Connect with us

News

Newly released texts and 911 call transcript from surviving roommates of Idaho murders reveal panic and terror | CNN

Published

on

Newly released texts and 911 call transcript from surviving roommates of Idaho murders reveal panic and terror | CNN



CNN
 — 

Panicked conversations between two surviving roommates in the off-campus home where four University of Idaho students were murdered in 2022 were revealed in newly released text messages Thursday, shedding more light on the timeline that prosecutors aim to lean on in their case against the suspect.

The brutal killings of the four University of Idaho students – Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin – took place in November 2022 at an off-campus residence in Moscow, a town of about 25,000 people.

“I’m freaking out,” one roommate, Dylan Mortensen, wrote to the other, Bethany Funke, according to the newly unsealed court filings. Mortensen and Funke, identified by their initials in the court documents, were texting about a masked man dressed in black in their house around the time police believe the victims were being murdered.

The exchange took place nearly eight hours before the roommates called 911 to report Kernodle unconscious at the residence.

Advertisement

The group of friends had gone out in the college town and returned to their shared home late. The next day, police found the four students slaughtered inside, and there were no signs of forced entry or damage.

The slayings led to weeks of investigation from police, frustrations from the victims’ families about the pace of the policework and fear in the local community of a mass killer on the loose.

Nearly two months later, Moscow Police arrested Bryan Kohberger, a then 28-year-old man in Pennsylvania, on a murder warrant in the killings of the students. Kohberger, a graduate student in criminal justice who lived in Pullman, Washington, is set to face trial in August. A not guilty plea has been entered on his behalf and he faces the death penalty if convicted.

Mortensen told law enforcement she went to sleep in her first-floor bedroom and was awakened around 4 a.m. by what she thought sounded like Goncalves playing with her dog in one of the upstairs bedrooms on the third floor, previously released documents have shown.

Law enforcement also determined Kernodle received a DoorDash order at approximately 4 a.m. and was still up using TikTok at approximately 4:12 a.m.

Advertisement

In the new court filing, phone records show Mortensen tried calling the other four roommates – but got no response – around the time when security camera from a residence close to the home picked up at 4:17 a.m. distorted audio of voices, a whimper, followed by a loud thud, and a barking dog.

Mortensen texted Goncalves: “Kaylee” and “What’s going on.”

Funke, the other surviving roommate, however, answered her messages, while they were both in their bedrooms, according to the filing.

Mortensen and Funke sent the following text messages to one another around 4:22 a.m.:

DM to BF: “No one is answering.”

Advertisement

DM to BF: “I’m really confused rn.”

BF to DM: “Ya dude wtf”

BF to DM: “Xana was wearing all black”

DM to BF: “I’m freaking out rn”

Mortenson then tells Funke about seeing what looked like a man with a ski mask in the house. Previously released court filings described Mortensen’s grand jury testimony recalling noises she heard and a masked man wearing black in the residence.

Advertisement

Mortensen then said to Funke: “No it’s like a ski mask almost”

BF to DM: “Stfu”

DM to BF: “Like he had [something] over is for head and little nd mouth”

DM to BF: “I’m not kidding [I] am so freaked out”

BF to DM: “So am I”

Advertisement

Then, Funke tried to convince Mortensen to go to Funke’s room so they’d be together: “Run”

Prosecutors have indicated they expect both surviving roommates to testify at trial and want to use their text messages to illustrate the timeline of the night. Defense attorney Anne Taylor has pointed to what she described as inconsistencies during their multiple interviews with law enforcement.

Before calling 911, another newly unsealed court filing shows, Mortensen tried again to reach Goncalves and Mogen starting at 10:23 a.m., asking them if they are awake: “Ru up??”

A transcript of the surviving roommates’ 911 call made more than an hour after that was also released with the filing Thursday. The transcript shows the chaos as Mortensen and Funke pass the phone between them answering the dispatcher in fragmented responses. The filing describes heaving-like breathing and crying throughout the call. The transcript does not identify the speakers by name but shows another unnamed friend with them also spoke to the dispatcher.

On the call they reported 20-year-old Kernodle unconscious, telling the dispatcher she had come home drunk the night before.

Advertisement

The roommates struggled to tell the dispatcher their address and phone number, then saying Kernodle is unresponsive and they “saw some man in their house last night.”

The transcript reveals the students’ unfinished thoughts and panic over finding Kernodle’s unconscious body. It appears the dispatcher ends the call when first responders arrive on scene without getting a full account of the night or the current situation, the filing shows.

The judge in Latah County who previously presided over the case had ruled the messages and 911 transcript were permissible evidence before the case was moved to Ada County, but the order and associated filings were sealed at the time.

A recently unsealed defense motion in Kohberger’s capital murder case offers the most detailed picture of the suspect’s personality to emerge since his arrest, citing an evaluation by a neuropsychologist who found Kohberger “continues to exhibit all the core diagnostic features of ASD currently, with significant impact on his daily life.” It’s unclear if – or when – Kohberger was previously diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The newly unsealed filing is the latest in a flurry of defense motions aimed at taking the death penalty off the table for the only suspect in the fatal stabbings that horrified the small college community. The lurid case has riveted the public, but police have not released a potential motive, and a sweeping gag order has kept the parties from speaking publicly or revealing further details.

Advertisement

The prosecution’s most important piece of evidence is a DNA sample taken from a knife sheath left at the crime scene. Investigators then used investigative genetic genealogy, a forensic field combining DNA analysis with genealogical research, to connect that sample to Kohberger’s family, according to prosecutors. Subsequent DNA testing found Kohberger was a “statistical match” to the sample, leading to his arrest, according to prosecutors.

Kohberger’s attorneys have argued in a defense motion released Thursday that the death penalty should be taken off the table because they cannot possibly review the enormous amount of discovery in time for the August trial. They say removing the death penalty would cut down the needed discovery considerably.

Trash recovered from the Kohberger family residence by Pennsylvania law enforcement and sent to the Idaho State Lab for DNA testing was used to help investigators narrow down Kohberger as the suspect in the killings, according to court documents released in January 2023.

To combat that evidence, his defense team has repeatedly questioned the use, legality and accuracy of the DNA testing done in each step of the process. In a closed hearing last month, testimony from several witnesses raised questions about how investigators had used the DNA sample from the knife sheath to identify Kohberger as a suspect.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.

The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.

The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.

Advertisement

The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.

Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.

But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.

What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.

Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.

The case, however, was not over.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”

So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.

The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Advertisement

The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”

Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.

Continue Reading

News

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Published

on

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Advertisement

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading

News

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

Published

on

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation.  My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry. 

Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components.  As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country.  We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.

It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.

Sec. 2.  Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI.  (a)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

Advertisement

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

(c)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:

(i)    expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;

(ii)   establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and

(iii)  facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.

Advertisement

(d)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.

(e)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.

(f)  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.

Sec. 3.  Secure Frontier Model Deployment.  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:

(a)  develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate.  Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.

Advertisement

(b)  design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:

(i)    engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;

(ii)   provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and 

(iii)  collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.

(c)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.

Advertisement

Sec. 4.  Protection Against Criminal Actors.  The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime.  This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.

Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Advertisement

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d)  The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.

                             DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    June 2, 2026.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending