October 11, 2023 • 34 mins
In this episode, producers Stephanie Lydecker and Conor Powell talk with Inside Edition reporter Chris Spargo about the recent filings from the case.
Check us out online:
www.tiktok.com/@officialktstudios
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 (00:04):
Moscow police are investigating a homicide on King Rhode.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Cause and manner of death was homicide by stabbing.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
This is terrible.
Speaker 4 (00:13):
It's a bloodbath.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
This is the Idaho Massacre. A production of KT Studios
and iHeartRadio, Episode eleven, A discussion with reporter Chris Bargo.
I'm Courtney Armstrong, a television producer at KT Studios, with
Stephanie Lydecker, Jeff Shane, and Connor Powell. In this roundtable
(00:44):
episode recorded on Wednesday, July twenty six, the producer Stephanie
Lydecker and Connor Powell are joined by Inside Edition reporter
Chris Bargo to discuss Brian Coberger's alibi and his defense
team's efforts to discredit the DNA evidence against him. Here
they are now.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
So I'm here now with Chris and Connor, who have
been contributing on the podcast really since the very beginning,
and Chris specifically has been knee deep in this case
since day one. It really was our first contact of
interaction when it came to covering this case, because you
were on the front lines of it from day one.
And of course Connor has been not only putting to
(01:27):
this together as a producer but also as a contributor
and executive producer. So let's start with the biggest piece
of information that happened just now essentially, which really does
shine a very different light potentially on the entire case,
which is this notion that Brian Coberger's attorney is saying
(01:47):
that he in fact had an alibi.
Speaker 5 (01:50):
Yeah, that's right. It was pretty big news, kind of
the biggest news I've gotten so far. For the past month. Really,
the defense has been slowly sort of poking holes in
the prosecution's case, and we know that the problem. SCUSHA
has been very eager to get this alibi, what the
albi was going to be, and they've been waiting, and
then kind of out of nowhere, it was filed in
the middle of the day. And it's an interesting filing
(02:10):
because it is not concrete. What it says is we
potentially have an alibi, and if we did have an alibi,
this is what it would be, and this is how
we go about proving it. They're very heavily suggesting is
the fact that Brian Coberger was not present at the
scene of the murders at the time of the murders,
that he was somewhere else and they are suggesting that
there will be witnesses who, if called to testify, will
(02:32):
be able to back up this claim. It's not a definitive,
concrete thing, but this is not the sort of attorney
who's really kind of into game playing or stuff like
that would be very odd for her to sort of
be pulling any sort of stunt. It seemed very unlike
her nature. So this is a good chance this is
going to be the alby they're going to go for,
and if we remember, the good thing about this alibi
is the fact that the tracking of Brian Koberger's cell
(02:52):
phone on the night of the murders has some impulment
Washington at quarter of three and then about twenty miles
south of Moscow at just before five am, so he's
never in Moscow the night of the murders according to
a cell phone. Obviously, there's footage of a car, but
they've already been disputing that the car is his, so
it makes sense with the information we have so far,
it's certainly something that there's not immediately a way to
(03:13):
disregard it or say that it's not true. So it'll
be interesting to see where they take it from here.
Speaker 4 (03:17):
Do we have any indication on who the potential witnesses
could be.
Speaker 5 (03:22):
This is another interesting thing about this filing. There's a
suggesting in there that one of the witnesses for the
state for the prosecution could actually confirm this claim. Now,
that would more likely maybe be someone from let's say
his cell phone company or someone who would be confirming
one of the facts that he wasn't in Moscow according
to their records, but also it could mean that someone
might actually have information about him legitimately being somewhere else.
(03:43):
It's really open because they're not being very specific.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
This really does change the course of the entire case potentially,
And of course when I immediately spoke to Connor about it,
you had a very different reaction to the filing.
Speaker 6 (03:57):
I'm going to pour some cold water on this because
of course Brian Coberger's defense team is going to say
he's not guilty. That's the only thing they can say.
They can't say anything else, so they have to say
this also, and I think this is the key thing.
Under Idaho law, the defense must notify the prosecution of
a possibility of an alibi defense, And as I understand
(04:19):
listening to other commentators reading about this, is that this
finally merely preserves that right without committing to it. It
doesn't say that they have an alibi. It says that
they are possibly going to use it in trial, and
that they're going to continue investigating, and that they might
actually challenge through cross examination some of the prosecution's witnesses
as a possible avenue to presenting this alibi. So they're
(04:43):
not actually saying they have an alibi. They're not actually
saying that they're going to use it. They're saying they're
going to preserve the right to use it at trial,
and that's required under Idaho law. So that's different than
some states, right, so they had to provide at least this.
I think the other thing that's really important is this
defense team is very quiet, very tight lip They provided nothing.
They haven't pushed back on anything. The only thing we've
(05:04):
ever heard is from his original defense lawyer in Pennsylvania
who said, Brian's excited to, you know, be exonerated, right,
Like that's the closest we've heard from anything. So they've
basically taken a hands off approach and said we're not
going to provide anything. We're gonna do what's required, but
we're not going to provide anything. I think if they
had an air tight, one hundred percent, locked down, concrete alibi,
(05:26):
they would be presenting that right now, not only because
it would be good for their case in the court
of public opinion. If he's one hundred percent innocent, defense
attorneys like to get that information out there. Why would
you wait anywhere from three months to six months to
nine months to twelve months to go to trial with
somebody that you have concrete proof evidence he was in
Florida during the time of this. Here's no way he
(05:48):
could have done it right like, So whatever alibi they
might have, I think the suggestion is probably it's not
air tight. And it's not to say it's not an alibi.
It's not to say that it won't work at trial.
It's not to say that the prosecution has sewn up.
But I do think that if they had an air tight,
one hundred percent definitive twelve people saw him in Florida
at the time of the murders, they would be waving
that out right now. And they're not doing that. It's
(06:10):
not to say that they won't produce that at some point,
but they're not doing it today. And I think that's
a tells you a lot about this alibi filing.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
But that doesn't change the fact that his DNA was
in fact found on the sheath, right, So even if
he did have an alibi, they would still have to
explain away why the DNA testing points to him to
such a degree. Have you heard anything Chris about that?
Those are two very big things, right. They're being DNA
at the crime scene of Brian, his own personal DNA,
(06:39):
not just the DNA of his father's, versus him literally
not being there.
Speaker 5 (06:44):
I mean, I think that the DNA is the weakest
part of this case because remember, it's just reasonable doubt
to get off. You have DNA of three other people
at the scene we know now, and the chain of
command of the DNA is very very confusing. We have
it going to the local lab, then we have the
Idaho State Police sending it to a national lab, the
Udo State Police suddenly deciding they're not going to follow
through a but halfway through the testing process and handing
it over to the FBI. The FBI taking it from
(07:04):
that point over. And then the interesting thing is that
the prosecutors are now hesitant to hand over that evidence
and they're claiming it's because it's federal FBI evidence and
the FBI only gave them a name know everything else
with it, so they don't have to hand over everything
else because they're saying all they got from the FBI
was a name, not the sort of whole genealogy of
it all, which is very interesting. And if a jury
hears this along with the fact that there's the DNA
of other people, it's not going to be that hard.
