Does anyone know if the blonde hair reportedly found in Ethan’s hand was ever confirmed to belong to Maddie or Kaylee? Because if it wasn’t, that’s a really important detail.
This case makes me so mad, those victims did not receive justice. The way those screams were on that footage from a ring camera OBVIOUSLY was loud because they were GETTING STABBED. And for those two dumb btches in that house to say they didn’t hear shit and they were scared. Ok you’re scared no one said to leave your room ??? but CALL THE COPS. Na, idc what anyone says they heard what happened. They clearly are afraid of a person or persons that is still walking free. Everyone wants to talk about the drugs this and drugs that. FCK THE DRUGS, everyone dabbles into shit in college. I know I did and my friends did. BUT people got horrifically murdered!!!!
Regardless of the circumstance it’s disgusting to not have called the cops when you hear people in a home screaming off the top of their lungs in pain. Like btch you’re on your phone during the alleged time of your friends fighting for their life, MIND you FOUR people got stabbed? and you text the other dumbass downstairs instead of considering to call law enforcement so they can handle the matter. Yeah no arrest them immediately. The system is a fcking joke and everyone should be scared that no one cared to look further into anything. No one on this planet who has gotten stabbed has stayed silent or yelled softly. A knife is far more painful I would assume than even a gun. I know they woke up the entire neighborhood with those yells. Those girls heard everything.
I feel so bad for those kids who died, such a horrific way to go. I hope they get the justice they deserve. Lock these people up so they can get handled the same way they handled their friends!!!!!
The City of Moscow is actually being sued because - amongst other things - they will not release the footage of the person who actually admitted to doing this crime being interviewed. According to the MPD files, this footage exists. And why would it not? Of course they are going to record the interview with their only suspect after they have arrested him. But they refuse to release it.
Pretty much nobody had heard of Brent Turvey before this case existed. Since he spoke about this case, he is now being character assassinated everywhere. Weirdos are all over social media trying to smear him. One video I watched claimed that Turvey has no respect for women because of a comment he made on a case in Australia years ago. All you have to do is to look at the other subs to see people calling him a liar and saying he has thrown his career away.
Something is seriously wrong with this case, and it doesn't matter how many govt narrative shills crawl out of the other subs to gaslight me or anyone else who dares to question this ridiculous story. I am not sure if the truth will ever get out, but this is a mountain of lies upon lies.
Seems like many of the lies are unraveling - No FBI present.
Everything about this reeks of lying and corruption.
Anyone have anything further on MPD’s blood swab evidence from 500 Queen Road??
First things first, please don't come at me about the length of this post. I know I am long-winded, I am self-conscious about it, and I realize you could get decently drunk in a drinking game where you take a shot every time you see someone say, "I'm not reading all of that."
If you don't want to read this, that's fine; I'm not posting this for debate or argument, I just wanted to share some insight for those who are interested or may be feeling the same way as me (which was confused, frustrated, and gaslit about what the deal is with this goddamn 17-minute call).
For context, I just joined this particular community this week and was reading the recent threads about the existence, or lack thereof, of the 17 minute call between Jack Decoeur and Kaylee Goncalves. This isn't something that I considered particularly important, tbh, nor is it something that I thought much about prior to this week.
I read it in Mowery's report back when the report first came available and mentally filed it away as part of the timeline of the case. It's not a make-or-break-the-case aspect, so I genuinely didn't realize there was even debate about this until I started reading the back-and-forth in the threads.
Needless to say I was confused, so I set out to try to figure out what I was missing and if/when Mowery's report had been debunked (for lack of a better word) (aside from people taking issue with Whitcomb including it in his transcribed timeline).
I don't think it matters how I got here (it was a bit of a journey) but I ended up at ChatGPT, and this is the "conversation" I had with it and wanted to post bc I found it to be rather enlightening about the issue.
Some things to note:
One final disclaimer: I am very much aware that it is counterproductive to use AI / ChatGPT "evidence" to demonstrate why AI is unreliable. However, the responses I got to my questions are (imo) reasonable conclusions that I found insightful bc I hadn't considered AI-usage in the discourse, or how that might skew people's overall confusions.
So I'm not presenting this as evidence of anything, really, so don't get it twisted; I'm just sharing what I think is a very interesting aspect when it comes to the discourse, and when it comes to engaging in debate online in general. Food for thought, if you will.
