Ethan Chapin (20), Kaylee Goncalves (21), Xana Kernodle (20), and Madison Mogen (21) were savagely stabbed to death in the early morning hours of November 13, 2022. The three female victims lived together in a shared rental home close to campus, while Ethan was staying the night with his girlfriend Xana. Notably, two other female roommates were not attacked.
Before offering a possible motive for this crime, I would like to take a moment to express my sincere condolences to the family and friends of these young students whose lives were tragically taken by a maniac, irrespective of his “motive”. No amount of analysis will ever bring them back to life, of course. My only hope is that this theory might help prevent such a future crime from happening or, at the very least, help law enforcement expand their horizons when it comes to spree murderers.
While Bryan C. Kohberger has been arrested, since he has not been convicted of these murders, I will be referring to him as “the suspect” or by name.
An Unusual Killing Spree?
From the beginning, this story has had every criminal profiler wondering and speculating as to a possible motive for these murders. In a recent television interview, one former FBI profiler stated that this was an “unusual killer”, possibly a serial killer. Another stated that “nobody starts off by killing four people”; suggesting that the suspect must have killed before.
Well, there’s a major problem with that assumption — recent history.
Remember the Isla Vista murders? Elliot Rodger, you’ll remember was the incel mass murderer who had never physically attacked anyone before he set about on his mission to 𝓀𝒾𝓁𝓁 as many attractive women and their boyfriends as possible. Essentially, Elliot Rodger had formulated a “belief system” as the rationale for his misogynist, rambling manifesto to 𝓀𝒾𝓁𝓁 women. This manifesto was as much an attempt to relieve himself of his own shortcomings as it was to justify his actions.
But his actions were grounded in rage.
In fact, Rodger killed his own roommates George Chen and Chengyuan “James” Hong, along with their guest and friend Weihan “David” Wang, by stabbing them to death before he set out on his shooting spree. Remember that Rodger’s crime scene, in terms of his actual target, was a sorority.
So maybe these murders aren’t so “unusual”?
Lessons from the Isla Vista Spree Murders?
Elliot Rodger was full of jealous rage. It was never about 𝒔𝒆𝒙. It was always about resentment, jealousy, and misogynist rage towards “beautiful young women and their boyfriends”.
Rodger didn’t murder anyone over 𝒔𝒆𝒙. As many people commented on social media “Why didn’t he just hire a 𝒔𝒆𝒙 worker?” if he was so upset about being a virgin.
That’s the point: Elliot Rodger’s murders were about his jealous rage at as specific lifestyle, one where having fun and being social and having a romantic partner were part of a fulfilling youth, attending college or university, and having fun.
If Elliot Rodger couldn’t have that lifestyle, he was going to murder women instead of working on himself. It was a form of “lifestyle jealousy” that exploded into a murder spree. He told us directly by the very title of his last video, “Elliot Rodger’s Retribution”.
Rodger’s Motive? Social revenge, deep-seated in jealous rage from unmet psychological needs.
“I didn’t start this war… I wasn’t the one who struck first… But I will finish it by striking back. I will punish everyone. And it will be beautiful. Finally, at long last, I can show the world my true worth.” — Elliot Rodger, final statement from his manifesto entitled “My Twisted World: The Story of Elliot Rodger.”
Did we not learn anything from that case?
Apparently, many criminal profilers have confused rage-based spree killings with serial murderers because most of the commentary now in the news media seems to be centered around the theory that “he’s done this before”.
But Elliot Rodger hadn’t. Elliot didn’t simply “snap” either. He chased his demons in therapy for quite some time before he chose to rationalize his spree killings. Elliott wrote his manifesto in the same way that the Unabomber had decades earlier — as a proclamation to the world.
The purpose of a manifesto, in either case, was to inform the world of the injustices that needed to be corrected by way of murderously bringing attention to the “problem”. In the case of Theodore (“Ted”) Kaczynski, the problem was technology… at least on the surface. In the case of Elliot Rodger, the problem was a society in which women didn’t find him attractive enough to be boyfriend material.
The real purpose of a manifesto is social JUSTIFICATION.
Lessons from the Unabomber Murders?
I say, “on the surface” with respect to Kaczynski’s murders because I’ve never believed that Ted believed his own manifesto. In order to belief that theory of motive, one has to accept the idea that a person with an above-average IQ decides to try and stop the advances of a technological society through a series of murders. That theory, while supported in writing by a manifesto, has always felt like more of an intellectual cover for his real motivation — jealous rage.
