No suspects, murder weapon or motive: Mystery of four University of Idaho students killed in their beds

Published

3 years ago

December 15, 2022

admin

The grey house with the Christmas wreath on the front door and twinkling fairy lights overhanging the back patio could be any other student home in the remote town of Moscow, Idaho.

A blanket of snow covers the ground, and a rubbish bag overflowing with beer and seltzer cans is propped up near an outdoor grill.

The young women who lived here until recently were popular members of sororities at the University of Idaho and regularly threw parties.

They documented their lives on social media, with choreographed videos of group dances and photographs dressing up for nights out.

But four weeks ago this apparent student idyll was shattered when three of the housemates – Kaylee Goncalves, Maddie Mogen and Xana Kernodle, and Xana’s boyfriend Ethan Chapin – were brutally murdered.

In the early hours of a Sunday morning, as they slept in bed, they were stabbed to death with a large knife, their rooms splattered with blood, while two other housemates slept through the attacks.

Four weeks on, no known witnesses have come forward, there is no named suspect, no murder weapon and no obvious motive.

Moscow’s small police force, which hadn’t had a murder for more than seven years, is at the centre of the race to find a killer, or killers.

“It’s hard to tell when or if this town will ever be the same,” Robbie Johnson, the force’s public information officer, says.

‘We can’t afford to make a mistake’

There are signs that the community and grief stricken parents of the victims are growing frustrated with what they perceive as a lack of progress by police, even as reinforcements from the FBI and Idaho state police have arrived.

The decision to withhold certain information or lines of investigation from the public is deliberate, Ms Johnson tells Sky News.

“We don’t just want an arrest, we want to take it to court,” she adds.

“We need to be sure we are going through all the evidence and it is vast. There are pictures, emails, phone calls coming in. We can’t afford a mistake or to put out information that might compromise the investigation.”

Police have consistently stated their belief that either the house, or its occupants, were targeted, but they haven’t revealed why they believe that.

The house where they were slaughtered

Internet sleuths have pored over the layout of the building. The ground floor, with its sliding patio doors, is where Xana and Ethan, a couple since the spring who were said to be perfect for each other, were slaughtered.

In one of the bedrooms upstairs, lifelong best friends, Kaylee and Maddie, were also sharing a bed when they were murdered.

In the early hours, they had been repeatedly texting Kaylee’s former boyfriend, with whom she was still close and police have discounted as a suspect.

One of the most puzzling aspects of the case is that two other female housemates, Dylan Mortensen and Bethany Funke, who were in basement level bedrooms, survived.

They say they slept through the attacks and when they woke they summoned other friends to the house, believing one of the housemates to be unconscious.

Just before midday, one of the friends called police, who discovered the true horror of what had happened. Police have discounted Dylan, Bethany and the friends who arrived that morning as suspects.

“The big question is why,” says Troy Lambert, a crime writer whose stepson lives in an apartment less than 100 yards from the murder house.

“Why would they target young college kids who, in my mind would have no enemies,” he adds.

“My stepson and his housemate do gaming and stuff like that, so they didn’t hear anything.

“With the density of students in this area, it is kind of surprising that nobody heard anything. It’s what makes me think that it was somebody and something organised because they didn’t make noise. They knew not to make noise.”

The movements of Kaylee and Maddie

Investigators say they’re busy piecing together not just what happened inside the house, but where the victims had been in the hours leading up to the murders.

Kaylee and Maddie had spent the night at a bar called Corner Club with its neon yellow sign and affordable drinks, just off the main street in Moscow.

They left at 1am to walk to a nearby food truck, where Kaylee can be heard on a livestream, stumbling over her words as she orders a portion of pasta carbonara.

There then appears to be a dispute with a man in a hoodie. At one point, Maddie gestures towards him and seems to say “f*** you mister,” before they all disappear out of shot.

Police say they have also discounted him as a suspect.

It had previously been reported that Kaylee’s parents believed she may have been the primary target based on what they had been told about the extent of her injuries compared with the other victims.