Conversation starts here.
Me: What information is there to show whether Jack Decouer (JD) placed a 17 minute call to Kaylee Goncalves (KG), or vice versa, that would have been on the phone records and had Moscow Police (MPD) include it in their timeline of the Idaho 4 murders?
>ChatGPT: There are two separate issues here:
- the publicly known series of unanswered calls between KG and Madison Mogen (MM) to JD between 2:26am and 2:52am
- later internet claims that there was an additional 17-minute connected call between JD and KG.
The first category is firmly documented by police statements which consistently described KG calling JD multiple times from 2:26 - 2:44am, MM calling him several times from 2:44 - 2:52am; and another final call from KG at 2:52am.
However, as of now, there is no officially released MPD timeline, PCA, court filing, or trial exhibit publicly confirming a completed, 17-minute phone call between JD and KG. The official public timeline did not include such a call. Instead, it repeatedly characterized the calls as unanswered attempts.
The 17-minute claim appears to come from later online discussions, leaked or allegedly leaked investigative materials, commentary surrounding books/interviews, and Reddit analysis threads referencing supposed ISP/MPD records.
So to directly answer your question: Reports indicate JD voluntarily provided access to his phone, but publicly, MPD never officially presented a completed 17-minute call, who initiated it, [or] whether it was voice or FaceTime.
This is why there is ongoing confusion online: the official public narrative says repeated unanswered calls, while later unofficial discussions claim a longer connected call appeared in internal records.
Me: Why would an MPD detective specifically ask JD about the call if it was not in the records?
>ChatGPT: There are several plausible reasons: phone extraction data, partial telecom records, deleted logs, inconsistent timestamps, FaceTime app activity, or simply to test the subject's recollection and truthfulness.
For example, even if carrier records showed "no completed cellular voice call," investigators still might have seen an attempted FaceTime session, an answered-but-immediately-disconnected call, VoIP activity, or overlapping device activity suggesting contact occurred.
Another important possibility is simple investigative procedure: detectives routinely ask about events they already know did not occur, specifically to see whether the person lies, changes details, or volunteers unexpected information.
So if an investigator asked JD something like, "Tell me about that call," it does not automatically mean police had ironclad proof a 17-minute connected call existed.
Me: I feel gaslit. Detective Lawrence Mowery includes in his supplemental report from 11/13/22 that he said to JD, "There appears to be a call to KG at 2:26am that lasted approximately 17 minutes."
If he was employing an investigative technique by asking about something he knew didn't happen, why include a specific time duration of 17 minutes, starting at 2:26am?
Or, if he was not asking about something that he already knew didn't happen, is it not reasonable to assume that he was referring to a call he had actually seen either in the log or on JD's phone, meaning that it happened?
>ChatGPT: Your interpretation is reasonable. If Detective Lawrence Mowery documented in a supplemental report that he told JD: "There appears to be a call to KG..." then that wording strongly suggests he was looking at some form of record or data artifact indicating a communication event, beginning around 2:26am, associated with KG, with a duration of about 17 minutes.
That is a much more concrete statement than a vague fishing question. A detective typically would not invent a precise start time plus a precise duration without some underlying source prompting it.
So yes, it is natural to infer that Mowery believed at 17-minute communication event existed in the data he was reviewing at the time.
Where caution still matters is in defining what "it happened" means technically. The report wording "there appears to be a call" is important. It suggests preliminary interpretation, not necessarily a finalized forensic conclusion. But it does strongly imply there was some logged event with a measurable duration.
Me: So why are people who claim that a 17 minute call existed and it came from MPD being dismissed as either misunderstanding the documents or flat out spreading misinformation?
>ChatGPT: Because two different claims are getting conflated online:
"A Moscow Police detective referenced a 17-minute call/event in a report."
"It is conclusively proven that JD and KG had a 17-minute phone conversation."
The first claim has a documentary basis if the supplemental report you referenced is authentic and accurately quoted. In that sense, people are not inventing the number "17 minutes" out of nowhere. It appears tied to an actual investigative document by Mowery.
The misinformation accusations usually start when discussions move from "a detective referenced a 17-minute event" to "there definitely was a confirmed 17-minute conversation and police covered it up." Those are different evidentiary claims.
