May 23, 2023 • 37 mins
Bryan Kohberger "stood silent" as an Idaho judge asked the accused killer to enter his plea.
When Kohberger chose to not answer, the judge entered not-guilty pleas for Kohberger on all counts. The only time Kohberger did answer was to say yes that he understood the charges against him and his potential punishment.
Prosecutors have 60 days to say whether they will pursue the death penalty. A trial date is scheduled for October 2.
Joining Nancy Grace Today:
- Tara Malek - Bosie, ID Attorney and Co-owner of Smith + Malek; Former State and Federal Prosecutor; Twitter: @smith_malek
- Caryn Stark- Psychologist- Trauma and Crime Expert; Twitter: @carnpsych
- Chris McDonough -Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective and Host of YouTube channel- "The Interview Room"
- Bill Daly - Former FBI Investigator and Forensic Photography, Security Expert
- Traci Brown - Body Language Expert, Author: “How to Detect Lies, Fraud and Identity Theft;" Twitter: @Tracibrown37
- Dr. Kendall Crowns - Chief Medical Examiner Tarrant County (Ft Worth), Lecturer: University of Texas Austin and Texas Christian University Medical School
- Nicole Partin - CrimeOnline.com Investigative Reporter; Twitter: @nicolepartin (Naples, FL)
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 (00:05):
Crime Stories with Nancy Greece.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
In the last hours slay suspect Brian Koberger in a
court of law for arraignment. He chose to neither enter
a guilty or a not guilty plea, instead opting to
quote stand silent in the open courtroom. Why, I'm Nancy Grace.
(00:36):
This is Crime Stories. Thanks for being with us here
at Fox Station and serious xem one eleven. First of all,
listen to this and miss Taylor.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
He's mister Coberger prepared to please to these charges priority.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
All the saxe because to mister Kilberger is send silent.
I'm going to enter and I'm guilty. Please, I show
has one, two, three, four and five. Now at this juncture,
I would say it has sixty days to give notice
of attention to see.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
If gut Then was here.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Is anyone surprised, because I am not surprised. Coburger quote
stood silent. There are many theories about why he did it,
but let me just throw this one out there. We
hear him speak a little bit in the courtroom. We
hear certain answers. Could it be he did not want
(01:36):
to speak any more than he had to because he
did not want a witness, an ear witness from the
time of the murder. I'm referring specifically to Dylan Mortensen,
who heard someone at the time of the murder say
something to the effect of it's okay, I'll help you.
I'm here to help you. If Dylan Morton's here's Brian
(02:01):
Coberger's voice. Can she make a positive identification that it
was Coburger's voice she heard the night of the murders
at the murder Saine. The standing silent is in response
to this, all right, I'm going.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
To read you the charges on the indictment, starting.
Speaker 5 (02:27):
With count one.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
Burglary as a felony under Idaho Code Section eighteen, at.
Speaker 6 (02:33):
One four zero one and.
Speaker 4 (02:35):
One four zero three. This allegis that you honor about
November thirteen, twenty twenty two, the Layta County, State of Idaho,
did unlawfully enter a residence located at one one two
two King Rode, Moscow with an attempt to commit the
felony crime of murder. This allegis that you honor about
(02:57):
November thirteen, twenty twenty two, the Laytak County, State of Idaho,
it unlawfully entrew a residence located at one one, two
two King rode Moscow with an attempt to commit the
felony crime of murder count two murder in the first degree.
This alleges that you honor about November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
(03:20):
in Laytak County, State of Idaho, did lowfully, unlawfully, deliberately,
with premeditation and with malice at fourtho killed and murder
Madison Mogan Kayla Cosalez Zana pernodle Ethan chapin is signed
on May sixteen, twenty twenty.
Speaker 5 (03:39):
Three by the presiding Grand Jury Jury.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
You are hearing the judge outlined the murder charges against him,
and also we hear for the first time mention of
the death penalty.
Speaker 6 (03:53):
Listen or counts two, three, four, and five murder in
their first degree asimum penalties of life in prison or
the death penalty.
Speaker 4 (04:05):
Find about the fifty thousand dollars are both fine and
a life in prison or the death penalty, restitution for
the victims economic losses resulting from crime. Also an additional
fine of up to five thousand dollars to be paid
directly to the Inner Standards if you are found guilty
or fleet guilty on each charge and a maximum sentences
(04:30):
are in post consecutive critic compartments, one right after the other,
you could be facing ten years in prison followed by
four consecutive life sentences or death penalties. Finds about to
two hundred thousand.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
You're hearing Judge John Judge speaking with me an all
star panel to make sense of what we know right now.
First to Chris McDonough joining US, director of the Cold
Case Foundation, former homicide detective, and hosts of YouTube channel
The Interview Room. Chris, are you surprised that on some
questions he would say yes, yes, yes, a single word,
(05:08):
but when it came time to say not guilty, he
quote stood silent.
Speaker 7 (05:12):
No, I'm not surprised, Nancy. But your point about that
voice match potential for that witness is, you know, I
got a shiver when I heard it because I had
not considered that personally, And I think you're right on
target there. He is in this control mechanism even there
in the courtroom, and he wants to again mitigate his
(05:35):
risk and relationship to that or he's mentoring, you know,
back to the individuals that he studied in his in
his course studies in relationship to his assigned books from
his professor, specifically Dennis Rader, who also stood silent.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Wow, that's a really good comparison. Could you explain that place?
Speaker 7 (06:00):
Yeah, I mean when when bt K went before the court,
he had his attorney said the exact same thing and
and elevated himself. You know, the thought process is by
having a judge declare his you know, not guilty.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Why do you say that elevated himself.
Speaker 7 (06:19):
Well, you're sitting there and you have a judge telling
the world, Well, I'll just go ahead and tell the
world you're not guilty, that you're that you're you're standing silent.
And BTK relished it. And then later on, of course,
when he saw the extent of the evidence, then he
came forward with his you know now infamous confession to
(06:43):
the to the world.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Very very compelling because we know that uh Coburger has
taken a very unusual interest in Dennis Dennis writer bt
K by torture kill serial killer. In fact, there was
much speculation that the two had been in contact. Very
compelling argument, along with the theory that he does not
(07:09):
want his voice repeatedly out there for Dylan Mortensen or Frankly,
the other survivor to be able to identify him Bethany.
So you've got Dylan and Bethany there that night. We
don't really know what Bethany heard or didn't hear, because
(07:29):
her statement has not been made public. Very curious. What
about this tie into it? And I'm going to go
to Karen Stark joining US renowned psychologists joining us out
of Manhattan. You can find her at Karenstark dot com.
It's Karen with a C. Karen, what about this complete
disdain for the judicial system, for our jury system, for
(07:56):
our judges. You know, a judge in herself or himself
are not the law, But like our president is not
the US government, they represent. The president represents our country,
represents our government. The judge represents the law. And you know,
(08:19):
Coburger seemingly have you ever have you read the accounts
of how students that were in school with him, coworkers
say he always had to be right, He always had
to point out when other people were wrong about anything.