But they now don’t think that is the case.

“I don’t think that the family believes that there was an individual target on their daughter,” their lawyer, Shanon Gray, tells Sky News.

“It just doesn’t make sense with the facts that have been presented and other information that we’ve gathered.

“The person might have targeted the home, because there were all girls that lived there and a lot of people came and went, it was a very social scene.”

Five-page-long list of questions

The Goncalves family recruited Mr Gray to push the police for answers. He took a five-page-long list of questions to a meeting with investigators this week, but they are remaining tight-lipped.

“We asked why they haven’t released more information to the public,” he added. “Down the road we may look at it and say, ‘great job not releasing that information’, or they may come to regret those decisions.

“I don’t know if anyone has ever experienced handling a murder investigation that involves four college students that had been stabbed, so I’m sure it’s new to them.

“But they still need to make sure that they’re doing the right things, and we’re here to hold them accountable for it.”

The missing five hours

Mystery surrounds the whereabouts of the other two victims, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin on the night of the killings.

Between 8-9pm they were at a party at the imposing Sigma Chi fraternity house, with its basketball court in the garden and stars and stripes flag, now flying at half-mast.

It is less than a five-minute walk through an alley to the house where they were killed, but they didn’t reach home until just before 2am and police are trying to account for those missing five hours.

In a sea of uncertainty, a violent killer, or killers, on the loose continues to terrorise this town of 25,000 people, which includes 11,000 students.

Everything that happens in Moscow at the moment is coloured by loss and fear. At winter graduation, where Kaylee Goncalves was supposed to receive her degree, a swell of police patrol the arena.

‘It’s scary being here’

“I have pepper spray and different self-help things, but it’s scary being here, and it doesn’t feel like home anymore. It doesn’t feel safe,” says Emma Bartlett, a graduate, who went to junior school with Kaylee and Maddie and tutored Ethan at university.

“He was always smiling, so happy, so funny,” she says, “I’m just so glad I got to know him.”

It’s not just students who are living in fear. Treva Adkins visited Moscow to see her daughter Katie graduate over the weekend.

“When we checked into the Airbnb, I was scared to death,” she says. “I made my husband check under then bed, and I’m a 43-year-old woman.

“I noticed the windows weren’t locked, and it paralysed me, so I shut all the windows and I closed the curtains. It’s terrifying, constantly looking over your shoulder.”

The lighting of Moscow’s town Christmas tree took place last week and has become a focal point to remember the four slain students. Coloured ribbons are fastened around the guard rails and notes of reflection.

“Gone too soon, Ethan, Xana, Kaylee and Madison,” reads one. “Praying for your family, friends and for justice,” reads another.

In a community desperate for answers and accountability, the unknowns keep stacking up.

US

Trump will meet Putin even if Russian leader refuses to meet Zelenskyy

Published

2 hours ago

August 8, 2025

admin

Putin plays down idea of meeting Zelenskyy, saying 'certain conditions' must be met

Donald Trump has said he will meet Vladimir Putin even if the Russian leader refuses to meet Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Asked by a reporter if Mr Putin needed to meet his Ukrainian counterpart in order to meet him, the US president replied: “No, he doesn’t. No.”

A Russian aide has said Washington and Moscow could hold talks “in the coming days”.

The same aide said the Americans had suggested a trilateral meeting but it was “not specifically discussed”.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said: “As President Trump said yesterday, the Russians expressed their desire to meet with President Trump, and the president is open to this meeting.

“President Trump would like to meet with both President Putin and President Zelenskyy because he wants this brutal war to end.

“The White House is working through the details of these potential meetings and details will be provided at the appropriate time.”

The White House has set a deadline of Friday for Moscow to show progress towards ending the three-year war in Ukraine or suffer additional economic sanctions.

Asked if that deadline would hold, Mr Trump said of Mr Putin: “It’s going to be up to him. We’re going to see what he has to say. It’s going to be up to him. Very disappointed.”

The Russian leader has played down the possibility of talks with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, saying that while it is possible, certain conditions must be met.

