

I'm saying, the questionable digs are usually found buried in the Footnotes. This case and the Delphi case are recent prime examples. It seems to be the D's way of getting jabs in on the sly. I'm a Footnote lover myself.

I think it speaks volumes about the behavior and pettiness of the D Attorneys here and in Delphi.

JMO

 

[SteveP]

This NewsNation video is from December 2, 2022:

Ashes of Idaho victims Mogen, Goncalves kept together

According to Brian Entin, “Maddie's parents wanted Maddie’s ashes to be by Kaylee’s ashes right now.” It brought both families comfort to have the girls next to each other in death as they were in life.

Kaylee and Maddie also had a joint Celebration of Life, not in Kaylee’s hometown of Rathdrum, ID, but in Maddie’s hometown, Coeur d'Alene, ID:

Celebration of Life held for Moscow murder victims, Kaylee Goncalves and Madison Mogen

It’s been almost three years since Kaylee and Maddie were murdered. Surely, the ashes would be shared as soon as Maddie’s parents asked them to be.

Keep in mind that Maddie’s paternal grandmother (Ben Mogen’s mother) was interviewed for The Idaho Four, and she clearly did not like the Goncalves family’s influence on Maddie or Maddie’s mother.

Her son did not raise Maddie (though he was present and loving), and she may have bristled over her own lack of control or influence. She certainly bristled at the press’ assumption that the “Mogen family” had a unified voice about the investigation.

IMO

I would hope that, regardless of where Maddie's ashes were taken initially, they are now in the control of her parents, and that includes her biological father, who may have had little to no say in the decision to allow the Goncalves family to take possession in the beginning. They may have thought of her as another daughter, but Karen Laramie and Ben Mogen didn't have to think of her as their daughter, she was their daughter. Perhaps when these dreadful murders occurred, Maddie's family were still struggling to cope with the deaths, so went along with the Goncalves' suggestion to keep them together, which was a lovely thought, but would they have made that suggestion if they were going to be kept together at Maddie's house, instead of theirs? If either of Maddie's actual parents wish to share any of their portion of her ashes with someone else, that should be their prerogative, and only theirs, but they should be the ones in possession, if either wishes to be, with the ability to decide those things. JMO

 

[Lilibet]

I would hope that, regardless of where Maddie's ashes were taken initially, they are now in the possession and control of her parents, and that includes her biological father, who may have had little to no say in the decision to allow the Goncalves family to take possession in the beginning. They may have thought of her as another daughter, but Karen Laramie and Ben Mogen didn't have to think of her as their daughter, she was their daughter. Perhaps when these dreadful murders occurred, Maddie's family were still struggling to cope with the deaths, so went along with the Goncalves' suggestion to keep them together, which was a lovely thought, but would he have made that suggestion if they were going to be kept together at Maddie's house, instead of theirs? If either of Maddie's actual parents wish to share any of their portion of her ashes with someone else, that should be their prerogative, and only theirs, but they should be the ones in possession, if either wishes to be, with the ability to decide those things. JMO

However Maddie’s ashes ended up with the Goncalves family, no funeral home/crematorium is going to release ashes to anyone but the family without the family’s permission. There is paperwork for the family to sign in order to receive the ashes. How the Goncalves family received permission to have Maddie’s ashes is certainly a good question, but Maddie’s family had to have been involved, even if they were struggling to cope and just handed them over after receiving them.

JMO

 

[SteveP]

However Maddie’s ashes ended up with the Goncalves family, no funeral home/crematorium is going to release ashes to anyone but the family without the family’s permission. There is paperwork for the family to sign in order to receive the ashes. How the Goncalves family received permission to have Maddie’s ashes is certainly a good question, but Maddie’s family had to have been involved, even if they were struggling to cope and just handed them over after receiving them.

JMO

I agree, and was not implying that the Goncalves family acquired them by some nefarious means, although as a non-custodial parent, I am not certain that the biological father had any legal say in what was done at the time, and actually doubt that he did. And her ashes may have been returned to the Laramie and Mogen families since the initial article was published, but even though I have not gotten to that point in the Patterson book yet, it sounds as if, at least her paternal grandmother still believed, at the time she was interviewed, that they have not been. JMO

 

[al66pine]

@SteveP
Quoting one point from your post a several notches upthread.
"If either of Maddie's actual parents wish to share any of their portion her ashes with someone else, that should be their prerogative, and only theirs. JMO" bbm
Yes. TYVM

The common law right of sepulcher is the right to control disposition of remains (burial or other). Generally speaking parents have the right of sepulcher for their deceased offspring (unless offspring is married, has adult children, etc).