He loved being smarter than thou. I could see him
(08:44):
bearing great disdain for the judge and for our judicial system.
Speaker 8 (08:48):
Well, Nancy, think about his personality. I mean, this guy,
he's so narcissistic. He actually studied the killers, wanted to
know more about it. He had no hesitation to tell
other people that they were wrong, people that that learned
(09:11):
underneath him, that other students, they just felt that he
was so arrogant and think of what it takes to if,
in fact he is guilty do what he did. And
I felt like even when he was stopped, when the
police stopped him and he was attempting to have a
(09:33):
good exchange with them, that he wasn't even at that
point able to show that, oh gee, I'm really really
sorry it's anything. It seemed more like his father was
than he was. So I don't feel like this is
a guy who feels like anybody knows more than he does.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Time Stories with Nancy Grace, You.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Know, I want to go back to and guys on
the panel. Remember we're not having high t at Winsor
Castle with Charles and Camilla. Jump in if you have
a thought, Chris McDonough, do you remember how his colleagues
and co students disliked him because he was always correcting them,
always had to have the last word, always had to
be right about everything. Do you remember that?
Speaker 7 (10:32):
Yes? Absolutely so?
Speaker 2 (10:34):
How does that have. How does that connect to his
choice to basically not even acknowledge the judge.
Speaker 7 (10:42):
Well, you know, to the doc statement, you know, to
dovetail into the dark statement a moment ago as well
the fact that he is, you know, projecting this total
control over all everything. And and now you think about
how he's convincing those around him by just dominance of
(11:04):
you know, conversations, dominance of you know, even his colleague
in his understudies where the kid was saying, look, you
know you've got to stop, you know, you've got to
be serious for a minute. I got to take your picture.
And he was able to, you know, in a quick second,
just flip that switch and pose for those photographs. And so,
(11:28):
you know, as the doc can tell us, you know,
we live three lives, our private life, our secret life,
and our public persona. So everything that he is doing
right now is in the secret persona, but he's projecting
it into a public persona, Joe. You know, the doc
I'm sure can get into the psychology of how deep
(11:49):
that goes. But what Corburger is Corburger is doing right
now is he is now taking this stage to the
court room and he's projecting this dominance, and yesterday was
another perfect example of that. What better way to have
(12:14):
his message told than by a judge in the highest
court in Idaho in relationship to the superior court where
he's presenting himself in the judge shay, Okay, well, I'll
go ahead and put in the not guilty for you.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Because you don't deign to speak, I'll do it for you.
Why did Brian Coberger quote stand silent? Is it because
he doesn't want the witnesses, the survivors to identify his
voice by speaking out in court? Is it because he
has an odd connection to BTK buying torture killed Dennis Raider,
(12:51):
who did the same thing in court? Or is it
because he has such disdain for the judge, for our
justice system. We know he treated colleagues, co teaching assistants,
students in that manner very disdainfully. But here's a big
indicator the way he talked down to a lady cop
(13:16):
that very simply warned him about pulling into a crosswalk
when people were walking at the crosswalk. Listen to this, Okay,
So I found it.
Speaker 9 (13:28):
So I don't know what in Pennsylvania to the where
you go to find law Lisbon in Washington. It's called
the Revice Code of Washington, So I'll try to turn
my brightness up. But it's basically it's just called an RCW.
So it's RCW forty six sixty one dot two zero two.
So it's no driver shall enter an intersection unless there's
(13:48):
significant space on the other side of the intersection to
accommodate the vehicle. He is operating without obstructing the passage
of other vehicles despite any control signals, signal indications proceeds.
So you had a green light, so you're thinking you
can go, but you're blocking the intersection straight out.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
She's a special guest joining us. Tracy Brown, author of
How to Detect Li's Fraud and Identity Theft. Tracy Brown
at body Languagetrainer dot com. Tracy, I mean he made
the lady cop go and research the law about pulling
your car into a crosswalk with people walking across it.
(14:30):
He did not accept that she was going to give
him a warning for doing that. He had her pull
the law. Are you surprised at all? He made The
judge entered the not guilty plea for him and refused
to speak.
Speaker 10 (14:44):
I am not surprised, and I think, really what he
was going for, and I think what everybody was hinting
at is it is. Actually it's called a prestige suggestion.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Whoa hold on, I got write that round right? That down?
Prestige suggestion. What's that?
Speaker 10 (15:00):
Well, that's when you get you. People are more readily
accepting of a comment from someone of prestige. Right. So
it could be a dentist when you go into the
dentist and they say that you need some kind of treatment,
Well you must because they're a dentists, right, same thing here,
(15:23):
So prestige suggestion from a judge, Well you got to
believe a judge. What could possibly be wrong with the judge?
Speaker 7 (15:29):
Right?
Speaker 10 (15:29):
And so it's just that little bit of extra prestige
to something to make you consider what's really being said.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
Differently, Prestige suggestion. So how does that factor in Tracy
to him quote standing silent when it was time to interplace, Well.
Speaker 10 (15:48):
I think he's depending on that prestige to start to
change public opinion.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
Well it didn't as far as I can tell, it didn't.
Speaker 10 (15:57):
I don't think so, But he's got to try.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
You might as well try something if you ran up
at lands is that Karen started jumping Karen.
Speaker 8 (16:03):
Yes. Well, I also want to point out that he
was He had no problem stating very firmly that he
understood what was being.
Speaker 10 (16:14):
Said to him.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Oh my stars, Karen Starr, you just read my mind.
Speaker 7 (16:20):
Jack.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Could you play our cut four three five uberger.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
Do you understand the charge in count why perfect yes?
Do you understand the maximum penalty yes? Do you understand
the charge in count two murder in the first three yes.
Do you understand the maximum health yes? Do you understand
charge count three murder in the first three yes. Do
(16:46):
you understand the maximum healt yes? Do you understand the
charge in count four murder in the first degree yes?
Speaker 4 (16:54):
Do you understand the mathma health yes? Do you understand
the charge in count five immerging on the first scar?
Do you understand the massimum patty?
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Yes, you're absolutely right, Karen Stark very forcefully. Yes. And
I also noticed, you know, Karen, no matter what judge
I was in front of, didn't matter what judge, even
if it was a when I got sworn in at
the US Supreme Court, all the way down to a
(17:25):
traffic judge, doesn't matter. I would always say yes, sir,
or yes, ma'am or yes judge to show respect for
this person. Whether I liked the judge or thought that
they were a lunatic, it didn't matter. They still represented
our judicial system. And you see Coburger putting, you know,
(17:49):
just like Tracy Brown was talking about prestige suggestion, putting
himself on the same level as the judge in a
court of law instead of showing any respect by saying
sir or ma'am, that's not going to happen with kay
Broker now.
