I am less sure that the FBI used the MyHeritage database in the IGG process, but I am increasingly sure that Kohberger was already a suspect before the process started.
I want to clarify that I do not suspect anything nefarious going on here. But no matter how I slice this timeline, there is always some flaw; the original timeline doesn't make much sense to me, but when I consider a new timeline, something that used to make sense no longer fits. The timeline above considers the most details of the case because, again, there was parallel activity on the cameras in Moscow in Pullman. They would have reviewed the Pullman footage early in the case.
It's possible that the WSU officers didn't report Kohberger's car to investigators on November 29. But why not? It was registered to Pennsylvania on November 13, would have lacked a front-facing plate during the homicides, and the registration was changed five days later. I don't think the "wrong year" of the vehicle would have deterred them from reporting the car, and again, the affidavit doesn't mention the years given to nearby law enforcement agencies at all.
If Kohberger were walking around Pullman with gloves, not disposing his trash, and wiping down door handles and knobs, then why didn't the FBI pull the father's trash in Pennsylvania *before* the IGG? Or the sister's trash in New Jersey? They clearly conducted the IGG first.
Anyway, even if the timeline outlined in my post is incorrect, I still think I'm going in the right direction.
My head is spinning regarding the questions/thoughts you pose in this post! I am going to think about it a bit before responding with concrete thoughts. I appreciate your analysis and think you have excellent points! And I LMFAO reading your "That's all folks!" ending!! Can't wait for tomorrow :)
“And herein lies my argument: Investigators identified Kohberger as a person of interest within roughly two weeks of the homicides. Unfortunately, I am now confused as to why investigators relied on IGG to identify him as a suspect.”
-------
If they identified him that early, you’d think they would have tried getting his discarded DNA shortly after. But, as Kohberger was witnessed being very careful in PA about discarding his trash, you have to think he was just as careful in WA.
So maybe they couldn’t get a trash sample, but you’d think they would have attempted his car door handle or apartment door handle.
And if they did, what if the door handle results were less conclusive - as with the Golden State Killer case’s discarded DNA collection story. In that case, the door handle sample yielded DNA from three individuals where the individual that matched the killer was only 47% of the sample. It was a second sample from the curbside trash a few days later, and only the very last item out of twelve they pulled from that trash - that yielded a conclusive DNA match.
Here’s a link to the LA times copy of the arrest warrant:
https://documents.latimes.com/la-me-affidavit-warrant-suspected-golden-state-killer/ (page 41 in the upper left numbering scheme, page 42, bottom right in the PDF image itself.) It’s the two paragraphs on that page that start, “On 4/20/18” and the next one that starts “On 4/23/18.” I’d post a screenshot, but there doesn’t seem to be any way to do that on substack.
According to Paul Holes autobiography, “Unmasked” (Chapter 26, "Operation Golden State Killer"), the first door handle sample was enough to convince he and other case investigators that they had the right guy, but Sacramento DA Anne Marie Schubert ordered a second sample to be collected, “out of an abundance of caution.” It was that second sample, collected from his curbside trash that was fully conclusive, and they arrested Deangelo the day after the result from that second sample came back.
So maybe the Kohberger’s door handle DNA - if it was, in fact, collected -was also mixed and less reliable than a full match - and, again, they couldn't get any discarded trash to examine because Kohberger wasn't leaving any. Perhaps, even though the judge might have granted a phone search warrant based on the door handle DNA, it was the IGG that gave them the full confidence they had the right guy - and a similar measure of caution that caused them to wait for those more conclusive IGG results.
Just one explanation why they waited for IGG, if that was in fact what they were waiting for, for the phone search warrant to not be submitted until Dec. 23.
He was probably wiping down door handles and knobs. I don't know that, obviously, but he knows enough about criminal investigations to know to do that.
Would that wiping down of handle, even if not witnessed by investigators, be evident to those attempting to collect DNA off them and thus suspicious (how come this guy never leaves DNA anywhere?) Of course, by that time (December) it could have been cold enough outside where wearing gloves might have been common, so this may be a moot question. Could investigators have followed him around the inside of WSU buildings without a warrant. the wearing of gloves to cover up hand cuts (reddit link you gave above) seems moot two weeks after, maybe?
I have no idea. I am more focused on the discovery of the car on November 29 and the footage that would have been available to investigators by that point.
And yes, investigators would have been suspicious of him wiping things down.