More specifically from ID. statute re "MORTICIANS, FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND EMBALMERS
"54-1142. Authority in absence of or uncovered provisions in a prearranged funeral plan. (1) If the decedent has not made a prearranged funeral plan as set forth in section 54-1139, Idaho Code...following in the order named:

"(g) The competent surviving parents or parent of the decedent, provided that if one (1) of the competent surviving parents is absent, the remaining competent surviving parent shall be vested with the right to control the disposition of the remains of the decedent after reasonable efforts have been made and are unsuccessful in locating the absent competent surviving parent;"

Section 54-1142 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

I don't recall what the exact situation was w MM's parents.
Non-custodial Mother or non-custodial Father?
It seems, under ID statute unless a mother or father's parental rights have been terminated, they would have right of sepulcher to claim remains.
From my reading of the entire section of that law, "step-parent" is not named in the order/ranking to claim, but I could have missed it.

Welcoming clarification or other interpretations.

Not speculating about how or why (some or all?) of MM's cremains/ashes are/were in the G's fam home.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I don't know who here may be familiar with the podcast, "The Consult." It is a podcast done by 3 retired FBI agents who worked in the behavioral analysis unit. I find them to be very measured and cautious in what they say, very selective in which cases they will talk about, and very thoughtful. They aren't flashy like John Douglas (though I retain a small soft spot of nostalgia in my heart for him).

They are doing a 2 part series profiling Bryan Kohberger. Part 1 is out now and part 2 will be out next Wed, I believe.

93. Profiling Bryan Kohberger – Part 1

We discuss the Idaho student murders.

www.truecrimeconsult.com

This is a very interesting analysis. Their possible explanation of why BK didn't also kill DM makes sense--that he had a plan that limited how much time he would spend in the house. They also emphasize the difference between a plan to murder one or more people using a knife and what it is like for killer to do that. One thing we know for sure is that peeling out and nearly hitting another car is a sign that he was not in emotional control of himself.

 

[Warwick7]

Reminder:

The hearing for the Motion to Vacate Nondissemination Order takes place today, Thursday, August 17, 2025 at 10:30 am Mountain Time via Zoom.

View attachment 602158

Source: Case Summary

According to this page, the Description/Defendant is "Confidential" so we may not be able to watch the hearing:

View attachment 602161

If the hearing is streamed, then we should be able to use this link: Watch Hearings Live

As @MassGuy said yesterday, the State, "upon further reflection," withdrew its request for the Nondissimination Order to remain in effect through sentencing. However, Bill Thompson adds:


BBM

Source: States Response to Coalition of Media Organizations Motion to be Heard Motion to Vacate Order.

The Defense, on the other hand, strongly opposes the media's motion to vacate the Nondissimination Order. According to the Case Summary (see screenshot above), Anne Taylor's "Opposition to Motion to Vacate Nondissimination Order" is locked and its link does not appear on the Idaho Cases of Interest page, State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger.

Nonetheless, Angenette Levy somehow got a hold of Anne Taylor's Opposition. She shows and discusses it during this episode of her video podcast:

New: Bryan Kohberger Faces Death Threats As Chilling Details Revealed
(Start at 13:37 to see discussion of Anne Taylor's Opposition)

Here are the sections of AT's Opposition:

1. The language of the Revised Amended Nondissimination Order issued on June 23, 2023, specifically ran through sentencing
2. The ongoing publicity in the case threatens Mr. Kohberger's safety
3. The Court has issued a records hold order, and a special inquiry is ongoing

Referencing the State's Response quoted above, Anne Taylor makes the following dig in Section 3 of her Opposition:



And here is AT's (sarcastic) footnote in the same section:


BBM

Imagine that: Law enforcement officers, who worked so hard and were surely traumatized by investigating the heinous murder of four university students, actually wanted to witness the accused admitting what he did.

