What evidence did investigators release about how Bryan Kohberger was linked to the 2022 University of Idaho murders?

1. DNA on the knife sheath and the genetic‑genealogy break

Investigators said the pivotal forensic lead was DNA recovered from a knife sheath found at the scene; that single male profile was traced through genetic genealogy techniques and ultimately led them to a family connection used to identify Kohberger as a suspect . Prosecutors described how the FBI and local labs worked the unknown profile into a genealogical search and then used traditional investigative follow‑up to narrow suspects — a method law enforcement explicitly relied on in this case .

2. The “trash pull” and the family DNA link

To corroborate the genealogical lead, investigators performed covert evidence collection at Kohberger’s parents’ Pennsylvania home, conducting a nighttime “trash pull” of items placed for municipal collection; forensic testing of a Q‑tip recovered from that trash reportedly matched DNA from the father of the person whose DNA was on the knife sheath, providing an evidentiary bridge in the investigation . That procedural tactic was publicly described by the lead prosecutor as an investigative breakthrough that tied the genetic lead to Kohberger’s family circle .

3. Surveillance video and the white Hyundai/Elantra sightings

A compilation of neighborhood and business cameras captured images of a vehicle matching Kohberger’s white Hyundai Elantra in and around Moscow and neighboring Pullman; police said those videos placed such a car in the vicinity on multiple occasions, and routine contacts earlier in 2022 had already flagged the vehicle to investigators . Publicly released evidence photos later included shots of Kohberger’s Elantra and investigators cited those videos as corroborative of physical‑forensic links .

4. Cell‑phone location records and patterns of presence

Investigators relied on cellphone tower and location data to show Kohberger’s phone had repeatedly connected near the victims’ house in the weeks before the murders and that it was in the area in the hours after the killings, a pattern prosecutors emphasized as supporting their case . Published accounts note multiple pings by Kohberger’s phone on towers close to the King Road residence between July and November 2022, and investigators highlighted the temporal overlap with the crime timeline .

5. Behavioral, testimonial and photo evidence released afterward

After charges and through mass document releases, police made public hundreds of pages and photos from the probe — from Kohberger’s apartment images and schoolwork to witness statements about scratches on his knuckles and accounts of “inappropriate” conduct — items prosecutors said would have been used at trial to demonstrate knowledge, opportunity and consciousness of guilt . Those records also revealed limits: investigators reported no evidence Kohberger had direct prior contact with the victims and acknowledged they never established a motive for why that specific house was chosen .

6. What the public releases do not prove (and what remains unresolved)

The official releases were explicit about strengths and limits: forensic genealogy, corroborative trash DNA and location/surveillance evidence formed the backbone of the investigative narrative, but documents show investigators did not find social‑media contact tying Kohberger to the victims and could not explain motive or how he selected that home — gaps defense teams exploited and that the public record does not fill . Media coverage and later evidence booklets amplified both the decisive forensic work and the unanswered questions, and the agencies that released the materials cautioned that thousands of pages contain sensitive descriptions and do not alone establish motive ^[1].