The judge in the Bryan Kohberger trial is still searching for the person or persons who leaked info to Dateline that was used in NBC’s 2-hour special on the Idaho Student Murders, “The Terrible Night on King Road” revealing new details and never before seen video that may be key evidence in the state’s case. Joseph Scott Morgan and Dave Mack talk about the latest news in the case and JSM breaks down some issues with how forensic evidence was moved from the scene, how the entire crime scene was treated in the days following the murders, as well as what the coroner did or did not do that could create problems at trial. No matter what happens in court or in the media, there are still four young adults who were murdered, and they must be remembered. They deserve justice.
Remember the Victims:
Ethan Chapin, 20
Xana Kernodle, 20
Kaylee Goncalves, 21
Madison Mogen, 21
Transcribe Highlights
00:13.15 Introduction - Part 2 - Kohberger Case
01:46.38 Judge is displeased with the leak in the case
05:04.66 Risk at trial, slipshod manner the way the trial claimed
09:40.54 Implies some kind of trace element left behind on
14:00.17 Evidence: a mattress was driven down the road in the back of a truck
19:54.71 Kohberger lawyer previously represented mother of victim, Xana Kernodle
24:04.54 Judge is completely aware
29:01.53 Does the defense have a suspect other than Kohberger?
33:43.00 Timeline is going to be very important
39:14.10 Not all testimony will be available to public, some will not be streamed
43:47.94 Whoever did this quadruple murder is/was a monster
44:11.81 Conclusion
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Body bats. But Joseph's gotten more, Dave. I've got to
say with Coburger, one of the things that has come
up relative to this dateline special is that the judge,
to say the very least ain't happy. Ain't happy at all,
(00:26):
you know. And there are reasons that judges do things,
and they put this gag order in place because of
the sensitive nature of it, because they know that the
media is all over it. There is a temptation that
abounds out there when you have information and money that
(00:54):
can be injected into a circumstance that would draw some
Now I'm not saying that anyone is on the take, however,
I am just saying when those bright lights are shone
upon you, and I'm talking about from the media, and
you're in some kind of job where you otherwise wouldn't
(01:14):
have any attention at all, and you get the really
important people from New York, They're going to show you
some attention and show you value. It's I tell you, man,
it is a fruit of the poisonous tree. It truly is,
and and it's a dangerous thing. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan
(01:38):
and this is body bags. Do judge wants somebody's hide
in this case, Dave.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
And I don't know if he's going to get it
or not, Joe. But when I from the very beginning
of this case, they've done things there that were just
patently wrong. From the very first thing that we heard
from the county coroner. It wasn't a medical examiner, right,
(02:09):
it was a coroner.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Yeah, there was an elected lawyer.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Yeah, that's what it was. And we've got we had
all those shenanigans right at the very beginning. We had
a number of social media people that were making accusations
and a lot of crazy stuff was going on. But
you still had four college aged students who were murdered
in the house, in a party house, and there are
still questions that a lot of us have about what
took place and why we don't have certain information. By
(02:35):
the way, nobody owes me any information they owe the families.
I think I've got a real problem with them tearing
the house down. You know, they've torn down evidence, and
so the judge can be as mad as he wants
about things getting out, but they've set it up to
be like this. I mean, they have destroyed this case
to the point where I'm gonna be honest, Joe, I'm
really bothered by the fact that they tore that house down.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
I really am that, you know at this point. Sometimes
I think about this and I think about the journey
that we've been on. Now we're in twenty five, coming
up on the thirty year anniversary this upcoming November, and
I've been covering it since immediately the day after I
started appearing on air. And I got to tell you, right,
Sometimes I've looked at the scene and it seems as
(03:19):
though for the prosecution, and I guess the judge by extension,
because as judge was like introduced into this, he's not
who they started out with. It's almost like trying to
tape together Jello. Sometimes you look at it and it's
just so you really wonder how this thing is going
(03:40):
to come out. And here's the problem that you hear,
and it's something I've heard for years and years. You know,
I might and even when I was a practitioner. If
you go to a party or something and somebody mentions
a case to you that they've heard about in the news,
and they say, well, if it was me that guy,
(04:01):
would you know, we'd hang him on a sour apple Tree.
You know that's what I would do, and you hear
that all the time. Well, that's all find good. You
can say that. But the problem with being that cock
sure about something and that reactive and not being purposed
in what you do just to think that you're gonna
(04:23):
win because the guy looks creepy, or that you have
some physical evidence, you have some electronic that that doesn't
render a verdict. And the course don't care what you
or I think or the general public. There's a set
of rules that you have to play by. And wouldn't
that be the ultimate insult to these families if because
(04:49):
you know this kind of slipshod way that apparently this
is being played out before us, that this actually risks
the trial. I heard I was talking to somebody the
other day and for the life of me, I can't remember.
It was an attorney and it was in the wake
of this, And one of the things that came ups is,
you know, it's not necessarily going to harm the trial itself.
(05:13):
The evidence will be presented and if it's persuasive enough
for a jury, they will find him guilty as charged. Okay,
But even if he is found guilty, this attorney friend
of mine. They hold that it's not that you have
to worry about. You have to worry about the fact
(05:36):
that he might have a real shot at an appeal,
like a serious shot, because of everything that happened beforehand,
you know, because this is a this is a this
is a freight train. We're standing in the middle of
the of the tracks right now that's headed towards it's
not going to swerve. You have to get out of
the way of it. It's coming one way or another.
The only thing that could happen is I guess that
(05:57):
they could say, we want to, you know, move the
trial date for some reason, but I can't see why
they would do that. But yeah, this is a this
is a huge mess that has been created. And look
ABC Dateline. They can say all they want to, you know,
freedom of the press, that we have to protect our sources. Well,
(06:19):
here's the problem. This is not actual reporting. Yeah, this
is meddling at this point in time. Those are two
separate things completely.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Somebody in there gave information they weren't supposed to give.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
Yeah, and when you look, Dave, let me ask you this.
Just let me ask you. I want to hear your
reaction when you consider the data that they put out
on Dateline. If you had to hazard a guess, we
don't know any more than anybody else, But if you
(06:53):
had to hazard a guess, given the nature of this information,
who would be on your likely list of suspects? And
you don't have to name a specific person, just what
would if it is from within the law enforcement or
proscatorial environment, what division within that do you think would
(07:16):
be the most likely candidate?
Speaker 2 (07:19):
You know, when you're looking at what we're talking about here. Yes,
you have the alleged cell phone activity of Bran Kobert
that was not public knowledge, that was in the Dayline episode.
You have the searches that included you the podcast Ted
Bundy and other Porne the cell phone things that we.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
Wait, hang on, you've coupled me with Ted Bundy and
porn Now, thanks Dave. I appreciate part of the investigation.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
But there were gruesome details about the crime scene that
also became public after the Dayline showed. For instance, Ethan
was Ethan Chapin was we were led to, We were
told he was, he was already asleep and when he
was killed, he was asleep. But then we find out
that he's had his leg carved something in his leg,
(08:11):
And the way they've made it sound is that he
was alive when that happened, but it didn't wake him up.
That's you know, I don't know how that's possible.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
But I don't either. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
So, but again, this is information that was not available
outside of a very small group of people. And I'm
thinking somebody in the Sheriff's department, the police department, somebody
in there and Underlin. Probably it's not going to be
anybody that's had a career up to this point. It's
(08:44):
going to be somebody that probably has a friend.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
Yeah there, and you know, one of these things with hey,
let me let me show you this, yeah, you know, yeah,
and that sort of thing, and then they just continue
to feed them. I don't have anything to back that up. Now.
All of this stuff is you know, look, I know
because there was an other thing that came out. I
was reflecting on this, and I don't know if we
(09:11):
have mentioned this, but I think that they had mentioned
that someone had sat, perhaps the perpetrator had sat in
the chair in the room with the girls upstairs, and
that implies that some kind of trace element was left
behind and may have been on that individual. But a
(09:31):
lot of the stuff, particularly images, yeah, movement that, Oh
my gosh, that video, that new video that has popped up,
you know with the vehicle. We've never seen that before.
