How Bad Is Bryan Kohberger's Alibi Really? Former Prosecutor Explains...

The trial is finally approaching, and with it, maybe, closure for the shocking University of Idaho killings.

That may come in the form of an easy conviction for Bryan Kohberger. The criminology grad student charged with the brutal murders of students Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin had to file his official alibi this week, and we did not find it very convincing…

In case you missed, it he said the reason he was in the area of the killings — a residential area in another state — late that night is because he was out stargazing:

“Mr. Kohberger was out driving in the early morning hours of November 13, 2022; as he often did to hike and run and/or see the moon and stars.”

We’ve already explained why we think this is even worse than just saying he was out driving, which was bad enough. Now he has to deal with astronomy and meteorology experts!

But what do actual lawyers think of this move? Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani spoke to People on the topic Thursday and confirmed our suspicions, offering:

“It’s a weak alibi defense, but Kohberger’s team needs to come up with some argument to get around the cell phone evidence.”

What does he mean? Well, the prosecution doesn’t just place him in the area on the night of the murders — they have cell phone data in which he’s pinged by the local tower TWELVE TIMES leading up to the killings. That plus the photos and social media activity in his phone apparently build a really strong case he was stalking one or more of the five girls who lived in that house.

While his phone wasn’t definitively placed at the crime scene that night, prosecutors explain that’s because he disabled tracking on his phone completely during the window in which the murders were committed. Pretty sus.

So in order to build a reasonable doubt the defense has to come up with some plausible alternative explanation for why he was always in the area late at night, so far from his own campus in Washington. Neama speculates:

“So what I think is happening is that Kohberger’s defense team, they’re trying to tailor the story to the evidence. I mean, who drives by themselves in the middle of the night for no reason, or to look at the stars?”

The legal expert thinks the DNA and the cell phone data are “the two most damaging pieces of evidence for the defense.” Why? They’re science — cold, hard facts that can’t be denied. Hence they have to be explained some other way.

As far as the DNA? Well, we’ll see if all that “party house” stuff is enough to convince the jury. But what do YOU think, Perezcious paralegals??

[Image via Monroe County Correctional Facility.]