Speaker 11 (18:04):
And then Nancy have another idea too, is that I
think you know, as much as we speak about the
recording of his voice and people hearing it, there are
recordings of his voice, whether through the bodycam video with
police stopped him and interviews which maybe if they can
be entered in and suppressed as evidence, could be heard
by the witnesses. My view is that this is really
(18:25):
about him being smarter than everyone else, him studying him,
wanting to be smarter when out smart investigators. He wanted
to do things that would be not traceable to him.
He was trying to commit this kind of I believe
the allegation here is that he was trying to commit
kind of his perfect crime and as a result, he's
going to put the full burden of proof, full burden
(18:45):
everything on the prosecution to basically say, here I am,
you got to come after me, you got to give
me everything you have.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
They smarter than everyone else. I think you're hearing Bill
Daily right now, former FBI investigator, forensic photography security expert. Bill.
I think you're right.
Speaker 8 (19:02):
Karen Stark wag In, He's definitely he's correct.
Speaker 12 (19:06):
Man.
Speaker 8 (19:06):
See, this is an arrogant guy. There's no difference there.
This guy is going to show you that he knows
the law absolutely and he is smarter than everybody, and
he's going to get away with this. I don't think
this guy is afraid. I really don't. I think he
(19:26):
believes that he's going to be found.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Dennison, Now, I want to go to Tara Malick joining us,
a high profile lawyer out of that jurisdiction in Idaho,
and you can find her at Smith Malik dot com. Tara,
thanks for being with us. What about the theory that
this whole standing silent move in the courtroom by Brian
Coberger and clearly his lawyer was on board with it,
(19:49):
Ann Taylor, They don't have the insanity defense in Idaho,
but how about somehow lying the ground for an incompetency defense.
Speaker 13 (20:00):
You know, I don't know that it's an incompetency defense,
because as we heard on that clip, he said, yes,
he understood the charges. So you know, I think that
and I agree with the other panelists and what.
Speaker 10 (20:13):
They've been saying.
Speaker 13 (20:13):
You know, he's this narcissist. He's trying to kind of
gain control but.
Speaker 10 (20:17):
Himself above the judge.
Speaker 13 (20:19):
I think the other thing that standing silent does as
far as a strategy, is if there are negotiations ongoing
right now behind the scenes, you know, to take the
death penalty off the table or who knows what with
the prosecution, it's a bargaining tchip that they can save
and they can say and kind of save face a
little bit and be like, he didn't enter and not
(20:41):
guilty plea. He wasn't doubling down and saying he was
not guilty. What he was doing was standing silent, you know,
defaulting to the not guilty and then using that later on.
You know, he has that right to stand silent. The
other thing that came to mind when I heard that
he stood silent was that they don't have all the
discovery yet. You know, there's a pending motion to compel
(21:03):
by the defense against the state. I think the state
has turned over over ten thousand documents and several thousand
photographs already, but they're requesting more information and think there's
more information out there, and if they don't have all
the discovery yet, you know, they may not be able
to assess right now what he's going to do. And
so standing silent would give them some leeway there as well,
(21:25):
to say, you know, I can't even advise my client
one way or another because I don't have all the
information yet.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
Yeah, you're right, Tara. Typically, even at the outset, when
all the discovery has not been handed over, the defendant
will enter a not guilty plea. The law is that
when a defendant refuses to speak, the court will presume
the defendant wishes to enter a not guilty plea and
(21:51):
enter it for the defendant. That is the Fifth Amendment
right to remain silent as it has been interpreted US
and state case law. So when a defendant won't interplea,
the law presumes a not guilty not guilty plea is intended.
(22:12):
That's really good reasoning Tar Malik. Another issue, guys, have
you ever heard of solve sets sovereign citizens? You know
the ones that, yeah, I hear you laughing, so you
are familiar. They are the ones that, for instance, refuse
(22:32):
to acknowledge the I R S is real, And so
they sit in the can in the Pokey jail prison
for a really long time until they go, Okay, yeah,
the I R S Is real, I will pay my taxes.
Long story short, solve SIT says that they are autonomous
(22:52):
and they are basically a citizen of the world and
do not recognize any sovereign over them, i e. The government,
the judge, they anybody, We've all heard of the people,
And it's usually have you noticed to Bill or Chris,
Karen Tara, anybody on the panel that it's usually about taxes.
(23:17):
That's when they suddenly refuse to acknowledge a sovereign is
when it comes to paying taxes. Everything else fine, I'll
stop at the red light, but I'm not gonna pay
my taxes. Have you guys noticed that.
Speaker 10 (23:32):
They don't like to.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Well, yeah they don't. Yeah, when they get a ticket,
they no longer agree with the traffic rules. Yes, that's
a good point. Maybe it's a solve set. I don't know,
but I do know that that is what has happened
in court. Take a listen to our cup four three eight.
Speaker 4 (23:48):
By the way, I do want to.
Speaker 5 (23:52):
Let everybody know, if they don't already know this, that
once the grand jury issuing nagement, polluter and hearing schedule
to start out of June twenty six was no longer
needed and it's vacated. So you get confused about that.
So I think, thank counsel and I am a media
(24:16):
and the public for your attention and the staff.
Speaker 7 (24:18):
So you are a journey.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
There are many ways to charge someone formally with a
felony like murder. You can have a single prosecutor draw
up what it's called an information. They just write it
up themselves and say hey, you're formally charged. You're going
to trial. You can have a preliminary hearing like in
the AJ Simpson case, where witnesses are called, they can
be cross examined an a judge then quote binds the
(24:46):
case over to the correct court such as a superior
court for trial. Or you can have eight grand jury proceeding,
which is what was held this time. By having the
grand jury hand down the charges that got rid of
the need for a preliminary hearing, So the preliminary hearing
except for June, is now off. I want to mention
(25:09):
again the behavior of Brian Coburger in the courtroom, and
I watched defendants like a hawk to see if I
can learn anything from their behavior their demeanor. Nicole Parton,
joining us Crime online dot Com investigative reporter, Nicole, I
played and replayed Coburger going in and out of the courtroom.
(25:32):
He very carefully trained his gaze on anything but the victims' families.
What did you see, Nicole.
Speaker 12 (25:43):
Parton, Absolutely, I noticed the very same thing Nancy and
I also have heard witnesses that were in the courtroom
saying that members of Cayley's family kept their eyes locked
on him, but he refused to even look their way.
He only he looked at his attorney. I also noticed
that yesterday, compared to the previous videos and photos we've
(26:06):
seen of him, he is not as frail in thin
now Physically he looked stronger. He also doesn't have those
scratches and marks on the side of his face that
we saw in previous court events, so he looked physically different.
But he had that focus, not looking at any family members,
not looking at anyone in the courtroom, and just sitting there,
(26:28):
gazed into his attorney that one little, little small smile
that he gave her.
Speaker 11 (26:33):
And that was in.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
Time Stories with Nancy Grace.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
To Tracy Brown, body language expert and author of How
to Detect Li's Fraud and Identity Theft. What do you
at Coyburger's behavior in court?
Speaker 10 (27:02):
Well, I thought there was really a lot to see.
And let's let's start with how he walked in And
you all mentioned his his gaze. What which which is true?
Which let me there was a couple of clues that
said he was emotionally unaffected by the proceedings. For one,
(27:24):
did not show emotion on his face. Okay, but here's
here's what's more interesting is that he did not protect
himself like we would normally see someone walk into the courtroom.
So his his arms were out into the side. He
was making himself a little bit bigger. Now, some of
that had to do with him wearing which I think
was a bulletproof vest, but his arms were hanging down
(27:49):
to his sides. Usually we'd see someone protect themselves in
some kind of way. With arms in front of them
at least a little bit. So excuse me, so that
this lets me know, Okay, wait a minute, this guy
doesn't think he has anything to protect himself from. Now
beyond that, he does not when he's sitting there, he
(28:09):
does not show any adapters or pacifiers. And what those
boil down to are small little movements that really stress,
Small little repetitive movements. Right, So he didn't put his
hand to his forehead, he didn't lean on his elbows,
he didn't smooth down his pants, right, those kinds of things.
He didn't run his hands through his hair, none of that.
(28:31):
I have never seen anyone without these kinds of movements
in what's such what you'd think would be such a
pressure field situation, which let me know he does not
emotionally connect to the pressure that's around him, like just
not protecting himself, not letting off any anxiety at all. Now,
(28:56):
we hinted at some of this earlier. I think from
the way that he actually didn't move his head because
he was very straight on the whole time, it tells
me he's a really analytical linear secer in my experience,
that's what we see, and he doesn't do emotions well,
So I thought that was not necessarily uncharacteristic of someone
(29:16):
who's likely been involved in this kind of situation. Now
here's what's most interesting is that we didn't see any
wrinkles in his forehead. And our forehead is the part
of us that's the hardest to control. It's almost impossible
to do, so that's what we'd see is stress mark,
(29:38):
stress lines across the forehead if he was stressed. He
didn't show a drop of stress at all about anything.
The only time I've seen anything like that was similar
was with Lee Harvey Oswald who killed Kennedy. He didn't
show any stress when he was on camera either. So
(29:58):
his is a blink rate was super slow. Okay, So
that says, okay, wait a minute, there may be something
going on there or as far as stress goes inside
that he's trying to hold back, or he he could
be staring out at what's going on, trying to emotionally
(30:21):
disconnect from a situation. But I don't think there's a
lot of connection there to start with. Like he sounds
fully aware, I think he just wasn't able, like mentally
to connect to the gravity of what's going on.
Speaker 2 (30:34):
You know what I compare it to, and I want
everybody to jump in, Karen, Chris, Bill, Nicole, and doctor
Kendall Crown's coming right back to you. He would not
look at the victims' families sitting in the courtroom, some
of them anyway. And I remember in my own experience
(30:56):
coming down off the witness stand and my fiance's Marty
tru and I looked at the defense attorneys and they
all look down. I looked at the defendant and he
looked down. I find that significant. What about it, Chris mcdonney,
You've seen plenty of homicide defendants.
Speaker 7 (31:14):
Nancy Sill. My take on him in relationship to that
is again, remember he wore the perpetrator here warm math,
and it was just enough to where the eyewitness could
only see partial, you know, pieces of that individual's identity
(31:36):
in this case where he walks into that courtroom, does
not make eye contact with anybody in relationship to you know,
who the victims are here. That again, I read that,
as you know, Leather or mine, I control the whole
(31:57):
scenario here. I control that before it happened, I controlled
it when it happened, and now I'm going to control
it after it happened, and so by him not acknowledging it,
it's almost Remember, these guys and the doc can break
into this, are much deeper. These guys do these things
(32:18):
at night because deep down inside, it's this idea that says,
I am nothing, Joe. Remember if you pull that mask off,
everybody goes that's the guy. And you know what, that
guy's really weird and he's been weird blah blah blah.
And you go back and look in their history and
(32:39):
sure enough they were, and we start seeing evidence of
that just on with this guy. You know, the tinderbates,
and we can keep going on. But what he's doing
there is telling that family, no, they belong to me.
I'm in control and I'm not going to let you in.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
You know, I'm just thinking through everything that happened, Bill
Daily joining me form or FBI investigator forensic photography and
security expert. Did you notice he trained his eyes on
his lawyer and the defense table and would not look
at the victim's families at all.
Speaker 11 (33:22):
Yeah, absolutely, Nancy. And what they were all getting around
here too, is that he's emotionally vacant. And even during
the car stops when we saw the body cam footage,
and all the way through he just has this kind
of vacant look on his face. But I think it
actually goes a bit more deeper than that. I think
as he's standing there and not willing to say to
put it forward to plee if not guilty, he's already
(33:44):
thinking down the road as to how he's going to
try to unravel the prosecution's purpose of going forward to
forensic evidence. I think he's looking already, and I imagine
what we're going to see him be very active with
his attorney and trying to pull apart it's by piece
the forensic evidence, whether it's change of custody like we
saw on the OJ Simpson trial, or whether it's through
(34:07):
questionable laboratory techniques they didn't try to suppress as much
as he can, And I think that's where he already is.
I think he's already down the road trying to outsmart
the court, outsmart the prosecution.
Speaker 2 (34:18):
To doctor Kendall Crown's chief medical examiner, Terran County. That's
fort Worth Lecturer, University Texas Austin TCU Medical School, doctor
Kendall Crowns. The one thing he did not want to
hear about at all, is what happened to these victims?
(34:42):
Before we close today, I don't want our discussion to
be just about strategy technique. Could you please explain what
happened to these for victims.
Speaker 14 (35:00):
So, all the individuals were stabbed multiple times with a
k bar type knife, and that's the type knife that's
the Marine Corps is issued, so it's a relatively large
kind of hunting knife, but used for hand to hand combat.
They were all stabbed multiple times about their bodies a
(35:21):
large evidently larger gaping wounds, so there's probably a fair
amount of movement in the stab wounds as well. So
I would think that they each individually were probably over
stabbed more than once because usually in these situations it's
hard to just stab a person one time and have
(35:42):
them drop dead like it happens with a gunshot wound.
So usually the individuals are stabbed multiple times and there's
defensive wounds as they're trying to stop you from stabbing them,
and all they have to defend themselves is their arms
in hands, so often there's mutilating injuries of the hands
where even fingers are hacked off because you're grabbing at
the knife trying to stop it. So I would assume
(36:06):
that these individuals have those wounds as well, so they're
probably is a group. All of them have multiple stab
wounds with the combination of defensive type injuries and then
mutilating injuries as well.
Speaker 2 (36:17):
What did you mean when you said movement within the
stab wounds.
Speaker 14 (36:22):
So there's a couple things. As you know, you're not
going to just stand there and be stabbed, right, You're
going to try and get away from them, pull away
when the knife enteres your body is painful, so you'll
twist and turn, and then that can cause a change
in the shape of the wound itself. And also sometimes
with individuals when they stab you, they will actually put
(36:43):
the knife in and then pull it as hard as
they can in one direction or another to make the
injury even more devastating and make the wound bigger.
Speaker 2 (36:52):
I'm just thinking back to the night these four students
were murdered, stabbed over and over and over the way
our medical examiner, doctor Kendall Crowns, is describing, and then
this guy comes in to court and refuses to enter
(37:13):
a play.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
We wait as justice and false goodbye
Crime Stories with Nancy Greece.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
In the last hours slay suspect Brian Koberger in a
court of law for arraignment. He chose to neither enter
a guilty or a not guilty plea, instead opting to
quote stand silent in the open courtroom. Why, I'm Nancy Grace.
(00:36):
This is Crime Stories. Thanks for being with us here
at Fox Station and serious xem one eleven. First of all,
listen to this and miss Taylor.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
He's mister Coberger prepared to please to these charges priority.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
All the saxe because to mister Kilberger is send silent.
I'm going to enter and I'm guilty. Please, I show
has one, two, three, four and five. Now at this juncture,
I would say it has sixty days to give notice
of attention to see.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
If gut Then was here.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Is anyone surprised, because I am not surprised. Coburger quote
stood silent. There are many theories about why he did it,
but let me just throw this one out there. We
hear him speak a little bit in the courtroom. We
hear certain answers. Could it be he did not want
(01:36):
to speak any more than he had to because he
did not want a witness, an ear witness from the
time of the murder. I'm referring specifically to Dylan Mortensen,
who heard someone at the time of the murder say
something to the effect of it's okay, I'll help you.
I'm here to help you. If Dylan Morton's here's Brian
(02:01):
Coberger's voice. Can she make a positive identification that it
was Coburger's voice she heard the night of the murders
at the murder Saine. The standing silent is in response
to this, all right, I'm going.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
To read you the charges on the indictment, starting.
Speaker 5 (02:27):
With count one.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
Burglary as a felony under Idaho Code Section eighteen, at.
Speaker 6 (02:33):
One four zero one and.
Speaker 4 (02:35):
One four zero three. This allegis that you honor about
November thirteen, twenty twenty two, the Layta County, State of Idaho,
did unlawfully enter a residence located at one one two
two King Rode, Moscow with an attempt to commit the
felony crime of murder. This allegis that you honor about
(02:57):
November thirteen, twenty twenty two, the Laytak County, State of Idaho,
it unlawfully entrew a residence located at one one, two
two King rode Moscow with an attempt to commit the
felony crime of murder count two murder in the first degree.
This alleges that you honor about November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
(03:20):
in Laytak County, State of Idaho, did lowfully, unlawfully, deliberately,
with premeditation and with malice at fourtho killed and murder
Madison Mogan Kayla Cosalez Zana pernodle Ethan chapin is signed
on May sixteen, twenty twenty.
Speaker 5 (03:39):
Three by the presiding Grand Jury Jury.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
You are hearing the judge outlined the murder charges against him,
and also we hear for the first time mention of
the death penalty.
Speaker 6 (03:53):
Listen or counts two, three, four, and five murder in
their first degree asimum penalties of life in prison or
the death penalty.
Speaker 4 (04:05):
Find about the fifty thousand dollars are both fine and
a life in prison or the death penalty, restitution for
the victims economic losses resulting from crime. Also an additional
fine of up to five thousand dollars to be paid
directly to the Inner Standards if you are found guilty
or fleet guilty on each charge and a maximum sentences
(04:30):
are in post consecutive critic compartments, one right after the other,
you could be facing ten years in prison followed by
four consecutive life sentences or death penalties. Finds about to
two hundred thousand.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
You're hearing Judge John Judge speaking with me an all
star panel to make sense of what we know right now.
First to Chris McDonough joining US, director of the Cold
Case Foundation, former homicide detective, and hosts of YouTube channel
The Interview Room. Chris, are you surprised that on some
questions he would say yes, yes, yes, a single word,
(05:08):
but when it came time to say not guilty, he
quote stood silent.
Speaker 7 (05:12):
No, I'm not surprised, Nancy. But your point about that
voice match potential for that witness is, you know, I
got a shiver when I heard it because I had
not considered that personally, And I think you're right on
target there. He is in this control mechanism even there
in the courtroom, and he wants to again mitigate his
(05:35):
risk and relationship to that or he's mentoring, you know,
back to the individuals that he studied in his in
his course studies in relationship to his assigned books from
his professor, specifically Dennis Rader, who also stood silent.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Wow, that's a really good comparison. Could you explain that place?
Speaker 7 (06:00):
Yeah, I mean when when bt K went before the court,
he had his attorney said the exact same thing and
and elevated himself. You know, the thought process is by
having a judge declare his you know, not guilty.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Why do you say that elevated himself.
Speaker 7 (06:19):
Well, you're sitting there and you have a judge telling
the world, Well, I'll just go ahead and tell the
world you're not guilty, that you're that you're you're standing silent.
And BTK relished it. And then later on, of course,
when he saw the extent of the evidence, then he
came forward with his you know now infamous confession to
(06:43):
the to the world.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Very very compelling because we know that uh Coburger has
taken a very unusual interest in Dennis Dennis writer bt
K by torture kill serial killer. In fact, there was
much speculation that the two had been in contact. Very
compelling argument, along with the theory that he does not
(07:09):
want his voice repeatedly out there for Dylan Mortensen or Frankly,
the other survivor to be able to identify him Bethany.
So you've got Dylan and Bethany there that night. We
don't really know what Bethany heard or didn't hear, because
(07:29):
her statement has not been made public. Very curious. What
about this tie into it? And I'm going to go
to Karen Stark joining US renowned psychologists joining us out
of Manhattan. You can find her at Karenstark dot com.
It's Karen with a C. Karen, what about this complete
disdain for the judicial system, for our jury system, for
(07:56):
our judges. You know, a judge in herself or himself
are not the law, But like our president is not
the US government, they represent. The president represents our country,
represents our government. The judge represents the law. And you know,
(08:19):
Coburger seemingly have you ever have you read the accounts
of how students that were in school with him, coworkers
say he always had to be right, He always had
to point out when other people were wrong about anything.
He loved being smarter than thou. I could see him
(08:44):
bearing great disdain for the judge and for our judicial system.