(07:26):
I mean, I think the classic example is the OJ case,
where they thought DNA was a slam dunk, and then
as they're explaining it to people, it's really it's a
very scientific, difficult thing to understand, and it's easy to
explain away at times because it's just, you know, it's
a very small sample on a knife a knife sheet,
rather that a lot of people probably handled potentially. I'm
sure that the crime scene is going to be talked
about a lot because these are local officers who've never
really been on a murder scene and how it was treated,
(07:47):
So there's going to be a lot of ways are
going to poke holes in this. I think it's really
one of the weakest parts of the prosecution's sort of case,
and I think they're aware of that too, which is
why they're so hesitant to really turn over any of
the sort of DNA information that they have.
Speaker 6 (07:58):
We've talked about this little bit offline in the past.
Is like they're going to make the prosecution prove every
single piece of evidence right, and they're going to try
to muddle that and make it as confusing as possible
because they only need one person. I don't think the
DNA in terms of what was swiped from his mouth
with the bucal swab and the knife evidence, DNA is
(08:21):
difficult for a jury to understand. It's not nineteen ninety
four anymore or way past oj Simpson in terms of
the understanding of DNA, but that whole bridge between there.
They're clearly going to make this really difficult for everybody understand,
and they're going to try to even get that DNA
thrown out because of the way they arrive to it.
And I think if we see anything that is a
(08:42):
strategy that's appearing right now, it's to reserve the right
to challenge everything right and to push back on everything.
And I think Chris is right like that DNA becomes
really problematic for them if the judge or something gets
thrown out in terms of that process.
Speaker 4 (08:57):
Chris, have you heard any more rumblings from the family.
Obviously there's a gag order in the family has been
asked not to speak out, and we of course are
being very respectful of that. But in your circles as
a journalist, have you heard anything regarding the family the Coburgers.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
Correct.
Speaker 5 (09:15):
I had heard rumblings that the sisters were really just
praying he was going to do a plea deal because
they were just like, our parents can't go through this.
Our parents can't like this is just not something that
they're ready for. By all accounts, these are the two
nicest people, you know, Like the mother's lovely nice, was
a substitute teacher. The father's is a great guy who
was like really just trying to go to bat for
ast son all the time and get him to make
friends and do things social and get them out there.
(09:35):
And they just feel like it's just such a devastating
thing for them. And you know, I think you will
say that really in the way that the media is
not really hounding them, they're kind of leaving them alone.
It's just it's a really, it's a really sad story
for these two parents who by all accounts did everything
for their son. I mean, we were going through financial
records recently, and every time Brian entered a new stage
of his education, looks like they were taking up mortgages
on their home for amount of whey that would seem
to suggest they're basically funding his education, doing everything they
(09:57):
can for this kid, and it's just devastating.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
Then it's so well said, and obviously for the victims' families,
so devastating, but yeah, to your point, even in the
spirit of making this podcast, since the first day, we
really wanted to sort of take a step back and
look at his upbringing to see what were the triggers,
what were the warning signs. And despite anything we've discussed,
(10:20):
nobody has a bad thing to say about the parents
and his sisters, and you know what an annihilating moment
for them and a weight to carry. It's really unimaginable
and it's every parent's nightmare, and our hearts genuinely go
out to them.
Speaker 5 (10:34):
Yeah, I mean, in many ways, they're also losing a child,
you know, obviously not as horrible as the victims families,
but I mean their son is probably going to be
away for the rest of his life. So that's it.
Speaker 4 (10:42):
We've seen this a little bit with the BTK killer
and his family, and again the weight that has to
be carried moving forward must be unbearable. We've just again
really tried to keep it very respectful in terms of
their privacy during this difficult time, as well as with
the family members the victims. Again, everyone's gearing up for
what could be a trial. So far nothing is pointing
(11:05):
to the idea of a plea deal, but who knows
what's to come. This is a bit a little bit
of a change of conversation though at the bare minimum,
I understand the DNA genealogy, etc. That being air quotes
potentially junk science and that can be explained away. But
an alibi to me seems like a pretty big bomb
(11:26):
that they would have to be able to back up.
But Connor, to your point, they're just making a suggestion
that they may want to go that route.
Speaker 6 (11:33):
Yeah, I mean, and they have to. I mean again,
the defense is setting up to challenge everything, and they
have to. I mean that legally they're required to provide
the best defense, you know that they can to Brian Coberger, and.
Speaker 5 (11:44):
They did file at the eleventh hour. Two right, they
filed that, like literally at the eleventh hour.
Speaker 6 (11:48):
And also I had seen something and I'm not one
hundred percent sure and clear on this, but I had
seen something. That their best chance of getting the DNA
thrown out is if they can prove that he was
somewhere else, right, because all of a sudden, the sample
size of the DNA, which is really small on the
nice sheaf, If he's somewhere else and there's people who
can say it, well, the judge can be like, well, obviously,
if twelve people saw him somewhere else at this period
(12:10):
of time, he probably wasn't holding that knife and oh
and oh he bought a similar knife and returned it
on Amazon or something. They have to be able to
explain that away in the pre trial hearings. So they're
setting up that possibility, but they've not committed to anything.
And part of it is is that there's still very
early stages in terms of building the defense. But until
they get that DNA evidence in the paperwork from the
(12:32):
prosecution and the FBI and the orthroom labs, you know,
they don't really know what they're working with. And I
think that's really it's a crucial part of this entire process.
Until they get access to all of that information, they
don't know what their defense is going to be. I
wouldn't think.
Speaker 5 (12:46):
I mean, there's also the fact that I think that
the one thing that we all kind of keep forgetting
is the fact that the number of people who shoot
a stranger is low. The number people who shoot multiple
strangers is low. The number of people who stab a
stranger is so low. The number of people who stab four
strangers in their home. I don't think there's another case
of or seen where someone stabbed for strangers to death
in a home and we stilln't have any link between
him and the victims. And that is going to be
a I mean, it just doesn't happen. It just really
(13:08):
does not happen if there has to be some level of,
you know, knowing the person, and we haven't seen any
sort of relationship really that they've brought out or proven
the prosecution at all. So that's going to be a
really hard thing for people to sort of comprehend.
Speaker 6 (13:19):
I thing too.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
a moment.
Speaker 4 (13:33):
I was just speaking to a criminologist this morning. Actually
talking about this case, and he said, just echoing what
you said, Chris, it is so rare for a person
to go from a regular civilian to.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
A mass murderer.
Speaker 4 (13:48):
Like there's usually a tipping point, there is typically something
that happens prior. There's typically some sort of an event
that's the test run of it all. And we really
have looked at this very close to see has there
been a history here outside of being bullied or you know,
we've talked about his childhood and his high school and
(14:08):
you know, his education, et cetera. But we haven't been
able to find the one thing that would suggest, oh,
maybe he struck prior, there's some sort of link between
a previous event that led to maybe this big event,
because likely, just looking at his profile, according to this criminologist,
he may have become a serial killer had he gotten
away with this, had he not been apprehended. Again, assuming
(14:31):
he is guilty, he is saying he is innocent and
we are not looking to convict him here on this podcast.
But all that to be said, we haven't actually found
that pre smoking gun. Chris, have you heard anything new
about any other situations that would maybe point to a
history or something as a pre event.
Speaker 5 (14:51):
We know that some law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania are
looking into things other than murders. We know that there's
other illegal activities that they are looking into and seeing
if maybe there's a pattern of that prior. They won't
be specific, but I mean, there are other crimes that
men sometimes commit, like it could be robbery, it could
be burglary, it could be sexual assault. We don't really
know for sure. We just know that a few of
those local departments had been looking into that and they've
(15:13):
not said anything since. So it could be maybe he
was in you know, committing some other crime and got
caught or who knows, but that's certainly something that they've
been looking into, because you're right, it is incredibly weird too.