I think they narrowed him down based on the car, well before the IGG. I think he was their main, if not only, suspect based on the WSU officer’s query of the car. Thinking of how Chief Fry kept things so close to the vest makes me believe this even more. They probably had a hard time getting any of his DNA because they didn’t have enough to get a warrant for it and he was probably very careful and deliberate about his trash. He lived in multi-unit housing so that made it easier to conceal his own trash. He was reportedly wearing gloves in class.
Do you have a source for this? I've only heard reports that he was wearing gloves in Pennsylvania.
It's possible that FBI agents in Pennsylvania pulled the family's trash in late November or early December, and that's when they matched the father's DNA to Kohberger; the affidavit never states when this trash pull occurred. [Edit: D'oh! Yes it does. December 27. Scratch that.]
I think the defense is in a difficult spot because they cannot say, "investigators had plenty of evidence pointing to our client before the IGG process started." That would look bad. So they have to say it without explicitly saying it, which is what they've been doing.
Hi Dina, I've only heard people in chats/online posts saying Kohberger was seen wearing gloves at WSU during classes, but no type of news source or interview with a student, etc. I've only read about him wearing gloves in Pennslyvania. I'd also love to know a source for that information, though. In regards to other suspects, the State did investigate other people, including taking DNA from other suspects (at least one surreptitiously). I can't remember if the Mr. Thompson mention it at a hearing or in a Court filing, but he does rattle off a few specific times DNA was taken to compare to the DNA found on the sheath. I agree, though, that it would have been much harder for law enforcement to obtain his DNA from the apartment trash where he lived.
Hey there, so I went back and tried to find the source for him wearing gloves while in class and I cannot find it! I am pretty sure it was just something posted by someone on Reddit though. IIRC, it was something about him wearing winter-type gloves in class in the days following the murders. So, not a solid source. But I still believe they had narrowed in on him earlier than we think.
Thanks for checking. I also vaguely recall comments on Reddit regarding him wearing gloves in glass, but I believe it was second- or third-hand information, so I didn't know what to make of it.
Thank you for finding that! Lots of 2nd-3rd hand info going around at that time. Imagine if that came to be true?! That he was wearing gloves to hide injuries and colleagues didn’t think anything other than “Dude just has cold hands”.
Based on statements from his classmates and neighbors, it seems like they thought he exhibited strange and sometimes concerning behavior, but nothing that they could have connected to the quadruple homicide. At least, not as far as we know; we can't eliminate the possibility that someone sent a tip at some point.
Hey Kathryn, thanks for the great read. We think a lot alike! I know that this is an older article but I just thought I'd add a tidbit of information that could lead to another article! Kohlberger's Elantra was the base model. I believe the official designation is SE. Which means it did not come with fog lights and it's also the reason LE won't be able to pull any GPS data from the car. He had no telematics (navigation, on demand roadside, bluelink or whatever Hyundai calls it)
The NY Times reported on either his PA or WA car registration and didn't redact the VIN. A local reporter also reported on his CARFax which also kept the VIN intact. Using any of the dozens of Hyundai VIN decoders you can see each and every detail of his car. Including any options that were added by the manufacturer or dealer that is beyond what the SE comes equipped with.
Is it possible he manipulated the black inserts that are in place of the fog lights on the SE? I think so. I also think that it's possible that his SE model lacking the new LED lights that come standard in every other configuration could have thrown off the software/specialist.
I'm with you on the clarity of video being THE thing that had LE update their assessment on the car. As they knew it couldn't be a 2013 on one side of the highway leading from Pullman to Moscow and a 2015 on the other side.
Which begs the question....
I ALSO believe that the clarity and fidelity of the Pullman videos are what's forcing the defense to concede (as you've already said) the fact that Kohlberger was out driving. The sequence of videos following him from his apartment, to that intersection, on to highway to Moscow (which has no exits). Regardless of how grainy the Moscow footage is at the end of that highway, the defense has to convince the jury that magic exists for it not to be the same car.
An FBI specialist will be able to clearly articulate this in court.
So how can they make the argument that the FBI specialists' updated opinion was based solely on the IGG and not a true, innocent, reassessment of the video?
They almost certainly did not identify Kohberger as a suspect before they got the genetic genealogy results or they would have gotten his phone records much earlier.
I don’t know why people try to theorize he was a suspect before the GG results when there is no evidence to support it.
Yes, he should have been a suspect and the UW police report should have made it to the top of the pile, but it appears to have been ignored until the GH results came in.
Then it was all systems go and they finally got the phone records.
It is a very low bar to get phone records BTW so they weren’t waiting for more evidence to go to the phone company and ask for them.