Mr Putin had been responding to an American proposal of a trilateral meeting between him, the Ukrainian president and Mr Trump.

The idea was floated by Steve Witkoff, the US president’s envoy, during talks with Mr Putin on Wednesday, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov said.

War in Ukraine: Latest updates

Mr Ushakov said the three-way option was “simply mentioned by the American representative during the meeting in the Kremlin”.

He added, however: “This option was not specifically discussed.”

On the prospect of meeting Mr Zelenskyy, Vladimir Putin said: “I have already said many times that I have nothing against it in general – it is possible.”

However, he distanced himself from any such meeting happening soon, adding: “But certain conditions must be created for this. Unfortunately, we are still far from creating such conditions.”

Mr Zelenskyy offered to speak to Mr Putin in May, challenging him to meet in Istanbul for talks on ending the war in Ukraine – an invitation the Russian leader declined.

While a trilateral meeting appears to be off the agenda, Mr Ushakov said an agreement had been reached for Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin to meet “in the coming days”.

After the US president touted a “very good prospect” of the leaders meeting for Ukraine ceasefire talks, Mr Ushakov said on Thursday that Russian and American officials had started working on the details.

“At the suggestion of the American side, an agreement was essentially reached to hold a bilateral meeting at the highest level in the coming days,” he said.

“We are now beginning concrete preparations together with our American colleagues.”

Regarding a trilateral meeting, Mr Ushakov said: “We propose, first of all, to focus on preparing a bilateral meeting with Trump, and we consider it most important that this meeting be successful and productive.”

It would be the first time the two leaders have met since Mr Trump returned to office, and follows a three-hour meeting between Mr Putin and Steve Witkoff in Moscow on Wednesday.

Following the meeting, Volodymyr Zelenskyy said it appeared that Russia was “more inclined to a ceasefire”.

A poll from Gallup suggests 69% of Ukrainians support a negotiated end to the war with Russia – an almost complete reversal from 2022, when 73% favoured fighting until victory.

Most said they were sceptical the war would end soon, with 68% saying they believed it was unlikely that active fighting would stop within the next 12 months.

US

Trump and Putin’s first meeting in years does not necessarily mean a ceasefire in Ukraine

Published

2 hours ago

August 8, 2025

admin

Trump and Putin's first meeting in years does not necessarily mean a ceasefire in Ukraine

It could be diplomatic dynamite.

The first meeting between a sitting US and Russian president in more than four years, following one of the bleakest periods in the history of their countries’ bilateral relations.

But a Putin–Trump summit does not necessarily mean there will be a ceasefire.

Ukraine war latest: Kremlin aide’s full statement on Trump-Putin talks

On the one hand, it could signal that a point of agreement has been reached and a face-to-face meeting is needed to seal the deal.

That has always been Russia’s stance. It’s consistently said it would only meet at a presidential level if there’s something to agree on.

On the other hand, there might not be anything substantive. It might just be for show.

It might just be the latest attempt by the Kremlin to diffuse Donald Trump’s anger and dodge his deadline to end the war by Friday or face sanctions.

It would give Trump something that can be presented as progress, but in reality, it delivers anything but.

After all, there has certainly not been any sign that Moscow is willing to soften its negotiating position or step back from its goals on the battlefield.

Tellingly, perhaps, it’s this latter view which has been taken by some of the Russian press on Thursday.

“Putin won” is the headline in Moskovsky Komsomolets regarding the Kremlin leader’s meeting with Witkoff.

The state-run tabloid quotes a political scientist, Marat Bashirov, who claims Putin “bought time” ahead of Friday’s deadline.

“It is noteworthy that in his rhetoric [on sanctions] Trump did not mention Russia at all,” the paper notes.

Komsomolskaya Pravda is similarly dismissive.

“Donald Trump has two simple interests in connection with Ukraine: to earn money for America, and political whistles and the Nobel Peace Prize for himself,” it says.

“Russia has its own interests,” it adds, “securing them is what Vladimir Putin will seek at a meeting with Trump.”

