Connect with us

News

One question haunts loved ones of the Idaho victims: why did Bryan Kohberger do it?

Published

on

One question haunts loved ones of the Idaho victims: why did Bryan Kohberger do it?

Alivea Goncalves unleashed on the man who murdered her little sister during Wednesday sentencing hearing, peppering Bryan Kohberger with questions that she says “reverberate violently in my own head so loudly that I can’t think straight.”

“How was your life right before you murdered my sisters?” she asked.

“Did you prepare for the crime before leaving your apartment?

“Where is the murder weapon, the clothes you wore that night?

“What did you bring into the house with you?

Advertisement

“What were Kaylee’s last words?

At the heart of Alivea’s demands was the same overwhelming question that continues to haunt the loved ones of Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin, as well as the public: Why did he do it?

The motives of Bryan Kohberger on why he targeted four Idaho college students and brutally murdered them remain unknown — and may always

The motives of Bryan Kohberger on why he targeted four Idaho college students and brutally murdered them remain unknown — and may always (AP)

Kohberger, 30, declined to speak during his sentencing hearing inside the Ada County Courthouse in Boise, Idaho for the 2022 murders of the four college students.

When asked if he wished to address the court, he simply said, “I respectfully decline.”

Advertisement

That is the longest sentence he’s said publicly in years. But his vague response continues to frustrate the families who simply want to know why their kids were killed.

With no explanation offered and no known link between the killer and the victims, the motive behind one of the most shocking crimes in Idaho history remains a mystery.

Even the judge, who gave emotional comments to the families in his remarks, acknowledged the frustration.

“As we sit here today, this case is ending, and we are now certain who committed these unspeakable acts of evil,” Judge Steven Hippler told the court before handing down four consecutive life sentences.

“But we don’t know, and what we may never know, is why.”

Advertisement

A crime without a known motive

On November 13, 2022, Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin were stabbed to death at their off-campus home in the college town of Moscow, Idaho. Two other roommates were home at the time and survived, but they were not harmed.

Nearly seven weeks later, authorities arrested Kohberger at his parents’ home in Pennsylvania.

Key evidence that led to Kohberger’s arrest and conviction included surveillance footage of his white Hyundai Elantra and DNA found on a knife sheath left at the crime scene.

Alivea Goncalves, sister of victim Kaylee Goncalves speaks at the sentencing hearing of Bryan Kohberger at the Ada County Courthouse

Advertisement
Alivea Goncalves, sister of victim Kaylee Goncalves speaks at the sentencing hearing of Bryan Kohberger at the Ada County Courthouse (AP Photo/Kyle Green, Pool)
Benjamin Mogen, father of Madison Mogen cries at the sentencing hearing. Kohberger was sentenced to four life terms.

Benjamin Mogen, father of Madison Mogen cries at the sentencing hearing. Kohberger was sentenced to four life terms. (AP Photo/Kyle Green, Pool)

But while police were able to trace physical clues and build a case, they found no thread connecting Kohberger to the victims.

“We have never, to this day, found a single connection between him and any of the four victims or the two surviving roommates,” Lt. Darren Gilbertson of the Idaho State Police said at a press conference following the sentencing on Wednesday

“There is no evidence of a history of violence, no evidence of a serial killer in waiting,” added Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson.

“If people are concerned he had some history or trail of disturbing behaviors before this, we’re not aware of it.”

Advertisement

Unanswered questions

Kohberger’s sentencing marked the end of the legal battle but offered little peace for the victims’ families.

Hippler acknowledged the families and public’s desire to understand why the crime happened, but cautioned against giving Kohberger the power that comes from public attention.

“The need to know what is inherently not understandable makes us dependent upon the defendant to provide us with a reason, and that gives him the spotlight, the attention and the power he appears to crave,” Hippler said. “Yet, even if I could force him to speak, which legally I cannot, how could anyone ever be assured that what he speaks is the truth?”

“Do we really believe after all this, he’s capable of speaking the truth or of giving up something of himself to help the very people whose lives he destroyed? Rather, I suspect the so-called reason would be dished out in enticing, self-serving and aggrandizing untruthful bits, leaving people wanting more information, more insight, and thus enhancing even further the power he seeks to hold,” Hippler added.

Advertisement
Many are saying the case lacks closure because the world doesn’t know why he carried out the crimes.

Many are saying the case lacks closure because the world doesn’t know why he carried out the crimes. (Instagram)

Prosecutor Bill Thompson echoed this at the press conference.

“I don’t believe that there’s anything that would come out of his mouth that would be the truth,” Thompson said.

Kohberger was sentenced to four consecutive life terms for murder, an additional 10 years for burglary, and ordered to pay $290,000 in restitution.

Still, for the families of Mogen, Goncalves, Kernodle and Chapin, justice feels incomplete.

Advertisement

In the end, they may never know what led a man with no known connection to the victims to commit such a calculated act of violence, why he chose to rip a community apart.

Sister Alivea made it clear in her scathing address to Kohberger that having her questions answered would not make her think any better of him.

“You act like no one can ever understand your mind,” she said. “But the truth is you’re basic. You’re a textbook case of insecurity disguised as control. Your patterns are predictable. Your motives are shallow. You are not profound. You’re pathetic.

“You aren’t special or deep, not mysterious or exceptional. Don’t ever get it twisted again.”

Advertisement

News

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

Published

on

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

new video loaded: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

transcript

transcript

Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

“What a [expletive] embarrassment.” “Look at this guy.” “What’s with all the fascists?” “The Lord is with you.” “Where’s the bad hombre? What did this guy do?” “He’s out here working to support his [expletive] family.” “Gestapo agents.” “Oh yeah, shake your head, tough guy.” “This is where you get the worst of the worst right here, hard-working builders.” “Crossing the border is not a crime. Coming illegally to the United States is not a crime, according to you.” “C’mon, get out of here.” “Take him to a different hospital.”

Advertisement
A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

By Ernesto Londoño, Jackeline Luna and Daniel Fetherston

December 17, 2025

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Published

on

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP

Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.

Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.

A sloppy edit

At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.

Advertisement

The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”

Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”

The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”

Advertisement

While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.

A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.

Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.

The appeal of BritBox

For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.

That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.

Advertisement

Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”

Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)

It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.

Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.

Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)

Advertisement

“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.

NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.

Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn

Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.

Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.

In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.

Advertisement

Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.

Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.

“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”

An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.

“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”

Advertisement

Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement

Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.

“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”

Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Published

on

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

new video loaded: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

transcript

transcript

Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

Our office will be filing charges against Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and photographer-producer Michele Singer Reiner. These charges will be two counts of first-degree murder, with a special circumstance of multiple murders. He also faces a special allegation that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, that being a knife. These charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility parole or the death penalty. No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty.

Advertisement
Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

By Shawn Paik

December 16, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending