March 6, 2025 • 42 mins
Bryan Kohberger’s defense team has revealed a major development in his upcoming trial. A newly unsealed court filing shows that investigators found three unknown DNA profiles under victim Madison Mogen’s fingernails. Clippings from Mogen’s left hand contained the samples, but testing has not determined their source. Comparisons between the profiles and Kohberger’s DNA were inconclusive, meaning he has neither been confirmed nor excluded as a contributor.
Kohberger’s defense is seeking to have the DNA evidence dismissed, arguing that the term “inconclusive” could mislead a jury into believing he might be one of the three individuals whose DNA was found under Mogen’s nails. The attorneys also argue that likelihood ratios, which simply compare the state’s hypotheses, may be wrongly interpreted as a probability of identity. Kohberger claims that independent testing by the defense excluded him as a contributor.
His defense team is also arguing that his autism diagnosis should bar him from receiving the death penalty. The attorneys claim that symptoms of autism could prejudice jurors against him, citing his ‘limited facial expressions’ and ‘atypical eye contact’ as behaviors that might be misinterpreted as a lack of remorse or disrespect in the courtroom. Attorney Anne Taylor specifically points to media descriptions of Kohberger’s expression as an ‘eerie’ or ‘creepy’ stare
Joining Nancy Grace today:
-
Philip Dubé - Former Court-Appointed Counsel, Los Angeles County Public Defenders: Criminal & Constitutional Law, Forensics & Mental Health Advocacy
-
Dr. Bethany Marshall - Psychoanalyst, Author of "Deal Breaker," and featured in hit show: "Paris in Love" on Peacock; Instagram & TikTok: drbethanymarshall, X: @DrBethanyLive
-
Chris McDonough - Director at the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective, and Host: "The Interview Room"
-
Suzanna Ryan - Laboratory Director and Forensic DNA Analyst at Pure Gold Forensics, and Forensic DNA Consultant at Ryan Forensics; X: Sryan4n6DNA
-
Joseph Scott Morgan - Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University, Author of"Blood Beneath My Feet," and Host: "Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan;" X: @JoScottForensic
-
Germania Rodriguez - Chief US Reporter, DailyMail.com; Host: Welcome to MAGAland podcast
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 (00:00):
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace the Brian Coburger quadruple murder
trial bomb DNA evidence found under the victim's fingernails. What
does it reveal? I'm Ittsi Grace, this is Crime Stories.
Thank you for being with us.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
I mean, at first it was rumors of murder suicide,
things like that. When you live in a small college town.
It occurred to not know exactly.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Four students from University of Idaho murdered.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
One of the neighbors down there.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Of the girls called and said, I want to tell
you I'm a neighbor and Kaylee and Maddie are both dead.
That was then. This is now.
Speaker 5 (00:49):
Brian Coberger's defense team has revealed a major curveball for
his upcoming trial. A newly unsealed court filing discloses that
investigators found three unknown profile from DNA underneath victim Medicine
Mogen's fingernails. Clippings from Mogan's left hand unearthed the samples,
but testing has not determined who they belonged to. Comparisons
(01:10):
of the profiles to Coburger's DNA were inconclusive. The accused
quadruple killer has not been confirmed or excluded as a
source Okay, letting.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Me understand, we are just now learning that there is
DNA evidence under one of the dead victim's fingernails. Think
it through. Let's follow this through to its logical conclusion.
It's not being named as Coburgers, so shouldn't the defense
(01:39):
be happy? But yet they're trying to suppress it. I
think I smell a rat straight out to Harmonia Rodriguez,
chief US reporter with Daily Mail, Harmonia, what's happening?
Speaker 4 (01:53):
That's right, Nancy. This is more information we did not
know about because it had been sealed until this week.
Coburger's team now claims that there was a three person
mixture of DNA found under the nail clippings of Madison,
and they have now claimed that independent testing that they
(02:14):
did ruled out Coberger. However, the grand jury heard that
this evidence was inconclusive, so already there are some discrepancies
between what the prosecution has claimed about this DNA evidence
and what the defense is claiming. But as you said,
it is strange that the defense now wants this evidence
(02:34):
ruled out if it was inconclusive for Coburger, because they
could open the door for whether there was more than
one killer in this horrific crime.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Okay, you know what I understand she's saying. You're hearing
Hermania Rodriguez, chief US reporter with Daily Mail. Just Scott
Morgan joining me, Professor forensics, Jacksonville State University. Death Investigator
has investigated over one thousand death saying, author of Blood
Beneath My Feet on Amazon's star hit series Body Bags,
(03:07):
Joe Scott in a nutshell, what's happening.
Speaker 6 (03:10):
Well, here's the problem that they're running up against, I think, Nancy.
When these samples were taken off of the left hand
of the victim at the morgue, there is this distinct
possibility that you could have commingle samples in here. And
what that means is that they're saying that they have three. Well,
we don't know what the source of these three are,
(03:31):
but the profile that they have are attempted to build
out of these three was not sufficient enough to rule
coburger in or out. So that really leaves them twisting
in the wind. Nancy, Okay, you know what.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
To me, it boils down to this, three DNA sources
are found under the fingernails of a murder victim. Why
is it the defense is fighting tooth and nail to
exclude it. See, in my mind, if I were a
defensis running, which would never happen, I would be running
(04:08):
up in front of the courthouse, back and forth with
a big banner saying inconclusive, inconclusive, there's DNA under the
victim's fingernail, and it's not It can't be proven to
be my client. Hence it's somebody else. But they're not.
They actually want this suppress What more do we know
about this bombshell DNA evidence under the victim's fingernail?
Speaker 7 (04:31):
In grand jury proceedings, an Idaho State Police forensic scientist
testifies that statistically, it can be assumed that Mogan is
one of the three individuals. Investigators went on to test
two hypothesis based on that assumption that both remaining profiles
belonged to unrelated individuals, or the Gonzavis, whom Mogan slept
next to that night, accounts for one of the profiles
(04:52):
and there is only one unrelated individual. The test results,
measured as likelihood ratios, all came back and conclude, falling
just above the State Police's standard for exclusion.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
The DNA of three individuals is found under the fingernails
of Mattie Mogan. What does this mean? It's got to
mean something. Now you heard that in grand jury proceedings,
which are secret, we don't have a right to hear
all of that. This is for a jury to hear
(05:24):
this evidence. What does it mean? Three individuals DNA under
the fingernails of Mattie Mogan. Now their speculation that because
Kelly Gousov has slept with Mattie that night, slept next
to her, could some of this be her DNA? Joining
me right now is a very special guest, Susannah Ryan
(05:48):
Lab director and forensic DNA analyst at Pure Gold Forensics
and forensic DNA consultant at Ryan Forensics. Twenty five years
in the field of DNA and roology. Susannah, thank you
for being with us. You know, Susannah, when I first
introduced DNA in front of a jury, I insisted that
(06:11):
the scientists from the crime lab. Brilliant woman bring me
all of the evidence to show to the jury. It
looked like, oh gosh, undeveloped film that you just pulled
out of a camera, covered in dots and specs. I
quickly took it out of her hands and put it
(06:32):
away because it was blurry, It didn't make any sense.
The defense was just as worried about it as I was.
They never even cross examined on it. They're like, what
is that? Now? I'm asking the same thing, What does
inconclusive mean? Can you make sense out of what we're learning?
Speaker 8 (06:50):
Hi, Nancy, Yes, So inconclusive in this sense means that
they're the data is very low level and they're unable
to to include or exclude coburger based upon their internal
laboratory guidelines. Now it is possible that other laboratories are
going to have other guidelines, and I think that this
(07:11):
is why the defense is fighting to try to keep
this out. They're afraid that the jury is going to
hear inconclusive and think, hey, you actually can't be excluded.
Speaker 9 (07:21):
It might be him. There's just not enough DNA to
really link him.
Speaker 8 (07:26):
And you know, reading between the lines of this motion,
it sounds like in other laboratories this exact same result
would actually be considered limited support for exclusion. So anytime
you have a likelihood ratio of less than one, it
points towards exclusion versus inclusion.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Now I've got a question for you, actually many questions,
and everybody on the panel jump in. We've got Susannah
Ryan with us, especially Joe Scott Morgan, please any questions
for her. But you know, Susannah, you said this last
couldn't come up with an answer. Aren't there specialty labs
that deal with degraded or let me say their word
(08:09):
is ineligible it's ineligible DNA? First of all, what does
that mean? It is ineligible DNA mean there's not enough
of it? But can't you replicate DNA regenerate it so
you have enough to make a comparison? First of all,
is there not enough? Is it degraded? For instance? Has
(08:30):
DNA been mixed with mud or blood to the point
where you can't get a DNA analysis? Or is DNA commingled? Here?