I mean, that was something that was like really held
close to the vest I don't know. The smacks of
digital to me, Dave. It really does like somebody that
(09:54):
would have access to that specific data everything.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
You're right, everything you're talking about, Yeah, you're right, Okay, yeah,
file it's a file on somebody's laptop, somebody's desk that
they shouldn't have had.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Yeah, and how does it how does it make it
into the hands of a Dateline producer? You know, I
don't I don't understand that. And you know, look, you
see the people on the screen that appear you know
for Dateline. That's that's not who's driving the ship on
those things. I hate to you know, I hate to
(10:29):
burst everybody's bubble. Like if you sit at home, you
scream at the screen because you see some talking head
that's giving you information. They're not driving the ship. It's
the producers that drive the ship. Uh, you know, from
beginning to end, that's how this works. Trust me, I've
been involved with media now for a long time. But
(10:49):
the idea that you would take a case that has
that's not even near being adjudicated at this point in
time and you would populate airways with this and and
it will still be bad, but it's not like it was.
It was done on the local public public television channel
(11:10):
at eleven o'clock at night. You're talking about Dateline, and
everybody in true crime, I mean has watched Dateline at
one point in time. They all have their favorite person
that's on Dateline.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
You know, you know it's interesting you. It's so funny, Joe,
because something you just said is something that doesn't happen anymore.
It's not something that just popped up for thirty seconds
on a local television station at eleven o'clock at night.
Because now everything's viral. Everything is everything, no matter where
you are, if it's on the line, if it's on somewhere,
(11:43):
everybody has it. My neighbors across the street when this
story first broke, having a daughter in that age group,
they became an just all about the story and they
were telling me about things that were going on with it,
and I was like, where are you getting this? They
would tell me I'm like, I don't think that's accurate,
you know, And I would go back and check my
(12:04):
notes to see what we had, and I do know
how you get information from a local source. I've chosen
not to go down that path in my life because
it only hurts people. It doesn't help you along the way.
You don't when you're not you're gonna brown nose your
career like that. It's not a way to live. I
will tell you I learned I watched when the Natalie
(12:26):
Holloway case broke because it happened. I was on the
air in Birmingham, Alabama at the time when that story broke,
and was very involved in a lot of that early
coverage in terms of national media coming in and using
local people, local media people. And I didn't tell them Jack,
(12:46):
because they wanted information. They wanted private personal information about people.
And you're talking about this is somebody's daughter, man, this
is somebody, This is a person. This is not a story.
Same thing is true here. It's why you dealt with
such kick glove at this story when you were covering
it and talking about the students that were involved. So
for somebody, whether it's Dateline, NBC or primetime or whatever
(13:11):
to go after this story knowing what's at stake, and
to get stuff and put it on the air knowing
it's wrong. Everybody knows there's a gag order. You're not
supposed to have this information. No, if you truly care
about the law, you don't do this.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
No, you don't. And listen the investigators that worked this case,
and it's a multi agency event that took place. You've
even got the FEDS involved in it. Yeah. I have
made my comments about the house, it being gone, some
of the things I saw procedurally with the evidence, you know,
I think the thing stands out in my mind is
(13:48):
that mattress being driven down the road in the back
of a pickup truck. Uncovered.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Go back, go back to that, Joe, explain what you
just said. For those who didn't catch that.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Yeah, it was. It was the image of they had
a pickup truck that was backed up to the door
and the police had loaded in a bear mattress into
the back of that truck. And I had to, you know,
shake the cob webs out of my head and try
to take the measure of what I was seeing, because
it didn't it didn't compute you know, I'm thinking, wait,
(14:21):
it's snowing up there, debris is blowing about, and you've
got a mattress that's going and I'm assuming that, since
so much of this case involves bedrooms, that that mattress
held a certain level of evidentiary value. And we got
(14:43):
it in the back of a pickup truck and you're
hauling away. I mean, I've worked around, I've worked around
several police agencies that were very poor, but they had vans.
You know, at least in a van, you've got this
thing shut up in the back and it's protected, and
there's there's a way, Yes, there's even a way to
(15:04):
package a mattress in our world. You know, I even
looked back to you talk about a big misstep with this.
(15:24):
You know, I think I don't think Coburger had been
extradited back to Idaho at this point, but he had
retained counsel, and I think that the council he had
retained was in Pennsylvania. And do you remember this brother,
where they said they they were going to release the
scene and have it cleaned, and the Coburger's council at
(15:50):
that time was like no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,
Remember they had the people were in the Tavik suits
outside of the house, and they had put the plastic
up over the door so the guys that do the
crime scene cleaning could go in and clean, right, and
his team his team at that time, and I think
he was if I remember correctly, I think he was
(16:10):
still in Pennsylvania the time. They said, whoa, hold your horses.
We've got our own investigators that we want to send
there that want to appreciate it, all those sorts of things.
And they still had they still had like the plastic
they create, like this plastic tunnel on the outside of
the door that you kind of walk in. You're wearing
the respirator and all that stuff, and you're going to
(16:31):
go in and clean. It's just the way they do things.
And they had to put the kibosh on that and
step away from it so that their people could go
and do their own observations and listen. I understand that
people are frustrated with this, and they'll say, well, they
you know tough, you know they didn't. No, no, no,
you have to make it an even playing field. You
have to look at their sports analogies are rife in
(16:52):
this thing. You have to have an equal playing field
in this and you know, the judge is acting as
a referee in an umpire and they call the shots
along the way, and it has to remain balanced because
in the end, and I don't necessarily think that true
justice in this world actually exists, but if you want
some semblance of justice and certainly scientific truth from my perspective,
(17:16):
everybody has to have Everybody has to have a clean
swing if you will, they have to have their own
shot at it. Because that's the way our courts are
set up. I know it's frustrating, but that's the way
it works.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Does it bother you that Ann Taylor, the public defender
who became Brian Coberger's public defender only after she unloaded
Xander Canodle's biological mother, who she had represented multiple times.
How is that possible that a victim's mother is your
(17:50):
client that you have represented on drug charges and other Yeah,
and you, because you know what this case means, are
able to finagle the so you can be named public
defender for Brian Coberger.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
It doesn't necessarily yeah, look, hey, it doesn't necessarily make
me happy, but look, this is kind of hand handed.
But I got to tell you that's between her and
the Bar of Idaho and her relationship with God. You know,
(18:26):
you know, like, how do you feel about it? Well,
I have no there I have no moral compunction overdoing
this whatsoever. And yeah, it's smarmy. I mean, there's there's
a certain level to that that's distasteful. But she's a
practicing attorney and if if the bar says it's okay
for her to do it, go ahead and do it.
Knock yourself out. But you know, and she's going to
(18:48):
get us. And she has gotten a certain amount of
recognition for this. Yeah, and I know everybody wants to
think that. You know that you're crusading for justice, and
this can apply to both prosecution and defense. You're crusading
for justice. You're there to help people and all this stuff.
At the end of the day, you know, it's like
driving down the road and you see, you know, in
our in our state, it's well I won't say the name.
(19:10):
I'm not going to give them free advertisement, but you
drive down the road and it says you've been in
a car accident. Call us. You know that's what we're
in your corner. You know, that sort of thing it's
the same thing you're advertising at that point in time.
That's why in these really big cases there are attorneys
that will take pro bono cases because whatever you would make,
(19:30):
whatever you would make, say for instance, off of the
dime of the state is slipping you to do this
pro bono and there is a base base salary or
moneys that they receive. It's going to be far exceeded
by what you're going to have with clients. They're going
to walk through your door. Oh yeah, yeah, you represented them,
now I want you Okay, So that's the payout in
(19:51):
the end. Don't don't come to me talking about justice
and all of that sort of thing. But that's again,
that's what they do, that's how they roll with it.
This is I just hope, I hope that what the
judge is asked for is going to happen because there
needs to be I think Jave in this particular case,
(20:14):
there has to be a message sent, like a strong message.
The judge, from my understanding, looked at the DA and
said a special prosecutor must be appointed in this case
to look into this specific matter. It caught the judge's eye,
and you don't want to be caught by the judge's
eye at any point in time, I think about what
(20:36):
was the I don't know if you've ever seen these
movies The Lord of the Rings, it's that big eye.
That's something in the air that kind of seeks out,
you know. And you never want to fall in the
gaze of the judge, certainly for nothing negative. I don't
want to fall in any judge's gaze anyway. I tried
to be as obedient as I possibly can. I try
to play by the rules at all times. Anytime I
(20:57):
had to go into some judges court, you know, for me,
you know, when you look at this, you're already going
to be on the radar. Anyway. The judge has got
a very difficult job in this case. Now, Now, how
happy do you think the judge is that this has
been added on to their plate, because it's an absolute
(21:18):
train wreck. I don't know really how they're going to
solve this. I'm going to be very interested to see
how this plays out, if and when, and I'm hoping
sooner than later the special prosecutor will be appointed. And
we're talking about Moscow, Idaho. Your pool of potential people
(21:46):
there is tiny. This is not going to take any
amount of time to wittle this now. As a matter
of fact, I would imagine that there are fannies that
are tightening all over the place right now, or specifically
those individuals that know that they were the ones that
did it, or maybe a supervisor out there that is thinking,
this might be my person that did this. Yeah, and
(22:09):
they're wondering, you know, what's going to happen? Is there
going to be hell to pay for? Dave?
Speaker 2 (22:12):
See if anybody that you know in that area has
hired an attorney or has met with an attorney recently,
and that's your guy, That's all I'm saying. You know,
we talk about attorneys and mint too, talk about An
Taylor and getting publicity. There's Mark garri Goes is one
of these attorneys who has a big profile. You know,
Scott Peterson's lawyer, he's mine did it?
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (22:33):
And but one thing people don't know about garrigs And
this is why I'm always cautious of saying anything about
what lawyers do, because we don't know everything they do.
Like Ann Taylor. I'm bothered by the fact that Ann
Taylor was Xanderkno's mother attorney and then she wrangled herself
to be in this position with coburger. That bothers me.
(22:53):
I don't know why, and it probably shouldn't, but it does.
But I mentioned Gara goes because he and Nancy go
head to head over ditty all the time. Oh yeah,
you know, Mark Garrigos does something that a lot of
people don't know. He has close times to Alabama.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
You know.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Every year, every year Mark Garrigos does a pro bono
case in Alabama and usually it's a death penality case
for free.
Speaker 1 (23:14):
I did not know that.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
I had no idea, and that's kind of the measure
of the individual to me. So whether the Ann Taylor
thing bothers anybody but me, it's just like I said
to me, I'm thinking, if this was my daughter and
you're representing me in a court filing right now, and
you then leave to go and to get the guy
(23:37):
that killed my daughter, allegedly killed my daughter off. Yeah again,
maybe they're all fine with it. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
I don't Yeah, I mean I would have. I would
imagine again, you know, as it applause as as it
applause to as it appliues to two groups of people, well,
a group of people and a person. Yeah, the state
bar are they cool with it? Is it within the rules?
And in the judge are they cool with it? Because
I can tell you the judge would have they would
(24:04):
be fully aware of this. Oh yeah, and you know,
and I don't really know that there would necessarily be
a conflict of interest. I can't imagine. It's just like
it has a distaste to it, I think.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
But you mentioned the judge has ordered a probe into
this thing. And that's why I wonder how many other
things have gone under the radar. This is a big
one because it was dayline. It was a big one
because information that was not readily available and not known
became known. That's a big deal. You know, a lot
of us have information that we kind of might have heard,
(24:41):
might have thought we heard, you know, something along the line,
somebody said something out of turn before there was you know,
things like that happen all the time. Information comes out
really early. This is not part of that. This is
information that was developed, studied created. Finding that new video
or new to us of a car that looks like
Coburger's car ads and around.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
I mean it actually looks like it's The image that
they showed is actually clearer than the other ones that
I've seen. To me, it is, and maybe it's I
don't know, maybe that's after enhancement or whatever. Hey, can
I return to something real quick please? I'm thinking that
this is happening in the wake of arguably one of
(25:26):
the most high profile cases in Idaho history, the Coburger case.
Is it's not like people are not aware of what
the media are capable of, because when you think about
the day Bell case and just the round and round
(25:46):
and round with that whole thing, you would have thought
that perhaps lessons had been learned. And again, it's a
small population wise, it's a small state. News travels and
there's a central conduit for it if you're trying to
disseminate information down to other layers of law enforcement's the
(26:09):
state state police have been they were involved with a
day Bill case, they're involved with this case, and you
would think that you know somebody and the state Attorney General, Hey, look,
these are steps you need to avoid because we've gone
through a lot of stuff with the press already. But no,
that wasn't good enough for them. Now they're staring down
(26:30):
the barrel of what has just happened relative to day Line,
and I'm you know, I'm very curious about that. You know,
you begin to think about it and think, wow, is
it going to be something that is going to be
so catastrophic that perhaps not everything, but maybe some of
those things that have been revealed, I don't know, are
(26:53):
they What's the level or lack thereof of admissibility, you know,
of that evidence that's been it's been displayed. I don't know.
I have no idea.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
Something interesting did happen this week in light of the dayline,
gag order whatever. Apparently Brian Coberger has fingered somebody else
that did the crime. Oh he yeah, gotcha, And the
(27:26):
judge has given certain rules to everybody. Now they want
to bring up this other suspect. He's not named publicly
yet the judge has it. And the judge said, okay,
you've got till May twenty third, give me all the
info you have on why this person is a suspect
and what information, what evidence you're going to bring to
(27:46):
trial that you think can go in at trial. And
then we're going to give the prosecution till June sixth
to straighten it out. And then I'll make a call.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
But I have to ask you something real quick. I'm
going to be a major smart ass here and ask
a question real quick. I want to know, Dave, is
he doing this because he's such an Is his team
doing this because there's a there's such an altruist that
care about their fellow man so much that now they're
going to reveal the identity of a person that butchered
butchered these college students. Or is this information they've just
(28:20):
come into it's hot off the press. As a matter
of fact, it's so hot we can't even hold it,
you know, is that or have they known about this
suspect all along? Please riddle me this, Brian Coberger's team,
Is this information that you've had for a protracted period
of time and this person's been running the streets or
is this something that just like manner from Heaven, that
just happened to drop into your lap? I mean, inquiring
(28:42):
minds want to know. I think there were comments that
were made early on. I remember the God, it's been
(29:04):
so long now, do you remember they had it was
either a cat or a dog that had been skinned.
Do you remember that people were trying to give the
impression that it was some kind of ritualistic thing that
was going on, and that that, of course turned out
to be a big fat zero, you know along the way,
(29:26):
I don't know, hey, And by the way, you know
I never got a call from Dateline to give them
permission to use my image on the air. Do you
think I got a case? I don't know. I'll have
to see. Maybe I can call one of the guys
on the billboards going down the highway. Maybe they'll they'll
look into it for me. What do you think, brother?
Speaker 2 (29:42):
I think somebody there could help you. But you know,
there are a number of things with this case with
Coburger that you know. I have a question for you
based on what you know took place, the injuries done
to thevictims. We've got four people dead in a very
short window of time. According to what we've heard from
(30:05):
the prosecution. We know Xana Cronodle was getting food delivered
at four ten in the morning. We know she was
on her phone at four a weight. We know that
Coburger was in and out of there allegedly. If it's Coburger,
that you've got a window that starts after four to
ten and ends at four twenty five. If she's awake
(30:27):
and she's not the first one killed. First one is
Madison Mogan up top yep right, that timetable doesn't work
for me. That's too close. So you've got at least
three people awake, Xana, who's getting food, and you've got
the two Dylan and Bethany. Dylan Mortenson and Bethany Funk.
(30:48):
They're both there because they're texting one another. So you've
got three people awake in that building at the time
when the murders are supposed to begin. You're gonna tell
me nobody screamed, nobody heard anything. See, we can't go
into that building to find out what that was like
because they tore it down, right.
Speaker 1 (31:04):
The acoustics are gone.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
Yeah, but that's something I have a lot of trouble with.
I'm just wondering now that just does not You're talking
about going up and downstairs, killing four people and only
leaving minimal evidence behind.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
Well, I think you know, I was talking about how
everything in this case is about Tomline and you know,
what was happening before and after and if that, if
those that videography that we have from you know, the
previously unseen how does that how does that Tom stamp
match up with the story that we've been told thus far,
(31:46):
because you know what I know and what you know
is information that has to this point been released, been
released by law enforcement. Now a lot of the other
stuff is merely speculation. It's conclude usions that have been
drawn based upon these numbers. But if those numbers are
screwed up in the least in the least, okay, then
(32:07):
that's going to create a real problem. But we obviously
have tom stamps on activity, and I think TikTok was
involved relative to Xana. She had met on TikTok at
some point in time. That's going to be tom stamped
the information relative to food delivery. And that also draws
in another thing because people have asked me, is it
(32:31):
plausible that one individual and again maybe this is what
his defense team is going for here, is it plausible
that one individual could have come in here and perpetrated
this crime in this short amount of time with a
sharp instrument. You're talking about killing four people, and it's
(32:51):
in the twinkling of an eye in and out, you know.
And if Taylor can at least with that plant that
seed of reasonable doubt into the mind of the jury.
And she's got a client that I don't know how
(33:13):
to describe it. If she's got a client that someone
might sympathize with, then maybe that's doable. I have no idea,
but the timeline is going to be very, very important
and to a broader, broader issue too with me is
(33:34):
the timeline from the time of death is also going
to be in question because because of the delay in
getting contact with the police, these kids have been dead
for hours. And if I've got a corner that saying, well,
it looks like they were asleep, Well, if that was
(33:55):
your assessment, that was your assessment at the scene, I
want to know, did you actually do post mortem interval
assessment of the bodies at the scene. Well, you're saying
they're sleeping. Turns out that they may have been in
bed at some point in time, but doesn't sound like
they were all in bed, and so therefore stands the
reason they're not all asleep. So you know that information
(34:19):
relative to timeline, the tom stamps on the CCTV tom stamps,
relative to phone, the travel of the car, and also
the PMI postmartum interval, and how was that assessed and
was there any was there any meat on the bone
with that scientifically anything that you could take back to
the people in in Boise, which is many people. Those
(34:44):
autopsies were not done in Moscow. They were taken to
Ada County, which is actually where the day Bell case
was handled as well, because that's where they have. A
forensic pathologist in Idaho is in Boise, and so they
contract with these smaller counties and they actually do the
autopsies for them. So when that data is relaid from
(35:07):
the scene, and hopefully it was done quickly, that one
of the questions of friends of pathologists is going to ask,
because they're not coming down there from Boise to observe
these bodies. It's their eyes and ears. Is this corner, Well,
how third of a job did you do there? Because
I can't wait to read the coroner's report, and there
should be one that is generated. Every corner generates report,
(35:30):
and it should be very detailed. With four bodies, Dave,
let's see, let me do the calculation of my mind.
With four bodies, those are four individual cases. I'm thinking
at least a minimum a minimum if I was a
supervisor in a medical examiner's office, I would want to
(35:53):
see at least a five page report on each and
every one of these victims, and that's including a lot
of detail in from chief among that information is going
to be your assessment of rigidity, the body fixation of
postmordal lividity, algor mortis, which is the temperature of the body,
and then not to mention the observable injuries that you
(36:13):
see in there, the clothing, environmental status. What's the environmental temperature?
Light it's the lighting like positionality of the body, triangulation
of the body unscene. I mean, all of this data
and then the history behind it. I would have to
see that in the case. It would have to be
that robust. So you're talking about at minimum eighteen to
(36:36):
twenty pages in total of reports that should have been
generated on a case like this per the coroner if
they're doing their job. And that just kind of marries
up in my mind with somebody that helped design the
national standards for medical legal death investigator. That's right, that's
right in the sweet spot. That's right in the sweet spot.
(36:56):
I think at least we'll see what's in that report.
Speaker 2 (37:00):
Will we will will will that information be brought out
in court, because by the way they are going to
stream the trial, they're not going to stream jury selection,
but they are going to stream the trial. There are
going to be a couple of times where we're not
going to be able to They're not going to stream
certain testimony or at least the judge will decide later.
But the prosecution was asking about some of the detective
(37:22):
some people not being streamed, and I'm against that. If
you use the stream them or you're not, either everybody
gets to see everything or they don't. Now they have
beth Andy Funk and Dylan Mortenson are going to give
them the opportunity to be blurred on the stream, the
streamed image to get their type, their identity or identity.
(37:43):
And I mean, that's fine, it's just I get, I get.
I can't imagine what they're going through.
Speaker 1 (37:48):
Yeah, I don't understand it either, because even with uh
and I know you've heard well, I know you have
because you've worked worked on it with me. But for
those that did not that are not familiar with the pipe,
piked and masker, those trials there were one, two, three, four,
and we're still waiting on the fourth trial at this
point in that case, can you believe that all the
(38:10):
way from twenty sixteen, still waiting on the dad's trial.
In the previous trials, they would cut the feed when
certain individuals testified, and police officers, you know, they weren't
the sun that was directly responsible for shooting the most
(38:33):
of the victims. He asked that he not that his
testimony not be shown. I think it's a bunch of crap.
I think that if you get up on the stand,
I don't have a problem with them blurring images. It
should be streamed. It should be streamed, and you should
be able to see this. If you're going to have
get don't do it halfway. You know, you got one
foot in the boat and one foot in the water.
(38:54):
Go all the way in on it and show it. Okay,
you didn't sign up to be a police officer to
be hidden, all right, And this is not like I
don't know. I guess they could say, well, these police
officers might be involved in future undercover operations. They don't
want their identities revealed and whatever, but you're going to
know their names. Yeah, you know. And like you said,
(39:17):
we're wired in world now any you know, just because
you're a police officer doesn't mean that you know you
have anonymity. Far from it.
Speaker 2 (39:25):
Nowadays, I do think that with Dylan Mortenson and Bethany Funk,
because I've had my own questions about the two of
them and what they did or did.
Speaker 1 (39:32):
Not do everybody else.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
Yeah, And it's but I'm made to feel like I'm
a horrible evil person for even asking, you know, but
I am curious if those are my kids, one of
my children that had died in that. Yeah, and there
were two people that were awake texting one another and
didn't bother to call police for seven eight hours. I mean,
I got a problem with that. I still have a
problem with that.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
Yeah, the whole indwelling fear thing, you know kind of it.
It becomes unpalatable after a while. You know, you have
to have something more than that. And and listen, it's
not for us to necessarily explain they're going to be
asked us questions when they're on the stand now whether
or not people will be satisfied with the answers that here.
You know, I can't make any prediction about that.
Speaker 2 (40:14):
You know, Joe in all of this where you know,
you have the one who is Dylan Mortenson with the
bushy eyebrows testimony, which is going to be in there
now because those are some of the things that were
ruled on that Coberger has. They've been trying to keep
certain testimony out and it seems like each time they've tried,
it's gone the other way, which is really odd to
me that we never heard of a possible other suspect
(40:37):
until after they were denied. All these other things that
they were trying to use to get the death endally tossed.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
Psych autism. Yeah, it's the same thing.
Speaker 2 (40:44):
Gosh, come on, man, this guy can be in he's
in college to get his master's degree in criminal justice,
and yet he's not smart. He can't help with his
own defense.
Speaker 1 (40:57):
But I don't, Yeah, I don't. I don't understand that.
I really don't. And again it's it's it's a ploy
of desperation, and listen, it irks me. I think on
one level that there are truly people that struggle with
autism in their life and it's being used as a
prop Yeah, I mean, that's that's kind of what you know,
(41:18):
the way it seems to me.
Speaker 2 (41:20):
My grandson is on the spectrum. Joe, I've seen it.
I've seen that used and I've talked to you and
Kim about it because I was surprised at a number
of different things. I'm very proud of what he has
accomplished because.
Speaker 1 (41:31):
He's a wonderful man, wonderful young man.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
Great kid. With the proxy of reading beyond grade level
is a big deal he has. He's originally hard at it.
But the thing is that I've had to study all
of this stuff to figure it out because I didn't
know when they said on the spectrum, like, what does
that even mean? I hear it, but and then I
hear them applying it to this guy who has gone
through all these years of college and he's gone cross
(41:56):
country to study in what I mean? None of this
adds up to me.
Speaker 1 (42:00):
Well, it's again again it comes down to now defense
hasn't said this. This is people in the media and
as people in general public that you know, we've just
talked about this earlier that use the term in cell.
In cell is one of the most disingenuous, intellectually lazy
(42:20):
terms in the world because it lacks specificity. Uh, particularly
when you're talking about a a group of college kids
that have been butchered. So that's your answer is going
to be in cell, and then we're just going to
kind of leave it at that, and then you know
you're gonna, you know, and somebody is going to offer
up some kind of some kind of half assed explanation
(42:43):
for what in cell actually means. And that's and again
it's not in the D s M. It's not you know,
because they're trying to paint paint, you know, incell itis
I guess as an actual medical condition, and it's not.
It's somebody's it's an Uh. It's a point of observation
(43:04):
of people that are intellectually lazy most of the time
that they don't want to dig any deeper relative to this,
and it's easy. I think it makes them, It makes
it easy to explain, you know, why somebody would do
something like this or gives them some kind of comfort.
What it comes down to is that I don't know
if it was Brian Coburger or not, but I do
(43:24):
know this that whoever did this was a monster because
they had no compassion. Uh, they were absent heart, and
they ended the lives of four promising young adults. I'm
(43:44):
Joseph Scott Morgan and this is Bodybacks
Body bats. But Joseph's gotten more, Dave. I've got to
say with Coburger, one of the things that has come
up relative to this dateline special is that the judge,
to say the very least ain't happy. Ain't happy at all,
(00:26):
you know. And there are reasons that judges do things,
and they put this gag order in place because of
the sensitive nature of it, because they know that the
media is all over it. There is a temptation that
abounds out there when you have information and money that
(00:54):
can be injected into a circumstance that would draw some
Now I'm not saying that anyone is on the take, however,
I am just saying when those bright lights are shone
upon you, and I'm talking about from the media, and
you're in some kind of job where you otherwise wouldn't
(01:14):
have any attention at all, and you get the really
important people from New York, They're going to show you
some attention and show you value. It's I tell you, man,
it is a fruit of the poisonous tree. It truly is,
and and it's a dangerous thing. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan
(01:38):
and this is body bags. Do judge wants somebody's hide
in this case, Dave.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
And I don't know if he's going to get it
or not, Joe. But when I from the very beginning
of this case, they've done things there that were just
patently wrong. From the very first thing that we heard
from the county coroner. It wasn't a medical examiner, right,
(02:09):
it was a coroner.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Yeah, there was an elected lawyer.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Yeah, that's what it was. And we've got we had
all those shenanigans right at the very beginning. We had
a number of social media people that were making accusations
and a lot of crazy stuff was going on. But
you still had four college aged students who were murdered
in the house, in a party house, and there are
still questions that a lot of us have about what
took place and why we don't have certain information. By
(02:35):
the way, nobody owes me any information they owe the families.
I think I've got a real problem with them tearing
the house down. You know, they've torn down evidence, and
so the judge can be as mad as he wants
about things getting out, but they've set it up to
be like this. I mean, they have destroyed this case
to the point where I'm gonna be honest, Joe, I'm
really bothered by the fact that they tore that house down.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
I really am that, you know at this point. Sometimes
I think about this and I think about the journey
that we've been on. Now we're in twenty five, coming
up on the thirty year anniversary this upcoming November, and
I've been covering it since immediately the day after I
started appearing on air. And I got to tell you, right,
Sometimes I've looked at the scene and it seems as
(03:19):
though for the prosecution, and I guess the judge by extension,
because as judge was like introduced into this, he's not
who they started out with. It's almost like trying to
tape together Jello. Sometimes you look at it and it's
just so you really wonder how this thing is going
(03:40):
to come out. And here's the problem that you hear,
and it's something I've heard for years and years. You know,
I might and even when I was a practitioner. If
you go to a party or something and somebody mentions
a case to you that they've heard about in the news,
and they say, well, if it was me that guy,
(04:01):
would you know, we'd hang him on a sour apple Tree.
You know that's what I would do, and you hear
that all the time. Well, that's all find good. You
can say that. But the problem with being that cock
sure about something and that reactive and not being purposed
in what you do just to think that you're gonna
(04:23):
win because the guy looks creepy, or that you have
some physical evidence, you have some electronic that that doesn't
render a verdict. And the course don't care what you
or I think or the general public. There's a set
of rules that you have to play by. And wouldn't
that be the ultimate insult to these families if because
(04:49):
you know this kind of slipshod way that apparently this
is being played out before us, that this actually risks
the trial. I heard I was talking to somebody the
other day and for the life of me, I can't remember.
It was an attorney and it was in the wake
of this, And one of the things that came ups is,
you know, it's not necessarily going to harm the trial itself.
(05:13):
The evidence will be presented and if it's persuasive enough
for a jury, they will find him guilty as charged. Okay,
But even if he is found guilty, this attorney friend
of mine. They hold that it's not that you have
to worry about. You have to worry about the fact
(05:36):
that he might have a real shot at an appeal,
like a serious shot, because of everything that happened beforehand,
you know, because this is a this is a this
is a freight train. We're standing in the middle of
the of the tracks right now that's headed towards it's
not going to swerve. You have to get out of
the way of it. It's coming one way or another.
The only thing that could happen is I guess that
(05:57):
they could say, we want to, you know, move the
trial date for some reason, but I can't see why
they would do that. But yeah, this is a this
is a huge mess that has been created. And look
ABC Dateline. They can say all they want to, you know,
freedom of the press, that we have to protect our sources. Well,
(06:19):
here's the problem. This is not actual reporting. Yeah, this
is meddling at this point in time. Those are two
separate things completely.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Somebody in there gave information they weren't supposed to give.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
Yeah, and when you look, Dave, let me ask you this.
Just let me ask you. I want to hear your
reaction when you consider the data that they put out
on Dateline. If you had to hazard a guess, we
don't know any more than anybody else, But if you
(06:53):
had to hazard a guess, given the nature of this information,
who would be on your likely list of suspects? And
you don't have to name a specific person, just what
would if it is from within the law enforcement or
proscatorial environment, what division within that do you think would
(07:16):
be the most likely candidate?
Speaker 2 (07:19):
You know, when you're looking at what we're talking about here. Yes,
you have the alleged cell phone activity of Bran Kobert
that was not public knowledge, that was in the Dayline episode.
You have the searches that included you the podcast Ted
Bundy and other Porne the cell phone things that we.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
Wait, hang on, you've coupled me with Ted Bundy and
porn Now, thanks Dave. I appreciate part of the investigation.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
But there were gruesome details about the crime scene that
also became public after the Dayline showed. For instance, Ethan
was Ethan Chapin was we were led to, We were
told he was, he was already asleep and when he
was killed, he was asleep. But then we find out
that he's had his leg carved something in his leg,
(08:11):
And the way they've made it sound is that he
was alive when that happened, but it didn't wake him up.
That's you know, I don't know how that's possible.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
But I don't either. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
So, but again, this is information that was not available
outside of a very small group of people. And I'm
thinking somebody in the Sheriff's department, the police department, somebody
in there and Underlin. Probably it's not going to be
anybody that's had a career up to this point. It's
(08:44):
going to be somebody that probably has a friend.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
Yeah there, and you know, one of these things with hey,
let me let me show you this, yeah, you know, yeah,
and that sort of thing, and then they just continue
to feed them. I don't have anything to back that up. Now.
All of this stuff is you know, look, I know
because there was an other thing that came out. I
was reflecting on this, and I don't know if we
(09:11):
have mentioned this, but I think that they had mentioned
that someone had sat, perhaps the perpetrator had sat in
the chair in the room with the girls upstairs, and
that implies that some kind of trace element was left
behind and may have been on that individual. But a
(09:31):
lot of the stuff, particularly images, yeah, movement that, Oh
my gosh, that video, that new video that has popped up,
you know with the vehicle. We've never seen that before.
I mean, that was something that was like really held
close to the vest I don't know. The smacks of
digital to me, Dave. It really does like somebody that
(09:54):
would have access to that specific data everything.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
You're right, everything you're talking about, Yeah, you're right, Okay, yeah,
file it's a file on somebody's laptop, somebody's desk that
they shouldn't have had.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Yeah, and how does it how does it make it
into the hands of a Dateline producer? You know, I
don't I don't understand that. And you know, look, you
see the people on the screen that appear you know
for Dateline. That's that's not who's driving the ship on
those things. I hate to you know, I hate to
(10:29):
burst everybody's bubble. Like if you sit at home, you
scream at the screen because you see some talking head
that's giving you information. They're not driving the ship. It's
the producers that drive the ship. Uh, you know, from
beginning to end, that's how this works. Trust me, I've
been involved with media now for a long time. But
(10:49):
the idea that you would take a case that has
that's not even near being adjudicated at this point in
time and you would populate airways with this and and
it will still be bad, but it's not like it was.
