What evidence in the federal indictment specifically links Vance Boelter to a 'death list' or targeted list of lawmakers?
Executive summary
The federal indictment and related charging documents link Vance Boelter to what journalists and prosecutors have described as a list or notebook of lawmakers primarily through physical evidence recovered from his vehicle and other locations — namely a list of names and addresses and a notebook containing dozens of names — and by charging him with stalking counts tied to specific lawmakers (Rep. Melissa Hortman and Sen. John Hoffman). Reporting also makes clear prosecutors have framed those items as proof of planning and targeting, while at the same time saying motive and full context remain under investigation [1] [2] [3].
1. The concrete items prosecutors point to: lists, notebook and a letter
Federal and state authorities repeatedly cited tangible documents found in and near Boelter’s property as the core evidence suggesting he compiled targeted names: outlets report that a list of names and addresses, including many DFL legislators, was recovered from Boelter’s car, and that investigators found a notebook with dozens of other names left at locations he visited — evidence prosecutors say shows planning and selection of targets [1] [3]. Media summaries of the grand jury indictment likewise note those materials were part of the search-warrant narrative presented to investigators [4] [2].
2. How those items appear in the federal charging framework
The federal indictment does not hinge on a single “death list” label but instead incorporates the physical records into stalking, murder and firearms counts: the grand jury returned six federal charges including stalking counts tied to Hortman and Hoffman and murder counts for the killings and shootings, and prosecutors have described the lists and notebooks as corroborating premeditation and targeted conduct [2] [5]. Reporting specifies that the indictment was updated to reflect an attempted murder allegation of the Hortmans’ adult daughter after investigators reviewed evidence, showing prosecutors are linking documentary evidence to planned actions [5].
3. Prosecutors’ public statements: planning, targeting, but unresolved motive
At press conferences, acting U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson and other officials framed the recovered materials as evidence Boelter “planned these attacks for quite some time,” and characterized the attacks as “political assassinations” even as they declined to finalize motive and said more investigation was ongoing [1] [5]. Officials also told reporters they believe Boelter acted alone, a claim prosecutors said was supported by the physical evidence narrative they presented to the grand jury [6] [5].
4. Limits and caveats in the public record: fantastical claims and gaps
Several outlets — citing the search-warrant application and materials disclosed by investigators — note qualifications that undercut a simple “death list” interpretation: a letter found in an abandoned vehicle contained “fantastical ravings” and claims (for example, of secret military training) that prosecutors said they have no evidence to support, and reporting stresses that motive remains unclear even as the documents suggest targeting [4] [5]. In other words, the presence of names and addresses is factual in reporting, but the indictment and prosecutors stop short of publishing an explicit single-sheet “kill list” labeled as such or spelling motive definitively in the public filings summarized by news outlets [4] [3].
5. Alternative readings and why terminology matters
Some outlets and officials use stark language — “list,” “notebook,” “dozens of names,” “many DFL legislators” — which together imply targeted intent; others emphasize prosecutorial restraint, noting the grand jury charged stalking and related counts rather than federal terrorism statutes at this stage and that additional charges or contextual findings (including whether those lists were intended as an execution list) could emerge as the investigation proceeds [2] [3]. Reporting also documents how partisan narratives quickly formed online, prompting fact-checks; those dynamics are relevant because the existence of names/addresses is not the same as a verified, annotated “death list” with explicit kill instructions, a distinction prosecutors and some reporting have implicitly acknowledged [4] [7].
6. Bottom line from the indictment and reporting
The evidence in the indictment that ties Boelter to a targeted catalog of lawmakers is primarily the recovery of lists/notebooks containing names and addresses and the linkage of those records to stalking and murder charges for specific legislators, plus ancillary items such as a letter and surveillance details recounted in search-warrant materials; prosecutors present those materials as proof of planning and selection, while publicly noting significant uncertainties about motive and the veracity of Boelter’s own claims in written ramblings [1] [2] [4].