We got three DNA types? Are they commingled to the
point that you can't get a good answer? Air go,
couldn't this DNA be sent to another specialty or boutique lab,
(08:50):
you know, like auth RAM maybe to specialize this in
degraded or in eligible DNA.
Speaker 8 (08:57):
Okay, that's a lot of questions.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
I'm gonna try to answer them all.
Speaker 8 (09:00):
But so ineligible typically means it's ineligible for upload to
codis right? So we can't put it into codis. Maybe
it's too low level. We don't have results at enough
low areas.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Why why because look, I'm just a trial lawyer. Why
can't I load it into codis? Why can't I compare it?
Speaker 8 (09:21):
Because if it's a mixture, you're going to get so
many hits that you don't even know.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
What to do with it.
Speaker 10 (09:28):
Right.
Speaker 8 (09:28):
So, and also the FBI has very particular rules about
what can be uploaded or cannot.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Hold on, wait, what about not loading it the ineligible
DNA into codis, but just comparing it to the victims
in coburger.
Speaker 8 (09:45):
They do that, right, Yes, and they this is what
we feel.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
That's yes.
Speaker 8 (09:50):
And I believe when we talk about these three contributors,
one of them is clearly Madison Mogan, right, based on
what I'm reading, and that that doesn't surprise me under
her fingernails.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
Well, it's under her fingernails exactly.
Speaker 11 (10:03):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
And then what it sounds.
Speaker 8 (10:06):
Like is there are two, at least two, you know,
very probably low level contributors. When I see likelihood ratios
where there are multiple individuals that have a less than
one likelihood ratio as reported in this motion, but they're
just a little bit less than one, you know, point
four point two things like that. That informs me that
(10:30):
probably the data, the amount of DNA material under the
nails foreign to Madison is just really low level.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Wait wait, wait, way you got me drinking from the
fire hydrant, Suzanne O. Ryan, Okay, low level, low level. See,
I'd have to put that in terms that I and
the jury could understand. You mean, for instance, if one
of the DNA contributors to the evidence under Matty Megan's nails,
let's just pretend was killer Gun's solves. You say low level,
(11:04):
that means just maybe a bare touch. Maybe she touched
her hair, maybe she touched her PJ that maybe she
touched her arm in the NYE. Is that what you
mean by low level?
Speaker 8 (11:13):
Yes? Absolutely, And so that's the other thing to be
aware of. Just because somebody has foreign DNA DNA not
consistent with themselves under their nails, that doesn't mean that
it got there through some struggle or scratching event. You know,
studies have been done on this and it is not
uncommon at all for a person to have somebody else's
DNA at a low level.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
Under their nail. Crime stories with Nancy Grace guys, there's
another way to look at this bomb bomb torpedo. Let
me rephrase that a stink bomb has just been dropped
(11:59):
and Brian's quadruple murder trial. Three unknown DNA contributors found
under the nails of Mattie Mogan. Problem. We can't tell
who contributed them to Chris McDonald joining me. He and
I have been to the scene many many times. This
(12:20):
is near Here's jurisdiction. Former homicide detective with over three
hundred homicide investigations to his credit. I found him on
YouTube at the interview room. But he is also director
Cole Case Foundation. Chris, what about this? This marks the
(12:40):
first time that we are learning there is additional DNA
at the scene, and I believe the defense is all, wait,
they want this suppressed. There is a reason they want
to suppressed because this DNA hurts them. We're all, okay,
(13:06):
we're like the blind, the three blind guys, and we're
touching the elephant. You say, what are you feeling? One says,
describes the tail, one describes the foot, one describes the trunk.
We're in the dark here, but this is what I know, mcdona.
The defense wants this evidence out therefore I want it in.
(13:31):
I don't know what it is and I don't know
what it means, but the defense wants it out. That
means they think it proves something against their client. What
about this, mcdonna, we're just learning about this fingernail evidence.
This indicates to me that there is more DNA evidence
at that scene that we don't know about yet. Thoughts.
Speaker 12 (13:50):
Yeah, Nancy, I would agree with you that. You know,
this is remember that old line. So there's a chance
to them that this is one of those situations from uh,
you know, the defensive perspective. They don't want to put
this type of evidence in front of a jury because
that jury may say, hey, well, you know, we can't
(14:13):
we can't be positive for sure based on what the
labb is telling us.
Speaker 6 (14:17):
So you're right, I would agree with you.
Speaker 12 (14:19):
This is probably the tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 7 (14:21):
Goldberger claims he was driving his car as he often
did to hike and run and or see the moon
and stars.
Speaker 8 (14:28):
Our defas team firmly and I mean firmly believes in
mister Coberger's.
Speaker 13 (14:36):
In a sense.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Did you get that firmly believes? Okay, all right, I'm
glad she believes her client because blind fate is definitely
going to enter into this defense. Well that's not all
the shock and new claim that Brian Coburger is autistic
(15:00):
as snuck back into the courtroom Listen.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
Coberg's defense team is also arguing that his autism diagnosis
should bar him from receiving the death penalty. The attorneys
claim that symptoms of his autism may prejudice jures against him,
citing Coberger's limited facial expressions and atypical eye contact as
things that could be perceived as a lack of remorse
or even disrespect in the courtroom. And Taylor specifically points
(15:24):
to the media labeling Coberger's expression as an eerie or
creepy stare.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Okay joining me. Doctor Bethany Marshall, high profile psycho alys
out of La, author of deal Breakers. You can see
are on peacock now and you can find her at
dtor Bethany Marshall dot com. Doctor Bethany He's never been
diagnosed as autistic, even though he has had extensive testing
(15:51):
in the past for his what was it White Snow
syndrome he suffered when he was a teen, where I
guess or see or hear something like TV static. That's it.
He had extensive testing. Then he wrote about how it
made him feel that he felt no remorse, he had
(16:12):
no conscience, nothing bothered him. How About he's not autistic?
How about he actually is creepy, Nancy.
Speaker 13 (16:22):
This is just the right amount of wrong, meaning that
the defense attorneys are noticing that he has lacks empathy
for the victims, which is a common symptom of predators
and serial murderers, and because of that, they're going to
have to explain that away. Like the jury is going
(16:42):
to notice that he's sitting there at the table with
dead eyes, and they're going to see the dead eyes
and they're going to say, what does this mean?
Speaker 14 (16:52):
So now the defense is like.
Speaker 13 (16:54):
Oh, it's autism, because when you're autistic, you notoriously do
not track with the feelings and emotions of others. What
I really think, Nancie, it just doesn't disservice to people who.
Speaker 14 (17:08):
Are are autistic.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Okay, you know Philip Dubay joining me, LA County Attorney. Philip,
I've had so many cases where I look at the
jury and they have this horror look on their faces
right there, Oh, and I'd follow their gaze. The defendant
(17:32):
would be looking at them and they'd be like, ooh, okay.
Then I had a case in a murder trial where
the defendant his attorney finally told him don't move your head.
Why because he had carved into the back of his
hair hit man number one. So naturally I kept walking
(17:57):
over to that side of the courtroom to make him
turn that way so the jury could get a good
look at the advertisement he placed that screened guilty on
the back of his head. So here we've got the
defense attorney an tailer concerned that if the jury even
looks at Kyburger, they'll thank you's quote creepy. Why is that?
Speaker 15 (18:20):
It's because of the outward symptoms, if you will, How
the people who are on the ASD spectrum present and
I can understand the concern. Unless you educate the jury
ahead of time so that they understand the symptom andtology
associated with ASD, it's very possible that they can interpret
it as evidence of guilt. When you have creepy eyes,
(18:43):
when you have the shark eyes, when you have that gaze,
that stare, it makes it look like you're empty and
vapid inside and purely homicidal.
Speaker 11 (18:52):
They what you are orial.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
You can maybe consider that. I mean, the guys made
It's nearly thirty years old, and he's never once been
diagnosed as autistic until Anne Taylor diagnosed him as defense lawyer.