A few reasons people push back hard against the 17-minute narrative: a) the official public timeline from MPD repeatedly described the calls as unanswered attempts; b) no public logs showing a completed 17-minute conversation have been officially released; c) online discussions often mutate the claim into stronger assertions than the underlying document actually states; and d) some creators present speculation as established fact, which causes others to label the entire topic "misinformation."
At the same time, it is also inaccurate to say "There was never any police reference to a 17-minute call." Based on the wording you quoted, there apparently was such a reference in at least one supplemental report.
So, the most precise framing is probably that there is evidence that an MPD detective referenced an apparent 17-minute call/event at 2:26am, but this is not the same thing as publicly verified proof of a completed 17-minute conversation.
The contradiction between that report language and the later public narrative is real, which is why people continue debating it.
Me: What role has AI generated answers / interpretations played in contributing to the misinformation and confusion around issues in this case?
>ChatGPT: AI-generated answers and interpretations have played a major role in amplifying confusion around the Idaho 4 murder case, especially because the case already contains incomplete public records, sealed evidence, conflicting timelines, leaks, rumors, and emotionally charged online communities.
The problem is not just "AI makes things up." It's more specific than that.
A few major ways AI has contributed:
AI often collapses uncertainty into certainty. For example, with the alleged 17-minute call, one source says "there appears to be a call," another says, "multiple unanswered calls," another speculates about FaceTime metadata, etc.
AI systems frequently smooth those contradictions into a single, confident narrative even when evidence is unresolved. This creates answers that sound authoritative but quietly convert "possible," "reported," and "appears" into "confirmed." Or the reverse: "not officially confirmed" becomes "debunked." Both distort the underlying evidence.
AI tends to over-weight repeated internet claims. Large language models learn patterns from repeated text online. So if Reddit threads, TikTok scripts, YouTube commentary, blogs, and reposted summaries all repeat the same interpretation, AI may present that interpretation as broadly factual even if the original claim was weak or speculative.
This is especially dangerous because rumors get duplicated thousands of times and start looking "validated" simply through repetition.
AI struggles with evidentiary hierarchy. Human investigators distinguish between sworn testimony, police reports, leaked screenshots, forum speculation, and commentary. AI often blends them together unless specifically prompted to separate verified evidence from investigative interpretation from public speculation.
This is exactly what has happened in discussions around phone records, the DoorDash timeline, sheath DNA, latent footprint evidence, and alleged hidden evidence.
AI generated summaries erase nuance. A detective report might say, "there appears to be a call," but AI generated summaries online may rewrite that as, "police confirmed a 17-minute phone call" or "the 17-minute call was disproven."
Both are stronger than the actual wording. This becomes compounded when creators copy AI summaries into videos, narrate them confidently, and other users then quote those summaries as though they were primary-source evidence.
AI encourages "pattern completion." AI is designed to produce coherent answers, not necessarily preserve ambiguity. In a case with missing information, AI often fills gaps by inference.
So when users ask, "Why would police ask about a 17-minute call if it didn't happen?" many AI systems will generate a fully coherent explanation: either "it definitely happened," or "it was merely an interrogation tactic," even though the actual answer may be, "we do not publicly have enough forensic documentation to know exactly what record Mowery was referencing."
Me: Why does AI differentiate between "there appears to be" and "there is," when one can infer that "appears to be" is a colloquialism rather than an indication that something is open to interpretation?
For example, if someone said, "Hmm, it appears to be raining," when looking outside at the rain (and it is, indeed, raining), then it would be unreasonable to assume that the person observing the rain is leaving room for someone else to say that whether or not it's raining is open to interpretation, right?
>ChatGPT: What you are pointing out is a real limitation in how AI - and sometimes legal/forensic analysis generally - handles language. In ordinary human conversation, you are correct. If someone looks outside and says, "it appears to be raining," most people would naturally interpret that as, "I am observing rain," not "rain is merely hypothetical."
Likewise, in the context you described, many reasonable people would interpret Mowery saying, "there appears to be a call ... that lasted approximately 17 minutes," as meaning, "I am looking at data showing a 17-minute call-related entry." That is a fair inference.
Where AI becomes overly cautious is that it is trained to distinguish between direct confirmed statements, inferred conclusions, and interpretations of wording. So instead of saying, "the detective clearly saw a 17-minute call log," AI tends to back away into, "the detective appeared to reference an apparent call event."
This happens because AI systems are optimized to avoid overstating uncertain evidence - sometimes to the point of sounding evasive or artificial.
