Bryan Kohberger requests information on mystery 'co-defendant,' Internet sleuths share wild theories
This article is based on sources and we have been unable to verify this information independently.
MOSCOW, IDAHO: Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger waived his right to a speedy preliminary hearing as he appeared in court on Thursday, January 12. He will not be appearing in court again until June 26. This week, the suspect and his defense team reportedly filed a request for discovery, asking for information about a "co-defendant" in the case.
According to Inside Edition, the probable cause affidavit does not identify a co-defendant. Authorities have also not suggested that Kohberger may have had an accomplice when he committed the crime. After being taken into custody last month, he had reportedly asked law enforcement whether another individual was arrested.
READ MORE
Kohberger, 28, has been accused of fatally stabbing Kaylee Goncalves, 21, Madison Mogen, 21, Xana Kernodle, 20, and Ethan Chapin, 20, in their off-campus three-story rented home on November 13, 2022. He was arrested in Albrightsville, Pennsylvania, on December 30.
Kohberger requested in the court filing submitted by his public defender Ann Taylor, "Any written or recorded statements by a co-defendant, and the substance of any relevant oral statement made by a co-defendant whether before or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person known by the co-defendant to be a peace officer or agent of the prosecuting attorney, or which are otherwise relevant to the offense charged."
Social media users came up with their own theories about the mysterious co-defendant. "A couple of attorneys have reported that the entire document is pretty much boilerplate text. Doesn't imply that there is an accomplice," one user wrote on Reddit, while another said, "It's to catch a brady violation. They have to have Denny suspects, otherwise it could be an issue." One user wrote, "if Kohberger is insisting that someone else is involved, it's time for the defense attorney to tell him to put up or shut up and start pointing out the evidence against him. Then.. vet the information he gives if anything. Once defense gets a name and starts looking in to them that has to come out in disclosure."
Users on Reddit have mentioned 'Brady violation', which is the violation of a rule named after Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963). According to Cornell Law School, The Brady rule "requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense. A "Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused--evidence that goes towards negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness."
One user said, "This is just a standard template attorneys use when asking for discovery in any case. There is no co-defendant, so let's just nip this in the bud." Another wrote, "It's because they want to prolong the mystery. The cops arresting BK stole their gotcha moment, and they're not ready to let go of the hunt." "I would argue many people don’t want an accomplice, but I do think him asking if anyone else was arrested got people wondering," one user wrote.
This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.