Speaker 11 (19:05):
I on the ball, on the wall, Yeah, I on
the ball.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
That's what I'm looking for. A tree is creepy, because
he is creepy.
Speaker 11 (19:14):
I understand that.
Speaker 15 (19:15):
Then you need to rewrite the DSM amended and edit
it so that autism spectrum disordered no longer qualifies as
an intellectual incapacity.
Speaker 11 (19:25):
And unless and until you do like.
Speaker 15 (19:27):
He qualifies under Atkins for an exemption from the death penalty,
that's the endgame.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Philip D. Bay does the DSM right. Wait a minute,
are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist? I thought you
were trying it.
Speaker 11 (19:42):
I am both.
Speaker 15 (19:44):
I mean that's what defense. He is a.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
Psychologist and psychiatrist. Life coaches.
Speaker 11 (19:49):
We're social workers, life coaches.
Speaker 15 (19:51):
We're pseudo intellectual psychologists, neuropsychologists, where all of it. We're
trained how to detect the problems so we can get
the appropriate experts commissioned to evaluate the client.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
So I take that as no, you're not a psychologist
or a psychiatrist. But in the DSM, does it allow
your defense attorney to diagnose you as being the spectrum?
Does it?
Speaker 11 (20:13):
That's a yes, no, of course no, of course not
see you be a doctor, and they did.
Speaker 15 (20:18):
They got a neuropsychologists appointed who did extensive testing and
came back with this result. It's not as if they
just yanked it out of the firmament and said, our
client is autistic or has Asperger syndrome or some other
intellectual disability. It's all documented by the experts.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
The news came in that the police are responding to
a call of someone found unconscious before additional body.
Speaker 3 (20:46):
Coburger allegedly entered a home with six occupants and a dog,
only armed with a small knife.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
Carmania Rodriguez joining US chief US reporter Daily Meil, Did
I understand this correctly? The defense attorney and Taylor wants
the DNA evidence suppressed so the jury never finds out
that Matty Morgan had DNA under her finger nails from
three people. They want that. They want the death penalty
(21:13):
off the table because they now have diagnosed almost thirty
years old, the PhD student, the THA teaching assistant, him,
the guy that made incredible great grades and his held
down jobs him. They want the DNA evidence excluded, they
want him declared autistic, and the death penalty off the table,
(21:36):
and now they want any mention of quote bushy eyebrows
disallowed in court.
Speaker 4 (21:43):
And NCEE, the defense team seems to really be trying
to control what a potential jury's going to hear in
this case. Some may say they're just continuing to try
to delay this trial. That's a schedule for August. I
also wanted to note they apparently have also diagnosed him
with an eating disorder obsessive compulsive disorder, and as you said,
(22:03):
they want the judge to bar any witnesses or the
prosecution from using the terms psychopath, sociopath, and bushy eyebrows,
which is really unbelievable because, as we have discussed here,
the surviving witnesses description of the suspect has been fundamental
in the prosecution's case against Coberger, and of course usually
(22:25):
in cases like this, a witness can describe what they saw.
So this really is a long shot for the defense
to try to tell witnesses that they cannot say bushy eyebrows,
especially when it comes to the testimony of that surviving
witness that's going to be fundamental for the prosecution's.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
Case, specifically Taylor, the defense lawyer demanding this.
Speaker 5 (22:46):
Taylor also demands the descriptor bushy eyebrows be barred from testimony.
Taylor claims that surviving roommate Dylan Mortenson's bedroom was covered
in sketches of eyes, and according to Taylor, nearly all
of them had prominent eyebrows she describes as heavy, voluminous, puffy,
or perhaps subjectively bushy. Taylor claims that if Mortensen is
(23:07):
allowed to use the term on the witness stand, it
will be as damning as you're pointing to him and
saying he is the man that did this.
Speaker 1 (23:14):
So let me understand, Debay, Coburger has bushy eyes. That's
his signature style. So now the defense attorney wants to
rule the eyewitness testimony out because she said the killer
had bushy eyebrows.
Speaker 11 (23:31):
That's correct, because you got to understand something.
Speaker 15 (23:33):
It was a suggestive identification based on all the drawings
and the sketches in her bedroom of men or other
people with bushy eyebrows. And when you have suggestive identifications,
they lead to misidentifications.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
That's not true. It could a suggestive identification. A suggestive
identification is when the state suggests to the witness who
they should identify or how they should identify the defendant
the suspect. I don't know if you think I just
(24:09):
fell off the turnip truck, but I have law degrees
from Mercy University and NYU and tried over one hundred
felonies in superior court alone, all violent. So don't try
and contort the law with me, Dubet, don't. As a
matter of fact, listen.
Speaker 7 (24:27):
Taylor once again argues that Dylan Mortenson's entire statement with
the description of the suspect, should be excluded. Taylor reveals
that Mortenson told police she frequently experienced lucid dreams where
she was being kidnapped or chased, and was not sure
if she was conscious or dreaming when she encountered the suspect.
Speaker 1 (24:44):
Joining me is Chris McDonough, veteran homicide detective, star of
The Interview Room on YouTube. Chris, have you ever heard
I hate to throw a technical legal tournam at you
like this, but such a on a bs in your
life that the witness, the girl that survived, can't say
(25:08):
the killer had bushy eyebrows. I mean, this, in addition
to many other arguments, makes the defense almost laughable. But
I want to remind everybody it wasn't laughable the morning
that those parents got calls from neighbors stating your child
is dead. It's not laughable. This is contorting the law.
Speaker 12 (25:31):
Yeah, and that's the bottom line, right, Nancy. I mean,
you have done this, you know, like you said, hundreds
of times, and I'm just waiting for the defense quite frankly,
to start, you know, introducing narratives that this guy used
to work at his local you know, animal shelter on
the weekend, delivering puppies. I mean, we're down to this
place where now the defense is arguing, you know, hey,
(25:54):
we need to be specific about the types of words
that can be utilized in the court of law. It's
getting ridiculous, actually, and I think the judge is getting
fed up with it.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
You know, I'm thinking about what they want suppressed. Doctor
Bethany Marshall, I need you to explain this to me.
They also want the word psychopath and sociopath barred from
being mentioned in court. Now they have dug up a psychologist,
doctor John Eden's, and he claims that those are not
(26:28):
accurate diagnoses for Coburger and that the terms are unfairly prejudicial.
What do those terms mean, doctor Bethany Marshall.
Speaker 14 (26:41):
Psychopaths and sociopath means that there is no attachment to
the victim, there's no attachment to anybody else in their lives.
So they sociopathy is a disorder of attachment. And so
what we're going to see with the defense is that
(27:03):
they're going to see that Brian Coeber, Poger of Brian Koeber.
Speaker 13 (27:07):
Was not.
Speaker 14 (27:09):
Connected to the victims in any real way.
Speaker 7 (27:14):
I don't like you he.
Speaker 11 (27:15):
Did a white color crime.
Speaker 16 (27:17):
This isn't a white color crime. This is this is
people you work your whole life to get them to
go to college and then they get killed where they're
sleep that night. This guy like he just like traded
insider trading, but his own company stops.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
It's not white Cole. Not only is the case rocked
by three unidentified DNA evident samples under the fingernails of
victim Maddie Mogan, the defense wants that suppressed. They want
the death penalty taken off the table because now after
(27:56):
almost thirty years, they have decided that Ryan Coberger is
autistic end quote looks creepy. That's their words, not mine.
They want the word psychopath and sociopath barred from evidence.
They want any description of Coburger's bushy eyebrows by an
(28:17):
eyewitness thrown out. The jury will never hear it.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
And now they want this and Taylor also has a
problem with the word murderer. Taylor calls to prohibit any
form of the term.
Speaker 11 (28:28):
Murder, murdered, murderer.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
Or murder weapon from the courtroom, except in charging documents
and jury instructions. Taylor writes that the trial will serve
to answer the question of if the killings at issue
are murders and whether the murders were committed by Brian Coberger.
Taylor argues that labeling Coburger as a murderer and asserting
that any of the four decedents were murdered by Brian
(28:53):
Coberger denies her client's right to a fair trial.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Chryl lawyer Philip Debay joining me, wait a minute, debate,
This is a murder trial, right, and Kinberger's defense doesn't
want the word murder in the courtroom.
