The tragic murders of Xana Kernodle, Ethan Chapin, Kaylee Goncalves, and Madison Mogen shocked the world. But while investigators built a case against Bryan Kohberger, a second trial was unfolding online — across YouTube, TikTok, podcasts, blogs, and Twitter/X.
Some content creators dissected every document, some never bothered reading the court documents, speculated on every theory, and in the process deeply influenced public opinion. Long before Kohberger entered a plea, audiences had divided into two hostile camps: “Probergers” (skeptics of the state’s case, often suggesting innocence or framing) and “Guilters” (convinced of guilt from the start).
This online war of narratives continues even after Kohberger’s guilty plea, raising questions about media responsibility, misinformation, and constitutional rights.
Categories of Content Creators Covering the Idaho Murders
1. Neutral / Fact-Reporters
- Stuck closely to official filings, affidavits, and press conferences.
- Avoided speculation, sometimes reading court documents word-for-word.
- Example: Legal commentary channels or independent journalists.
- Audience Reaction: Seen as reliable but often criticized as “boring” compared to dramatic commentary.
- A good example of this category of content creators is: Truth & Transparency ( AKA Lana ); Harsh Reality. J Embree AKA Pavaroti & Others.
2. Speculative Analysts
- Asked “what if” questions, breaking down timelines, surveillance videos, and behavioral cues.
- Presented multiple theories without committing fully to guilt or innocence.
- Audience Reaction: Hotbeds of debate — Probergers and Guilters often clashed in the comments.
- One notable content creator who has covered the Idaho murders case is the operator of the YouTube channel J Embree AKA Pavaroti While much of their coverage is speculative and based on their own theories and opinions, they have also covered court and investigative documents. They have been transparent about the nature of their content, making it clear when their discussions are not based on direct evidence. Their approach offers viewers alternative perspectives on the case without making unsupported claims or presenting speculation as fact.
- A clear example of problematic content creation can be seen in a YouTube channel owner D T SHOW who, on May 9, 2025—two months before Bryan Kohberger’s guilty plea and trial—live-streamed a video titled, “URGENT New Bryan Kohberger Selfie begs the question was he going to do it again?” At the time of this broadcast, Kohberger was still presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yet, the video’s sensational title openly speculated about future criminal behaviour, despite the absence of any verdict or plea. The live chat accompanying the stream showed viewers’ excitement and engagement, highlighting how such speculative content can shape public opinion in ways that disregard the principle of presumed innocence and contribute to a charged and potentially prejudicial public atmosphere.
3. Prosecution-Leaning Creators (“Guilters”)
- Referred to Kohberger as “the killer” or “the suspect who did it” even before trial.
- Highlighted evidence like:
- DNA on the knife sheath
- White Hyundai Elantra sightings
- Cell phone pings near the King Road house
- Bryan Kohberger stalking the victims, despite non existent evidence of stalking or any connections to the victims.
The YouTube channel owner of Grey Hughes Investigates has published videos speculating that Bryan Kohberger may have stalked the victims by peering through their windows at the back of the house—claims made without any supporting evidence. Prosecutors had publicly stated, n court hearings, well before the guilty plea or trial, that there was no evidence of stalking in this case. Despite this, the channel owner consistently referred to the perpetrator as Bryan Kohberger throughout his videos prior to any formal admission of guilt. He has also stated in his videos that he names Bryan Kohberger as the perpetrator because he personally believes he did it. This approach demonstrates how unfounded speculation and personal conviction can override the presumption of innocence, influencing viewers’ perceptions before a verdict or plea has been entered.
- Audience Reaction: Attracted large followings from viewers seeking certainty and justice for victims — but criticized for undermining “innocent until proven guilty.”
4. Defense-Leaning Creators (“Probergers”)
- Focused on reasonable doubt and constitutional rights.
- Questioned the reliability of:
- The DNA on the knife sheath (which wasn’t photographed at the scene, and only logged on 11/14/22).
- Surveillance footage that doesn’t clearly show an Elantra.
- The lack of a murder weapon.
- Suggested possible evidence planting or police missteps.
- Audience Reaction: Built strong communities skeptical of official narratives, but vilified by Guilters as “defending a murderer.”
5. Drama & Entertainment Channels
- Framed the case as a true-crime soap opera, heavy on dramatic thumbnails and music.
- Recycled others’ research, rarely added original insights.
- Audience Reaction: Pulled in casual viewers but criticized for profiting from tragedy.
6. Victim-Focused Memorial Creators
- Highlighted the lives of Xana, Ethan, Kaylee, and Madison.
- Created tributes, shared family interviews, and sometimes called out sensationalist creators.
- Audience Reaction: Generally respected as the most ethical voices in the conversation.
The Audience Divide: Probergers vs. Guilters
The coverage created a polarized online battlefield:
- Probergers
- Doubt the state’s case.
- Raise questions about evidence handling (like the knife sheath).
- Insist the presumption of innocence must be protected.
- Some still argue the guilty plea may have been pressured.
- Guilters
- Convinced of Kohberger’s guilt from early on.
- Cite forensic evidence, phone records, and patterns of behavior.
- Believe the guilty plea confirmed what was already obvious.
- Often accuse Probergers of spreading conspiracies.
This divide fueled toxic fights in comment sections, creator feuds, and even harassment campaigns.
Damage Done by Early Coverage
- Presumption of Guilt
- Many creators dismissed “innocent until proven guilty,” shaping a narrative that may have tainted jury pools.
- Family Trauma
- Victims’ families were often misquoted, attacked online, or caught in creator wars.
- Polarization
- Viewers became entrenched in Proberger vs. Guilter identities, making constructive dialogue nearly impossible.
- Misinformation
- False claims — such as ritualistic wounds or Bryan Kohberger sitting in Xana’s bedroom chair ( likely caused by Idaho murders dateline episode claims)— spread widely before being debunked.
Where Things Stand After the Guilty Plea
Even after Kohberger’s guilty plea, the debate hasn’t ended:
- Probergers argue the plea could have been strategic, coerced, or the result of overwhelming pressure, not an admission of guilt.
- Guilters claim it simply validated their long-held belief and closed the case in the public eye.
- Content creators continue dissecting filings, interviews, and inconsistencies — keeping the online war alive.
Conclusion
The Idaho murders case shows how true-crime coverage in the digital age can shape narratives long before courtrooms do.
By dividing into categories — from fact-reporters to drama-driven entertainers — we see how each style influenced audiences. But perhaps the most lasting legacy is the damage caused by premature certainty and polarized storytelling, which blurred the line between justice, entertainment, and constitutional rights.
The victims deserve remembrance, the accused deserved a fair trial, and the public deserves balanced reporting — lessons that the Idaho case continues to force us to confront.