“They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in ‘advanced’ countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world.” — Ted Kaczynski, referring to technological advances brought on by the Industrial Revolution.
That’s the second sentence from his manifesto, “Industrial Society and Its Future”. His complaint isn’t technology there… it’s the EFFECT of the Industrial Revolution’s effects and consequences for human life, especially psychological suffering. Kaczynski is concerned with psychological suffering, especially since he suffers so much himself.
Remember Maslow? Psychological needs aren’t trivial.
People need connection with others… and when that doesn’t happen for them it can lead to an emotional “death-spiral” of lost self-esteem, bitterness, depression, loneliness, jealousy, and social rage.
For a psychopathic spree killer those feelings may trigger their violence but to justify their violence they must blame someone, some social group, or society in general to retain their narcissistic persona.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Remember that in one scenario, Ted Kaczynski resented a woman who broke up with him so much that he lashed out at work and lost his job over the incident. Ted could not accept feeling the normal feelings of powerlessness that sometimes arise within social interactions. Kaczynski felt like an outcast, rejected. He retreated into his own romantic fantasy world, living off-grid where he could avoid society. But why not leave it at that? Clearly, he didn’t think that sending bombs in the mail would change anything in his own life. So why do it?
Revenge. In much the same way, Elliot Rodger was seeking revenge.
Why Murder Innocent Undergrad Students?
I believe the suspect knew about the “party house” and targeted it specifically to 𝓀𝒾𝓁𝓁 some of those “young, attractive undergrads” to release his self-hatred in much the same manner as Elliot Rodger.
I believe that the suspect had been chasing his own demons for some time by studying criminal psychology.
I believe that this suspect resented the people living in the “party house” for reasons similar to Rodger and Kaczynski with one exception — no manifesto. Could his Thesis be his manifesto or vice-versa?
Let’s explore this possibility next…
Press enter or click to view image in full size
A Murder Spree AS Thesis (of the Criminal Mind)
We know that the suspect, Kohberger, had a prior history of addiction. Apparently he had overcome this with some academic success, having completed a Masters degree. He was on his way to completing a Doctorate… but was his REAL thesis the murder spree itself?
We know that one of the suspect’s primary academic interests was “criminal emotions and mindset” because he was literally polling people about this topic.
We know from interviews with those who knew him, that he was always trying to be “the smartest guy in the room”; that he was awkwardly attention-seeking and arrogant.
So here we have a socially awkward male in his late twenties who should, under normal circumstances, be enjoying his academic life with a balance of work, studies, friendships and girlfriends. Except Kohberger, like Rodger, and like Kaczynski had no such intimacy, nor did he have the ability to simply “have fun”.
I will speculate now Kohberger couldn’t figure out how to be social. He probably had trouble gauging other people’s emotional space. Given his academic background and his arrogance, he probably thought he could go into that “party house” and 𝓀𝒾𝓁𝓁 the types of people who could “let loose and have fun”… and get away with it.
He might have attended the house during a party, had an awkward experience, felt even more isolated and resentful, and decided that he could return at some point and commit murder.
He may have simply known about the “party house” and fantasized about the occupants as a target group for some time, just like Elliot Rodger with the sororities.
But Bryan C. Kohberger didn’t write a manifesto. He didn’t want to get 𝒄𝒂𝓊𝓰𝒉𝓉. Remember that the intruder on the morning of those murders was wearing black clothing and a mask. This murder spree was clearly planned.
His real manifesto (his thesis) would be unpublished.
In his mind, he had nothing to justify. His rationale for this murder spree would be his alone to savor precisely because he could continue to indulge his own fantasies.
If he got away with it, that was his REAL “degree”. The stakes were higher than a Ph.D. for this suspect; he saw himself as someone who could get an A+ in criminal psychology by getting away with murder… but his MOTIVE was his own antisocial rage based on a “lifestyle jealousy”.
Getting 𝒄𝒂𝓊𝓰𝒉𝓉 would be an “F” for fail. In fact, I believe that this suspect still sees his chances of evading justice as his final grade. Everything about his demeanor is cold and calculated, arrogant and detached suggesting that he probably still thinks he can get away with these murders in Court.
The Risky Choice to Let Potential Witnesses Live
We know that the suspect chose not to 𝓀𝒾𝓁𝓁 two potential witnesses.
That’s pretty cocky.
Why so confident? Well, from his perspective he had no discernable motive to law enforcement because his motive (and his rationale or “manifesto”) lived secretly within his own sick mind.