Speaker 15 (29:10):
Really, every state defines the names of all the parties
in a criminal action. A defendant, for example, the people
of the state of Idaho, victims, witnesses. You can refer
to him as a defendant, you can refer to him
as Brian, as mister Coburger. But when you refer to
him as the psychopath, the murderer, the killer, it necessarily
(29:31):
implies guilt before you put on one shred of evidence,
and to avoid that type of suggest stability, you back
off and refer to people by their names or by
their legal title.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
That's not what the motion says. The motion doesn't just
say he cannot be called a murderer, which of course
under the law he can in opening and closing statements.
But they don't want the term murder or murdered or
murder weapon in the courtroom. I'm not talking about labeling
(30:04):
Heiberger as the murderer, which of course they have the
right to do definitely in closing statements. But the word murder,
the word murdered or murder weapon they want excluded and
disallowed to be spoken in the courtroom. That's what I'm
asking you to address. Don't tell me this. When I'm
(30:25):
asking you this, I know you're trying to avoid the question.
So just answer if you can copy will go. So
here's the deal.
Speaker 15 (30:34):
When you say the word murder, it necessarily implies that
a crime has been committed by the defendant, as opposed
to referring to it as a death, maybe even as
a killing. But when you use the word murder, it
necessarily encompasses malice of forethought, premeditation, and all the special
allegations for the enhancement without putting on any evidence.
Speaker 11 (30:58):
And when you keep repeating a word murderer, murder, it
sort of conditions the jury into saying, aha, we got him.
We are convinced beyond a reasonable debt.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
Okay, So you're not really giving this jury any credit
at all. It brings to mind the case of Travis Alexander,
who was a young man that was stabbed nearly thirty times,
some say more, but they were overlapping stab wounds, so
we really don't know. Then shot in the head, then
his killer, Jody Arius, left him to decompose naked in
(31:32):
his shower. In that case, the defense, Jody Arius's defense
moved to have the word victim barred from the trial.
Let me understand what's happening to HARMONYL. Rodriguez joining us.
The defense is now arguing that, in addition to DNA
(31:53):
evidence exclusion and exclusion of the words bushy eyebrows, we're
not going to hear the word murder in the Isn't
that what the indictment says? Four counts of premeditated murder.
Speaker 4 (32:04):
This is again the defense has been building for months,
this idea that Coburger cannot possibly get a fair trial
because the way the media has covered this case and
the years that has passed since it occurred. Now this
is their latest attempt to say that it's already an
unfair playing field for Coburger. So they say that barring
(32:24):
these terms from the courtroom might mitigate what the media
has done. But as you say, everything they're saying means
that they basically cannot trust any.
Speaker 11 (32:33):
Trial to give Coberger a fair shot.
Speaker 4 (32:36):
So again the defense continues to try to delay the
trial with these motions.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
They're going to have a hard time keeping the word
murder out of the courtroom since that is in the indictment.
I guess Philip Dubay and the defense toorney Ann Taylor,
would advocate not reading the indictment to the jury, not
letting them look at the indictment. That's how every case
starts with the impaneling of a jury. The indictment is
(33:01):
read out loud in courtroom, typically by the prosecutor and
some jurisdictions of the judge. What do they say, just
a beep boop. Coburger is charged with boob no discussion
of murder. And they also don't want the word psychopath
or sociopath mentioned in the courtroom. They're concerned that Coburger
(33:21):
looks creepy, and they the defense is trying to say
that's because he's autistic. I have worked with many, many
people under the spectrum, under the spectrum, and they were
not creepy at all, So I'm curious where they're getting
that from. As a matter of fact, the inmates with
(33:42):
Coburger have noticed that he's creepy and looks homicidal.
Speaker 10 (33:48):
Listen, this individual is described by other inmates in the
facility has the look of Lance, the fellow who killed
other people. There's this stare that we've heard about at
the student union with the young ladies looking at him
and him looking at them. I mean, there is something
(34:09):
evil connected with this individual, as based on his own behavior.
Speaker 16 (34:22):
The person who did this crime looked at one of
the victims and that are here to help you. If
that's not malice, that's the most type of evil that
you could ever hear.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
It shouldn't be rewarded.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
With the suit and a fresh air cut every time
of Ben's wild.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
That's wild at this hour, as a defense tries their
best to torpedo the state's case. Having DNA evidance suppressed,
the jury will never hear about that, having the eyewitness
Dylan Mortenson, having her id and her statement suppressed, having
(34:59):
Bush eyebrows the words suppressed which obviously describe Coburger, having
the word murder barred from a murder trial, having the
word psychopathic sociopath disallowed in the courtroom. While the state
(35:20):
is near being stripped of its evidence, we learned the
disturbing emergence of something called Brian Nation.
Speaker 9 (35:32):
Since Coberger's arrest and the murders of Ethan Shape and
Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen and Killiganzolves, a number of social
media groups have emerged proclaiming his innocence. A subreddit called
Brian Nation has recently been banned from the platform, but
several Facebook groups with names such as Justice for Brian
Coberger are still active. With thousands of members. At least
(35:54):
one woman has sent Coburger love letters.
Speaker 1 (35:56):
According to miniate reports, fans have gone quote crazy over
new photos of Brian Coberger, charged in the murders of
four Beautiful University, Idaho students. This must be a dagger
to the hearts of the victims' families. I don't understand it.
(36:20):
Straight up to Chris mcdunna joining me, veteran homicide detective, Chris,
I don't understand how it's like Luigi Mancioni being idolized
and glamorized. One look at an actual crime scene could
cure every member of Brian nation. These people have no
(36:44):
idea what they're talking about.
Speaker 12 (36:46):
Yeah, they don't, Nancy, And this is kind of a
shock to our society as a whole that we're even
contemplating this conversation here, that he's having a mini fan club.
I mean, just think about the verbiage that he used.
If it's him, obviously he's innocent until proven guilty by
(37:07):
a jury, but just think of that verbage. I'm here
to help, and then think of the slaughter that you're
talking about. You know, that's going to impact not only
the families, but a community and quite frankly, anybody that's
going to see those photographs in that.
Speaker 1 (37:25):
Court of law. Multiple posters in Facebook groups are dedicated
to supporting the nearly thirty year old murder defendant, giving
him a quote five star approval for his new mug shot.
To Joseph Scott Morgan, professor forensics and star of Bodybags podcast,
(37:47):
Joe Scott, can we just give all the members of
Brian nation a reality check about what was found at
this murder scene?
Speaker 6 (37:58):
I would love to, and I'm glad that my friend
Chris brought up the term slaughter. I got some words
for this defense attorney as well. When you begin to
think this, you know what is she an English professor?
We're going to start diagramming sentences now and defining what
a Jaron is. This is absolute absurdity. My friend Chris
(38:18):
used the word slaughter. I'll use the word also, butchery.
When you begin to think about this, this is going
to be a scene that is absolutely bathed in blood.
And here if you like that one, here's another one.
When that jury isnt paneled and they're sitting in there,
defense council knows that these photographs are coming down the track.
It's like a train that cannot be avoided, and they're
(38:40):
going to try to get some of these excluded. But
when that jury sees what is headed their way, when
they see these grotesque images of what was done to
these college students, it will make them absolutely petrified that
they're in the same room with this individual you talk
(39:01):
about stairs. Their heads are going to be on a
swivel and they're going to look at this guy sitting
on the table. Ann Taylor knows that that's coming, Nancy.
And when these investigators get up there and they begin
to describe what they saw, it's going to be unbelievable.
Just think about the witnesses that actually found the body.
They're going to be powerful in this case. That's why
(39:24):
they're retreating, That's why they're doing all this. They're trying
to pull out all the stops because when it comes
down to it, this is going to be one of
the most ghastly things that we have seen in many,
many years.
Speaker 1 (39:36):
Susannah Ryan with me Live, director forensic DNA analyst at
Pure Gold Forensics. Susannah, in your world, you see the
clinical analysis of blood DNA and more. Do you ever,
I do disassociate what you're looking at what it really
(40:00):
is blood from a murder scene, because it's kind of
easier to get through if you don't think about what
the victims went through.
Speaker 8 (40:12):
Yes, absolutely, I don't think I could do my job
if I were constantly thinking about, you know, out of
the evidence that I'm looking at, get to be as
bloody or as torn up or you know, whatever it is.