Speaker 8 (08:48):
Well, Nancy, think about his personality. I mean, this guy,
he's so narcissistic. He actually studied the killers, wanted to
know more about it. He had no hesitation to tell
other people that they were wrong, people that that learned
(09:11):
underneath him, that other students, they just felt that he
was so arrogant and think of what it takes to if,
in fact he is guilty do what he did. And
I felt like even when he was stopped, when the
police stopped him and he was attempting to have a
(09:33):
good exchange with them, that he wasn't even at that
point able to show that, oh gee, I'm really really
sorry it's anything. It seemed more like his father was
than he was. So I don't feel like this is
a guy who feels like anybody knows more than he does.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Time Stories with Nancy Grace, You.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Know, I want to go back to and guys on
the panel. Remember we're not having high t at Winsor
Castle with Charles and Camilla. Jump in if you have
a thought, Chris McDonough, do you remember how his colleagues
and co students disliked him because he was always correcting them,
always had to have the last word, always had to
be right about everything. Do you remember that?
Speaker 7 (10:32):
Yes? Absolutely so?
Speaker 2 (10:34):
How does that have. How does that connect to his
choice to basically not even acknowledge the judge.
Speaker 7 (10:42):
Well, you know, to the doc statement, you know, to
dovetail into the dark statement a moment ago as well
the fact that he is, you know, projecting this total
control over all everything. And and now you think about
how he's convincing those around him by just dominance of
(11:04):
you know, conversations, dominance of you know, even his colleague
in his understudies where the kid was saying, look, you
know you've got to stop, you know, you've got to
be serious for a minute. I got to take your picture.
And he was able to, you know, in a quick second,
just flip that switch and pose for those photographs. And so,
(11:28):
you know, as the doc can tell us, you know,
we live three lives, our private life, our secret life,
and our public persona. So everything that he is doing
right now is in the secret persona, but he's projecting
it into a public persona, Joe. You know, the doc
I'm sure can get into the psychology of how deep
(11:49):
that goes. But what Corburger is Corburger is doing right
now is he is now taking this stage to the
court room and he's projecting this dominance, and yesterday was
another perfect example of that. What better way to have
(12:14):
his message told than by a judge in the highest
court in Idaho in relationship to the superior court where
he's presenting himself in the judge shay, Okay, well, I'll
go ahead and put in the not guilty for you.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Because you don't deign to speak, I'll do it for you.
Why did Brian Coberger quote stand silent? Is it because
he doesn't want the witnesses, the survivors to identify his
voice by speaking out in court? Is it because he
has an odd connection to BTK buying torture killed Dennis Raider,
(12:51):
who did the same thing in court? Or is it
because he has such disdain for the judge, for our
justice system. We know he treated colleagues, co teaching assistants,
students in that manner very disdainfully. But here's a big
indicator the way he talked down to a lady cop
(13:16):
that very simply warned him about pulling into a crosswalk
when people were walking at the crosswalk. Listen to this, Okay,
So I found it.
Speaker 9 (13:28):
So I don't know what in Pennsylvania to the where
you go to find law Lisbon in Washington. It's called
the Revice Code of Washington, So I'll try to turn
my brightness up. But it's basically it's just called an RCW.
So it's RCW forty six sixty one dot two zero two.
So it's no driver shall enter an intersection unless there's
(13:48):
significant space on the other side of the intersection to
accommodate the vehicle. He is operating without obstructing the passage
of other vehicles despite any control signals, signal indications proceeds.
So you had a green light, so you're thinking you
can go, but you're blocking the intersection straight out.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
She's a special guest joining us. Tracy Brown, author of
How to Detect Li's Fraud and Identity Theft. Tracy Brown
at body Languagetrainer dot com. Tracy, I mean he made
the lady cop go and research the law about pulling
your car into a crosswalk with people walking across it.
(14:30):
He did not accept that she was going to give
him a warning for doing that. He had her pull
the law. Are you surprised at all? He made The
judge entered the not guilty plea for him and refused
to speak.
Speaker 10 (14:44):
I am not surprised, and I think, really what he
was going for, and I think what everybody was hinting
at is it is. Actually it's called a prestige suggestion.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Whoa hold on, I got write that round right? That down?
Prestige suggestion. What's that?
Speaker 10 (15:00):
Well, that's when you get you. People are more readily
accepting of a comment from someone of prestige. Right. So
it could be a dentist when you go into the
dentist and they say that you need some kind of treatment,
Well you must because they're a dentists, right, same thing here,
(15:23):
So prestige suggestion from a judge, Well you got to
believe a judge. What could possibly be wrong with the judge?
Speaker 7 (15:29):
Right?
Speaker 10 (15:29):
And so it's just that little bit of extra prestige
to something to make you consider what's really being said.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
Differently, Prestige suggestion. So how does that factor in Tracy
to him quote standing silent when it was time to interplace, Well.
Speaker 10 (15:48):
I think he's depending on that prestige to start to
change public opinion.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
Well it didn't as far as I can tell, it didn't.
Speaker 10 (15:57):
I don't think so, But he's got to try.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
You might as well try something if you ran up
at lands is that Karen started jumping Karen.
Speaker 8 (16:03):
Yes. Well, I also want to point out that he
was He had no problem stating very firmly that he
understood what was being.
Speaker 10 (16:14):
Said to him.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Oh my stars, Karen Starr, you just read my mind.
Speaker 7 (16:20):
Jack.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Could you play our cut four three five uberger.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
Do you understand the charge in count why perfect yes?
Do you understand the maximum penalty yes? Do you understand
the charge in count two murder in the first three yes.
Do you understand the maximum health yes? Do you understand
charge count three murder in the first three yes. Do
(16:46):
you understand the maximum healt yes? Do you understand the
charge in count four murder in the first degree yes?
Speaker 4 (16:54):
Do you understand the mathma health yes? Do you understand
the charge in count five immerging on the first scar?
Do you understand the massimum patty?
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Yes, you're absolutely right, Karen Stark very forcefully. Yes. And
I also noticed, you know, Karen, no matter what judge
I was in front of, didn't matter what judge, even
if it was a when I got sworn in at
the US Supreme Court, all the way down to a
(17:25):
traffic judge, doesn't matter. I would always say yes, sir,
or yes, ma'am or yes judge to show respect for
this person. Whether I liked the judge or thought that
they were a lunatic, it didn't matter. They still represented
our judicial system. And you see Coburger putting, you know,
(17:49):
just like Tracy Brown was talking about prestige suggestion, putting
himself on the same level as the judge in a
court of law instead of showing any respect by saying
sir or ma'am, that's not going to happen with kay
Broker now.
Speaker 11 (18:04):
And then Nancy have another idea too, is that I
think you know, as much as we speak about the
recording of his voice and people hearing it, there are
recordings of his voice, whether through the bodycam video with
police stopped him and interviews which maybe if they can
be entered in and suppressed as evidence, could be heard
by the witnesses. My view is that this is really
(18:25):
about him being smarter than everyone else, him studying him,
wanting to be smarter when out smart investigators. He wanted
to do things that would be not traceable to him.
He was trying to commit this kind of I believe
the allegation here is that he was trying to commit
kind of his perfect crime and as a result, he's
going to put the full burden of proof, full burden
(18:45):
everything on the prosecution to basically say, here I am,
you got to come after me, you got to give
me everything you have.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
They smarter than everyone else. I think you're hearing Bill
Daily right now, former FBI investigator, forensic photography security expert. Bill.
