Talk:2022 University of Idaho killings

Name of the accused

It seems inconsistent to me to have the accused name present in this article. The policy WP:BLPCRIME seems pretty clear to me on not naming people until convicted unless they are already a person of note. Some may argue that the accused is well-known at this point, but there are other cases that are also widely reported on and the decision has been made to keep the accused out of the article. For example: Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German. In this case the accused is maintaining his innocence and again the policy seems quite clear to not name people until a conviction has been secured. Pictwe (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The policy does not say "to not name people until a conviction has been secured". Rather, it says "editors must seriously consider not including material ...". It would seem that editors have "considered", and determined, that the widespread publication of Kohberger's name warrants its inclusion here. WWGB (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yet they decided the opposite in the case I linked to. Curious. Especially when in the other case the lawyers are giving press releases, and in this case the accused is trying to preserve his privacy and keep the media out. Pictwe (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Each article has its own local consensus. This article found consensus for including the suspect's name; the other article hasn't. See Talk:Murders_of_Abigail_Williams_and_Liberty_German#RfC:_Suspect's_name. Some1 (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Please don't look to the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German article as an example of how to do things. The ongoing censorship of the criminal defendant's name in that article is a disgrace to the Wikipedia community.MiamiManny (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Says he pleaded not guilty. He didn’t

He stood silent. A plea was entered on his behalf Jelly Garcia (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jelly Garcia he did not enter a plea. The court entered a plea on his behalf. Idaho Pleas Rule 11 for reference. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"A plea was entered on his behalf" is literally what I said. Jelly Garcia (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

We should immediately remove the name of accused and section about him

It’s unethical to leave this up. I’ve read every single court document and watched all hearings. He likely did not commit the murders. Any logical person who reads all the documents and watches the hearings will understand the same.

May I please change it to remove the name of the accused?

There is no real evidence in this case whatsoever.

• The Defense hasn’t received any of the most crucial evidence mentioned in the PCA yet, which supposedly justified his arrest in Dec, 2022.

- The upcoming May 14 & 16 (2024) hearings are in regard to that.

• They don’t have the video of the vehicle in the neighborhood, the CAST report from the FBI (subpeonaed 05/02), all cell phone data, or the drive test,(confirmed in hearings: 01/26, 02/28, 05/02/2025); and there is something critically wrong with the SNP DNA info that supposedly led to him (08/18/2023 hearing, Fifth Motion to Compel, 05/02 hearing, upcoming 05/14 & 05/16 closed hearings)

• The state is not using most of the DNA evidence in the trial (State’s Motion for Protective Order) and attempted for 11 months to withhold it before being ordered in October to hand it over.

• Their method for obtaining it is highly questionable (taken from shared trash across the country where suspect was, instead of their empty apt near the investigation, where the trash is not shared, and no risk of being observed) and breaks many guidelines of the DoJ Interim Policy they’re bound by, including warrantless search, of the DNA database with surreptitiously-obtained third-party DNA (it’s not the trash that needs the warrant; it’s the genetic info)

• The only confirmed official identifications of the vehicle in the King Rd. neighborhood come from the FBI examiner and Chief Fry: 2011-2013.

- This includes the PCA. The PCA only identifies a 2011-2013 in the King Rd. neighborhood.

- He does not drive a 2011-2013. He had a 2015.

• Only the car on the WSU campus was identified as a 2014-2016.

- that’s where the defendant lives, works, and keeps his car.

• There are obvious differences and the camera mentioned in the PCA is directly in front of the intersection at King & Queen where the car is stated to have made a 3-pt. turn.

• Chief Fry of the Moscow PD & the FBI examiner, who are the only officials who have identified the car, have a combined 65+ years of experience and confirmed it as being a 2011-2013.

- No official statement confirms a 2015 Elantra as being in the neighborhood.(All officials avoid definitively identifying the vehicle starting 1 day after the arrest.)

• There is no phone evidence for the time of the crime whatsoever.

- The phone evidence that exists from the surrounding hours points toward being elsewhere.

• The prosecutors confirmed the allegations of stalking are false in the 04/10/2024 hearing.

• The claims accompanying the STR DNA are completely anomalous and have a huge, obvious indication of an error (misidentified complex mixture) as it’s astronomically outside of what is practical from a trace single-source sample (no comparable result exists in any study or case, and I don’t think they’re rewriting the text books over this claim).