"Yes, he should have been a suspect and the UW police report should have made it to the top of the pile, but it appears to have been ignored until the GH results came in."
Ignored? I'm not sure that I believe that.
"It is a very low bar to get phone records BTW so they weren’t waiting for more evidence to go to the phone company and ask for them."
That is not my understanding from Carpenter v. United States (2018). I cited this case in my initial draft but removed it because my post focuses on the tower data dumps rather than the search for Kohberger's records.
Chief Justice Roberts in the majority opinion "The question we confront today is how to apply the Fourth Amendment to a new phenomenon: the ability to chronicle a person’s past movements through the record of his cell phone signals... Although such records are generated for commercial purposes, that distinction does not negate Carpenter’s anticipation of privacy in his physical location. Mapping a cell phone’s location over the course of 127 days provides an all-encompassing record of the holder’s whereabouts." Investigators already knew from the first tower data dump that Kohberger didn't ping to the tower around the time of the homicides, so they would need to broaden their search window when requesting his records.
Justice Alito argued: "Today the majority holds that a court order requiring the production of cell-site records may be issued only after the Government demonstrates probable cause. See ante, at 18. That is a serious and consequential mistake..."
Regarding tower data dumps: The bar might be relatively low, but the fact still stands that they didn't request those records for any other time as far as we know. Did they really not know about any previous activity in the area until they requested Kohberger's records? It seems the most logical to me that they knew about previous activity, but the white sedan looked different, and they didn't want a request for tower records to hinge upon an altered sedan.
I’m not ruling out the possibility Kohberger evaded the top of the suspect list for over five weeks, but my intuition wonders, who were all the suspects were who ahead of him?
Especially when lead detective Payne saw the WSU police report on Nov. 29 (white Elantra, bushy eyebrows, just over 5’10”, right build, vehicle from a no-front-plate state.) I hope the defense ask Det. Payne at trial what his reaction to that report was.
When we find out more detail, like the dates of the suspect vehicle year review (was it before Chief Fry’s Dec 6-7 public BOLO for a 2011-13 white Elantra?), if any surreptitious DNA sample trash collection was attempted on any other subjects (the defense will be thoroughly interested in that), and whether there was a WA-to-PA FBI tailing of Kohberger, then we'll all have a better idea.
Here’s a question, if they had arrested Kohberger in WA, would they have been able to search his parents home in PA since he hadn’t been there for 6 or so months before the murders? Maybe the FBI wanted a reason to search that PA house - to look for serial killer activity in PA. And perhaps they were patiently waiting for him to try to go somewhere outside the home to discard evidence, but he (apparently) never did.
"I’m not ruling out the possibility Kohberger evaded the top of the suspect list for over five weeks, but my intuition wonders, who were all the suspects were who ahead of him?"
I believe that officers would have reviewed the Pullman footage upon discovering his car whether it was the correct year or not, and I think that investigators would have reviewed the Pullman footage even earlier than that. The city is fifteen minutes to the west.
If they reviewed the footage, then they would have noticed parallel activity between cities involving a white sedan with no front-facing plate.
Maybe they were looking at him as a person of interest but thought he could have been working at someone else's behest, and they were trying to flesh that out before identifying him as the sole suspect.
I remember at some point, investigators started publicly saying something like "suspect or suspects". Maybe that's something they were genuinely considering at that time.
"Here’s a question, if they had arrested Kohberger in WA, would they have been able to search his parents home in PA since he hadn’t been there for 6 or so months before the murders?"
If they had a reasonable basis to believe that evidence was present there, then yes. Edit: Especially if Dateline is correct that Kohberger purchased a knife in April that investigators cannot locate. He would have been living at his parents' house when he ordered the knife.
Edit: I will clarify that we don't know when WSU officers reported his car, so we don't know that the lead investigator looked at Kohberger's driver's license on November 29. I think that's probably the case, but a date wasn't indicated in the affidavit.
Page 9: "Officer Whitman also ran the car and it returned to Kohberger with a Washington tag. I reviewed Kohberger's WA state driver's license and photograph." It seems like Whitman ran the car on November 29 given the preceding sentences in the paragraph, but the dates that the car was reported to investigators and the license was reviewed are unclear.
I want to clarify that I do not suspect anything nefarious going on here. But no matter how I slice this timeline, there is always some flaw; the original timeline doesn't make much sense to me, but when I consider a new timeline, something that used to make sense no longer fits. The timeline above considers the most details of the case because, again, there was parallel activity on the cameras in Moscow in Pullman. They would have reviewed the Pullman footage early in the case.