I think you're right.
Speaker 8 (19:02):
Karen Stark wag In, He's definitely he's correct.
Speaker 12 (19:06):
Man.
Speaker 8 (19:06):
See, this is an arrogant guy. There's no difference there.
This guy is going to show you that he knows
the law absolutely and he is smarter than everybody, and
he's going to get away with this. I don't think
this guy is afraid. I really don't. I think he
(19:26):
believes that he's going to be found.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Dennison, Now, I want to go to Tara Malick joining us,
a high profile lawyer out of that jurisdiction in Idaho,
and you can find her at Smith Malik dot com. Tara,
thanks for being with us. What about the theory that
this whole standing silent move in the courtroom by Brian
Coberger and clearly his lawyer was on board with it,
(19:49):
Ann Taylor, They don't have the insanity defense in Idaho,
but how about somehow lying the ground for an incompetency defense.
Speaker 13 (20:00):
You know, I don't know that it's an incompetency defense,
because as we heard on that clip, he said, yes,
he understood the charges. So you know, I think that
and I agree with the other panelists and what.
Speaker 10 (20:13):
They've been saying.
Speaker 13 (20:13):
You know, he's this narcissist. He's trying to kind of
gain control but.
Speaker 10 (20:17):
Himself above the judge.
Speaker 13 (20:19):
I think the other thing that standing silent does as
far as a strategy, is if there are negotiations ongoing
right now behind the scenes, you know, to take the
death penalty off the table or who knows what with
the prosecution, it's a bargaining tchip that they can save
and they can say and kind of save face a
little bit and be like, he didn't enter and not
(20:41):
guilty plea. He wasn't doubling down and saying he was
not guilty. What he was doing was standing silent, you know,
defaulting to the not guilty and then using that later on.
You know, he has that right to stand silent. The
other thing that came to mind when I heard that
he stood silent was that they don't have all the
discovery yet. You know, there's a pending motion to compel
(21:03):
by the defense against the state. I think the state
has turned over over ten thousand documents and several thousand
photographs already, but they're requesting more information and think there's
more information out there, and if they don't have all
the discovery yet, you know, they may not be able
to assess right now what he's going to do. And
so standing silent would give them some leeway there as well,
(21:25):
to say, you know, I can't even advise my client
one way or another because I don't have all the
information yet.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
Yeah, you're right, Tara. Typically, even at the outset, when
all the discovery has not been handed over, the defendant
will enter a not guilty plea. The law is that
when a defendant refuses to speak, the court will presume
the defendant wishes to enter a not guilty plea and
(21:51):
enter it for the defendant. That is the Fifth Amendment
right to remain silent as it has been interpreted US
and state case law. So when a defendant won't interplea,
the law presumes a not guilty not guilty plea is intended.
(22:12):
That's really good reasoning Tar Malik. Another issue, guys, have
you ever heard of solve sets sovereign citizens? You know
the ones that, yeah, I hear you laughing, so you
are familiar. They are the ones that, for instance, refuse
(22:32):
to acknowledge the I R S is real, And so
they sit in the can in the Pokey jail prison
for a really long time until they go, Okay, yeah,
the I R S Is real, I will pay my taxes.
Long story short, solve SIT says that they are autonomous
(22:52):
and they are basically a citizen of the world and
do not recognize any sovereign over them, i e. The government,
the judge, they anybody, We've all heard of the people,
And it's usually have you noticed to Bill or Chris,
Karen Tara, anybody on the panel that it's usually about taxes.
(23:17):
That's when they suddenly refuse to acknowledge a sovereign is
when it comes to paying taxes. Everything else fine, I'll
stop at the red light, but I'm not gonna pay
my taxes. Have you guys noticed that.
Speaker 10 (23:32):
They don't like to.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Well, yeah they don't. Yeah, when they get a ticket,
they no longer agree with the traffic rules. Yes, that's
a good point. Maybe it's a solve set. I don't know,
but I do know that that is what has happened
in court. Take a listen to our cup four three eight.
Speaker 4 (23:48):
By the way, I do want to.
Speaker 5 (23:52):
Let everybody know, if they don't already know this, that
once the grand jury issuing nagement, polluter and hearing schedule
to start out of June twenty six was no longer
needed and it's vacated. So you get confused about that.
So I think, thank counsel and I am a media
(24:16):
and the public for your attention and the staff.
Speaker 7 (24:18):
So you are a journey.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
There are many ways to charge someone formally with a
felony like murder. You can have a single prosecutor draw
up what it's called an information. They just write it
up themselves and say hey, you're formally charged. You're going
to trial. You can have a preliminary hearing like in
the AJ Simpson case, where witnesses are called, they can
be cross examined an a judge then quote binds the
(24:46):
case over to the correct court such as a superior
court for trial. Or you can have eight grand jury proceeding,
which is what was held this time. By having the
grand jury hand down the charges that got rid of
the need for a preliminary hearing, So the preliminary hearing
except for June, is now off. I want to mention
(25:09):
again the behavior of Brian Coburger in the courtroom, and
I watched defendants like a hawk to see if I
can learn anything from their behavior their demeanor. Nicole Parton,
joining us Crime online dot Com investigative reporter, Nicole, I
played and replayed Coburger going in and out of the courtroom.
(25:32):
He very carefully trained his gaze on anything but the victims' families.
What did you see, Nicole.
Speaker 12 (25:43):
Parton, Absolutely, I noticed the very same thing Nancy and
I also have heard witnesses that were in the courtroom
saying that members of Cayley's family kept their eyes locked
on him, but he refused to even look their way.
He only he looked at his attorney. I also noticed
that yesterday, compared to the previous videos and photos we've
(26:06):
seen of him, he is not as frail in thin
now Physically he looked stronger. He also doesn't have those
scratches and marks on the side of his face that
we saw in previous court events, so he looked physically different.
But he had that focus, not looking at any family members,
not looking at anyone in the courtroom, and just sitting there,
(26:28):
gazed into his attorney that one little, little small smile
that he gave her.
Speaker 11 (26:33):
And that was in.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
Time Stories with Nancy Grace.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
To Tracy Brown, body language expert and author of How
to Detect Li's Fraud and Identity Theft. What do you
at Coyburger's behavior in court?
Speaker 10 (27:02):
Well, I thought there was really a lot to see.
And let's let's start with how he walked in And
you all mentioned his his gaze. What which which is true?
Which let me there was a couple of clues that
said he was emotionally unaffected by the proceedings. For one,
(27:24):
did not show emotion on his face. Okay, but here's
here's what's more interesting is that he did not protect
himself like we would normally see someone walk into the courtroom.