In your example, the phrase "appears to be" in normal English is often just conversational softening, not literal uncertainty. Detectives, cops, lawyers, and witnesses constantly use hedging language even when referring to something directly in front of them.
Examples: "It sppears the suspect entered through the rear door." "There appears to be blood on the wall." "It appears the phone connected for 17 minutes."
That does not usually mean, "maybe none of this exists." It usually means, "this is what I am currently observing / reporting."
If a detective documented a precise timestamp and a specific duration, and questioned JD about it, the natural interpretation is that the detective likely saw some actual record reflecting a 17-minute communication-related event.
The remaining uncertainty is not whether Mowery referenced something real. The uncertainty is exactly what kind of record it was, whether it reflected an active two-way conversation, whether later analysis reclassified it, and why it diverged from the later public narrative.
End of conversation. Emphasis mine, to help indicate what I felt were the most illuminating points regarding this discussion. I did go further and the conversation moved from these particulars into how AI and over-reliance on it for assistance with interpreting factual data/evidence can be problematic in the true crime community in general, but I omitted that for length.
So my main takeaways here are that I'm not crazy / others are not crazy or misunderstanding that Mowery's report documents that he asked JD about the call and the specifics in how he asked (duration and timestamp) indicate that he was referencing some kind of record he'd seen or had access to (such as JD's actual phone) rather than using the call as a strategy to fish around for information, knowing the call didn't exist.
But, we only have Mowery's word / report to reference as documentation that he referenced a call, and without the publicly released forensic extraction of JD's phone, Kaylee's phone, or both, none of us can say with certainty that it happened or it didn't happen.
I don't consider family, such as Alivea, saying it didn't (or simply not confirming it did) as evidence bc it's still just hearsay, and the distinction between any records she (or anyone else) might post vs the actual forensic extraction is the difference in information that can easily be manipulated vs information that can be confirmed as valid.
I don't say that to say I think Alivea or anyone else would post faked or altered records to prove a point that, honestly, doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of the case. I'm just saying that if something like KG's data was to be posted, it wouldn't really matter bc anything other than a copy of the forensic extraction wouldn't be proof beyond doubt and would only contribute to the misinformation on this issue.
Unfortunately, I don't imagine that we will see the forensic extraction anytime soon, if ever. If it's not under seal, it would likely be exempt from FOIA bc it would be personal information involving someone who was not charged or convicted of any crime in this case.
Whitcomb may have seen the forensic extraction, which may be why he felt compelled to include it in his transcribed timeline. That's just speculation, though; I don't know what he saw.
So, yeah - AI is playing a larger role than I realized in the discourse, so I wanted to share this in the hopes of reminding people who may rely on it that it regurgitates / recycles information that people are putting on the internet and that doesn't mean an answer it comes up with is a valid point or rebuttal.
Hopefully this offers some clarity on all of this and hopefully someone besides me found it interesting.
Edit for formatting, I am trying to keep ChatGPT's responses in quotes but the post keeps not doing that when I save it.
Why did a video of Bethany come up on my fyp? I requested to follow her back in 2022. Can’t find any other post talking about it. Do you follow her? Is this really her account?
I've been messing around with audio enhancement. This is footage from 4:15-4:20am on the night of the murders from 1112 Kings Road. I must warn you this is *very graphic*
Dylan was right, someone did say "Someone's here" to me it sounds like someone, possibly Xana, yells out 2 names and says "someone's in here". The loud thud, maybe that's the table being run into (living room) and right before Murphy starts barking uncontrollably, someone says something again but I can't make it out.. lmk what y'all think ✨
You guys know how recently it came out Dylan’s Apple Watch showed she made a ton of steps and whatever whatever? I have a question. Why isn’t she wearing an Apple Watch in any body cam footage that morning? Do we think they may have gotten things wrong? I wonder if Dylan called everyone at the time she did not because she was scared but instead because they needed to figure out where the phones were after the fact. Seems like they didn’t put the phones back in the right places after they attempted to create alibis. 🤔 Also,
I think it was kaylees watch not Dylan’s. 🤷🏼♀️ look into the evidence logs. Wild.