It's possible that the WSU officers didn't report Kohberger's car to investigators on November 29. But why not? It was registered to Pennsylvania on November 13, would have lacked a front-facing plate during the homicides, and the registration was changed five days later. I don't think the "wrong year" of the vehicle would have deterred them from reporting the car, and again, the affidavit doesn't mention the years given to nearby law enforcement agencies at all.
If Kohberger were walking around Pullman with gloves, not disposing his trash, and wiping down door handles and knobs, then why didn't the FBI pull the father's trash in Pennsylvania *before* the IGG? Or the sister's trash in New Jersey? They clearly conducted the IGG first.
Anyway, even if the timeline outlined in my post is incorrect, I still think I'm going in the right direction.
I would read your thoughts on this case daily. Please keep going.
These comments are encouraging. Thank you!
My head is spinning regarding the questions/thoughts you pose in this post! I am going to think about it a bit before responding with concrete thoughts. I appreciate your analysis and think you have excellent points! And I LMFAO reading your "That's all folks!" ending!! Can't wait for tomorrow :)
Kathryn wrote
----
“And herein lies my argument: Investigators identified Kohberger as a person of interest within roughly two weeks of the homicides. Unfortunately, I am now confused as to why investigators relied on IGG to identify him as a suspect.”
-------
If they identified him that early, you’d think they would have tried getting his discarded DNA shortly after. But, as Kohberger was witnessed being very careful in PA about discarding his trash, you have to think he was just as careful in WA.
So maybe they couldn’t get a trash sample, but you’d think they would have attempted his car door handle or apartment door handle.
And if they did, what if the door handle results were less conclusive - as with the Golden State Killer case’s discarded DNA collection story. In that case, the door handle sample yielded DNA from three individuals where the individual that matched the killer was only 47% of the sample. It was a second sample from the curbside trash a few days later, and only the very last item out of twelve they pulled from that trash - that yielded a conclusive DNA match.
Here’s a link to the LA times copy of the arrest warrant:
https://documents.latimes.com/la-me-affidavit-warrant-suspected-golden-state-killer/ (page 41 in the upper left numbering scheme, page 42, bottom right in the PDF image itself.) It’s the two paragraphs on that page that start, “On 4/20/18” and the next one that starts “On 4/23/18.” I’d post a screenshot, but there doesn’t seem to be any way to do that on substack.
According to Paul Holes autobiography, “Unmasked” (Chapter 26, "Operation Golden State Killer"), the first door handle sample was enough to convince he and other case investigators that they had the right guy, but Sacramento DA Anne Marie Schubert ordered a second sample to be collected, “out of an abundance of caution.” It was that second sample, collected from his curbside trash that was fully conclusive, and they arrested Deangelo the day after the result from that second sample came back.
So maybe the Kohberger’s door handle DNA - if it was, in fact, collected -was also mixed and less reliable than a full match - and, again, they couldn't get any discarded trash to examine because Kohberger wasn't leaving any. Perhaps, even though the judge might have granted a phone search warrant based on the door handle DNA, it was the IGG that gave them the full confidence they had the right guy - and a similar measure of caution that caused them to wait for those more conclusive IGG results.
Just one explanation why they waited for IGG, if that was in fact what they were waiting for, for the phone search warrant to not be submitted until Dec. 23.
"So maybe they couldn’t get a trash sample, but you’d think they would have attempted his car door handle or apartment door handle."
It has been rumored that Kohberger was wearing gloves in Pullman, but that's information that passed along the grape vine. I might try to find the original comment. Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/MoscowMurders/comments/zzysg1/comment/j2m3arv/
He was probably wiping down door handles and knobs. I don't know that, obviously, but he knows enough about criminal investigations to know to do that.
Would that wiping down of handle, even if not witnessed by investigators, be evident to those attempting to collect DNA off them and thus suspicious (how come this guy never leaves DNA anywhere?) Of course, by that time (December) it could have been cold enough outside where wearing gloves might have been common, so this may be a moot question. Could investigators have followed him around the inside of WSU buildings without a warrant. the wearing of gloves to cover up hand cuts (reddit link you gave above) seems moot two weeks after, maybe?
I have no idea. I am more focused on the discovery of the car on November 29 and the footage that would have been available to investigators by that point.
And yes, investigators would have been suspicious of him wiping things down.