It was done on the local public public television channel
(11:10):
at eleven o'clock at night. You're talking about Dateline, and
everybody in true crime, I mean has watched Dateline at
one point in time. They all have their favorite person
that's on Dateline.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
You know, you know it's interesting you. It's so funny, Joe,
because something you just said is something that doesn't happen anymore.
It's not something that just popped up for thirty seconds
on a local television station at eleven o'clock at night.
Because now everything's viral. Everything is everything, no matter where
you are, if it's on the line, if it's on somewhere,
(11:43):
everybody has it. My neighbors across the street when this
story first broke, having a daughter in that age group,
they became an just all about the story and they
were telling me about things that were going on with it,
and I was like, where are you getting this? They
would tell me I'm like, I don't think that's accurate,
you know, And I would go back and check my
(12:04):
notes to see what we had, and I do know
how you get information from a local source. I've chosen
not to go down that path in my life because
it only hurts people. It doesn't help you along the way.
You don't when you're not you're gonna brown nose your
career like that. It's not a way to live. I
will tell you I learned I watched when the Natalie
(12:26):
Holloway case broke because it happened. I was on the
air in Birmingham, Alabama at the time when that story broke,
and was very involved in a lot of that early
coverage in terms of national media coming in and using
local people, local media people. And I didn't tell them Jack,
(12:46):
because they wanted information. They wanted private personal information about people.
And you're talking about this is somebody's daughter, man, this
is somebody, This is a person. This is not a story.
Same thing is true here. It's why you dealt with
such kick glove at this story when you were covering
it and talking about the students that were involved. So
for somebody, whether it's Dateline, NBC or primetime or whatever
(13:11):
to go after this story knowing what's at stake, and
to get stuff and put it on the air knowing
it's wrong. Everybody knows there's a gag order. You're not
supposed to have this information. No, if you truly care
about the law, you don't do this.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
No, you don't. And listen the investigators that worked this case,
and it's a multi agency event that took place. You've
even got the FEDS involved in it. Yeah. I have
made my comments about the house, it being gone, some
of the things I saw procedurally with the evidence, you know,
I think the thing stands out in my mind is
(13:48):
that mattress being driven down the road in the back
of a pickup truck. Uncovered.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Go back, go back to that, Joe, explain what you
just said. For those who didn't catch that.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Yeah, it was. It was the image of they had
a pickup truck that was backed up to the door
and the police had loaded in a bear mattress into
the back of that truck. And I had to, you know,
shake the cob webs out of my head and try
to take the measure of what I was seeing, because
it didn't it didn't compute you know, I'm thinking, wait,
(14:21):
it's snowing up there, debris is blowing about, and you've
got a mattress that's going and I'm assuming that, since
so much of this case involves bedrooms, that that mattress
held a certain level of evidentiary value. And we got
(14:43):
it in the back of a pickup truck and you're
hauling away. I mean, I've worked around, I've worked around
several police agencies that were very poor, but they had vans.
You know, at least in a van, you've got this
thing shut up in the back and it's protected, and
there's there's a way, Yes, there's even a way to
(15:04):
package a mattress in our world. You know, I even
looked back to you talk about a big misstep with this.
(15:24):
You know, I think I don't think Coburger had been
extradited back to Idaho at this point, but he had
retained counsel, and I think that the council he had
retained was in Pennsylvania. And do you remember this brother,
where they said they they were going to release the
scene and have it cleaned, and the Coburger's council at
(15:50):
that time was like no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,
Remember they had the people were in the Tavik suits
outside of the house, and they had put the plastic
up over the door so the guys that do the
crime scene cleaning could go in and clean, right, and
his team his team at that time, and I think
he was if I remember correctly, I think he was
(16:10):
still in Pennsylvania the time. They said, whoa, hold your horses.
We've got our own investigators that we want to send
there that want to appreciate it, all those sorts of things.
And they still had they still had like the plastic
they create, like this plastic tunnel on the outside of
the door that you kind of walk in. You're wearing
the respirator and all that stuff, and you're going to
(16:31):
go in and clean. It's just the way they do things.
And they had to put the kibosh on that and
step away from it so that their people could go
and do their own observations and listen. I understand that
people are frustrated with this, and they'll say, well, they
you know tough, you know they didn't. No, no, no,
you have to make it an even playing field. You
have to look at their sports analogies are rife in
(16:52):
this thing. You have to have an equal playing field
in this and you know, the judge is acting as
a referee in an umpire and they call the shots
along the way, and it has to remain balanced because
in the end, and I don't necessarily think that true
justice in this world actually exists, but if you want
some semblance of justice and certainly scientific truth from my perspective,
(17:16):
everybody has to have Everybody has to have a clean
swing if you will, they have to have their own
shot at it. Because that's the way our courts are
set up. I know it's frustrating, but that's the way
it works.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Does it bother you that Ann Taylor, the public defender
who became Brian Coberger's public defender only after she unloaded
Xander Canodle's biological mother, who she had represented multiple times.
How is that possible that a victim's mother is your
(17:50):
client that you have represented on drug charges and other Yeah,
and you, because you know what this case means, are
able to finagle the so you can be named public
defender for Brian Coberger.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
It doesn't necessarily yeah, look, hey, it doesn't necessarily make
me happy, but look, this is kind of hand handed.
But I got to tell you that's between her and
the Bar of Idaho and her relationship with God. You know,
(18:26):
you know, like, how do you feel about it? Well,
I have no there I have no moral compunction overdoing
this whatsoever. And yeah, it's smarmy. I mean, there's there's
a certain level to that that's distasteful. But she's a
practicing attorney and if if the bar says it's okay
for her to do it, go ahead and do it.
Knock yourself out. But you know, and she's going to
(18:48):
get us. And she has gotten a certain amount of
recognition for this. Yeah, and I know everybody wants to
think that. You know that you're crusading for justice, and
this can apply to both prosecution and defense. You're crusading
for justice. You're there to help people and all this stuff.
At the end of the day, you know, it's like
driving down the road and you see, you know, in
our in our state, it's well I won't say the name.
(19:10):
I'm not going to give them free advertisement, but you
drive down the road and it says you've been in
a car accident. Call us. You know that's what we're
in your corner. You know, that sort of thing it's
the same thing you're advertising at that point in time.
That's why in these really big cases there are attorneys
that will take pro bono cases because whatever you would make,
(19:30):
whatever you would make, say for instance, off of the
dime of the state is slipping you to do this
pro bono and there is a base base salary or
moneys that they receive. It's going to be far exceeded
by what you're going to have with clients. They're going
to walk through your door. Oh yeah, yeah, you represented them,
now I want you Okay, So that's the payout in
(19:51):
the end. Don't don't come to me talking about justice
and all of that sort of thing. But that's again,
that's what they do, that's how they roll with it.
This is I just hope, I hope that what the
judge is asked for is going to happen because there
needs to be I think Jave in this particular case,
(20:14):
there has to be a message sent, like a strong message.
The judge, from my understanding, looked at the DA and
said a special prosecutor must be appointed in this case
to look into this specific matter. It caught the judge's eye,
and you don't want to be caught by the judge's
eye at any point in time, I think about what
(20:36):
was the I don't know if you've ever seen these
movies The Lord of the Rings, it's that big eye.
That's something in the air that kind of seeks out,
you know. And you never want to fall in the
gaze of the judge, certainly for nothing negative. I don't
want to fall in any judge's gaze anyway. I tried
to be as obedient as I possibly can. I try
to play by the rules at all times. Anytime I
(20:57):
had to go into some judges court, you know, for me,
you know, when you look at this, you're already going
to be on the radar. Anyway. The judge has got
a very difficult job in this case. Now, Now, how
happy do you think the judge is that this has
been added on to their plate, because it's an absolute
(21:18):
train wreck. I don't know really how they're going to
solve this. I'm going to be very interested to see
how this plays out, if and when, and I'm hoping
sooner than later the special prosecutor will be appointed. And
we're talking about Moscow, Idaho. Your pool of potential people
(21:46):
there is tiny. This is not going to take any
amount of time to wittle this now. As a matter
of fact, I would imagine that there are fannies that
are tightening all over the place right now, or specifically
those individuals that know that they were the ones that
did it, or maybe a supervisor out there that is thinking,
this might be my person that did this. Yeah, and
(22:09):
they're wondering, you know, what's going to happen? Is there
going to be hell to pay for? Dave?