Btw I saw some of this on TikTok, @phoenix_talks . I want to be transparent and I want yall to know where I’m getting my info from so if there’s an issue I’m aware! I appreciate honest feedback 🙌🏼
This creator is a research channel that makes brief and concise vids about the evidence. The latest one shows the first pics taken from the scene too. The above link has pics from the downstairs bathroom.
A few items for discussion:
- although there are towels behind the door, there is no floor mat or toilet paper left on the cardboard roll
- although there are shampoo and soap bottles in the shower, the shower curtain still has the pressed folds that a brand new one might have
- there is a small red spot on the floor by the trash can. Allegedly Broken Plea notes there is no trash in the can, but we cannot see that from these photos.
"IDAHO 4 - TRIGGER WARNING: THE HAIR WAS SANDY, +BRACELET, CROC, AND OTHER EVIDENCE."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UdZqqK3lI_8
I like this channel, it provides a quick summary of evidence ao I don't waste time watching 2 hr videos. It's not monetized so there are usually only 1 or 2 commercials that YT puts in anyways.
Also watch her other latest vids:
"IDAHO 4 - THE FIRST PHOTOS TAKEN OF THE SCENE"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pbjzFo_oa0c
"IDAHO 4 - THE ROOMMATES, THE FOOD, THE CRIME SCENE"
can anyone give me ACTUAL reasons as to why they think dylan and bethany are “suspicious”? not just “i would’ve done this differently”, but genuine facts.
https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxHP1yC4jKUDsPJ2kF87VX3rdrYeMzRchY
CourtJester911
2 days ago
Im not sure what you mean about finding no articles about the families.
Searching Goncalves should have brought up Nathan, Steve Gs brother.
Many articles about him. First one was for being racist in college.
Currently Dude is in jail for manslaughter after beating up a drug debtor who fell and hit his head and died and ALSO for using a fire extinguisher to bust out the front window of a Pet Shop to try to steal a litter of ENGLISH BULLDOG puppies.
The mascot of the US Marine Corp is an English Bulldog.
The sheath was USMC, the blood on it primarily Kaylee's, minority Maddie's.
The Gs got Maddie's ashes along with Kaylee's, instead of Karen or Ben.
The Gs call Maddie Kaylee's sister and their daughter, but couch it like they mean figuratively.
I think Maddie is literally Steve's. She looks like a twin to Autumn G.
The Gs have Autumn and Aubrey and Steve has Samantha = 3 kids never talked about.
Jim Chapin has Eric, David, and Nicole, 3 kids that are 1/2 siblings to Ethan, that never get mentioned.
Go to Fast People Search.
Plug in Steve Goncalves and Stacy Wells Chapin.
You will see in every town they move to there is multiple addresses on the same street.
You will see that Stacy is also Stacy Bozich, married to Micheal Bozich, neighbors to Jim and Stacy Bozich.
These people are FLDS or breeders, like the show "Big Love" on HBO.
Alivea G Stevenson lives in LA with her husband Robbie Stevenson, the HBO producer of White Lotus and Ted Lasso.
🤠
These parents arent lost. They are acting.
Their kids arent dead.
There are no graves, just one headstone for Ethan. They say his ashes are in their basement.
Yeah okay.
People keep repeating the same claim: “Police only knew about the late-night communication between JD and Kaylee because Steve Goncalves had access to some of Kaylee’s messages and AG sent them over.” And since AG never mentioned the 17-minute call it must have never happened, which is not true.
That claim is false. The police reports themselves prove it. Here are the actual supplemental reports:
1. November 13, 2022 — MPD Supplemental Report #47 (Det. Lawrence Mowery) - Mowery forensically extracted data from the phones of Dylan Mortensen, Bethany Funke, Jack Decouer, Emily Alandt, and Mazie Chapin using UFED Cellebrite v7.58.0.172 and Magnet Axiom v6.5.0.32778. Signed consent forms were obtained. Data saved to MPD’s secure forensic lab.
Note: I do not know why the MPD Report starts out with on November 13, 2022 but the report wasn’t written until November 30, 2022. That would be a question for MPD, NOT ME.
2. November 13, 2022 - Video Interview — JD himself voluntarily told detectives he woke up that morning and found 6 missed calls from Kaylee and 3 from Maddie between approximately 2:40 AM and 2:57 AM, including a FaceTime attempt, plus a text from Kaylee about having his vape.