I definitely compartmentalize that that's my work and I don't
(40:33):
spend a lot of time thinking about those things, especially
like I said in the laboratory, because I need to
be focused on what I'm doing and make sure I
do it properly. And if I'm thinking about what this
person went through for the evidence item to look like
it does, I'm not going to be able to objectively
complete my work.
Speaker 1 (40:53):
Well, you're right, Susanna Ryan. Right now, the Brian Koberger
defense is doing everything it can to sanitized, to airbrush
what this case is about. It is about the murders,
the gruesome butchering, as Joe Scott said, a four innocent, beautiful,
(41:17):
young University Idaho students murdered in their beds. According to insiders,
so Coburger could see quote what it felt like we
wait as justice unfolds, and now we remember an American hero.
Police officer Christopher Morton, Clinton, p D. Missouri, shot and
(41:39):
killed in the line of duty Army National Guard VET.
Survived by parents Daryl and Terra, siblings Derek and Lindy.
American hero police officer Christopher Morton. Nancy Gray signing off
goodbye friend
Speaker 14 (42:01):
Boo.
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace the Brian Coburger quadruple murder
trial bomb DNA evidence found under the victim's fingernails. What
does it reveal? I'm Ittsi Grace, this is Crime Stories.
Thank you for being with us.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
I mean, at first it was rumors of murder suicide,
things like that. When you live in a small college town.
It occurred to not know exactly.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Four students from University of Idaho murdered.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
One of the neighbors down there.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Of the girls called and said, I want to tell
you I'm a neighbor and Kaylee and Maddie are both dead.
That was then. This is now.
Speaker 5 (00:49):
Brian Coberger's defense team has revealed a major curveball for
his upcoming trial. A newly unsealed court filing discloses that
investigators found three unknown profile from DNA underneath victim Medicine
Mogen's fingernails. Clippings from Mogan's left hand unearthed the samples,
but testing has not determined who they belonged to. Comparisons
(01:10):
of the profiles to Coburger's DNA were inconclusive. The accused
quadruple killer has not been confirmed or excluded as a
source Okay, letting.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Me understand, we are just now learning that there is
DNA evidence under one of the dead victim's fingernails. Think
it through. Let's follow this through to its logical conclusion.
It's not being named as Coburgers, so shouldn't the defense
(01:39):
be happy? But yet they're trying to suppress it. I
think I smell a rat straight out to Harmonia Rodriguez,
chief US reporter with Daily Mail, Harmonia, what's happening?
Speaker 4 (01:53):
That's right, Nancy. This is more information we did not
know about because it had been sealed until this week.
Coburger's team now claims that there was a three person
mixture of DNA found under the nail clippings of Madison,
and they have now claimed that independent testing that they
(02:14):
did ruled out Coberger. However, the grand jury heard that
this evidence was inconclusive, so already there are some discrepancies
between what the prosecution has claimed about this DNA evidence
and what the defense is claiming. But as you said,
it is strange that the defense now wants this evidence
(02:34):
ruled out if it was inconclusive for Coburger, because they
could open the door for whether there was more than
one killer in this horrific crime.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Okay, you know what I understand she's saying. You're hearing
Hermania Rodriguez, chief US reporter with Daily Mail. Just Scott
Morgan joining me, Professor forensics, Jacksonville State University. Death Investigator
has investigated over one thousand death saying, author of Blood
Beneath My Feet on Amazon's star hit series Body Bags,
(03:07):
Joe Scott in a nutshell, what's happening.
Speaker 6 (03:10):
Well, here's the problem that they're running up against, I think, Nancy.
When these samples were taken off of the left hand
of the victim at the morgue, there is this distinct
possibility that you could have commingle samples in here. And
what that means is that they're saying that they have three. Well,
we don't know what the source of these three are,
(03:31):
but the profile that they have are attempted to build
out of these three was not sufficient enough to rule
coburger in or out. So that really leaves them twisting
in the wind. Nancy, Okay, you know what.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
To me, it boils down to this, three DNA sources
are found under the fingernails of a murder victim. Why
is it the defense is fighting tooth and nail to
exclude it. See, in my mind, if I were a
defensis running, which would never happen, I would be running
(04:08):
up in front of the courthouse, back and forth with
a big banner saying inconclusive, inconclusive, there's DNA under the
victim's fingernail, and it's not It can't be proven to
be my client. Hence it's somebody else. But they're not.
They actually want this suppress What more do we know
about this bombshell DNA evidence under the victim's fingernail?
Speaker 7 (04:31):
In grand jury proceedings, an Idaho State Police forensic scientist
testifies that statistically, it can be assumed that Mogan is
one of the three individuals. Investigators went on to test
two hypothesis based on that assumption that both remaining profiles
belonged to unrelated individuals, or the Gonzavis, whom Mogan slept
next to that night, accounts for one of the profiles
(04:52):
and there is only one unrelated individual. The test results,
measured as likelihood ratios, all came back and conclude, falling
just above the State Police's standard for exclusion.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
The DNA of three individuals is found under the fingernails
of Mattie Mogan. What does this mean? It's got to
mean something. Now you heard that in grand jury proceedings,
which are secret, we don't have a right to hear
all of that. This is for a jury to hear
(05:24):
this evidence. What does it mean? Three individuals DNA under
the fingernails of Mattie Mogan. Now their speculation that because
Kelly Gousov has slept with Mattie that night, slept next
to her, could some of this be her DNA? Joining
me right now is a very special guest, Susannah Ryan
(05:48):
Lab director and forensic DNA analyst at Pure Gold Forensics
and forensic DNA consultant at Ryan Forensics. Twenty five years
in the field of DNA and roology. Susannah, thank you
for being with us. You know, Susannah, when I first
introduced DNA in front of a jury, I insisted that
(06:11):
the scientists from the crime lab. Brilliant woman bring me
all of the evidence to show to the jury. It
looked like, oh gosh, undeveloped film that you just pulled
out of a camera, covered in dots and specs. I
quickly took it out of her hands and put it
(06:32):
away because it was blurry, It didn't make any sense.
The defense was just as worried about it as I was.
They never even cross examined on it. They're like, what
is that? Now? I'm asking the same thing, What does
inconclusive mean? Can you make sense out of what we're learning?
Speaker 8 (06:50):
Hi, Nancy, Yes, So inconclusive in this sense means that
they're the data is very low level and they're unable
to to include or exclude coburger based upon their internal
laboratory guidelines. Now it is possible that other laboratories are
going to have other guidelines, and I think that this
(07:11):
is why the defense is fighting to try to keep
this out. They're afraid that the jury is going to
hear inconclusive and think, hey, you actually can't be excluded.
Speaker 9 (07:21):
It might be him. There's just not enough DNA to
really link him.
Speaker 8 (07:26):
And you know, reading between the lines of this motion,
it sounds like in other laboratories this exact same result
would actually be considered limited support for exclusion. So anytime
you have a likelihood ratio of less than one, it
points towards exclusion versus inclusion.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Now I've got a question for you, actually many questions,
and everybody on the panel jump in. We've got Susannah
Ryan with us, especially Joe Scott Morgan, please any questions
for her. But you know, Susannah, you said this last
couldn't come up with an answer. Aren't there specialty labs
that deal with degraded or let me say their word
(08:09):
is ineligible it's ineligible DNA? First of all, what does
that mean? It is ineligible DNA mean there's not enough
of it? But can't you replicate DNA regenerate it so
you have enough to make a comparison? First of all,
is there not enough? Is it degraded? For instance? Has
(08:30):
DNA been mixed with mud or blood to the point
where you can't get a DNA analysis? Or is DNA commingled? Here?
We got three DNA types? Are they commingled to the
point that you can't get a good answer? Air go,
couldn't this DNA be sent to another specialty or boutique lab,
(08:50):
you know, like auth RAM maybe to specialize this in
degraded or in eligible DNA.
Speaker 8 (08:57):
Okay, that's a lot of questions.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
I'm gonna try to answer them all.
Speaker 8 (09:00):
But so ineligible typically means it's ineligible for upload to
codis right? So we can't put it into codis. Maybe
it's too low level. We don't have results at enough
low areas.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Why why because look, I'm just a trial lawyer. Why
can't I load it into codis? Why can't I compare it?
Speaker 8 (09:21):
Because if it's a mixture, you're going to get so
many hits that you don't even know.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
What to do with it.
