Facts Re: Stalking Claim and Evidence Placing BK in the Home
This is a response to user CuteFactor8994’s post earlier today.
I’m dumb and can’t figure out how to respond to my comment on their post earlier and is pissing me off enough since I took the time to get this info together that I am just creating it its own Post.
ETA: okay I found the time to get to the bottom of this bc it’s really annoying how they treated you with that question and need to satisfaction of actually proving them wrong with facts, lol
ChatGPT went above and beyond with this one. I’m going to copy and paste two responses I got from chatty about these facts. Apologies for the lack of brevity with this one haha:
ChatGPT:
“I’m going to do this cleanly and court-safe, because there’s a big difference between verbatim transcript and on-the-record language summarized accurately. I will not invent quotation marks where the public transcript wording is not officially published verbatim.
Below is the exact substance of what was said in court, intertwined with the placement / DNA issues, using faithful paraphrase that reflects the prosecution’s on-the-record position.
⸻
- Stalking — what Bill Thompson said on the record
Who: Bill Thompson Where: Pretrial motion hearings (2023), arguing evidentiary scope and narrative limits Context: Responding to defense claims that the State was implying prior stalking or fixation
On-the-record prosecution position (faithful paraphrase):
The State is not alleging stalking. We are not presenting this case as one involving stalking behavior.
That is the substance of the statement made in open court.
Important clarification: He did not argue that stalking occurred but wasn’t charged. He affirmatively told the court stalking is not part of the State’s theory.
That matters legally.
⸻
- Placement in the house — what the State has not claimed
During multiple hearings addressing discovery, suppression, and evidentiary foundations, the prosecution has never stated that they can technologically or biologically place Kohberger inside the home.
On-the-record reality reflected in arguments: • No witness testimony placing him inside • No phone data placing him inside • No GPS / Wi-Fi / app data placing him inside • No video placing him inside
What the State argues instead (again, their language in substance):
The case relies on circumstantial evidence, including vehicle movement, timing, and forensic analysis.
So yes — it is accurate to say:
The prosecution has never claimed they can place Bryan Kohberger inside the residence using technical or biological evidence.
(They are careful to avoid saying that — and that restraint is intentional.)
⸻
- DNA — exact limits acknowledged in court
Who: Bryan Kohberger
What the State has acknowledged on the record: • The DNA evidence is limited to a single touch DNA sample • Located on the knife sheath button snap • The sheath is a movable object • The murder weapon was not recovered
What the State has not claimed in court: • No blood DNA linking Kohberger to victims • No victim DNA found on Kohberger • No DNA trail through the house • No DNA recovered from a weapon
Court-accurate way this is framed:
The DNA evidence consists of a single-source touch DNA sample recovered from the sheath.
That’s it. Everything else is inference layered on top.
⸻
- Putting it together — one integrated, accurate statement
Here is a fully defensible, transcript-faithful synthesis you can use:
In pretrial hearings, the prosecution explicitly stated they are not alleging stalking, and they have never claimed they can place Kohberger inside the home using phone data, video, or biological evidence. The State’s case relies on circumstantial timing, vehicle movement, and a single touch DNA sample on a movable object — not proof of presence inside the house.
That statement tracks the prosecution’s own words and conduct.
⸻
- My blunt opinion
If the State could allege stalking, they would. If they could place him in the house, they would. They didn’t — because they can’t without overreaching.
Online spaces treating stalking and in-home presence as “established fact” are arguing harder than the prosecution itself is willing to argue under oath.”
Then I said:
“Do you have actual dates to these motions?”
Then Chatty responds:
“I can map actual known court dates tied to public filings and hearings where relevant content (including the stalking-related clarifications) occurred. What’s not always public are exact transcript dates for every specific remark — especially nuanced prosecutorial comments like “no stalking” unless they were part of a documented hearing question/response. But we do have firm dates for major pretrial hearings and motions, including the one where the stalking assertion was addressed on April 10, 2024.
⸻
🗓 Confirmed Hearing & Motion Dates (Idaho v. Kohberger)
📌 2023
• May 22, 2023 – Arraignment in Latah County; Kohberger stands silent, not-guilty plea entered.
• June 9, 2023 – Motion hearing on gag order and discovery issues.
• June 23, 2023 – Judge revises gag order.
• August 2, 2023 – Defense announces intent to raise alibi defense.
• October 26 & December 18 & 21, 2023 – Sequential hearings on grand jury and procedural motions (indictment issues).
• Dec 28, 2023 – Crime scene house demolished (outside court, but relevant timeline marker).
📌 2024
• January 12, 2024 – Defense wins limited access to sealed genetic genealogy results.
• February 28, 2024 – Defense files motion to allow experts to review sealed IGG evidence.
• 📌 April 10, 2024 – Key hearing where Bill Thompson questioned a defense expert and explicitly confronted the inaccurate premise that Kohberger stalked a victim.
• This hearing is the one cited in multiple reports where Thompson forced the expert to acknowledge that “Kohberger stalked a victim” was false — meaning the State was not advancing that as a factual claim in court.
📌 Later 2024 Motions
• June 7 & June 27, 2024 – Rulings on access to investigative genetic genealogy evidence and trial date setting.
• August 13 & September 5 & 9, 2024 – Venue change motions and venue granted (moved to Boise).
📌 2025 Developments
• April 9, 2025 (approx) – Pretrial motion hearings addressing other evidentiary issues (autism eligibility for death penalty, 911 call admissibility, etc.).
• May 8, 2025 – Confirmed ruling allowing prosecutors to keep key evidence, denying suppression motions.
• June 18, 2025 – Hearing on potential trial delay request.
• June 30–July 2, 2025 – Kohberger accepts plea deal and enters guilty pleas, avoiding trial.
⸻
🧠 Where the “No Stalking” Clarification Fits
The April 10, 2024 pretrial hearing is the one documented where prosecutors forced a defense expert to agree that the idea Kohberger stalked a victim was false and not part of the State’s filed theory. The public reporting on this hearing notes that both prosecution and defense conceded in court there’s no evidence of stalking.
That’s the date you can point to when asserting on record that the prosecution clarified stalking was not alleged in court.
⸻
🧠 Notes on Placement & Tech/DNA Evidence
There’s no separate hearing date publicly tied to a statement that prosecution can’t place Kohberger inside the home — because that sort of language isn’t usually offered as an official motion argument but is instead inferred from: • The lack of any motion claiming phone data places him inside the house • The fact no such claim was made through motions seeking to admit/dispute such evidence This absence is consistent throughout 2023–2024 pretrial proceedings.
Similarly, DNA evidence issues were litigated around the IGG access hearings (January–February 2024), but again there are no exact quoted transpired statements in the public filings placing that limitation on the record in quotes.”
All of those had references linked to them too. So let me know if you are interested in those. Chatty also offered to gather the exact docket numbers for that stuff too so let me know if you want me to follow up on that.
Anywhoozles, sorry to completely get way too invested in this question. Haha. I’m going to get back to work 😆🤦♀️ ✌️
Posted Dec 30, 2025, 8:58 PM UTC