Suddenly not only murder for people, if he is the
actual killer, but to do it in roughly ten minutes
and make an exit is that doesn't seem like sort
of a first time thing. It's and he's when he
(15:34):
seen exiting the home by the eyewitness. The killer. They
don't know any blood or anything on them. They just say,
you know, they're average build whatever, And obviously they didn't
look in such a state that the person immediately called police.
So you would think that if he looked like he'd
just murdered for people, whoever the person was, the roommate
would call the police. But she just thought it looked
like a regular person. So someone who did it quickly
and looked like nothing had just happened, that's very bizarre
for a first time killer.
Speaker 6 (15:56):
I do think one of the things that about this
case it's really interesting, is he obviously is accused of
killing four people. If he is the killer, we don't
know if his intent was to kill four people, right,
So was he tiptoeing in thinking he was going to
kill one person? Did he end up finding two people
in bed? Did he end up finding two people downstairs?
Did he didn't imagine? Did he get scared and not
kill other people in the house because we know there
(16:17):
are other two roommates, Like, that's all the sort of
question about did he go from zero to one hundred
in terms of killing people in one night or did
he think he was tiptoeing in If he is in
fact guilty, that's just one of the many things we
don't know. And I think one of the things that's
so frustrating about this case is there's a lot of
holes in what the prosecution is saying, and maybe some
of it will be able to you know, we'll understand
(16:39):
a trial, But as of right now, the basic information
of the case hasn't moved significantly in months.
Speaker 4 (16:46):
And is it possible that maybe he had an emotional
connection in his mind, perhaps only with one of the victims,
had a knife allegedly snuck in the house, Maybe was
going to sexually assault one of them or have a
visit with one of them, and that escalated and that
turned to mass murder, when maybe that wasn't the initial intent.
(17:08):
But again, it feels as though it would have been messier.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
The walls were literally bleeding of blood.
Speaker 4 (17:14):
How could that not be bigger in terms of the
information that we have right now. And it's a little
scary in a way because if Brian Coburger isn't the
one who did it, then who did and that means
that person is still at large.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
You know.
Speaker 4 (17:27):
One of the comparisons or non comparisons to the piked
In massacre in the loss of the Rodent family is
it didn't really feel at least when we started on
that case and we went there in person, it didn't
feel as though, oh my goodness, the Wagners were probably
killing everybody in the town, or that they had previously
been murdering people, or that it wasn't very specific to
(17:49):
one particular family, and that the Wagners at the time
when we started were claiming their innocence. Still they're the
accused who have Now three of the four of them
have either played or have been found guilty.
Speaker 3 (18:01):
There's still one more trial to go.
Speaker 4 (18:03):
But this is a little different in that number one,
if he didn't do it, this guy is getting tried
in the press time and time again. How could he
possibly have a fair trial? And moreover, then that means
there's somebody at large that's a danger to society.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
And if he did do it, why.
Speaker 4 (18:20):
Are they not throwing some of this information out or
at least showing a little bit of the smoking gun,
Because I know, again, I know the answer to this.
There's a trial coming and they want to keep their
cards close.
Speaker 5 (18:31):
But I mean, I think the biggest problem with what
we're all saying right now to is the fact that
he left the fifth rough made alive like in order
to pass by Dylan in that doorway, he is literally
within inches of her so if you're going to murder
four people, I mean, it's a horrible thing to think about.
Whoever this murder is. He murders four people, who leaves
the one person who actually witnesses, the eyewitness out of it.
That's a bizarre move. And this is the one thing
(18:52):
I think that is helpful for the prosecution, is you
think if he saw Dylan, that explains why he turns
his phone on before he's back in Pullman ten miles
down the road. He's like, I got to check and
make sure no one's on my tail, let me see,
let me get online, let me get back on my
phone so I have my network again. But I mean,
the fact that he's so close to Dylan and doesn't
do anything is very Whoever the killer is, that's a
very difficult thing that they're going to have to sort
of explain. And I almost wonder if they're not going
to introduce out the case at all. And it is
(19:13):
kind of the point now, I mean that the defense
rather has filed a brief that really put a hole
in a lot of the things and really kind of
I mean, the biggest thing to Nisee that they put
out on one of their briefs is the fact that
they requested the notes from the idem State Police, Moscow Police,
and FBI agents who were present at the autopsy, and
the prosecution said none of those three departments took any
notes at the autopsy. If you're at the autopsy of
these four victims and there's no suspect, you don't know
(19:34):
what's going on, how do you not take any notes
at all? That's a very and that sort of sows
some seeds of mistrust I think in the law enforcement
when that's presented at trial. I think that's that's, you know,
sort of one of those things you've got to put
a shink in the armor with.
Speaker 6 (19:45):
It's definite. I want to ask you something about in
the connection to piked In, because the Wagoners were running
around for like the better part of two years right
claiming that alibis, claiming they were innocent. I mean, when
you guys first started looking at piked In, do you
remember all the different alibis and it claims of innocence
that the Wageners had in terms of not being connected
to murdering the road and family.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
One hundred percent.
Speaker 4 (20:06):
It was that's basically when we started really digging in.
Is when they were in the throes of a claiming
their innocence and they had.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
Moved to Alaska.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
They felt as though the town was being to gossipy
and that they were the center of gossip, and it
was a very hard place to live because of that,
and as you know, there were pillars of the town
and suddenly there's been this murder, and the boys wanted
to move on. As fathers and as a family, they
all collectively moved to Alaska. And we're making the documentary
(20:36):
right now for NBC, and very recently. When I was
there last we were going through old family photos of
theirs of the Wagner family and while they were in Alaska,
and it's chilling in retrospect, but while they were in Alaska,
they picked up their lives. They started working again, and
they went to church, and there's photographs of them as
a family in matching Christmas pajamas and family photos on
(20:59):
a boat in there out fishing as a group, smiling
ear to ear. Life really did appear to move on
for them very easily, and they really did present as
though they were not only innocent, but very innocent in fact,
that they were almost being targeted as an excuse to
not do better investigating so much so that they had
(21:19):
to actually move out of town, and that they were
just an example.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
Of faulty police work.
Speaker 4 (21:24):
And life goes on, and they picked up the pieces
and they really did chilling to think.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
You know, wow, what we know now.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
Is that they at least three of the four have
said that they were at least a part of murdering
these beautiful people, all.
Speaker 3 (21:39):
Eight of them.
Speaker 4 (21:40):
You would think you would not be able to eat, drink, drive,
do anything that's air quotes normal again in life, because
you're forever changed and now you've been soaked in other's blood.
And then you look at these photographs and you know what,
if we worked next to them at CVS, you wouldn't notice,
Or if you yes shared a cubicle or were on
an airplane with them, they would just seem like a
(22:00):
lovely family of somebody you would not be afraid. And
I think Brian sort of falls into that category a
little bit too, where.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
He's not the obvious scary person.
Speaker 4 (22:10):
You know, he might be sitting next to you on
the train and yeah, maybe he seems a little bit
odd or a little off, but if anything, you kind
of feel like just an awkward guy and not a
big deal. You don't think in a million years, this
is a person that's going to be murdering, potentially or allegedly,
you know, for beautiful humans. How do you go on
the next day and go back to school? And that's
been one of the triggers I think, even while we've
(22:31):
kind of got involved in this case, is yet listen, hey,
how can we help? But also the idea of the
air quote bad guy or the killers, the idea that
you could commit such a hideous crime. And then the
day after in the Wagner's case, in the Python murders,
they went to the funerals and they picked up the pieces,
and they started a gofund me page, and they took support,
(22:54):
and they took tears and they cried on other people's
shoulders in the town. Meanwhile they were the killers the
whole time, Like how do you keep a straight face
and how do you not crack?
Speaker 3 (23:03):
Times four? And in Brian's case allegedly same thing.
Speaker 4 (23:06):
You go back to school the next day, you start,
you roll into the real world, You hop in a
car with your dad and do a road trip. It
just seems impossible that there wouldn't be more tells. And
I think that's the creepiest part about the pike In
case is even when I was in the courtroom listening
to Angela Wagner, accused killer Mom's testimony, she still presents
pretty meek and frankly air quotes likable. You know, they
(23:27):
have the stick to be able to kind of live
amongst us, And I think that's the scariest part well.
Speaker 6 (23:33):
And also like two parallels in terms of talking about
Brian Cobergers, Like I don't think the Wagoners have been
accused of murder before, right, so somehow they went from
zero to killing eight people.
Speaker 5 (23:42):
And that's even more so because how many crime scenes
were there in that case. There's only one crime scene
in Coburg where there's right, right, that's insane.
Speaker 6 (23:48):
And with the Wagoners, like they didn't start out trying
to kill a people, but there were a couple of
people who ended up being there that weren't supposed to
be there, and then they sort of said, well, if
you're going to kill this person, you got to kill
this person because that person's going to come after you.
And so you can also see where this can just
spiral out of control when you kill your first person,
and the next thing you know, you've got to kill
multiple people. That's what makes both of these cases so
(24:10):
fascinating because I think for the average person listening, sitting
here talking, you can't contemplate killing one person, let alone
multiple people. But there obviously are people who can, and
when it happens, they end up killing more than one person.
Speaker 5 (24:21):
I think the fact that even people who have done
it before don't have a one hundred percent rate. And
both of these murders, whoever committed them, every person they
tried to kill, they killed. They did not leave anyone,
you know, wounded or they shot it people. Eight people died.
This person stabbed four people. Four people died. That was
that was it. There wasn't any sort of like someone
you know, recovered or someone wasn't fully That's kind of
the most amazing. Even with serial killers, I mean, there's
always one or two who get away. No one got
(24:42):
away from these killers.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
It's so true.
Speaker 4 (24:44):
And you think about the families too, that we spoke
about earlier in the piked in case, the family of
the victims and the family of the accused. They've been
ripped apart emotionally, no matter what side of the equation.
On it you are, it's devastating beyond words, and in
Brian's case as well, to your point, he had nice parents,
he has nice sisters, he had a decent education. He
(25:05):
seemed to have a lot of opportunity.
Speaker 3 (25:08):
What a mess?
Speaker 4 (25:09):
What a mess? What a mess? You know, not to
jump around to, you know, one hideous case to the next.
But I'm obviously a Long Islander. The recent capture of
the Long Island serial killer again, who is this scary
guy that's commuting on the Long Island railroad to work
every day, sitting next to somebody who might say, God,
the guy's large and slightly creepy, but I don't know.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
He works with people every single day. And this guy's
going home and just dumping girls and burlap bags. How
does that happen?
Speaker 5 (25:37):
And the fact that the eyewitness who police say led
to the arrest told him about it in twenty eleven.
In twenty eleven, this guy said that's this is who
the person is. He'd seen him with one of the girls.
And it's twelve years later that it's finally like, okay.
Speaker 6 (25:48):
Chris, you said something about Brian Cowberger's family, and immediately
I went to the Long Island killer because his wife
immediately filed for divorce, right, you know, unlike in movies
where you know the partners serve always seems to know
or whatever. Like it's very clear she's divorced him. She's
saying she didn't know. There's also some reports that he
always killed when they were out of town and stuff
like that. But like Brian Coworker's family can't divorce them, right,
(26:11):
the parents can't. They're still the parents. The sisters are
still the sisters. And not that it's good to be
married and have the option to divorce the serial killer.
But like she gets to say, I knew nothing. I
want nothing to.
Speaker 3 (26:22):
Do with this guy.
Speaker 6 (26:23):
Brian Coworker's family, they're stuck with them. They's stuck with
the same last name. They're stuck with being the parents.
And these murders are also interesting by themselves, but when
you sort of start to think about how they're connected,
in the ways they're connected, there's just some really interesting
sort of links between these killers.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
Let's stop here for another break.
Speaker 5 (26:53):
I think that the defense filing that sort of was
poking holes is there's some good stuff.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
You know.
Speaker 5 (26:57):
They point out that the only video they claim to
have of the cards going the wrong way at the
wrong time. There's based on discovering what they're saying, there's
no clear image of the person driving the car so
far that they've received. At least the defense says that
they've still not provided any link that says that Brian
Copert knew any of the victims. I mean, again, this
is you know, it's all sort of it's playing out,
you know, and they're because of the gagguader, we can't
call prosecutors or the defense or anyone in the case
(27:17):
and ask if things are true or not, or get clarification,
which is why this case is still sort of theoretical
in many ways. But I think that the defense has
certainly put the case in a position I didn't think
it was going to be. If you ask me two
months Agoard if they could be a slamed on case,
I wouldn't think there'd be any chance of. You know,
it just all seems so perfect. And then prosecution's obviously
not saying is if anythings in their filings is the defense,
But the defense is saying a lot of things that
are sort of and to Conna's point earlier about the DNA.
(27:39):
You know, it's right if it was just a bugal swab.
People understand that we took a swab of his mouth,
we compared it to the night they matched. That's it.
It's all going to be very, very interesting to see
how this plays out. And it could just be the
prosecution is staying quiet on purpose and just you know,
sort of holding their cards tight to their chest. But
we will see in a few months.
Speaker 6 (27:55):
I think we're unlikely to see in October trial. I mean,
talking to everyone we've talked to the fact that matters
is August is are a dead month in any courtroom
in any place in America, So nothing's going to Probably
they might have one hearing in the middle of August,
but then like until after Labor Day, courts generally shut down.
So then all of a sudden, you know, you're five
weeks from the start of a trial after Labor Day,
(28:16):
so a lot has to happen for a trial to
start on October second, and it just doesn't seem.
Speaker 4 (28:21):
Likely, which also is a layer that we have to
be mindful of too. The idea that they're going for
death penalty sipulations will also make this a little bit
harder for a jury to convict, you know, that is
a big cross to bear, and if any of this
can be confusing or the filing says very little and
is very vague and it does, though, just take one
(28:42):
person to feel a tinge unclear. Maybe the death sentence
provisions is too much or is that a way of
the prosecution saying we have the goods and we are
going full blown to make sure that this person is
convicted and that justice is done and that death is
the elt.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (29:01):
I mean, Idaho is one of about three or four
states that's uniquely positioned for prosecutors to chase death penalty
without much fear that the overall population is going to
be squeamish, you know, using it. I mean, obviously there
are people in Idaho, but like Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Idaho
are probably four out of the I don't know five
(29:22):
states that if you're a prosecutor wanting to use the
death penalty as a punishment, you probably want to be in.
And I would put Idaho is probably one or two
in those in that list. I would venture to say
that the prosecution isn't worried about the jury if he
gets a conviction about you know, the application of the
death penalty in the state like Idaho.
Speaker 4 (29:39):
Like And have you heard anything, Chris, from the victims'
families at all.
Speaker 5 (29:44):
I've spoken to the families. I've spoken in all four families, yes,
at some point, and it's very interesting to see how
they are each handling it in a very uniquely different way.
There are some people like Cayley's family, the Consolvants, who
are very very involved in the trial, and then there's
people like the Chapins, who are have a very sort
of i mean, their approach to this is just very
sort of you know, it's it's incredible in the sense
they're just really not choosing to get weighed down by
(30:05):
any of the actual the murder is not something they
think about. They don't they think about losing their son,
but they don't think about how they lost their son.
They really focus on their two children they still have.
They really just want to remember happy things and happy memories,
and that's how they want to sort of It's just
a really sort of beautiful thing that must be incredibly
hard to do, but what they've adopted and they just
really just want to, you know, only carry good, wonderful
things about their son or them. They don't want to really,
(30:25):
they don't seem much interested in the trial or any
of that because they just don't want to revisit that,
which is also an interesting thing about this debate about
the house. You know, these people keep talking about leaving
the house up or desmolishing it, and you have to
remember the two people who can still see the house
are Ethan's sister and brother every day, and they probably
don't want to see it. Ethan's brother can see it
from his frat house. You know, that's probably the worst
thing in the world that I might be to look
at the house every day. So I imagine, like you know,
(30:46):
it's eventually gonna get demolished, but it to be nice
if if the prosecution defense say they're done with it.
Even think it'd be nice for those two kids at
least and might have to look at that house every
time they're at school, because it's just going to be
devastating to see that and think about your brother.
Speaker 6 (30:55):
Yeah, this whole debate over the house, you can see
it from both sides or mini soides right where the families.
They want to ensure that there's a conviction. They don't
want anything to be a possibility that it hinders a conviction.
You can see it from the university's point of view,
where they're like, can we get this down. I think
the other thing that's really interesting is is that sort
of criminal tourism that people coming by to see the house.
(31:16):
If you're a neighbor on that street, I mean, God
only knows how many cars or people buses, you can
understand that that's happening. So this debate has been really
interesting to watch it unplay or play out the last
couple of months, because you can understand it from everybody's
point of view. It's one of those things like I
don't know from my point of view, I don't think
there is a right or wrong answer. There's just at
(31:37):
some point there's going to be a decision.
Speaker 5 (31:38):
Yeah, I mean it is interesting. I mean both the
defense and prosecution have said there's nothing there. I mean,
I think a house tour would probably be beneficial for
the jurors. I can. I can understand it from that aspect,
but I'm surprised at both sides of the defense and
the prosecution are both like, no, we don't need it,
which kind of surprise me because usually you'd think they'ld
be a house visit at some point during the trial,
but maybe not.
Speaker 6 (31:54):
That happened with OJ, but it doesn't actually happen in
most murder cases where they go to see it, and
that would be a media circus.
Speaker 5 (32:00):
I mean nothing, the prosecutions they plans to do it
at all, So that's why I think that nothing.
Speaker 4 (32:05):
And for our listeners too, if anybody listening has any
information or any tips or details that they want to share,
please do you know, reach out to us directly. And
needless to say, this is a case that we will
continue to cover and if this trial does in fact
happen in October or somewhere you know, close by, it
will be one of the biggest trials that this country
(32:28):
has seen in a long time, and we will one
hundred percent be there every step of the way. I'm
sure there's more hiccups and surprises to come. So Chris
Connor for your reporting this entire season, so well done.
Speaker 5 (32:42):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
More on that next time. For more information on the
case and relevant photos, follow us on Instagram at kt
Underscore Studios. The Idaho Mascer is produced by Stefan la Decker,
Jeff Shane Connor Powell, Chris Bargo, Gabriel Castillo, and me
Courtney Armstrong. Editing and sound designed by Jeff Toi. Music
(33:11):
by Jared Aston. The Idaho Massacre is a production of
iHeart Radio in Katie's Studios. For more podcasts like this,
visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
to your favorite shows. I'm Diana.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
You may know as Body Moving, My Friend and I.
John Green were featured in the Netflix documentary Don't f
with Cats. On our new podcast, True Crimes of John
and Deiana were turning our online investigative skills to some
of the most unexplained, unsolved, and most ignored cases.
Speaker 6 (33:45):
Police say thirty three year old Bride Again was shot dead.
Speaker 4 (33:48):
Gunned down in front of his two year old daughter.
Speaker 5 (33:51):
Detectives confirmed that it was a targeted attack.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
It appears to be an execution style assassination. This is
very active, so we have to be careful.
Speaker 4 (34:00):
I heard that there's a house that has some bodies
in the basement.
Speaker 6 (34:03):
I knew.
Speaker 5 (34:04):
I just knew the move was wrong.
Speaker 1 (34:05):
Maybe there's something more sinister at play than just one
young girl going missing.
Speaker 5 (34:10):
If you know something, heard something, please it's never too
late to do the right thing.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
This is true crimes with John and Deianna, the.
Speaker 3 (34:20):
Production of KT Studios and iHeartRadio. Justice is something that
takes different shapes or formed
Moscow police are investigating a homicide on King Rhode.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Cause and manner of death was homicide by stabbing.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
This is terrible.
Speaker 4 (00:13):
It's a bloodbath.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
This is the Idaho Massacre. A production of KT Studios
and iHeartRadio, Episode eleven, A discussion with reporter Chris Bargo.
I'm Courtney Armstrong, a television producer at KT Studios, with
Stephanie Lydecker, Jeff Shane, and Connor Powell. In this roundtable
(00:44):
episode recorded on Wednesday, July twenty six, the producer Stephanie
Lydecker and Connor Powell are joined by Inside Edition reporter
Chris Bargo to discuss Brian Coberger's alibi and his defense
team's efforts to discredit the DNA evidence against him. Here
they are now.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
So I'm here now with Chris and Connor, who have
been contributing on the podcast really since the very beginning,
and Chris specifically has been knee deep in this case
since day one. It really was our first contact of
interaction when it came to covering this case, because you
were on the front lines of it from day one.
And of course Connor has been not only putting to
(01:27):
this together as a producer but also as a contributor
and executive producer. So let's start with the biggest piece
of information that happened just now essentially, which really does
shine a very different light potentially on the entire case,
which is this notion that Brian Coberger's attorney is saying
(01:47):
that he in fact had an alibi.
Speaker 5 (01:50):
Yeah, that's right. It was pretty big news, kind of
the biggest news I've gotten so far. For the past month. Really,
the defense has been slowly sort of poking holes in
the prosecution's case, and we know that the problem. SCUSHA
has been very eager to get this alibi, what the
albi was going to be, and they've been waiting, and
then kind of out of nowhere, it was filed in
the middle of the day. And it's an interesting filing
(02:10):
because it is not concrete. What it says is we
potentially have an alibi, and if we did have an alibi,
this is what it would be, and this is how
we go about proving it. They're very heavily suggesting is
the fact that Brian Coberger was not present at the
scene of the murders at the time of the murders,
that he was somewhere else and they are suggesting that
there will be witnesses who, if called to testify, will
(02:32):
be able to back up this claim. It's not a definitive,
concrete thing, but this is not the sort of attorney
who's really kind of into game playing or stuff like
that would be very odd for her to sort of
be pulling any sort of stunt. It seemed very unlike
her nature. So this is a good chance this is
going to be the alby they're going to go for,
and if we remember, the good thing about this alibi
is the fact that the tracking of Brian Koberger's cell
(02:52):
phone on the night of the murders has some impulment
Washington at quarter of three and then about twenty miles
south of Moscow at just before five am, so he's
never in Moscow the night of the murders according to
a cell phone. Obviously, there's footage of a car, but
they've already been disputing that the car is his, so
it makes sense with the information we have so far,
it's certainly something that there's not immediately a way to
(03:13):
disregard it or say that it's not true. So it'll
be interesting to see where they take it from here.
