Idaho Murders MONEY SCANDAL: $250K GoFundMe + Double Payment Demand – Kash Patel Investigates
🚨 Follow the Money: The Idaho Case, Double Dipping, and the Financial Surveillance State
Wake up, America! The sensational Idaho murders case involving Bryan Kohberger is exposing a deeper battle in our legal system: a fight over money, restitution, and the blurring lines between justice and financial engineering. While the mainstream media focuses on the crime, court filings dated October 24th, 2025, reveal documented evidence of what critics call prosecutorial overreach and a systemic attempt to create maximum financial liability.
This isn’t about the defendant’s guilt; it’s about upholding the law and ensuring transparency, even for a convicted murderer.
Double Dipping? The GoFundMe Controversy
The most startling claim buried in the court documents concerns the victim’s families’ expenses and the charitable donations they received.
The Restitution Request: The prosecution is demanding that Kohberger pay nearly $27,000 for the travel and accommodation expenses incurred by the families of Kaylee Goncalves and Madison Mogen to attend court proceedings. This is in addition to the $250,000 in criminal fines and the $80,000 in civil judgments already agreed upon in the plea deal.
The Defense Argument: Kohberger’s defense attorneys argue that this constitutes “double dipping.” They point out that the families received extensive funds through multiple GoFundMe campaigns that specifically asked for and covered these exact travel and accommodation expenses. If the community already covered the cost, the families have suffered no economic loss for those expenses.
The State’s Legal Gymnastics: The prosecution counters by citing State v. Cheni (2007), arguing that charitable GoFundMe donations are based on “voluntary generosity” and not a “legal obligation.” Therefore, these donations are irrelevant and do not reduce Kohberger’s restitution debt.
The Question of Justice: The core issue is whether the law should allow a victim to keep charitable donations and collect restitution for the same expenses, creating a potential windfall rather than simply “making the victims whole.” Critics argue the prosecution is trying to use the system to make victims “profit” rather than just compensate them for loss.
The Absurdity: Creating a Permanent Financial Claim
Kohberger has been sentenced to four consecutive life sentences plus 10 years. Since he will die in prison, he has no realistic ability to pay tens of thousands of dollars in fines. This leads to the true strategic motive behind the prosecution’s maximalist demands: creating a permanent civil judgment.
The True Strategy: The prosecution cites Kohberger’s history of receiving “financial compensation from family and third parties” while in custody. They reveal they are meticulously monitoring every penny that flows into his jail account.
The “Son of Sam” Law: The prosecution is explicitly worried that the case’s “worldwide attention” could lead to Kohberger “prospectively receiving monies” from media deals, book rights, or cooperating with authors (like forensic psychologist Dr. Katherine Ramsland, his former student). They want to ensure any such money is captured.
The Civil Judgment Strategy: Under Idaho law, restitution orders can be recorded as civil judgments that remain enforceable indefinitely. The prosecution’s inflated restitution request is a legal mechanism to create a permanent financial lien against any money Kohberger might receive for the rest of his life.
“That’s not justice. That’s financial engineering.” The prosecution is using the possibility of future income and the need to preempt Son of Sam profits to justify ordering restitution that has already been covered by charity.
The Transparency Problem: Sealed Evidence
The integrity of the process is further questioned by the lack of transparency regarding the evidence supporting the restitution amounts:
Missing Exhibits: The prosecution references multiple exhibits in their filings—including itemizations of expenses and a summary of Kohberger’s jail account deposits—that are not available for public scrutiny.
A Public Right to Know: The public is being asked to accept massive financial obligations imposed on the defendant based on sealed or inaccessible documents. This practice of making public arguments based on sealed evidence raises serious questions about whether the prosecution is being fully transparent.
The defense’s argument is rooted in simple logic and contract law: the plea agreement should be honored, and double compensation for expenses already covered by charitable donations should be disallowed. The larger takeaway is the potential precedent being set: allowing prosecutors to maximize financial punishment beyond actual economic loss to satisfy public sentiment and create financial liability.
Would you like me to research the Idaho law cited by the prosecution regarding restitution from life-sentenced defendants?