- PCAST report on validity of forensic evidence: “Because many different DNA profiles may fit [superimpose] within some mixture profiles, the probability that a suspect ‘cannot be excluded’ as a possible contributor to complex mixture may be much higher (in some cases, millions of times higher) than the probabilities encountered for single-source DNA profiles.”

- this is octillions of times higher than what’s encountered for trace single-source.

• Not a trace of any of the victim’s DNA was found in his home, office, or the car he’s alleged to have entered mere moments after the murders when he’d presumably be drenched in blood or transporting bloody clothing.

• The claim in the State’s Motion for Protective Order, that the (12” long leather) sheath was found after being sandwiched “partially under the body of Madison Mogen & her comforter” for 12 hours, but only had male DNA on it, logically, makes no sense.

• No connection has been found to any of the victims in any way and that’s been confirmed in open court with prosecutor’s acquiescence.

• The phone pings in the PCA actually make it impossible for him to have been there at the times stated. - See Aug 21 traffic stop: he’s said to ping “utilizing cell phone resources shared by the King Rd. residence” til 11:35; he’s pulled over at 11:37 much farther than 2 mins from their house (he got a $10 seatbelt ticket right outside of the 24 hr grocery store in Moscow).

- cell towers give ranges of miles, not feet.

• There’s no evidence that he’s ever been to that neighborhood or was aware of the victims until after their deaths.

The PCA is a joke once you see the prosecutors assert stalking is false in their attempt to have the defense expert’s survey thrown out for asking about “false information” - stalking… which is only suggested in the PCA they advised the public to “share far and wide,” which states they sought phone evidence to determine if he “stalked” a victim …then goes on to list (completely irrelevant) phone “evidence.” …It’s an oxymoron (04/04 hearing)

The judge’s remarks on 05/02 included “if this ever makes it to trial,” and that something else (we don’t know of) that’s missing discovery is “a big deal,” and issued the FBI a subpoena deuces tecum for what the State didn’t turn in.

I would not be surprised if this doesn't make to to trial.

This seems to be a case built around a DNA mistake - false positive from misidentified complex mixture (likely why they hired Stephen Mercer, additional advising expert on PCAST report, top litigator on complex mixtures) but that hasn’t been stated yet. Bicka Barlow, another of the experts, viewed the STR DNA they aim to use in trial & referred to it as “partial and ambiguous” (Declaration in Support of Third Motion to Compel Discovery).

The evidence is completely unsubstantial and this article is wildly inappropriate while he is still considered innocent, and likely is factually innocent.

• it goes against Wikipedia’s guidelines to name him
• He’s not notable otherwise
• has not been found guilty
• and there’s currently no reason to believe that he’s even involved in these murders.

This case is getting horribly biased treatment already and this article furthers the harm against someone whose rights are supposed to be protected at this stage.

Primary example: They have not provided Notice of Alibi yet - only a response and a supplemental response to the demand which are being grossly misconstrued as they both explicitly refuse to submit alibi defense until and unless they're provided with the discovery evidence their alibi is supposed to refute. All the Idaho court docs for this case are available here: Idaho Cases of Interest - See State’s Motion to Compel Disclosure of Alibi Defense or Alternatively to Bar Certain Evidence - 07/27/2023

- Defendants Response to Alibi Demand, 07/24/2023

- Defendants Supplemental Respknse to Alibi Demand, 04/17/2024

The 07/27 Motion prevents them from telling their side of the story unless they agree to attempt to blindly refute unknown evidence while facing the death penalty - and hope the state doesn’t say anything else - and forfeit their ability to defend against it if they do.

• The grand jury indictment caused the cancellation of the preliminary hearing where their unsolicited alibi could have been delivered.

• The alibi defense in Idaho requires the defendant to take on the burden of proof, which would be extremely unwise Idaho Supreme Court criminal jury trial rules (see ‘Burden of Proof Defenses’)

His defense lawyer is right about this: Anne Taylor 05/02 Hearing

This Wikipedia page hurts his chances of receiving a fair trial.

It’s not right.

Elisa Massoth 04/10 Hearing

Anne Taylor 04/10 Hearing

May I please change it by removing all references to the accused, or would someone else like to? Jelly Garcia (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Considering the name is all over the internet and media, avoiding it here would be rather pointless.