Speaker 4 (03:17):
Do we have any indication on who the potential witnesses
could be.
Speaker 5 (03:22):
This is another interesting thing about this filing. There's a
suggesting in there that one of the witnesses for the
state for the prosecution could actually confirm this claim. Now,
that would more likely maybe be someone from let's say
his cell phone company or someone who would be confirming
one of the facts that he wasn't in Moscow according
to their records, but also it could mean that someone
might actually have information about him legitimately being somewhere else.
(03:43):
It's really open because they're not being very specific.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
This really does change the course of the entire case potentially,
And of course when I immediately spoke to Connor about it,
you had a very different reaction to the filing.
Speaker 6 (03:57):
I'm going to pour some cold water on this because
of course Brian Coberger's defense team is going to say
he's not guilty. That's the only thing they can say.
They can't say anything else, so they have to say
this also, and I think this is the key thing.
Under Idaho law, the defense must notify the prosecution of
a possibility of an alibi defense, And as I understand
(04:19):
listening to other commentators reading about this, is that this
finally merely preserves that right without committing to it. It
doesn't say that they have an alibi. It says that
they are possibly going to use it in trial, and
that they're going to continue investigating, and that they might
actually challenge through cross examination some of the prosecution's witnesses
as a possible avenue to presenting this alibi. So they're
(04:43):
not actually saying they have an alibi. They're not actually
saying that they're going to use it. They're saying they're
going to preserve the right to use it at trial,
and that's required under Idaho law. So that's different than
some states, right, so they had to provide at least this.
I think the other thing that's really important is this
defense team is very quiet, very tight lip They provided nothing.
They haven't pushed back on anything. The only thing we've
(05:04):
ever heard is from his original defense lawyer in Pennsylvania
who said, Brian's excited to, you know, be exonerated, right,
Like that's the closest we've heard from anything. So they've
basically taken a hands off approach and said we're not
going to provide anything. We're gonna do what's required, but
we're not going to provide anything. I think if they
had an air tight, one hundred percent, locked down, concrete alibi,
(05:26):
they would be presenting that right now, not only because
it would be good for their case in the court
of public opinion. If he's one hundred percent innocent, defense
attorneys like to get that information out there. Why would
you wait anywhere from three months to six months to
nine months to twelve months to go to trial with
somebody that you have concrete proof evidence he was in
Florida during the time of this. Here's no way he
(05:48):
could have done it right like, So whatever alibi they
might have, I think the suggestion is probably it's not
air tight. And it's not to say it's not an alibi.
It's not to say that it won't work at trial.
It's not to say that the prosecution has sewn up.
But I do think that if they had an air tight,
one hundred percent definitive twelve people saw him in Florida
at the time of the murders, they would be waving
that out right now. And they're not doing that. It's
(06:10):
not to say that they won't produce that at some point,
but they're not doing it today. And I think that's
a tells you a lot about this alibi filing.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
But that doesn't change the fact that his DNA was
in fact found on the sheath, right, So even if
he did have an alibi, they would still have to
explain away why the DNA testing points to him to
such a degree. Have you heard anything Chris about that?
Those are two very big things, right. They're being DNA
at the crime scene of Brian, his own personal DNA,
(06:39):
not just the DNA of his father's, versus him literally
not being there.
Speaker 5 (06:44):
I mean, I think that the DNA is the weakest
part of this case because remember, it's just reasonable doubt
to get off. You have DNA of three other people
at the scene we know now, and the chain of
command of the DNA is very very confusing. We have
it going to the local lab, then we have the
Idaho State Police sending it to a national lab, the
Udo State Police suddenly deciding they're not going to follow
through a but halfway through the testing process and handing
it over to the FBI. The FBI taking it from
(07:04):
that point over. And then the interesting thing is that
the prosecutors are now hesitant to hand over that evidence
and they're claiming it's because it's federal FBI evidence and
the FBI only gave them a name know everything else
with it, so they don't have to hand over everything
else because they're saying all they got from the FBI
was a name, not the sort of whole genealogy of
it all, which is very interesting. And if a jury
hears this along with the fact that there's the DNA
of other people, it's not going to be that hard.
(07:26):
I mean, I think the classic example is the OJ case,
where they thought DNA was a slam dunk, and then
as they're explaining it to people, it's really it's a
very scientific, difficult thing to understand, and it's easy to
explain away at times because it's just, you know, it's
a very small sample on a knife a knife sheet,
rather that a lot of people probably handled potentially. I'm
sure that the crime scene is going to be talked
about a lot because these are local officers who've never
really been on a murder scene and how it was treated,
(07:47):
So there's going to be a lot of ways are
going to poke holes in this. I think it's really
one of the weakest parts of the prosecution's sort of case,
and I think they're aware of that too, which is
why they're so hesitant to really turn over any of
the sort of DNA information that they have.
Speaker 6 (07:58):
We've talked about this little bit offline in the past.
Is like they're going to make the prosecution prove every
single piece of evidence right, and they're going to try
to muddle that and make it as confusing as possible
because they only need one person. I don't think the
DNA in terms of what was swiped from his mouth
with the bucal swab and the knife evidence, DNA is
(08:21):
difficult for a jury to understand. It's not nineteen ninety
four anymore or way past oj Simpson in terms of
the understanding of DNA, but that whole bridge between there.
They're clearly going to make this really difficult for everybody understand,
and they're going to try to even get that DNA
thrown out because of the way they arrive to it.
And I think if we see anything that is a
(08:42):
strategy that's appearing right now, it's to reserve the right
to challenge everything right and to push back on everything.
And I think Chris is right like that DNA becomes
really problematic for them if the judge or something gets
thrown out in terms of that process.
Speaker 4 (08:57):
Chris, have you heard any more rumblings from the family.
Obviously there's a gag order in the family has been
asked not to speak out, and we of course are
being very respectful of that. But in your circles as
a journalist, have you heard anything regarding the family the Coburgers.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
Correct.
Speaker 5 (09:15):
I had heard rumblings that the sisters were really just
praying he was going to do a plea deal because
they were just like, our parents can't go through this.
Our parents can't like this is just not something that
they're ready for. By all accounts, these are the two
nicest people, you know, Like the mother's lovely nice, was
a substitute teacher. The father's is a great guy who
was like really just trying to go to bat for
ast son all the time and get him to make
friends and do things social and get them out there.
(09:35):
And they just feel like it's just such a devastating
thing for them. And you know, I think you will
say that really in the way that the media is
not really hounding them, they're kind of leaving them alone.
It's just it's a really, it's a really sad story
for these two parents who by all accounts did everything
for their son. I mean, we were going through financial
records recently, and every time Brian entered a new stage
of his education, looks like they were taking up mortgages
on their home for amount of whey that would seem
to suggest they're basically funding his education, doing everything they
(09:57):
can for this kid, and it's just devastating.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
Then it's so well said, and obviously for the victims' families,
so devastating, but yeah, to your point, even in the
spirit of making this podcast, since the first day, we
really wanted to sort of take a step back and
look at his upbringing to see what were the triggers,
what were the warning signs. And despite anything we've discussed,
(10:20):
nobody has a bad thing to say about the parents
and his sisters, and you know what an annihilating moment
for them and a weight to carry. It's really unimaginable
and it's every parent's nightmare, and our hearts genuinely go
out to them.