Speaker 10 (09:28):
Right.
Speaker 8 (09:28):
So, and also the FBI has very particular rules about
what can be uploaded or cannot.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Hold on, wait, what about not loading it the ineligible
DNA into codis, but just comparing it to the victims
in coburger.
Speaker 8 (09:45):
They do that, right, Yes, and they this is what
we feel.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
That's yes.
Speaker 8 (09:50):
And I believe when we talk about these three contributors,
one of them is clearly Madison Mogan, right, based on
what I'm reading, and that that doesn't surprise me under
her fingernails.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
Well, it's under her fingernails exactly.
Speaker 11 (10:03):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
And then what it sounds.
Speaker 8 (10:06):
Like is there are two, at least two, you know,
very probably low level contributors. When I see likelihood ratios
where there are multiple individuals that have a less than
one likelihood ratio as reported in this motion, but they're
just a little bit less than one, you know, point
four point two things like that. That informs me that
(10:30):
probably the data, the amount of DNA material under the
nails foreign to Madison is just really low level.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Wait wait, wait, way you got me drinking from the
fire hydrant, Suzanne O. Ryan, Okay, low level, low level. See,
I'd have to put that in terms that I and
the jury could understand. You mean, for instance, if one
of the DNA contributors to the evidence under Matty Megan's nails,
let's just pretend was killer Gun's solves. You say low level,
(11:04):
that means just maybe a bare touch. Maybe she touched
her hair, maybe she touched her PJ that maybe she
touched her arm in the NYE. Is that what you
mean by low level?
Speaker 8 (11:13):
Yes? Absolutely, And so that's the other thing to be
aware of. Just because somebody has foreign DNA DNA not
consistent with themselves under their nails, that doesn't mean that
it got there through some struggle or scratching event. You know,
studies have been done on this and it is not
uncommon at all for a person to have somebody else's
DNA at a low level.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
Under their nail. Crime stories with Nancy Grace guys, there's
another way to look at this bomb bomb torpedo. Let
me rephrase that a stink bomb has just been dropped
(11:59):
and Brian's quadruple murder trial. Three unknown DNA contributors found
under the nails of Mattie Mogan. Problem. We can't tell
who contributed them to Chris McDonald joining me. He and
I have been to the scene many many times. This
(12:20):
is near Here's jurisdiction. Former homicide detective with over three
hundred homicide investigations to his credit. I found him on
YouTube at the interview room. But he is also director
Cole Case Foundation. Chris, what about this? This marks the
(12:40):
first time that we are learning there is additional DNA
at the scene, and I believe the defense is all, wait,
they want this suppressed. There is a reason they want
to suppressed because this DNA hurts them. We're all, okay,
(13:06):
we're like the blind, the three blind guys, and we're
touching the elephant. You say, what are you feeling? One says,
describes the tail, one describes the foot, one describes the trunk.
We're in the dark here, but this is what I know, mcdona.
The defense wants this evidence out therefore I want it in.
(13:31):
I don't know what it is and I don't know
what it means, but the defense wants it out. That
means they think it proves something against their client. What
about this, mcdonna, we're just learning about this fingernail evidence.
This indicates to me that there is more DNA evidence
at that scene that we don't know about yet. Thoughts.
Speaker 12 (13:50):
Yeah, Nancy, I would agree with you that. You know,
this is remember that old line. So there's a chance
to them that this is one of those situations from uh,
you know, the defensive perspective. They don't want to put
this type of evidence in front of a jury because
that jury may say, hey, well, you know, we can't
(14:13):
we can't be positive for sure based on what the
labb is telling us.
Speaker 6 (14:17):
So you're right, I would agree with you.
Speaker 12 (14:19):
This is probably the tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 7 (14:21):
Goldberger claims he was driving his car as he often
did to hike and run and or see the moon
and stars.
Speaker 8 (14:28):
Our defas team firmly and I mean firmly believes in
mister Coberger's.
Speaker 13 (14:36):
In a sense.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Did you get that firmly believes? Okay, all right, I'm
glad she believes her client because blind fate is definitely
going to enter into this defense. Well that's not all
the shock and new claim that Brian Coburger is autistic
(15:00):
as snuck back into the courtroom Listen.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
Coberg's defense team is also arguing that his autism diagnosis
should bar him from receiving the death penalty. The attorneys
claim that symptoms of his autism may prejudice jures against him,
citing Coberger's limited facial expressions and atypical eye contact as
things that could be perceived as a lack of remorse
or even disrespect in the courtroom. And Taylor specifically points
(15:24):
to the media labeling Coberger's expression as an eerie or
creepy stare.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Okay joining me. Doctor Bethany Marshall, high profile psycho alys
out of La, author of deal Breakers. You can see
are on peacock now and you can find her at
dtor Bethany Marshall dot com. Doctor Bethany He's never been
diagnosed as autistic, even though he has had extensive testing
(15:51):
in the past for his what was it White Snow
syndrome he suffered when he was a teen, where I
guess or see or hear something like TV static. That's it.
He had extensive testing. Then he wrote about how it
made him feel that he felt no remorse, he had
(16:12):
no conscience, nothing bothered him. How About he's not autistic?
How about he actually is creepy, Nancy.
Speaker 13 (16:22):
This is just the right amount of wrong, meaning that
the defense attorneys are noticing that he has lacks empathy
for the victims, which is a common symptom of predators
and serial murderers, and because of that, they're going to
have to explain that away. Like the jury is going
(16:42):
to notice that he's sitting there at the table with
dead eyes, and they're going to see the dead eyes
and they're going to say, what does this mean?
Speaker 14 (16:52):
So now the defense is like.
Speaker 13 (16:54):
Oh, it's autism, because when you're autistic, you notoriously do
not track with the feelings and emotions of others. What
I really think, Nancie, it just doesn't disservice to people who.
Speaker 14 (17:08):
Are are autistic.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Okay, you know Philip Dubay joining me, LA County Attorney. Philip,
I've had so many cases where I look at the
jury and they have this horror look on their faces
right there, Oh, and I'd follow their gaze. The defendant
(17:32):
would be looking at them and they'd be like, ooh, okay.
Then I had a case in a murder trial where
the defendant his attorney finally told him don't move your head.
Why because he had carved into the back of his
hair hit man number one. So naturally I kept walking
(17:57):
over to that side of the courtroom to make him
turn that way so the jury could get a good
look at the advertisement he placed that screened guilty on
the back of his head. So here we've got the
defense attorney an tailer concerned that if the jury even
looks at Kyburger, they'll thank you's quote creepy. Why is that?
Speaker 15 (18:20):
It's because of the outward symptoms, if you will, How
the people who are on the ASD spectrum present and
I can understand the concern. Unless you educate the jury
ahead of time so that they understand the symptom andtology
associated with ASD, it's very possible that they can interpret
it as evidence of guilt. When you have creepy eyes,
(18:43):
when you have the shark eyes, when you have that gaze,
that stare, it makes it look like you're empty and
vapid inside and purely homicidal.
Speaker 11 (18:52):
They what you are orial.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
You can maybe consider that. I mean, the guys made
It's nearly thirty years old, and he's never once been
diagnosed as autistic until Anne Taylor diagnosed him as defense lawyer.
Speaker 11 (19:05):
I on the ball, on the wall, Yeah, I on
the ball.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
That's what I'm looking for. A tree is creepy, because
he is creepy.
Speaker 11 (19:14):
I understand that.
Speaker 15 (19:15):
Then you need to rewrite the DSM amended and edit
it so that autism spectrum disordered no longer qualifies as
an intellectual incapacity.
Speaker 11 (19:25):
And unless and until you do like.
Speaker 15 (19:27):
He qualifies under Atkins for an exemption from the death penalty,
that's the endgame.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Philip D. Bay does the DSM right. Wait a minute,
are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist? I thought you
were trying it.
Speaker 11 (19:42):
I am both.
Speaker 15 (19:44):
I mean that's what defense. He is a.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
Psychologist and psychiatrist. Life coaches.
Speaker 11 (19:49):
We're social workers, life coaches.
Speaker 15 (19:51):
We're pseudo intellectual psychologists, neuropsychologists, where all of it. We're
trained how to detect the problems so we can get
the appropriate experts commissioned to evaluate the client.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
So I take that as no, you're not a psychologist
or a psychiatrist. But in the DSM, does it allow
your defense attorney to diagnose you as being the spectrum?