Giving a balanced and sourced account of the state of the evidence would be reasonable - but obviously immensely difficult. Nø (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed his name but not the sources that state his name. Jelly Garcia (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Disagree with the removal of his name; his name is widely disseminated by the media (and reliable sources). Your arguments sound like WP:Original research. Some1 (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This removal seems more of a differing point of view based edit than a BLP based edit, with a pro-defense based stance. A discussion on this had happened a while back with regards to including the name and the consensus was to include. We have to balance what is widely reported (see WP:BLPSTYLE) in order to provide an article written from a neutral point of view, concealing the name if that is what both the sources and the courts do (see WP:BLPNAME). Further, your edits break redirects that have existed to the article for quite some time for the accused persons name, and as far as I was able to tell you did not have any issues with it when you made this edit and it was present.

Awshort (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No, do not remove his name. The censorship of a well-known criminal defendant's name in a highly publicized court case is inconsistent with an online encyclopedia. Your extraneous comments proclaiming Mr. Kohberger's innocence also suggest that your request is rooted more in advocacy than improving this encyclopedia.MiamiManny (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

An encyclopedia wouldn’t publish the name of someone who hasn’t been convicted! Most countries don’t even allow the news to publish their names, because it’s UNETHICAL and it’s not how the justice system is supposed to work. It’s cruel, and it literally HARMFUL to a living person who has not yet been convicted of the crime, which is against Wikipedia’s guidelines. Jelly Garcia (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jelly Garcia An encyclopedia would publish all relevant facts related to a subject. If a crime was being discussed, it would be a terrible article if it didn't cover the arrests and court proceedings related to the event as well.

Most non-US countries don't publish the name for legal reasons, but also because equating someone with a crime can be dangerous. And if this topic was about a crime happening in one of those countries, that would be a completely valid argument to take into account. This is about a crime that happened in America, and how the sources are reflecting on both the event and the amount of coverage the individual has received, so the 'this is what other countries do' argument has less relevance.

Wikipedias policy on Biographies of living people, not guideline, is what requires us to take into account what can happen to an individual and equating them with a crime. However, to my knowledge, no one has outright said that the individual did this crime or is guilty and we still refer to him as the accused, which is in line with WP:BLPCRIME as well as naming him based on the amount of coverage he has had in the media along with WP:BLPNAME.

I do find it somewhat concerning that you initially wanted to remove information from the article based on your interpretation of the court proceedings/filings/evidence, and not based on what sources are saying about the case or what is verifiable. That seems to be completely against WP:NOR.

Awshort (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Suspect's Name

Should the suspect's name be included in this article? CrystalXenith (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Exclude - Including the suspect's name transgresses WP:BLPCRIME. The suspect is low-profile WP:LOWKEY, notable for only this event Wikipedia:BLP1E, and their notability may not be sustained depending on the outcome of the trial Wikipedia:NTEMP.

If not found guilty, this article contributes to harm to their reputation, which is unnecessary. The name itself does not add any more encyclopedic value to the article than referring to them as a suspect or defendant Wikipedia:NOTWHOSWHO.

The arguments stated against removal of the name fit under WP:PETTIFOG, as they primarily rely on the fact that news has covered the name extensively. This is a notability fallacy WP:ITSINTHENEWS, and insufficient basis for bending the policy. The inconsistency gives WP:UNDUE weight that implicates the accused, contrasting the standards applied across-the-board in articles about crimes for which the accused has not been convicted. CrystalXenith (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Include. If he is declared not guilty, he will still never be a private figure again. He is too inexorably tied to this case, and if by some miracle he is found not guilty the trial against him will likely become a famous case of the media assuming someone did it when they didn't. His name will not become less relevant, at that point he'll probably get covered for his own sake. Given the extent to which his name is reported in RS, it would make us look like fools - it's not like the majority of articles hide it and we only picked it out from one or two! They all name him!

In any case, his name is constantly brought up in every source, there is no getting this cat out of the bag. BLP1E is of no relevance because this is not a biography article on him. It will surely add encyclopedic value, as much as including anyone's name in any article adds encyclopedic value, because if he is somehow found not guilty he will still be a major part of this case anyway. This is also a BAD RFC, we did this before, we came to the consensus to include it before.