Speaker 5 (10:34):
Yeah, I mean, in many ways, they're also losing a child,
you know, obviously not as horrible as the victims families,
but I mean their son is probably going to be
away for the rest of his life. So that's it.
Speaker 4 (10:42):
We've seen this a little bit with the BTK killer
and his family, and again the weight that has to
be carried moving forward must be unbearable. We've just again
really tried to keep it very respectful in terms of
their privacy during this difficult time, as well as with
the family members the victims. Again, everyone's gearing up for
what could be a trial. So far nothing is pointing
(11:05):
to the idea of a plea deal, but who knows
what's to come. This is a bit a little bit
of a change of conversation though at the bare minimum,
I understand the DNA genealogy, etc. That being air quotes
potentially junk science and that can be explained away. But
an alibi to me seems like a pretty big bomb
(11:26):
that they would have to be able to back up.
But Connor, to your point, they're just making a suggestion
that they may want to go that route.
Speaker 6 (11:33):
Yeah, I mean, and they have to. I mean again,
the defense is setting up to challenge everything, and they
have to. I mean that legally they're required to provide
the best defense, you know that they can to Brian Coberger, and.
Speaker 5 (11:44):
They did file at the eleventh hour. Two right, they
filed that, like literally at the eleventh hour.
Speaker 6 (11:48):
And also I had seen something and I'm not one
hundred percent sure and clear on this, but I had
seen something. That their best chance of getting the DNA
thrown out is if they can prove that he was
somewhere else, right, because all of a sudden, the sample
size of the DNA, which is really small on the
nice sheaf, If he's somewhere else and there's people who
can say it, well, the judge can be like, well, obviously,
if twelve people saw him somewhere else at this period
(12:10):
of time, he probably wasn't holding that knife and oh
and oh he bought a similar knife and returned it
on Amazon or something. They have to be able to
explain that away in the pre trial hearings. So they're
setting up that possibility, but they've not committed to anything.
And part of it is is that there's still very
early stages in terms of building the defense. But until
they get that DNA evidence in the paperwork from the
(12:32):
prosecution and the FBI and the orthroom labs, you know,
they don't really know what they're working with. And I
think that's really it's a crucial part of this entire process.
Until they get access to all of that information, they
don't know what their defense is going to be. I
wouldn't think.
Speaker 5 (12:46):
I mean, there's also the fact that I think that
the one thing that we all kind of keep forgetting
is the fact that the number of people who shoot
a stranger is low. The number people who shoot multiple
strangers is low. The number of people who stab a
stranger is so low. The number of people who stab four
strangers in their home. I don't think there's another case
of or seen where someone stabbed for strangers to death
in a home and we stilln't have any link between
him and the victims. And that is going to be
a I mean, it just doesn't happen. It just really
(13:08):
does not happen if there has to be some level of,
you know, knowing the person, and we haven't seen any
sort of relationship really that they've brought out or proven
the prosecution at all. So that's going to be a
really hard thing for people to sort of comprehend.
Speaker 6 (13:19):
I thing too.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
a moment.
Speaker 4 (13:33):
I was just speaking to a criminologist this morning. Actually
talking about this case, and he said, just echoing what
you said, Chris, it is so rare for a person
to go from a regular civilian to.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
A mass murderer.
Speaker 4 (13:48):
Like there's usually a tipping point, there is typically something
that happens prior. There's typically some sort of an event
that's the test run of it all. And we really
have looked at this very close to see has there
been a history here outside of being bullied or you know,
we've talked about his childhood and his high school and
(14:08):
you know, his education, et cetera. But we haven't been
able to find the one thing that would suggest, oh,
maybe he struck prior, there's some sort of link between
a previous event that led to maybe this big event,
because likely, just looking at his profile, according to this criminologist,
he may have become a serial killer had he gotten
away with this, had he not been apprehended. Again, assuming
(14:31):
he is guilty, he is saying he is innocent and
we are not looking to convict him here on this podcast.
But all that to be said, we haven't actually found
that pre smoking gun. Chris, have you heard anything new
about any other situations that would maybe point to a
history or something as a pre event.
Speaker 5 (14:51):
We know that some law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania are
looking into things other than murders. We know that there's
other illegal activities that they are looking into and seeing
if maybe there's a pattern of that prior. They won't
be specific, but I mean, there are other crimes that
men sometimes commit, like it could be robbery, it could
be burglary, it could be sexual assault. We don't really
know for sure. We just know that a few of
those local departments had been looking into that and they've
(15:13):
not said anything since. So it could be maybe he
was in you know, committing some other crime and got
caught or who knows, but that's certainly something that they've
been looking into, because you're right, it is incredibly weird too.
Suddenly not only murder for people, if he is the
actual killer, but to do it in roughly ten minutes
and make an exit is that doesn't seem like sort
of a first time thing. It's and he's when he
(15:34):
seen exiting the home by the eyewitness. The killer. They
don't know any blood or anything on them. They just say,
you know, they're average build whatever, And obviously they didn't
look in such a state that the person immediately called police.
So you would think that if he looked like he'd
just murdered for people, whoever the person was, the roommate
would call the police. But she just thought it looked
like a regular person. So someone who did it quickly
and looked like nothing had just happened, that's very bizarre
for a first time killer.
Speaker 6 (15:56):
I do think one of the things that about this
case it's really interesting, is he obviously is accused of
killing four people. If he is the killer, we don't
know if his intent was to kill four people, right,
So was he tiptoeing in thinking he was going to
kill one person? Did he end up finding two people
in bed? Did he end up finding two people downstairs?
Did he didn't imagine? Did he get scared and not
kill other people in the house because we know there
(16:17):
are other two roommates, Like, that's all the sort of
question about did he go from zero to one hundred
in terms of killing people in one night or did
he think he was tiptoeing in If he is in
fact guilty, that's just one of the many things we
don't know. And I think one of the things that's
so frustrating about this case is there's a lot of
holes in what the prosecution is saying, and maybe some
of it will be able to you know, we'll understand
(16:39):
a trial, But as of right now, the basic information
of the case hasn't moved significantly in months.
Speaker 4 (16:46):
And is it possible that maybe he had an emotional
connection in his mind, perhaps only with one of the victims,
had a knife allegedly snuck in the house, Maybe was
going to sexually assault one of them or have a
visit with one of them, and that escalated and that
turned to mass murder, when maybe that wasn't the initial intent.
(17:08):
But again, it feels as though it would have been messier.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
The walls were literally bleeding of blood.
Speaker 4 (17:14):
How could that not be bigger in terms of the
information that we have right now. And it's a little
scary in a way because if Brian Coburger isn't the
one who did it, then who did and that means
that person is still at large.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
You know.
Speaker 4 (17:27):
One of the comparisons or non comparisons to the piked
In massacre in the loss of the Rodent family is
it didn't really feel at least when we started on
that case and we went there in person, it didn't
feel as though, oh my goodness, the Wagners were probably
killing everybody in the town, or that they had previously
been murdering people, or that it wasn't very specific to
(17:49):
one particular family, and that the Wagners at the time
when we started were claiming their innocence. Still they're the
accused who have Now three of the four of them
have either played or have been found guilty.
Speaker 3 (18:01):
There's still one more trial to go.