Does it?
Speaker 11 (20:13):
That's a yes, no, of course no, of course not
see you be a doctor, and they did.
Speaker 15 (20:18):
They got a neuropsychologists appointed who did extensive testing and
came back with this result. It's not as if they
just yanked it out of the firmament and said, our
client is autistic or has Asperger syndrome or some other
intellectual disability. It's all documented by the experts.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
The news came in that the police are responding to
a call of someone found unconscious before additional body.
Speaker 3 (20:46):
Coburger allegedly entered a home with six occupants and a dog,
only armed with a small knife.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
Carmania Rodriguez joining US chief US reporter Daily Meil, Did
I understand this correctly? The defense attorney and Taylor wants
the DNA evidence suppressed so the jury never finds out
that Matty Morgan had DNA under her finger nails from
three people. They want that. They want the death penalty
(21:13):
off the table because they now have diagnosed almost thirty
years old, the PhD student, the THA teaching assistant, him,
the guy that made incredible great grades and his held
down jobs him. They want the DNA evidence excluded, they
want him declared autistic, and the death penalty off the table,
(21:36):
and now they want any mention of quote bushy eyebrows
disallowed in court.
Speaker 4 (21:43):
And NCEE, the defense team seems to really be trying
to control what a potential jury's going to hear in
this case. Some may say they're just continuing to try
to delay this trial. That's a schedule for August. I
also wanted to note they apparently have also diagnosed him
with an eating disorder obsessive compulsive disorder, and as you said,
(22:03):
they want the judge to bar any witnesses or the
prosecution from using the terms psychopath, sociopath, and bushy eyebrows,
which is really unbelievable because, as we have discussed here,
the surviving witnesses description of the suspect has been fundamental
in the prosecution's case against Coberger, and of course usually
(22:25):
in cases like this, a witness can describe what they saw.
So this really is a long shot for the defense
to try to tell witnesses that they cannot say bushy eyebrows,
especially when it comes to the testimony of that surviving
witness that's going to be fundamental for the prosecution's.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
Case, specifically Taylor, the defense lawyer demanding this.
Speaker 5 (22:46):
Taylor also demands the descriptor bushy eyebrows be barred from testimony.
Taylor claims that surviving roommate Dylan Mortenson's bedroom was covered
in sketches of eyes, and according to Taylor, nearly all
of them had prominent eyebrows she describes as heavy, voluminous, puffy,
or perhaps subjectively bushy. Taylor claims that if Mortensen is
(23:07):
allowed to use the term on the witness stand, it
will be as damning as you're pointing to him and
saying he is the man that did this.
Speaker 1 (23:14):
So let me understand, Debay, Coburger has bushy eyes. That's
his signature style. So now the defense attorney wants to
rule the eyewitness testimony out because she said the killer
had bushy eyebrows.
Speaker 11 (23:31):
That's correct, because you got to understand something.
Speaker 15 (23:33):
It was a suggestive identification based on all the drawings
and the sketches in her bedroom of men or other
people with bushy eyebrows. And when you have suggestive identifications,
they lead to misidentifications.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
That's not true. It could a suggestive identification. A suggestive
identification is when the state suggests to the witness who
they should identify or how they should identify the defendant
the suspect. I don't know if you think I just
(24:09):
fell off the turnip truck, but I have law degrees
from Mercy University and NYU and tried over one hundred
felonies in superior court alone, all violent. So don't try
and contort the law with me, Dubet, don't. As a
matter of fact, listen.
Speaker 7 (24:27):
Taylor once again argues that Dylan Mortenson's entire statement with
the description of the suspect, should be excluded. Taylor reveals
that Mortenson told police she frequently experienced lucid dreams where
she was being kidnapped or chased, and was not sure
if she was conscious or dreaming when she encountered the suspect.
Speaker 1 (24:44):
Joining me is Chris McDonough, veteran homicide detective, star of
The Interview Room on YouTube. Chris, have you ever heard
I hate to throw a technical legal tournam at you
like this, but such a on a bs in your
life that the witness, the girl that survived, can't say
(25:08):
the killer had bushy eyebrows. I mean, this, in addition
to many other arguments, makes the defense almost laughable. But
I want to remind everybody it wasn't laughable the morning
that those parents got calls from neighbors stating your child
is dead. It's not laughable. This is contorting the law.
Speaker 12 (25:31):
Yeah, and that's the bottom line, right, Nancy. I mean,
you have done this, you know, like you said, hundreds
of times, and I'm just waiting for the defense quite frankly,
to start, you know, introducing narratives that this guy used
to work at his local you know, animal shelter on
the weekend, delivering puppies. I mean, we're down to this
place where now the defense is arguing, you know, hey,
(25:54):
we need to be specific about the types of words
that can be utilized in the court of law. It's
getting ridiculous, actually, and I think the judge is getting
fed up with it.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
You know, I'm thinking about what they want suppressed. Doctor
Bethany Marshall, I need you to explain this to me.
They also want the word psychopath and sociopath barred from
being mentioned in court. Now they have dug up a psychologist,
doctor John Eden's, and he claims that those are not
(26:28):
accurate diagnoses for Coburger and that the terms are unfairly prejudicial.
What do those terms mean, doctor Bethany Marshall.
Speaker 14 (26:41):
Psychopaths and sociopath means that there is no attachment to
the victim, there's no attachment to anybody else in their lives.
So they sociopathy is a disorder of attachment. And so
what we're going to see with the defense is that
(27:03):
they're going to see that Brian Coeber, Poger of Brian Koeber.
Speaker 13 (27:07):
Was not.
Speaker 14 (27:09):
Connected to the victims in any real way.
Speaker 7 (27:14):
I don't like you he.
Speaker 11 (27:15):
Did a white color crime.
Speaker 16 (27:17):
This isn't a white color crime. This is this is
people you work your whole life to get them to
go to college and then they get killed where they're
sleep that night. This guy like he just like traded
insider trading, but his own company stops.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
It's not white Cole. Not only is the case rocked
by three unidentified DNA evident samples under the fingernails of
victim Maddie Mogan, the defense wants that suppressed. They want
the death penalty taken off the table because now after
(27:56):
almost thirty years, they have decided that Ryan Coberger is
autistic end quote looks creepy. That's their words, not mine.
They want the word psychopath and sociopath barred from evidence.
They want any description of Coburger's bushy eyebrows by an
(28:17):
eyewitness thrown out. The jury will never hear it.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
And now they want this and Taylor also has a
problem with the word murderer. Taylor calls to prohibit any
form of the term.
Speaker 11 (28:28):
Murder, murdered, murderer.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
Or murder weapon from the courtroom, except in charging documents
and jury instructions. Taylor writes that the trial will serve
to answer the question of if the killings at issue
are murders and whether the murders were committed by Brian Coberger.
Taylor argues that labeling Coburger as a murderer and asserting
that any of the four decedents were murdered by Brian
(28:53):
Coberger denies her client's right to a fair trial.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Chryl lawyer Philip Debay joining me, wait a minute, debate,
This is a murder trial, right, and Kinberger's defense doesn't
want the word murder in the courtroom.
Speaker 15 (29:10):
Really, every state defines the names of all the parties
in a criminal action. A defendant, for example, the people
of the state of Idaho, victims, witnesses. You can refer
to him as a defendant, you can refer to him
as Brian, as mister Coburger. But when you refer to
him as the psychopath, the murderer, the killer, it necessarily
(29:31):
implies guilt before you put on one shred of evidence,
and to avoid that type of suggest stability, you back
off and refer to people by their names or by
their legal title.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
That's not what the motion says. The motion doesn't just
say he cannot be called a murderer, which of course
under the law he can in opening and closing statements.
But they don't want the term murder or murdered or
murder weapon in the courtroom. I'm not talking about labeling
(30:04):
Heiberger as the murderer, which of course they have the
right to do definitely in closing statements. But the word murder,
the word murdered or murder weapon they want excluded and
disallowed to be spoken in the courtroom. That's what I'm
asking you to address. Don't tell me this. When I'm
(30:25):
asking you this, I know you're trying to avoid the question.
So just answer if you can copy will go. So
here's the deal.