I think they narrowed him down based on the car, well before the IGG. I think he was their main, if not only, suspect based on the WSU officer’s query of the car. Thinking of how Chief Fry kept things so close to the vest makes me believe this even more. They probably had a hard time getting any of his DNA because they didn’t have enough to get a warrant for it and he was probably very careful and deliberate about his trash. He lived in multi-unit housing so that made it easier to conceal his own trash. He was reportedly wearing gloves in class.
"He was reportedly wearing gloves in class."
Do you have a source for this? I've only heard reports that he was wearing gloves in Pennsylvania.
It's possible that FBI agents in Pennsylvania pulled the family's trash in late November or early December, and that's when they matched the father's DNA to Kohberger; the affidavit never states when this trash pull occurred. [Edit: D'oh! Yes it does. December 27. Scratch that.]
I think the defense is in a difficult spot because they cannot say, "investigators had plenty of evidence pointing to our client before the IGG process started." That would look bad. So they have to say it without explicitly saying it, which is what they've been doing.
Hi Dina, I've only heard people in chats/online posts saying Kohberger was seen wearing gloves at WSU during classes, but no type of news source or interview with a student, etc. I've only read about him wearing gloves in Pennslyvania. I'd also love to know a source for that information, though. In regards to other suspects, the State did investigate other people, including taking DNA from other suspects (at least one surreptitiously). I can't remember if the Mr. Thompson mention it at a hearing or in a Court filing, but he does rattle off a few specific times DNA was taken to compare to the DNA found on the sheath. I agree, though, that it would have been much harder for law enforcement to obtain his DNA from the apartment trash where he lived.
Hey there, so I went back and tried to find the source for him wearing gloves while in class and I cannot find it! I am pretty sure it was just something posted by someone on Reddit though. IIRC, it was something about him wearing winter-type gloves in class in the days following the murders. So, not a solid source. But I still believe they had narrowed in on him earlier than we think.
Thanks for checking. I also vaguely recall comments on Reddit regarding him wearing gloves in glass, but I believe it was second- or third-hand information, so I didn't know what to make of it.
Here's the oldest comment that I found, posted January 2: https://www.reddit.com/r/MoscowMurders/comments/zzysg1/comment/j2m3arv/
Thank you for finding that! Lots of 2nd-3rd hand info going around at that time. Imagine if that came to be true?! That he was wearing gloves to hide injuries and colleagues didn’t think anything other than “Dude just has cold hands”.
Based on statements from his classmates and neighbors, it seems like they thought he exhibited strange and sometimes concerning behavior, but nothing that they could have connected to the quadruple homicide. At least, not as far as we know; we can't eliminate the possibility that someone sent a tip at some point.
Hey Kathryn, thanks for the great read. We think a lot alike! I know that this is an older article but I just thought I'd add a tidbit of information that could lead to another article! Kohlberger's Elantra was the base model. I believe the official designation is SE. Which means it did not come with fog lights and it's also the reason LE won't be able to pull any GPS data from the car. He had no telematics (navigation, on demand roadside, bluelink or whatever Hyundai calls it)
The NY Times reported on either his PA or WA car registration and didn't redact the VIN. A local reporter also reported on his CARFax which also kept the VIN intact. Using any of the dozens of Hyundai VIN decoders you can see each and every detail of his car. Including any options that were added by the manufacturer or dealer that is beyond what the SE comes equipped with.
Is it possible he manipulated the black inserts that are in place of the fog lights on the SE? I think so. I also think that it's possible that his SE model lacking the new LED lights that come standard in every other configuration could have thrown off the software/specialist.
I'm with you on the clarity of video being THE thing that had LE update their assessment on the car. As they knew it couldn't be a 2013 on one side of the highway leading from Pullman to Moscow and a 2015 on the other side.
Which begs the question....
I ALSO believe that the clarity and fidelity of the Pullman videos are what's forcing the defense to concede (as you've already said) the fact that Kohlberger was out driving. The sequence of videos following him from his apartment, to that intersection, on to highway to Moscow (which has no exits). Regardless of how grainy the Moscow footage is at the end of that highway, the defense has to convince the jury that magic exists for it not to be the same car.
An FBI specialist will be able to clearly articulate this in court.
So how can they make the argument that the FBI specialists' updated opinion was based solely on the IGG and not a true, innocent, reassessment of the video?
They almost certainly did not identify Kohberger as a suspect before they got the genetic genealogy results or they would have gotten his phone records much earlier.
I don’t know why people try to theorize he was a suspect before the GG results when there is no evidence to support it.