Speaker 2 (22:12):
See if anybody that you know in that area has
hired an attorney or has met with an attorney recently,
and that's your guy, That's all I'm saying. You know,
we talk about attorneys and mint too, talk about An
Taylor and getting publicity. There's Mark garri Goes is one
of these attorneys who has a big profile. You know,
Scott Peterson's lawyer, he's mine did it?
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (22:33):
And but one thing people don't know about garrigs And
this is why I'm always cautious of saying anything about
what lawyers do, because we don't know everything they do.
Like Ann Taylor. I'm bothered by the fact that Ann
Taylor was Xanderkno's mother attorney and then she wrangled herself
to be in this position with coburger. That bothers me.
(22:53):
I don't know why, and it probably shouldn't, but it does.
But I mentioned Gara goes because he and Nancy go
head to head over ditty all the time. Oh yeah,
you know, Mark Garrigos does something that a lot of
people don't know. He has close times to Alabama.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
You know.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Every year, every year Mark Garrigos does a pro bono
case in Alabama and usually it's a death penality case
for free.
Speaker 1 (23:14):
I did not know that.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
I had no idea, and that's kind of the measure
of the individual to me. So whether the Ann Taylor
thing bothers anybody but me, it's just like I said
to me, I'm thinking, if this was my daughter and
you're representing me in a court filing right now, and
you then leave to go and to get the guy
(23:37):
that killed my daughter, allegedly killed my daughter off. Yeah again,
maybe they're all fine with it. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
I don't Yeah, I mean I would have. I would
imagine again, you know, as it applause as as it
applause to as it appliues to two groups of people, well,
a group of people and a person. Yeah, the state
bar are they cool with it? Is it within the rules?
And in the judge are they cool with it? Because
I can tell you the judge would have they would
(24:04):
be fully aware of this. Oh yeah, and you know,
and I don't really know that there would necessarily be
a conflict of interest. I can't imagine. It's just like
it has a distaste to it, I think.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
But you mentioned the judge has ordered a probe into
this thing. And that's why I wonder how many other
things have gone under the radar. This is a big
one because it was dayline. It was a big one
because information that was not readily available and not known
became known. That's a big deal. You know, a lot
of us have information that we kind of might have heard,
(24:41):
might have thought we heard, you know, something along the line,
somebody said something out of turn before there was you know,
things like that happen all the time. Information comes out
really early. This is not part of that. This is
information that was developed, studied created. Finding that new video
or new to us of a car that looks like
Coburger's car ads and around.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
I mean it actually looks like it's The image that
they showed is actually clearer than the other ones that
I've seen. To me, it is, and maybe it's I
don't know, maybe that's after enhancement or whatever. Hey, can
I return to something real quick please? I'm thinking that
this is happening in the wake of arguably one of
(25:26):
the most high profile cases in Idaho history, the Coburger case.
Is it's not like people are not aware of what
the media are capable of, because when you think about
the day Bell case and just the round and round
(25:46):
and round with that whole thing, you would have thought
that perhaps lessons had been learned. And again, it's a
small population wise, it's a small state. News travels and
there's a central conduit for it if you're trying to
disseminate information down to other layers of law enforcement's the
(26:09):
state state police have been they were involved with a
day Bill case, they're involved with this case, and you
would think that you know somebody and the state Attorney General, Hey, look,
these are steps you need to avoid because we've gone
through a lot of stuff with the press already. But no,
that wasn't good enough for them. Now they're staring down
(26:30):
the barrel of what has just happened relative to day Line,
and I'm you know, I'm very curious about that. You know,
you begin to think about it and think, wow, is
it going to be something that is going to be
so catastrophic that perhaps not everything, but maybe some of
those things that have been revealed, I don't know, are
(26:53):
they What's the level or lack thereof of admissibility, you know,
of that evidence that's been it's been displayed. I don't know.
I have no idea.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
Something interesting did happen this week in light of the dayline,
gag order whatever. Apparently Brian Coberger has fingered somebody else
that did the crime. Oh he yeah, gotcha, And the
(27:26):
judge has given certain rules to everybody. Now they want
to bring up this other suspect. He's not named publicly
yet the judge has it. And the judge said, okay,
you've got till May twenty third, give me all the
info you have on why this person is a suspect
and what information, what evidence you're going to bring to
(27:46):
trial that you think can go in at trial. And
then we're going to give the prosecution till June sixth
to straighten it out. And then I'll make a call.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
But I have to ask you something real quick. I'm
going to be a major smart ass here and ask
a question real quick. I want to know, Dave, is
he doing this because he's such an Is his team
doing this because there's a there's such an altruist that
care about their fellow man so much that now they're
going to reveal the identity of a person that butchered
butchered these college students. Or is this information they've just
(28:20):
come into it's hot off the press. As a matter
of fact, it's so hot we can't even hold it,
you know, is that or have they known about this
suspect all along? Please riddle me this, Brian Coberger's team,
Is this information that you've had for a protracted period
of time and this person's been running the streets or
is this something that just like manner from Heaven, that
just happened to drop into your lap? I mean, inquiring
(28:42):
minds want to know. I think there were comments that
were made early on. I remember the God, it's been
(29:04):
so long now, do you remember they had it was
either a cat or a dog that had been skinned.
Do you remember that people were trying to give the
impression that it was some kind of ritualistic thing that
was going on, and that that, of course turned out
to be a big fat zero, you know along the way,
(29:26):
I don't know, hey, And by the way, you know
I never got a call from Dateline to give them
permission to use my image on the air. Do you
think I got a case? I don't know. I'll have
to see. Maybe I can call one of the guys
on the billboards going down the highway. Maybe they'll they'll
look into it for me. What do you think, brother?
Speaker 2 (29:42):
I think somebody there could help you. But you know,
there are a number of things with this case with
Coburger that you know. I have a question for you
based on what you know took place, the injuries done
to thevictims. We've got four people dead in a very
short window of time. According to what we've heard from
(30:05):
the prosecution. We know Xana Cronodle was getting food delivered
at four ten in the morning. We know she was
on her phone at four a weight. We know that
Coburger was in and out of there allegedly. If it's Coburger,
that you've got a window that starts after four to
ten and ends at four twenty five. If she's awake
(30:27):
and she's not the first one killed. First one is
Madison Mogan up top yep right, that timetable doesn't work
for me. That's too close. So you've got at least
three people awake, Xana, who's getting food, and you've got
the two Dylan and Bethany. Dylan Mortenson and Bethany Funk.
(30:48):
They're both there because they're texting one another. So you've
got three people awake in that building at the time
when the murders are supposed to begin. You're gonna tell
me nobody screamed, nobody heard anything. See, we can't go
into that building to find out what that was like
because they tore it down, right.
Speaker 1 (31:04):
The acoustics are gone.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
Yeah, but that's something I have a lot of trouble with.
I'm just wondering now that just does not You're talking
about going up and downstairs, killing four people and only
leaving minimal evidence behind.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
Well, I think you know, I was talking about how
everything in this case is about Tomline and you know,
what was happening before and after and if that, if
those that videography that we have from you know, the
previously unseen how does that how does that Tom stamp
match up with the story that we've been told thus far,
(31:46):
because you know what I know and what you know
is information that has to this point been released, been
released by law enforcement. Now a lot of the other
stuff is merely speculation. It's conclude usions that have been
drawn based upon these numbers. But if those numbers are
screwed up in the least in the least, okay, then
(32:07):
that's going to create a real problem. But we obviously
have tom stamps on activity, and I think TikTok was
involved relative to Xana. She had met on TikTok at
some point in time. That's going to be tom stamped
the information relative to food delivery. And that also draws
in another thing because people have asked me, is it
(32:31):
plausible that one individual and again maybe this is what
his defense team is going for here, is it plausible
that one individual could have come in here and perpetrated
this crime in this short amount of time with a
sharp instrument. You're talking about killing four people, and it's
(32:51):
in the twinkling of an eye in and out, you know.
And if Taylor can at least with that plant that
seed of reasonable doubt into the mind of the jury.