Speaker 15 (30:34):
When you say the word murder, it necessarily implies that
a crime has been committed by the defendant, as opposed
to referring to it as a death, maybe even as
a killing. But when you use the word murder, it
necessarily encompasses malice of forethought, premeditation, and all the special
allegations for the enhancement without putting on any evidence.
Speaker 11 (30:58):
And when you keep repeating a word murderer, murder, it
sort of conditions the jury into saying, aha, we got him.
We are convinced beyond a reasonable debt.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
Okay, So you're not really giving this jury any credit
at all. It brings to mind the case of Travis Alexander,
who was a young man that was stabbed nearly thirty times,
some say more, but they were overlapping stab wounds, so
we really don't know. Then shot in the head, then
his killer, Jody Arius, left him to decompose naked in
(31:32):
his shower. In that case, the defense, Jody Arius's defense
moved to have the word victim barred from the trial.
Let me understand what's happening to HARMONYL. Rodriguez joining us.
The defense is now arguing that, in addition to DNA
(31:53):
evidence exclusion and exclusion of the words bushy eyebrows, we're
not going to hear the word murder in the Isn't
that what the indictment says? Four counts of premeditated murder.
Speaker 4 (32:04):
This is again the defense has been building for months,
this idea that Coburger cannot possibly get a fair trial
because the way the media has covered this case and
the years that has passed since it occurred. Now this
is their latest attempt to say that it's already an
unfair playing field for Coburger. So they say that barring
(32:24):
these terms from the courtroom might mitigate what the media
has done. But as you say, everything they're saying means
that they basically cannot trust any.
Speaker 11 (32:33):
Trial to give Coberger a fair shot.
Speaker 4 (32:36):
So again the defense continues to try to delay the
trial with these motions.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
They're going to have a hard time keeping the word
murder out of the courtroom since that is in the indictment.
I guess Philip Dubay and the defense toorney Ann Taylor,
would advocate not reading the indictment to the jury, not
letting them look at the indictment. That's how every case
starts with the impaneling of a jury. The indictment is
(33:01):
read out loud in courtroom, typically by the prosecutor and
some jurisdictions of the judge. What do they say, just
a beep boop. Coburger is charged with boob no discussion
of murder. And they also don't want the word psychopath
or sociopath mentioned in the courtroom. They're concerned that Coburger
(33:21):
looks creepy, and they the defense is trying to say
that's because he's autistic. I have worked with many, many
people under the spectrum, under the spectrum, and they were
not creepy at all, So I'm curious where they're getting
that from. As a matter of fact, the inmates with
(33:42):
Coburger have noticed that he's creepy and looks homicidal.
Speaker 10 (33:48):
Listen, this individual is described by other inmates in the
facility has the look of Lance, the fellow who killed
other people. There's this stare that we've heard about at
the student union with the young ladies looking at him
and him looking at them. I mean, there is something
(34:09):
evil connected with this individual, as based on his own behavior.
Speaker 16 (34:22):
The person who did this crime looked at one of
the victims and that are here to help you. If
that's not malice, that's the most type of evil that
you could ever hear.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
It shouldn't be rewarded.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
With the suit and a fresh air cut every time
of Ben's wild.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
That's wild at this hour, as a defense tries their
best to torpedo the state's case. Having DNA evidance suppressed,
the jury will never hear about that, having the eyewitness
Dylan Mortenson, having her id and her statement suppressed, having
(34:59):
Bush eyebrows the words suppressed which obviously describe Coburger, having
the word murder barred from a murder trial, having the
word psychopathic sociopath disallowed in the courtroom. While the state
(35:20):
is near being stripped of its evidence, we learned the
disturbing emergence of something called Brian Nation.
Speaker 9 (35:32):
Since Coberger's arrest and the murders of Ethan Shape and
Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen and Killiganzolves, a number of social
media groups have emerged proclaiming his innocence. A subreddit called
Brian Nation has recently been banned from the platform, but
several Facebook groups with names such as Justice for Brian
Coberger are still active. With thousands of members. At least
(35:54):
one woman has sent Coburger love letters.
Speaker 1 (35:56):
According to miniate reports, fans have gone quote crazy over
new photos of Brian Coberger, charged in the murders of
four Beautiful University, Idaho students. This must be a dagger
to the hearts of the victims' families. I don't understand it.
(36:20):
Straight up to Chris mcdunna joining me, veteran homicide detective, Chris,
I don't understand how it's like Luigi Mancioni being idolized
and glamorized. One look at an actual crime scene could
cure every member of Brian nation. These people have no
(36:44):
idea what they're talking about.
Speaker 12 (36:46):
Yeah, they don't, Nancy, And this is kind of a
shock to our society as a whole that we're even
contemplating this conversation here, that he's having a mini fan club.
I mean, just think about the verbiage that he used.
If it's him, obviously he's innocent until proven guilty by
(37:07):
a jury, but just think of that verbage. I'm here
to help, and then think of the slaughter that you're
talking about. You know, that's going to impact not only
the families, but a community and quite frankly, anybody that's
going to see those photographs in that.
Speaker 1 (37:25):
Court of law. Multiple posters in Facebook groups are dedicated
to supporting the nearly thirty year old murder defendant, giving
him a quote five star approval for his new mug shot.
To Joseph Scott Morgan, professor forensics and star of Bodybags podcast,
(37:47):
Joe Scott, can we just give all the members of
Brian nation a reality check about what was found at
this murder scene?
Speaker 6 (37:58):
I would love to, and I'm glad that my friend
Chris brought up the term slaughter. I got some words
for this defense attorney as well. When you begin to
think this, you know what is she an English professor?
We're going to start diagramming sentences now and defining what
a Jaron is. This is absolute absurdity. My friend Chris
(38:18):
used the word slaughter. I'll use the word also, butchery.
When you begin to think about this, this is going
to be a scene that is absolutely bathed in blood.
And here if you like that one, here's another one.
When that jury isnt paneled and they're sitting in there,
defense council knows that these photographs are coming down the track.
It's like a train that cannot be avoided, and they're
(38:40):
going to try to get some of these excluded. But
when that jury sees what is headed their way, when
they see these grotesque images of what was done to
these college students, it will make them absolutely petrified that
they're in the same room with this individual you talk
(39:01):
about stairs. Their heads are going to be on a
swivel and they're going to look at this guy sitting
on the table. Ann Taylor knows that that's coming, Nancy.
And when these investigators get up there and they begin
to describe what they saw, it's going to be unbelievable.
Just think about the witnesses that actually found the body.
They're going to be powerful in this case. That's why
(39:24):
they're retreating, That's why they're doing all this. They're trying
to pull out all the stops because when it comes
down to it, this is going to be one of
the most ghastly things that we have seen in many,
many years.
Speaker 1 (39:36):
Susannah Ryan with me Live, director forensic DNA analyst at
Pure Gold Forensics. Susannah, in your world, you see the
clinical analysis of blood DNA and more. Do you ever,
I do disassociate what you're looking at what it really
(40:00):
is blood from a murder scene, because it's kind of
easier to get through if you don't think about what
the victims went through.
Speaker 8 (40:12):
Yes, absolutely, I don't think I could do my job
if I were constantly thinking about, you know, out of
the evidence that I'm looking at, get to be as
bloody or as torn up or you know, whatever it is.
I definitely compartmentalize that that's my work and I don't
(40:33):
spend a lot of time thinking about those things, especially
like I said in the laboratory, because I need to
be focused on what I'm doing and make sure I
do it properly. And if I'm thinking about what this
person went through for the evidence item to look like
it does, I'm not going to be able to objectively
complete my work.
Speaker 1 (40:53):
Well, you're right, Susanna Ryan. Right now, the Brian Koberger
defense is doing everything it can to sanitized, to airbrush
what this case is about. It is about the murders,
the gruesome butchering, as Joe Scott said, a four innocent, beautiful,
(41:17):
young University Idaho students murdered in their beds. According to insiders,
so Coburger could see quote what it felt like we
wait as justice unfolds, and now we remember an American hero.
Police officer Christopher Morton, Clinton, p D. Missouri, shot and
(41:39):
killed in the line of duty Army National Guard VET.
Survived by parents Daryl and Terra, siblings Derek and Lindy.
American hero police officer Christopher Morton. Nancy Gray signing off
goodbye friend
Speaker 14 (42:01):
Boo.
Host
Nancy Grace
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.