Yes, he should have been a suspect and the UW police report should have made it to the top of the pile, but it appears to have been ignored until the GH results came in.
Then it was all systems go and they finally got the phone records.
It is a very low bar to get phone records BTW so they weren’t waiting for more evidence to go to the phone company and ask for them.
"Yes, he should have been a suspect and the UW police report should have made it to the top of the pile, but it appears to have been ignored until the GH results came in."
Ignored? I'm not sure that I believe that.
"It is a very low bar to get phone records BTW so they weren’t waiting for more evidence to go to the phone company and ask for them."
That is not my understanding from Carpenter v. United States (2018). I cited this case in my initial draft but removed it because my post focuses on the tower data dumps rather than the search for Kohberger's records.
Chief Justice Roberts in the majority opinion "The question we confront today is how to apply the Fourth Amendment to a new phenomenon: the ability to chronicle a person’s past movements through the record of his cell phone signals... Although such records are generated for commercial purposes, that distinction does not negate Carpenter’s anticipation of privacy in his physical location. Mapping a cell phone’s location over the course of 127 days provides an all-encompassing record of the holder’s whereabouts." Investigators already knew from the first tower data dump that Kohberger didn't ping to the tower around the time of the homicides, so they would need to broaden their search window when requesting his records.
Justice Alito argued: "Today the majority holds that a court order requiring the production of cell-site records may be issued only after the Government demonstrates probable cause. See ante, at 18. That is a serious and consequential mistake..."
Regarding tower data dumps: The bar might be relatively low, but the fact still stands that they didn't request those records for any other time as far as we know. Did they really not know about any previous activity in the area until they requested Kohberger's records? It seems the most logical to me that they knew about previous activity, but the white sedan looked different, and they didn't want a request for tower records to hinge upon an altered sedan.
Edit: Edited Supreme Court case title above.
I’m not ruling out the possibility Kohberger evaded the top of the suspect list for over five weeks, but my intuition wonders, who were all the suspects were who ahead of him?
Especially when lead detective Payne saw the WSU police report on Nov. 29 (white Elantra, bushy eyebrows, just over 5’10”, right build, vehicle from a no-front-plate state.) I hope the defense ask Det. Payne at trial what his reaction to that report was.
When we find out more detail, like the dates of the suspect vehicle year review (was it before Chief Fry’s Dec 6-7 public BOLO for a 2011-13 white Elantra?), if any surreptitious DNA sample trash collection was attempted on any other subjects (the defense will be thoroughly interested in that), and whether there was a WA-to-PA FBI tailing of Kohberger, then we'll all have a better idea.
Here’s a question, if they had arrested Kohberger in WA, would they have been able to search his parents home in PA since he hadn’t been there for 6 or so months before the murders? Maybe the FBI wanted a reason to search that PA house - to look for serial killer activity in PA. And perhaps they were patiently waiting for him to try to go somewhere outside the home to discard evidence, but he (apparently) never did.
"I’m not ruling out the possibility Kohberger evaded the top of the suspect list for over five weeks, but my intuition wonders, who were all the suspects were who ahead of him?"
I believe that officers would have reviewed the Pullman footage upon discovering his car whether it was the correct year or not, and I think that investigators would have reviewed the Pullman footage even earlier than that. The city is fifteen minutes to the west.
If they reviewed the footage, then they would have noticed parallel activity between cities involving a white sedan with no front-facing plate.
Maybe they were looking at him as a person of interest but thought he could have been working at someone else's behest, and they were trying to flesh that out before identifying him as the sole suspect.
I remember at some point, investigators started publicly saying something like "suspect or suspects". Maybe that's something they were genuinely considering at that time.
"Here’s a question, if they had arrested Kohberger in WA, would they have been able to search his parents home in PA since he hadn’t been there for 6 or so months before the murders?"
If they had a reasonable basis to believe that evidence was present there, then yes. Edit: Especially if Dateline is correct that Kohberger purchased a knife in April that investigators cannot locate. He would have been living at his parents' house when he ordered the knife.
Edit: I will clarify that we don't know when WSU officers reported his car, so we don't know that the lead investigator looked at Kohberger's driver's license on November 29. I think that's probably the case, but a date wasn't indicated in the affidavit.
Page 9: "Officer Whitman also ran the car and it returned to Kohberger with a Washington tag. I reviewed Kohberger's WA state driver's license and photograph." It seems like Whitman ran the car on November 29 given the preceding sentences in the paragraph, but the dates that the car was reported to investigators and the license was reviewed are unclear.