And she's got a client that I don't know how
(33:13):
to describe it. If she's got a client that someone
might sympathize with, then maybe that's doable. I have no idea,
but the timeline is going to be very, very important
and to a broader, broader issue too with me is
(33:34):
the timeline from the time of death is also going
to be in question because because of the delay in
getting contact with the police, these kids have been dead
for hours. And if I've got a corner that saying, well,
it looks like they were asleep, Well, if that was
(33:55):
your assessment, that was your assessment at the scene, I
want to know, did you actually do post mortem interval
assessment of the bodies at the scene. Well, you're saying
they're sleeping. Turns out that they may have been in
bed at some point in time, but doesn't sound like
they were all in bed, and so therefore stands the
reason they're not all asleep. So you know that information
(34:19):
relative to timeline, the tom stamps on the CCTV tom stamps,
relative to phone, the travel of the car, and also
the PMI postmartum interval, and how was that assessed and
was there any was there any meat on the bone
with that scientifically anything that you could take back to
the people in in Boise, which is many people. Those
(34:44):
autopsies were not done in Moscow. They were taken to
Ada County, which is actually where the day Bell case
was handled as well, because that's where they have. A
forensic pathologist in Idaho is in Boise, and so they
contract with these smaller counties and they actually do the
autopsies for them. So when that data is relaid from
(35:07):
the scene, and hopefully it was done quickly, that one
of the questions of friends of pathologists is going to ask,
because they're not coming down there from Boise to observe
these bodies. It's their eyes and ears. Is this corner, Well,
how third of a job did you do there? Because
I can't wait to read the coroner's report, and there
should be one that is generated. Every corner generates report,
(35:30):
and it should be very detailed. With four bodies, Dave,
let's see, let me do the calculation of my mind.
With four bodies, those are four individual cases. I'm thinking
at least a minimum a minimum if I was a
supervisor in a medical examiner's office, I would want to
(35:53):
see at least a five page report on each and
every one of these victims, and that's including a lot
of detail in from chief among that information is going
to be your assessment of rigidity, the body fixation of
postmordal lividity, algor mortis, which is the temperature of the body,
and then not to mention the observable injuries that you
(36:13):
see in there, the clothing, environmental status. What's the environmental temperature?
Light it's the lighting like positionality of the body, triangulation
of the body unscene. I mean, all of this data
and then the history behind it. I would have to
see that in the case. It would have to be
that robust. So you're talking about at minimum eighteen to
(36:36):
twenty pages in total of reports that should have been
generated on a case like this per the coroner if
they're doing their job. And that just kind of marries
up in my mind with somebody that helped design the
national standards for medical legal death investigator. That's right, that's
right in the sweet spot. That's right in the sweet spot.
(36:56):
I think at least we'll see what's in that report.
Speaker 2 (37:00):
Will we will will will that information be brought out
in court, because by the way they are going to
stream the trial, they're not going to stream jury selection,
but they are going to stream the trial. There are
going to be a couple of times where we're not
going to be able to They're not going to stream
certain testimony or at least the judge will decide later.
But the prosecution was asking about some of the detective
(37:22):
some people not being streamed, and I'm against that. If
you use the stream them or you're not, either everybody
gets to see everything or they don't. Now they have
beth Andy Funk and Dylan Mortenson are going to give
them the opportunity to be blurred on the stream, the
streamed image to get their type, their identity or identity.
(37:43):
And I mean, that's fine, it's just I get, I get.
I can't imagine what they're going through.
Speaker 1 (37:48):
Yeah, I don't understand it either, because even with uh
and I know you've heard well, I know you have
because you've worked worked on it with me. But for
those that did not that are not familiar with the pipe,
piked and masker, those trials there were one, two, three, four,
and we're still waiting on the fourth trial at this
point in that case, can you believe that all the
(38:10):
way from twenty sixteen, still waiting on the dad's trial.
In the previous trials, they would cut the feed when
certain individuals testified, and police officers, you know, they weren't
the sun that was directly responsible for shooting the most
(38:33):
of the victims. He asked that he not that his
testimony not be shown. I think it's a bunch of crap.
I think that if you get up on the stand,
I don't have a problem with them blurring images. It
should be streamed. It should be streamed, and you should
be able to see this. If you're going to have
get don't do it halfway. You know, you got one
foot in the boat and one foot in the water.
(38:54):
Go all the way in on it and show it. Okay,
you didn't sign up to be a police officer to
be hidden, all right, And this is not like I
don't know. I guess they could say, well, these police
officers might be involved in future undercover operations. They don't
want their identities revealed and whatever, but you're going to
know their names. Yeah, you know. And like you said,
(39:17):
we're wired in world now any you know, just because
you're a police officer doesn't mean that you know you
have anonymity. Far from it.
Speaker 2 (39:25):
Nowadays, I do think that with Dylan Mortenson and Bethany Funk,
because I've had my own questions about the two of
them and what they did or did.
Speaker 1 (39:32):
Not do everybody else.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
Yeah, And it's but I'm made to feel like I'm
a horrible evil person for even asking, you know, but
I am curious if those are my kids, one of
my children that had died in that. Yeah, and there
were two people that were awake texting one another and
didn't bother to call police for seven eight hours. I mean,
I got a problem with that. I still have a
problem with that.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
Yeah, the whole indwelling fear thing, you know kind of it.
It becomes unpalatable after a while. You know, you have
to have something more than that. And and listen, it's
not for us to necessarily explain they're going to be
asked us questions when they're on the stand now whether
or not people will be satisfied with the answers that here.
You know, I can't make any prediction about that.
Speaker 2 (40:14):
You know, Joe in all of this where you know,
you have the one who is Dylan Mortenson with the
bushy eyebrows testimony, which is going to be in there
now because those are some of the things that were
ruled on that Coberger has. They've been trying to keep
certain testimony out and it seems like each time they've tried,
it's gone the other way, which is really odd to
me that we never heard of a possible other suspect
(40:37):
until after they were denied. All these other things that
they were trying to use to get the death endally tossed.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
Psych autism. Yeah, it's the same thing.
Speaker 2 (40:44):
Gosh, come on, man, this guy can be in he's
in college to get his master's degree in criminal justice,
and yet he's not smart. He can't help with his
own defense.
Speaker 1 (40:57):
But I don't, Yeah, I don't. I don't understand that.
I really don't. And again it's it's it's a ploy
of desperation, and listen, it irks me. I think on
one level that there are truly people that struggle with
autism in their life and it's being used as a
prop Yeah, I mean, that's that's kind of what you know,
(41:18):
the way it seems to me.
Speaker 2 (41:20):
My grandson is on the spectrum. Joe, I've seen it.
I've seen that used and I've talked to you and
Kim about it because I was surprised at a number
of different things. I'm very proud of what he has
accomplished because.
Speaker 1 (41:31):
He's a wonderful man, wonderful young man.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
Great kid. With the proxy of reading beyond grade level
is a big deal he has. He's originally hard at it.
But the thing is that I've had to study all
of this stuff to figure it out because I didn't
know when they said on the spectrum, like, what does
that even mean? I hear it, but and then I
hear them applying it to this guy who has gone
through all these years of college and he's gone cross
(41:56):
country to study in what I mean? None of this
adds up to me.
Speaker 1 (42:00):
Well, it's again again it comes down to now defense
hasn't said this. This is people in the media and
as people in general public that you know, we've just
talked about this earlier that use the term in cell.
In cell is one of the most disingenuous, intellectually lazy
(42:20):
terms in the world because it lacks specificity. Uh, particularly
when you're talking about a a group of college kids
that have been butchered. So that's your answer is going
to be in cell, and then we're just going to
kind of leave it at that, and then you know
you're gonna, you know, and somebody is going to offer
up some kind of some kind of half assed explanation
(42:43):
for what in cell actually means. And that's and again
it's not in the D s M. It's not you know,
because they're trying to paint paint, you know, incell itis
I guess as an actual medical condition, and it's not.
It's somebody's it's an Uh. It's a point of observation
(43:04):
of people that are intellectually lazy most of the time
that they don't want to dig any deeper relative to this,
and it's easy. I think it makes them, It makes
it easy to explain, you know, why somebody would do
something like this or gives them some kind of comfort.
What it comes down to is that I don't know
if it was Brian Coburger or not, but I do
(43:24):
know this that whoever did this was a monster because
they had no compassion. Uh, they were absent heart, and
they ended the lives of four promising young adults. I'm
(43:44):
Joseph Scott Morgan and this is Bodybacks
Host
Nancy Grace
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.