A former digital forensics expert who once worked for convicted Idaho murderer Bryan Kohberger’s defence team has dramatically reversed his position, saying fresh analysis of mobile phone data has convinced him that Kohberger deserves the death penalty. The development comes as Kohberger seeks to withdraw his guilty plea in one of the most high-profile murder cases in recent US history.

Sy Ray, a digital forensics specialist and former Arizona homicide investigator, said his reassessment followed a more detailed examination of Kohberger’s cellphone records. Speaking during a podcast interview, Ray stated that the evidence now points more strongly toward Kohberger’s involvement than he had previously believed.

Expert reverses earlier findings

Ray claimed that advanced analysis of location data revealed multiple "collisions" between Kohberger’s mobile phone and the device belonging to victim Madison Mogen before the November 2022 killings.

According to him, the data suggests Kohberger may have visited the victims’ residence before the murders and that Mogen could have been the intended target.

His latest assessment marks a significant departure from the report he submitted in January 2025 while working with the defence. At that time, Ray had concluded that available location data did not establish any meaningful connection between Kohberger and the victims or place him near the crime scene.

Supports death penalty

Following his revised analysis, Ray publicly backed capital punishment for Kohberger.

"Bring back the death penalty. I am all for this," he said during the interview, arguing that the new evidence substantially strengthened the prosecution's case.

His comments have attracted widespread attention because he was previously retained by Kohberger’s legal team to challenge digital evidence presented by prosecutors.

Kohberger seeks to withdraw guilty plea

The renewed debate comes after Kohberger filed a handwritten petition asking the court to withdraw the guilty plea he entered in July 2025.

Kohberger, 31, pleaded guilty to the murders of University of Idaho students Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin, receiving four consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole.

In his petition, he alleged that his defence attorneys provided ineffective legal representation and pressured him into accepting the plea agreement.

He claimed his lawyers exaggerated the likelihood of receiving the death penalty if the case went to trial and persuaded him to admit guilt despite maintaining his innocence.

"My actual innocence is my truth, and the plea, hinged on false promises and blatant disinformation, MUST be withdrawn," Kohberger wrote in his filing.

However, his current claims contrast sharply with statements made during the original plea hearing, when the judge specifically asked whether he was pleading guilty because he was guilty. Kohberger answered, "Yes."

Families prepared for retrial

The legal challenge has reignited emotions among the victims' families, many of whom have criticised Kohberger's attempt to reverse his conviction.

Representatives of the Goncalves family have indicated they would support a retrial if the guilty plea is ultimately withdrawn, even if it means reliving the lengthy legal proceedings. A retrial could also reopen the possibility of prosecutors once again seeking the death penalty.

Court appoints new lawyer

A judge has approved Kohberger's request for new court-appointed counsel to review his petition.

If the court determines that no significant legal errors occurred during the plea process, Kohberger's life sentences will remain in place. However, if the plea is overturned, prosecutors could pursue capital punishment once again under Idaho law.

Viral clip saying "Pandit ji payalagu" and urging social boycott fuels protests; woman apologises in second video

A short video urging people to boycott members of the Brahmin community has set off a public uproar in Rewa, with social organisations and residents demanding swift action while police work to verify the clip and the person seen in it.

What happened
The first viral clip, widely shared on social media since Monday morning, shows a woman making a series of provocative statements about Brahmins. In the video the speaker uses the phrase "Pandit ji payalagu" and advises viewers not to invite Brahmin priests for rituals, not to vote for Brahmin leaders, and to avoid hiring Brahmin teachers or lawyers. The woman also urges people to stop purchasing from Brahmin-run shops and to treat them as adversaries.

Immediate reaction
The clip prompted strong reactions locally. Several social groups and individuals in Rewa demanded legal action, calling the comments inflammatory and likely to disturb communal harmony. Online discussions varied from calls for a criminal complaint to demands for a public apology and an inquiry into whether the footage was doctored.

Apology video surfaces
A second video that surfaced later shows the same woman appearing contrite and holding her ear — a gesture often associated in the region with admitting a mistake — while apologising for her earlier remarks. In that clip she expresses regret and seeks forgiveness from the community. Local users on social media shared both clips, and the apology did little to immediately calm the debate.

Police response
Senior police officials said they have begun preliminary inquiries. "We are verifying the authenticity of both videos and the identity of the woman. Only after establishing facts will further action be taken," Rewa Superintendent of Police Guru Karan Singh told local reporters on Monday afternoon. He added that initial checks indicate the woman in the clip may not be a resident of Rewa city, but that confirmation is pending.

Ground-level cues
On the streets of Rewa and nearby Amilkī village, where local handles have identified the woman as Damini Patel (also referred to as Bholi), tensions were visible online more than on the ground. Residents contacted by this reporter said they had seen the clips on WhatsApp and Facebook but that there was no large public mobilisation as of late evening. Temple committees in parts of Rewa said they were monitoring the situation and awaiting police direction.

Legal and civic context
Officials recalled that the Rewa police had previously issued advisories warning against uploading or sharing inflammatory posts and videos that could incite social unrest. Under Indian law, statements that target a community and risk public order can attract provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as sections under the Information Technology Act if the content is found to be deliberately inflammatory or doctored.

Public impact and concerns
Community leaders and several social media users said such videos, even if made by a single person, can generate wider hurt and mistrust in a diverse city. "A single viral post can snowball quickly," said a local educationist who asked not to be named. "Authorities must ascertain whether the clip is genuine, and whether there are underlying motives."

Verification challenges
Sources familiar with the matter cautioned that social videos are frequently edited, taken out of context or uploaded using anonymous accounts. Digital forensics and witness statements will likely be needed to build a clear picture, they said. Police indicated that they will also seek cooperation from social media platforms if required.

What happens next
Investigating officers said they will attempt to locate the woman and the place and date of recording, and examine whether other material connected to the incident exists. Depending on findings, they may register an FIR and initiate action under relevant laws. Community groups have urged prompt transparency and a public statement once verifications are complete.

Why it matters
The episode highlights how quickly local tensions can be amplified by short videos on messaging apps and social platforms. For residents of Rewa, the immediate priority, officials said, is to verify facts and prevent any escalation while ensuring freedom of expression does not cross into hate speech.