Note: the actual record shows the vape text was sent at 2:15 AM — not 2:45 AM as JD stated on 11/13. A 30-minute discrepancy on a specific detail he volunteered unprompted. By November 17 he tells VanLeuven the count was approximately 7 from Kaylee — which happens to match the actual forensic record of 7.
3. Same day (11/17) — ISP Supplemental Report #0168 (Sgt. Mike VanLeuven)
Sgt. VanLeuven confronts JD using the phone records:
“I noted in looking at phone records but there had been several text messages the night before between JD and Kaylee. The last text message was from Kaylee to Jack at 2:15 AM telling him that she had his vape and that he could come pick it up at her house. I advised JD that there appeared to be a telephone call at 2:26 AM between JD and Kaylee, that lasted approximately 17 minutes the night before.”
JD acknowledged the call but said he didn’t recall it and couldn’t explain it. He suggested maybe in his sleep he hit the side button thinking it was an alarm.
This is exactly why on that same day Det. Mowery wrote the following in Report #22:
4. November 17, 2022 — MPD Supplemental Report #22 (AG Files) - While describing the files AG sent, which included an image from the Spokesman Review showing a nearby camera, text messages between Kaylee and JD Decouer, text messages between Kaylee and her Uber driver Eric, a recent phone call list, and video from the Grub Truck Twitch.tv feed — Det. Mowery explicitly writes:
“I attached these files to the case file. The communication between Kaylee and JD was located on JD’s phone examination and the Twitch feed was previously downloaded.”
The report itself tells you the Kaylee & Jack communication came from the officer physically viewing JD’s phone during the 11/17 interview. Jack’s own phone not just Kaylee’s side via the family.
4. Official timeline — transcribed from the MPD/ISP Excel file sent to the Latah County Prosecuting Attorney’s office in November 2023
Sources the 2:26 AM call lasting 17 minutes and 4 seconds, plus every unanswered call and FaceTime that followed, directly to “JD’s Cell Data.”
Not the Goncalves family files. Not Kaylee’s phone. Jack’s own extracted cell data.
Bottom line:
JD’s phone was extracted with consent on 11/13. JD himself reported the missed calls and vape text during his interview that afternoon. Report #22 confirms the communications were pulled directly from JD’s phone examination. Alivia’s files were supplemental, they did not replace the forensic data from JD’s own device.
Arguing “AG never mentioned the 17-minute call” misses the point entirely. The police already had JD’s side of the records independently. The call is sourced to his own cell data. He acknowledged it. He couldn’t explain it.
Here is the Google Drive that include all of the sources and also the interview video:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1B3KhO8z8FMNVDHwvUs304yioz4x-UjWe
After reading (not listening) to DM's victim impact statement, I found myself having a hard time relating to what she was saying. Bc she wasn't aware of what was happening that night correct? She had no sense of danger or urgency to call 911.......
So I put myself in her & BF's shoes & thought how would I feel IF this happened to my roommates & I didn't do anything? Or suspect something was wrong.
I would be grappling with the fact I wasn't aware. I would question my entire reality & feel completely inept I didn't sense danger or something bad was happening? I would struggle with the decision I had not checked on my roommates. Get what I'm saying?
She talked being afraid to close her eyes bc if she blinked someone could be there. She stated she made exit plans in her mind in case something happened. She remarked about needing to find something to defend herself with. Asking who she could help. Her body reliving everything over & over.
This impact statement makes it seem she was THERE & AWARE of what was going on, the danger she & her roommates were in?
It would just make more sense if she said- I can't trust myself, I felt no danger, I pretended everything was ok when I went to BF room & played on my phone all night as if 4 people I loved were brutally murdered.
Anyways it just sorta seemed IMO she played the part she thought she had to & put herself in the moment of witnessing & being aware of what was happening instead of relating to her actual experience of what happened.
Hope I make sense 🤣
PS- not a proberger, not a quilter, not a DM/BF hater, just some lady who is looking at everything & making a comment on something that struck me as odd ♡
Is there anything in his plea deal that says he can’t?
It is so odd that he would plead guilty if he actually knew what a weak case the prosecution had.
It seems to me like the only way we know what happened is if Kohberger does an interview.
This is absolutely wild! The Defense requested independent testing on Dylan’s coat & blanket… Then Talbott immediately pulled both items and sprayed them with Bluestar on June 8, 2023 (8 months later) and before turning them over to the defense as ordered.