I suppose Dylan Mortensen, at least, was relieved so many police officers were in attendance with BK only feet away from her.

IMO

Excellent excellent post!!!

 

[Miss Poovy]

I agree, and was not implying that the Goncalves family acquired them by some nefarious means, although as a non-custodial parent, I am not certain that the biological father had any legal say in what was done at the time, and actually doubt that he did. And her ashes may have been returned to the Laramie and Mogen families since the initial article was published, but even though I have not gotten to that point in the Patterson book yet, it sounds as if, at least her paternal grandmother still believed, at the time she was interviewed, that they have not been. JMO

It is addressed in the James Patterson book.

 

[Warwick7]

Once he has made his "plea" is it true he can pull it back?

Other than that what would be the point of AT not wanting it released today? And it can't be fear for his safety...

 

[pittsburghgirl]

PunishThenForgive quotes the AT footnote in her opposition to dissemination motion:

From the language, who is "promising" is vague. Does this mean the attorneys, staff members of the prosecutor's office, and/or all of the 150 law enforcement officers involved in the investigation? On July 2, 2025, an entire row in the courtroom galley was occupied by law enforcement who were watching the proceedings. Will a third of the courtroom now be allotted to law enforcement, free to provide media interviews as they enter and exit the courthouse?

And then goes on to say:

BBM

Imagine that: Law enforcement officers, who worked so hard and were surely traumatized by investigating the heinous murder of four university students, actually wanted to witness the accused admitting what he did.

Given how much lack of respect, public criticism, that Moscow PD endured from not only some victims' families but also national media and social media, I'd say they earned the right to witness that confession. Six weeks from the murders to arrest in a stranger murder that spanned three states. And they knew pretty much who did the crime before that.

And while we're on the subject of Moscow PD, the Ward/Patterson book is really illuminating on how unfair it is to both pile on a police department for not sharing information while also piling on for not solving the crime fast enough and talking about or printing everything they hear from some source. Ward and Patterson did this by juxtaposition--who was talking to the media and as part of the media? Who was saying the PD was failing to solve it? Who in the media was peddling rumors and stoking resentment toward law enforcement? What were people saying directly to the police chief, who even had some friends piling on? The whole business where Kaylee's sister thinks she's investigating is very poignant and she certainly found a lot about Kaylee's movements on that last day and who was messaging her or liking Instagram posts. But there's no way to solve a stranger homicide without forensics. All the sleuthing in the world wouldn't have found BK. It was the trail he left behind-- DNA, his vehicle, his phone, his Amazon account that revealed him as the killer. The only people who could get that information are those in law enforcement. And because after the arrest all eyes were on BK, law enforcement, including Moscow PD, the Idaho State Police, the FBI, and the PA State Police have never really gotten their due for solving this case.

And don't get me started on how prosecutor Bill Thompson has been vilified first for supposedly not fighting back verbally against AT (evidently people don't read the filings, where the fighting really happens). What he did was all behind the scenes, building a case so strong that the defense folded like a house of cards instead of going to trial. And in taking the plea deal, he not only mitigated any risk that BK could be found not guilty, he saved those kids from having to relive everything in court. He's a true hero.

AT really represents for me that kind of scorn that this police department never deserved. The Ward/Patterson book showed me how truly professional that police department is for one in a small town.

 

[PunishThenForgive]

It is addressed in the James Patterson book.

According to these notes for The Idaho Four, Vicky Ward interviewed Maddie's paternal grandmother, Kim Cheeley, in November 2023. Ward interviewed Maddie's mother, Karen Laramie, in April 2024, but she didn't discuss Maddie’s ashes.

None of us know where Maddie's ashes are right now, what Ben Mogen's wishes are with respect to his daughter's ashes, or how the agreement was made to keep Maddie and Kaylee's ashes together right after they passed away.

For what it's worth, here is the top post on the Goncalves Family FB page (from July 11):

Hello everyone. I wanted to make this post to answer many questions we have been seeing and to clear up any rumors . The Goncalves Family and The Laramie Family stand UNITED together. We have not wavered for the love we have for each other and the love we have for Kaylee and Maddie. We 100% respect each other's decisions. Our bond is unbreakable.