At this stage, the most likely location is the United Arab Emirates. Putin met the country’s president in the Kremlin today, and afterwards said it would be a “suitable location”. It felt like a strong hint.

And the UAE certainly makes sense.

It’s played mediator for a number of the prisoner swaps between Russia and Ukraine; it has good relations with the US (and was one of Trump’s stops on his recent Middle East tour); and most importantly for Moscow, it’s not a member of the International Criminal Court. So Putin doesn’t have to worry about being arrested.

But if NBC’s reports are correct, that a Putin-Trump summit is conditional on the Russian president meeting with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy, then the summit may not happen at all.

Until now, Putin has refused to meet Zelenskyy, despite numerous demands from Kyiv, because he views him as illegitimate.

The Kremlin said the prospect of a trilateral meeting between the leaders was mentioned by Witkoff on Wednesday, but the proposal was left “completely without comment” by Russia.

US

OpenAI releases long-awaited GPT-5 AI chatbot upgrade

Published

2 hours ago

August 8, 2025

admin

OpenAI releases long-awaited GPT-5 AI chatbot upgrade

GPT-5, the long-awaited upgrade to the ChatGPT AI chatbot, has been released by its maker OpenAI.

It has been one of the most highly anticipated launches in Silicon Valley after OpenAI’s first offering ChatGPT – powered by its GPT-3 model – kick-started the current AI boom in late 2022.

“GPT-3 sort of felt like talking to a high school student,” said Sam Altman, OpenAI’s chief executive.

“GPT-4, maybe it was like talking to a college student. But with GPT-5, now it’s like talking to an expert, a PhD-level expert in anything, any area you need, on demand.”

At the launch event, OpenAI claimed the new chatbot, which will be released to all ChatGPT users on Thursday, was more than a simple upgrade to its previous offerings.

According to OpenAI, the new model exceeds the chatbot competition from the likes of Google, X and Antropic on “benchmarks” – standardised tests used to rank models.

OpenAI claims it has been designed to be easier and more natural to communicate with, better at writing prose and advanced computer code, solving academic questions from mathematics to law, assisting with healthcare-related questions, as well as being safer than its predecessors.

“It’s an incredible superpower on demand,” claimed Mr Altman.

The model is also more intelligent in how it uses its own brain power – and therefore an expensive computing resource – according to OpenAI.

It is a hybrid of previous chatbots and slower, more computing-intensive “reasoning” models like OpenAI’s Deep Research.

Based on a user’s request, the model will decide how much “thinking” is required before answering, rather than requiring the user to switch between different models.

Although AI enthusiasts who had been expecting GPT-5 to represent “artificial general intelligence [AGI]” will be disappointed.

Despite this being OpenAI’s stated goal, Mr Altman billed GPT-5 as a “major upgrade” to GPT-4 and a “significant step along the path to AGI”.

But they’re clearly not there yet.

A real test of GPT-5 will be whether it sells.

OpenAI is projected to spend $8bn (£6bn) this year, on top of $5bn (£3.7bn) last year, and while it is expected to make a profit this year, the business case for increasingly powerful AI models is still not clear to many investors.

Given a single training run for GPT-5 is rumoured to have cost $500m (£373m), there will be an expectation the new model is significantly more useful to business users.

Despite a very slick demonstration of its coding skills at the launch presentation, where it built an online language learning game in seconds, GPT-5 will have to prove its worth for professional coding.

Many in the tech industry prefer Anthropic AI’s Claude model to write code. OpenAI and its investors will be hoping GPT-5 changes that.

AI experts will also be testing GPT-5’s tendency to “hallucinate”, an issue OpenAI claims to have improved with GPT-5.

But erroneous or bizarre answers are a problem that dogs all large generative AI models.

“Shiny things are always fun to play with, and I fully expect GPT-5 to be the shiniest so far,” said Gary Marcus, a cognitive scientist at New York University and AI commentator.

“But that doesn’t mean that it is a critical step on the optimal path to AI that we can trust,” Mr Marcus added in a post.