If this was, in part, an academic exercise, he would have known from his academic studies that usually people who commit such a murder spree have a direct and emotional “connection”, especially where knifing is concerned. He knew that the crime scene was literally “party central”, a space with a large pool of potential suspects many of whom knew the victims more intimately than he did.
DNA? Everyone’s DNA would be in that party house. Why would Bryan worry about leaving a little DNA behind? Even if some was found at the crime scene, so what? Bryan probably figured “I’m not in any criminal database” and didn’t give it a second thought. He hadn’t consciously decided to leave any DNA behind but he also hadn’t even considered the fairly new genetic genealogy techniques used today to solve crimes like this one.
Letting two people live was likely a combination of two factors:
- The physical effort required to stab people to death isn’t insignificant; and,
- The arrogance of someone who wants to test their own prowess as a criminal would tempt them to take the risk of letting potential witnesses survive the ordeal.
In other words, dawn was breaking, he was exhausted, and he was so cocky that he decided to leave the scene risking the possibility of a witness identifying him.
The “Supreme Academic” Killing Spree
Isn’t it possible that this suspect had convinced himself, like Elliot Rodger, that he was “superior” to his victims?
I believe that he did. I believe that instead of the “Supreme Gentleman” emotional cover for Elliot Rodger’s self-loathing, Bryan Kohberger saw himself as the “supreme academic” as a cover for his self-loathing.
After all, he was a serious academic unlike those “partying undergrads”, the ones he resented. Consciously, he viewed them as inferior, just as Rodger had rambled on in his videos about how “pretty sorority girls” were inferior. Unconsciously, Kohberger knew that he was justifying murder based on his own jealous rage. After all, he didn’t choose to use a gun.
He had been reading about the “thrill” that spree and serial killers get for some time now academically. He would finally feel that experience for himself, setting the police up with zero motive for him, nor any connection between himself and the victims.
“Incel Rage” is Not 𝒔𝒆𝒙𝒖𝒂𝒍 Frustration, but rather “Intimate Lifestyle Jealousy”
Just like the “perfect gentleman” who couldn’t find a girlfriend, the suspect targeted young, pretty, women studying and partying in the same geographic area as the perpetrator.
I think Bryan Kohberger had an “incel-adjacent” lifestyle jealousy and THAT was, at least in part, his motive.
Note that he did not sexually 𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒶𝓊𝓁𝓉 any of his victims. It was never about 𝒔𝒆𝒙. It was always about revenge — just like Elliot Rodger.
I suspect that if you asked Kohberger why he didn’t rape any of his victims he would either be completely bewildered by the question or he would fly into a rage. I think that there’s a good chance the suspect has some serious 𝒔𝒆𝒙𝒖𝒂𝒍 hang-up(s) and has never had an intimate relationship that lasted for any notable amount of time.
Like Rodger and Kazincsky, this personal failure would be projected onto his victims or onto “society”. Any 𝒔𝒆𝒙𝒖𝒂𝒍 release he may have gotten from the plunging of his knife into his victims bodies would have occurred within a true psychopathic explosion of rage.
STABBING was his release.
He didn’t even consider another method of killing because he knew that he needed an emotional release for his rage.
“Robotic Demeanor” versus “Joie De Vivre”
Check out how expressionless Kohberger is in every video with the possible exception of the traffic stop recording. That’s his baseline while he’s being videotaped. He’s cold, detached, robotic.
I think that Kohberger has confused intellectualism and academic success (or prestige) with being respected as a “serious” person. He might be extra emotionless during taped interviews to project that image.
While he wants to portray himself as this quiet, serious, academic but , in reality, he’s an empty shell of a person like most psychopaths. Nothing governs him morally anymore (if it ever did) and only “winning” (in this case getting away with murder) is acceptable to him.
To be able to have FUN in life… is something that this guy could never do.
He hated those “partying undergrads” for being able to love themselves and enjoy life. He could never do that. Like Elliot Rodger, he might have been enabled by his own parents for decades, setting him up to be a “success” as an academic, secretly knowing that their son isn’t mentally healthy.
Finally, this suspect also reminds me a little of James Holmes. James Holmes was also in graduate school. James Holmes planned a spree murder and carried it out. James Holmes, however, planned for being 𝒄𝒂𝓊𝓰𝒉𝓉 — by wiring his home with explosives.
Kohberger never thought he would be 𝒄𝒂𝓊𝓰𝒉𝓉. He probably still thinks he can’t be found guilty.
I agree with the FBI profiler on one thing: This guy is DIFFERENT than most homicide suspects… and he knows it.