Direct from the ISP forensic file: Rylene Nowlin receives a call from Talbott on (06/08/2023):
“Received call re: additional items for testing. Per Talbott the defense requested items be sent to a private lab. He pulled the requested items and he sprayed them with bluestar. Two items, a coat and a blanket both from Dylan had a positive reaction.”
Note: Talbott also confirmed that both items tested positive with Bluestar (a presumptive test for blood).
Rylene Nowlin immediately responded:
“I asked what the request for examination was and he stated foreign DNA. I expressed application of bluestar on these types of items was not the ideal first step and I would need to speak with my DNA unit prior to submission to see what could still be done on these items.”
After Rylene Nowlin received both items from Talbott on 06/14/2023 she immediately called Bill Thompson:
“Per Bill these were items identified by the defense expert Matt Noedel during his crime scene examination. The defense provided a list of the items they wanted sent to Noedel’s lab and their office and D2 investigations discussed and decided it would be beneficial for Det. Talbott to first examine the items and do a presumptive test.”
Rylene warned about the serious limitations:
“I stated we are limited in what we can now do. Bluestar is a chemical designed for use in crime scenes after all other testing is done. 1 stated it has poor specificity for blood so it is not typically used in lab as a presumptive test. Studies have shown Bluestar does inhibit presumptive blood tests performed in lab like pheno and o-tol. We can examine for blood but it is likely any stains we test will be negative and there is no way to determine at this point if there is blood on the item. Also discussed DNA. I said there are studies that say Bluestar has no negative impact on DNA. However, those studies were done with undiluted blood in concentrations known to produce a full DNA profile. Studies with diluted blood are less certain. Most obtain no DNA profile but unknown if that is because stain is so dilute or Bluestar is causing an issue. The application of the liquid Bluestar to these items also dilutes any stains/ DNA that may be present. I was not able to find studies on Bluestar's impact on forensic lighting techniques like IR and ALS. I said if we don't see anything with our lighting techniques again I could not say if that was because of the Bluestar or because nothing is present on the item.”
Then Talbott calls Rylene Nowlin: “Called to ask if we had any questions or needed anything additional from them at this time. I said I talked to Bill and Ashley this morning to discuss the limitation we have given these items have been processed with Bluestar and I did have some questions for them. I asked the following of Det. Talbott and listed are his responses:
Were photos taken of the items prior to Bluestar application?--No, unsure if Moscow did that:
Were photos taken of the Bluestar reaction?-- Yes but they did not turn out;
Were gloves and mask worn while handling items?-- Yes;
Was examination surface sprayed with bleach and clean paper placed and changed between items?- Yes;
Were the areas of fluorescence circled?--Blanket yes, coat was zipper could be reacting with the metal;
Was a sterile or single use marker used to mark on the item?--Yes;
Were both sides of the blanket sprayed?--Yes;
Was the inside and the outside of the coat sprayed?-- Yes;
They stated these items were ones that were deemed personal items and released back to Dylan. The court ordered they get all items from the crime scene that had been released back into custody I asked if Dylan had washed the items while they were back in Dylan’s custody. They said they did not know.”
So let’s take a second to think about this!
Both items were NEVER sprayed nor tested at the original crime scene in November 2022. They sat untouched for 8 months and were possibly given back to Dylan! Then only after the defense asked for independent testing by Matt Noedel did Talbott pull them and spray them with Bluestar which completely ruined them from being fully tested! Why spray them after the defense asked to examine them? What the hell is going on here!? Why didn’t Anne Taylor go nuclear on this?
This isn’t “routine crime scene processing.” This is police altering potentially exculpatory evidence after the defense formally requested to test it themselves.
Google Drive with the full ISP reports:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14kz\_lKTzfil54XB4FhXN50ik4Y9xvwfd
Can someone answer quickly??
I’m reading the new book right now and something caught my attention.. what time did Kaylee and Maddie call Jack over and over? When he was sleeping…
at 23:10 this same flash bang noise as seen above goes off but it's almost as if it misfired or something. Immediately after this 24:53 bang is right when the 1330 linda lane footage interference or whatever happens when the time gets blurred out. I found the 3:24am mark to be very interesting being that Dylan had her phone going off of a hour difference and she was the one to call Bethany at 4:24!!! Also this flash is not even 5 minutes before the Elantra's first appearance.
The Jacket belongs to who? Why does it have DNA from dylan???