So his his arms were out into the side. He
was making himself a little bit bigger. Now, some of
that had to do with him wearing which I think
was a bulletproof vest, but his arms were hanging down
(27:49):
to his sides. Usually we'd see someone protect themselves in
some kind of way. With arms in front of them
at least a little bit. So excuse me, so that
this lets me know, Okay, wait a minute, this guy
doesn't think he has anything to protect himself from. Now
beyond that, he does not when he's sitting there, he
(28:09):
does not show any adapters or pacifiers. And what those
boil down to are small little movements that really stress,
Small little repetitive movements. Right, So he didn't put his
hand to his forehead, he didn't lean on his elbows,
he didn't smooth down his pants, right, those kinds of things.
He didn't run his hands through his hair, none of that.
(28:31):
I have never seen anyone without these kinds of movements
in what's such what you'd think would be such a
pressure field situation, which let me know he does not
emotionally connect to the pressure that's around him, like just
not protecting himself, not letting off any anxiety at all. Now,
(28:56):
we hinted at some of this earlier. I think from
the way that he actually didn't move his head because
he was very straight on the whole time, it tells
me he's a really analytical linear secer in my experience,
that's what we see, and he doesn't do emotions well,
So I thought that was not necessarily uncharacteristic of someone
(29:16):
who's likely been involved in this kind of situation. Now
here's what's most interesting is that we didn't see any
wrinkles in his forehead. And our forehead is the part
of us that's the hardest to control. It's almost impossible
to do, so that's what we'd see is stress mark,
(29:38):
stress lines across the forehead if he was stressed. He
didn't show a drop of stress at all about anything.
The only time I've seen anything like that was similar
was with Lee Harvey Oswald who killed Kennedy. He didn't
show any stress when he was on camera either. So
(29:58):
his is a blink rate was super slow. Okay, So
that says, okay, wait a minute, there may be something
going on there or as far as stress goes inside
that he's trying to hold back, or he he could
be staring out at what's going on, trying to emotionally
(30:21):
disconnect from a situation. But I don't think there's a
lot of connection there to start with. Like he sounds
fully aware, I think he just wasn't able, like mentally
to connect to the gravity of what's going on.
Speaker 2 (30:34):
You know what I compare it to, and I want
everybody to jump in, Karen, Chris, Bill, Nicole, and doctor
Kendall Crown's coming right back to you. He would not
look at the victims' families sitting in the courtroom, some
of them anyway. And I remember in my own experience
(30:56):
coming down off the witness stand and my fiance's Marty
tru and I looked at the defense attorneys and they
all look down. I looked at the defendant and he
looked down. I find that significant. What about it, Chris mcdonney,
You've seen plenty of homicide defendants.
Speaker 7 (31:14):
Nancy Sill. My take on him in relationship to that
is again, remember he wore the perpetrator here warm math,
and it was just enough to where the eyewitness could
only see partial, you know, pieces of that individual's identity
(31:36):
in this case where he walks into that courtroom, does
not make eye contact with anybody in relationship to you know,
who the victims are here. That again, I read that,
as you know, Leather or mine, I control the whole
(31:57):
scenario here. I control that before it happened, I controlled
it when it happened, and now I'm going to control
it after it happened, and so by him not acknowledging it,
it's almost Remember, these guys and the doc can break
into this, are much deeper. These guys do these things
(32:18):
at night because deep down inside, it's this idea that says,
I am nothing, Joe. Remember if you pull that mask off,
everybody goes that's the guy. And you know what, that
guy's really weird and he's been weird blah blah blah.
And you go back and look in their history and
(32:39):
sure enough they were, and we start seeing evidence of
that just on with this guy. You know, the tinderbates,
and we can keep going on. But what he's doing
there is telling that family, no, they belong to me.
I'm in control and I'm not going to let you in.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
You know, I'm just thinking through everything that happened, Bill
Daily joining me form or FBI investigator forensic photography and
security expert. Did you notice he trained his eyes on
his lawyer and the defense table and would not look
at the victim's families at all.
Speaker 11 (33:22):
Yeah, absolutely, Nancy. And what they were all getting around
here too, is that he's emotionally vacant. And even during
the car stops when we saw the body cam footage,
and all the way through he just has this kind
of vacant look on his face. But I think it
actually goes a bit more deeper than that. I think
as he's standing there and not willing to say to
put it forward to plee if not guilty, he's already
(33:44):
thinking down the road as to how he's going to
try to unravel the prosecution's purpose of going forward to
forensic evidence. I think he's looking already, and I imagine
what we're going to see him be very active with
his attorney and trying to pull apart it's by piece
the forensic evidence, whether it's change of custody like we
saw on the OJ Simpson trial, or whether it's through
(34:07):
questionable laboratory techniques they didn't try to suppress as much
as he can, And I think that's where he already is.
I think he's already down the road trying to outsmart
the court, outsmart the prosecution.
Speaker 2 (34:18):
To doctor Kendall Crown's chief medical examiner, Terran County. That's
fort Worth Lecturer, University Texas Austin TCU Medical School, doctor
Kendall Crowns. The one thing he did not want to
hear about at all, is what happened to these victims?
(34:42):
Before we close today, I don't want our discussion to
be just about strategy technique. Could you please explain what
happened to these for victims.
Speaker 14 (35:00):
So, all the individuals were stabbed multiple times with a
k bar type knife, and that's the type knife that's
the Marine Corps is issued, so it's a relatively large
kind of hunting knife, but used for hand to hand combat.
They were all stabbed multiple times about their bodies a
(35:21):
large evidently larger gaping wounds, so there's probably a fair
amount of movement in the stab wounds as well. So
I would think that they each individually were probably over
stabbed more than once because usually in these situations it's
hard to just stab a person one time and have
(35:42):
them drop dead like it happens with a gunshot wound.
So usually the individuals are stabbed multiple times and there's
defensive wounds as they're trying to stop you from stabbing them,
and all they have to defend themselves is their arms
in hands, so often there's mutilating injuries of the hands
where even fingers are hacked off because you're grabbing at
the knife trying to stop it. So I would assume
(36:06):
that these individuals have those wounds as well, so they're
probably is a group. All of them have multiple stab
wounds with the combination of defensive type injuries and then
mutilating injuries as well.
Speaker 2 (36:17):
What did you mean when you said movement within the
stab wounds.
Speaker 14 (36:22):
So there's a couple things. As you know, you're not
going to just stand there and be stabbed, right, You're
going to try and get away from them, pull away
when the knife enteres your body is painful, so you'll
twist and turn, and then that can cause a change
in the shape of the wound itself. And also sometimes
with individuals when they stab you, they will actually put
(36:43):
the knife in and then pull it as hard as
they can in one direction or another to make the
injury even more devastating and make the wound bigger.
Speaker 2 (36:52):
I'm just thinking back to the night these four students
were murdered, stabbed over and over and over the way
our medical examiner, doctor Kendall Crowns, is describing, and then
this guy comes in to court and refuses to enter
(37:13):
a play.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
We wait as justice and false goodbye
Host
Nancy Grace
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.