All the rules vis a vis BLPCRIME say is that we must seriously consider not including material that implies a BLP is guilty. It has been seriously considered, and we decided to, because of the circumstances of the case and how widely covered it is. Also, the first and only edits the starter of this discussion has made is to reopen this same RFC on this and a very similar case today. Most of what you linked is about notability, and notability arguments have no bearing on this at all, because this is an argument about name inclusion, not notability. If you want to argue notability and request to delete the page, by all means go ahead. Undue weight is ludicrous when it's what most of the sources focus on. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

--- BLPCRIME say is that we must seriously consider not including material that implies a BLP is guilty [3]. It has been seriously considered, and we decided to, because of the circumstances of the case [1] and how widely covered it is. [2]

[1] The circumstances of the case aren't relevant to the policy.

[2] In regard to how widely covered it is, WP:NOTWHOSWHO covers that, as 'the news coverage of the individual does not go beyond the context of a single event'

[3] How does the main argument here, to skirt the principles & norms of the here not fall under Wikipedia:Wikilawyering?

• Asserting the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.
• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.
• Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
• Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical, or more literal than the norm.

CrystalXenith (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

As to NOTWHOSWHO, it specifies this is about the person not Having An Article. Kohberger does not have an article. This is not about naming people involved. None of the policies and guidelines you are quoting say what you say they mean! PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Include on the basis that the widely reported identity of the arrested and indicted person is routine information, and omitting it would be a disservice to Wikipedia's encyclopaedic purpose. The only pertinent policy here is WP:SUSPECT; the essays we may see invoked, e.g. WP:ITSINTHENEWS or WP:LOWKEY, are well intentioned but not of equal weight. (WP:BLP1E is easily dispensable, too; it's a single yet unique and extraordinary event.) As a matter of fact, WP:WEIGHT means we should present the event's complete information. -The Gnome (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  widely reported identity - for this, WP:NOTWHOSWHO would be applicable (subsection of WP:ITSINTHENEWS)

  ITSINTHENEWS or LOWKEY, are well intentioned but not of equal weight - The importance of WP:LOWKEY is that it's a prerequisite for WP:BLP1E

  WP:BLP1E is easily dispensable, too - Respectfully, I do not see how or why

  it's a single yet unique and extraordinary event - The event itself is not the issue; it's the inclusion of the name against recommendation of WP:BLP recommendation in favor of privacy.

  omitting it would be a disservice to Wikipedia's encyclopaedic purpose - What encyclopedic value does the name itself add that is lost by referring to the "suspect" or "defendant"? CrystalXenith (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Again, NOTWHOSWHO has nothing to do with naming people, it is about these people having their own articles. BLP1E also has no relevance because that is about notability of an article about him, which we do not have.

  What encyclopedic value does naming anyone add to anything? Of course his name is encyclopedically valuable because he’s a person involved. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Include His name is widely reported by reliable sources, especially by mainstream news outlets, not just local news ones. Some1 (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  WP:BLP1E states, "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article."

  The article wouldn't be rewritten to say a suspect hasn't been apprehended. The issue is tying the name of an otherwise unknown person to the 4 murders before they're found guilty. CrystalXenith (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Kohberger is not the subject of this article per se, the killings of the students are. I take "subject of a Wikipedia article" to mean having his own Bryan Kohberger article, which I would then agree that WP:BLP1E states "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." But this is not a deletion discussion. Also, WP:BLPCRIME does not forbid Wikipedia articles from ever naming a suspect who has not yet been convicted of a crime, it just says that "editors must seriously consider not including material". Ultimately, the inclusion of the name is left to editorial discretion. Some1 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Include the name is widely included in media reports. Wikipedia should not be censored to remove relevant information that is widely published and verifiable. Avgeekamfot (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Include This is a high profile case and the suspect's association and arrest for the crime is enough to make them notable. Even if the suspect is found not guilty he'll be notable for the trial and connection to the crime. While I agree that editors must seriously consider not including the suspect's name, this is an example where it should be included. No harm will come from inclusion. Nemov (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Include The Notability page of Wikipedia states that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Wikipedia:NSUSTAINED says that brief bursts of note coverage may not demonstrate notability but sustained coverage is an indicator. Given that the suspect has been in news through credible new agencies for almost two years it fulfils the criteria of notability. It may or may not have been earlier, but now it is sustained coverage and worthy of Wikipedia which is an encyclopaedia. Rigorousmortal (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Victims

There's only 1 sentence in the 'Victims' section. Should it be removed, or would somebody like to add something of substance there? CrystalXenith (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Add something of substance. With cases like these, the sources do tend to give a background on the people, at least a bit. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)