CASE: Idaho Student Murders
ROLE IN CASE: Surviving roommate / potential witness
STATUS: Survived the November 13, 2022 homicides; not accused of a crime
Residence at time of the homicides: 1122 King Road, Moscow, Idaho
Who Is Bethany Funke?
Bethany Funke was a University of Idaho student and one of the roommates living at 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho. She was home in the early morning hours of November 13, 2022, when Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin were killed. Bethany survived that night, but her part in this story didn’t end there. Her name would eventually show up in court filings, discussions about potential testimony, and records of communications between the surviving roommates that morning. The more I looked through those records, the more I realized there was much more to understand about Bethany’s place in this case.
Background
Bethany Funke was 21 years old at the time of the homicides and was a student at the University of Idaho. She lived at 1122 King Road with Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Dylan Mortensen. Ethan Chapin, Xana’s boyfriend, did not live at the house but was there that night.
Bethany was identified as one of the surviving roommates who was inside the house that night. Unlike Dylan Mortensen, Bethany was not described in the probable cause affidavit as having seen the person investigators believed left the house. Much less about Bethany’s experience that morning was included in the probable cause affidavit, although later court records would reveal additional details about communications between the surviving roommates.
Bethany’s Connection to the Case
The Early-Morning Communications
Bethany’s connection to the case goes far beyond simply being one of the two surviving roommates. She was inside 1122 King Road during the early morning hours when the four victims were killed, and records later released in the case show that she and Dylan Mortensen were communicating by phone during a critical period that morning. Those communications are important because they provide a clearer picture of what was happening between the surviving roommates during a critical period that morning. They also raise questions that cannot be answered by the probable cause affidavit alone. As I went further into the court records, Bethany became one of the people I wanted to understand better—not because I believe her name being in the record automatically means something suspicious, but because her experience that morning became an important part of the timeline.
One of the most important pieces of information about Bethany’s experience that morning comes from records discussed in Judge Steven Hippler’s April 24, 2025 order. Those records provide a much more detailed picture of the communications between Bethany and Dylan Mortensen during the minutes surrounding the homicides than was publicly known early in the case.
At 4:19:07 a.m., Bethany called Dylan. The call lasted 23 seconds. At 4:20:28 a.m., Dylan called Bethany, and that call lasted 41 seconds. The records then show additional attempts to contact their roommates. At 4:22:08 a.m., Dylan sent the message, “No one is answering.” At 4:23:28 a.m., Bethany wrote, “Xana was wearing all black.” Dylan also communicated a description involving a ski mask. At 4:24:07 a.m., Bethany responded, “So am I.”
For me, this is one of the most important parts of Bethany’s story. These communications show that Bethany and Dylan were awake and communicating with each other during a very significant period of the timeline. What those messages meant to them in that moment—and exactly what prompted each call or message—is a separate question. The records establish that the communications occurred; they do not, by themselves, tell us everything Bethany or Dylan knew, heard, saw, or believed was happening inside the house.
What the Court Records Reveal
The court records surrounding Bethany became especially important when her potential testimony became an issue before trial. In April 2023, Bryan Kohberger’s defense sought to have Bethany testify at his preliminary hearing, arguing that she may have information that could be helpful to the defense. Her attorney challenged the subpoena, and the issue ultimately resulted in an agreement allowing Bethany to be interviewed by the defense in Nevada rather than being required to appear in Idaho.
What is important here is the wording. The defense argued that Bethany may have information that could be exculpatory or otherwise material to the defense. The court record described her as someone who “may be a material witness,” but that was not a finding that Bethany actually possessed exculpatory evidence. That distinction matters. What the defense believed Bethany might know is not necessarily the same as what Bethany actually knew or what she would ultimately say.
What Bethany May Have Known
This is where Bethany’s story becomes more complicated. We know from the court record that the defense believed she may have information that could be important to the case. What we do not know publicly is exactly what Bethany told investigators, what she later told the defense during the Nevada interview, or how the defense believed that information might fit into its theory of the case.
That missing information matters to me. There is a difference between what the records actually establish and what people have assumed Bethany knew. I think it is important to keep those two things separate. Her name appearing in motions and arguments does not tell us what her testimony would have been, and it does not make speculation about her automatically true.
The Nevada Interview
The dispute over Bethany’s testimony did not ultimately require her to travel to Idaho for the preliminary hearing. Instead, an agreement was reached that allowed Bryan Kohberger’s defense team to interview her in Nevada, where she was living at the time. This resolved the immediate fight over the subpoena, but it did not make the substance of that interview public.
What Bethany said during that interview has not been established in the public record available to me. I have not found a publicly released transcript, recording, or complete account of the interview. That leaves an important gap. We can document that the defense wanted to speak with Bethany and that an interview was arranged, but we should not assume what she told them unless a reliable record of that interview becomes public.
What Bethany Reported Hearing
According to a defense scene-reconstruction report filed with the court, additional information was provided about what Bethany reportedly experienced that night. According to the report’s description of Bethany’s police interview, she did not recall anything unusual except hearing what she believed was a firework and seeing what she described as a spark underneath her door. The report also discusses communications between Bethany and Dylan Mortensen during this period.
I find this detail especially interesting because it adds context that was not included in the original probable cause affidavit. At the same time, I think it needs to be handled carefully. This information comes through a defense expert’s report describing Bethany’s earlier police interview, rather than from a publicly released transcript of Bethany’s interview itself. For that reason, I am treating it as a documented description of what Bethany reportedly told investigators—not as a complete account of everything she experienced that night.
What Remains Unverified
There has been a great deal of speculation surrounding Bethany since the homicides, and some claims have been repeated so often online that they can begin to sound like established facts. For this page, I am only treating something as fact when I can trace it back to a court record, law-enforcement document, direct statement, or another reliable source. If I cannot verify it, I think it is important to say that clearly.
One of the biggest unanswered questions involves the defense’s 2023 claim that Bethany possessed information that was material to the case and, according to a defense investigator, included information that was exculpatory to Bryan Kohberger. That claim appeared in the effort to subpoena Bethany, but her attorn ey challenged it as conclusory and unsupported by details. The court’s wording was also important: Bethany “may be a material witness.” Without a publicly available account of what Bethany actually told the defense, I do not think the claim should be treated as proof of what she knew or what her testimony would have established.
Sources & Documents
Judge Steven Hippler’s April 24, 2025 Order — Court order containing the detailed early-morning communications between Bethany Funke and Dylan Mortensen, including the calls and messages discussed in this profile.
Defense Scene-Reconstruction Expert Report, filed January 23, 2025 — Report discussing Bethany’s police interview, including her reported recollection of hearing what she believed was a firework and seeing a spark underneath her door, as well as communications between Bethany and Dylan Mortensen.
April 2023 Bethany Funke Subpoena Filings — Court filings concerning the defense effort to obtain Bethany’s testimony for the preliminary hearing, including the defense investigator’s assertion that she possessed material and potentially exculpatory information, Bethany’s challenge to the subpoena, and the court’s determination that she “may be a material witness.”
April 2023 Agreement Regarding Bethany Funke’s Testimony — Filing documenting the agreement that Bethany agreed to be interviewed by Bryan Kohberger’s defense in Reno, Nevada, rather than being required to appear in Idaho for the preliminary hearing.
Faces in the Footnotes 