Speaker 4 (18:03):
But this is a little different in that number one,
if he didn't do it, this guy is getting tried
in the press time and time again. How could he
possibly have a fair trial? And moreover, then that means
there's somebody at large that's a danger to society.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
And if he did do it, why.
Speaker 4 (18:20):
Are they not throwing some of this information out or
at least showing a little bit of the smoking gun,
Because I know, again, I know the answer to this.
There's a trial coming and they want to keep their
cards close.
Speaker 5 (18:31):
But I mean, I think the biggest problem with what
we're all saying right now to is the fact that
he left the fifth rough made alive like in order
to pass by Dylan in that doorway, he is literally
within inches of her so if you're going to murder
four people, I mean, it's a horrible thing to think about.
Whoever this murder is. He murders four people, who leaves
the one person who actually witnesses, the eyewitness out of it.
That's a bizarre move. And this is the one thing
(18:52):
I think that is helpful for the prosecution, is you
think if he saw Dylan, that explains why he turns
his phone on before he's back in Pullman ten miles
down the road. He's like, I got to check and
make sure no one's on my tail, let me see,
let me get online, let me get back on my
phone so I have my network again. But I mean,
the fact that he's so close to Dylan and doesn't
do anything is very Whoever the killer is, that's a
very difficult thing that they're going to have to sort
of explain. And I almost wonder if they're not going
to introduce out the case at all. And it is
(19:13):
kind of the point now, I mean that the defense
rather has filed a brief that really put a hole
in a lot of the things and really kind of
I mean, the biggest thing to Nisee that they put
out on one of their briefs is the fact that
they requested the notes from the idem State Police, Moscow Police,
and FBI agents who were present at the autopsy, and
the prosecution said none of those three departments took any
notes at the autopsy. If you're at the autopsy of
these four victims and there's no suspect, you don't know
(19:34):
what's going on, how do you not take any notes
at all? That's a very and that sort of sows
some seeds of mistrust I think in the law enforcement
when that's presented at trial. I think that's that's, you know,
sort of one of those things you've got to put
a shink in the armor with.
Speaker 6 (19:45):
It's definite. I want to ask you something about in
the connection to piked In, because the Wagoners were running
around for like the better part of two years right
claiming that alibis, claiming they were innocent. I mean, when
you guys first started looking at piked In, do you
remember all the different alibis and it claims of innocence
that the Wageners had in terms of not being connected
to murdering the road and family.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
One hundred percent.
Speaker 4 (20:06):
It was that's basically when we started really digging in.
Is when they were in the throes of a claiming
their innocence and they had.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
Moved to Alaska.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
They felt as though the town was being to gossipy
and that they were the center of gossip, and it
was a very hard place to live because of that,
and as you know, there were pillars of the town
and suddenly there's been this murder, and the boys wanted
to move on. As fathers and as a family, they
all collectively moved to Alaska. And we're making the documentary
(20:36):
right now for NBC, and very recently. When I was
there last we were going through old family photos of
theirs of the Wagner family and while they were in Alaska,
and it's chilling in retrospect, but while they were in Alaska,
they picked up their lives. They started working again, and
they went to church, and there's photographs of them as
a family in matching Christmas pajamas and family photos on
(20:59):
a boat in there out fishing as a group, smiling
ear to ear. Life really did appear to move on
for them very easily, and they really did present as
though they were not only innocent, but very innocent in fact,
that they were almost being targeted as an excuse to
not do better investigating so much so that they had
(21:19):
to actually move out of town, and that they were
just an example.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
Of faulty police work.
Speaker 4 (21:24):
And life goes on, and they picked up the pieces
and they really did chilling to think.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
You know, wow, what we know now.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
Is that they at least three of the four have
said that they were at least a part of murdering
these beautiful people, all.
Speaker 3 (21:39):
Eight of them.
Speaker 4 (21:40):
You would think you would not be able to eat, drink, drive,
do anything that's air quotes normal again in life, because
you're forever changed and now you've been soaked in other's blood.
And then you look at these photographs and you know what,
if we worked next to them at CVS, you wouldn't notice,
Or if you yes shared a cubicle or were on
an airplane with them, they would just seem like a
(22:00):
lovely family of somebody you would not be afraid. And
I think Brian sort of falls into that category a
little bit too, where.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
He's not the obvious scary person.
Speaker 4 (22:10):
You know, he might be sitting next to you on
the train and yeah, maybe he seems a little bit
odd or a little off, but if anything, you kind
of feel like just an awkward guy and not a
big deal. You don't think in a million years, this
is a person that's going to be murdering, potentially or allegedly,
you know, for beautiful humans. How do you go on
the next day and go back to school? And that's
been one of the triggers I think, even while we've
(22:31):
kind of got involved in this case, is yet listen, hey,
how can we help? But also the idea of the
air quote bad guy or the killers, the idea that
you could commit such a hideous crime. And then the
day after in the Wagner's case, in the Python murders,
they went to the funerals and they picked up the pieces,
and they started a gofund me page, and they took support,
(22:54):
and they took tears and they cried on other people's
shoulders in the town. Meanwhile they were the killers the
whole time, Like how do you keep a straight face
and how do you not crack?
Speaker 3 (23:03):
Times four? And in Brian's case allegedly same thing.
Speaker 4 (23:06):
You go back to school the next day, you start,
you roll into the real world, You hop in a
car with your dad and do a road trip. It
just seems impossible that there wouldn't be more tells. And
I think that's the creepiest part about the pike In
case is even when I was in the courtroom listening
to Angela Wagner, accused killer Mom's testimony, she still presents
pretty meek and frankly air quotes likable. You know, they
(23:27):
have the stick to be able to kind of live
amongst us, And I think that's the scariest part well.
Speaker 6 (23:33):
And also like two parallels in terms of talking about
Brian Cobergers, Like I don't think the Wagoners have been
accused of murder before, right, so somehow they went from
zero to killing eight people.
Speaker 5 (23:42):
And that's even more so because how many crime scenes
were there in that case. There's only one crime scene
in Coburg where there's right, right, that's insane.
Speaker 6 (23:48):
And with the Wagoners, like they didn't start out trying
to kill a people, but there were a couple of
people who ended up being there that weren't supposed to
be there, and then they sort of said, well, if
you're going to kill this person, you got to kill
this person because that person's going to come after you.
And so you can also see where this can just
spiral out of control when you kill your first person,
and the next thing you know, you've got to kill
multiple people. That's what makes both of these cases so
(24:10):
fascinating because I think for the average person listening, sitting
here talking, you can't contemplate killing one person, let alone
multiple people. But there obviously are people who can, and
when it happens, they end up killing more than one person.
Speaker 5 (24:21):
I think the fact that even people who have done
it before don't have a one hundred percent rate. And
both of these murders, whoever committed them, every person they
tried to kill, they killed. They did not leave anyone,
you know, wounded or they shot it people. Eight people died.
This person stabbed four people. Four people died. That was
that was it. There wasn't any sort of like someone
you know, recovered or someone wasn't fully That's kind of
the most amazing. Even with serial killers, I mean, there's
always one or two who get away. No one got
(24:42):
away from these killers.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
It's so true.
Speaker 4 (24:44):
And you think about the families too, that we spoke
about earlier in the piked in case, the family of
the victims and the family of the accused. They've been
ripped apart emotionally, no matter what side of the equation.
On it you are, it's devastating beyond words, and in
Brian's case as well, to your point, he had nice parents,
he has nice sisters, he had a decent education. He
(25:05):
seemed to have a lot of opportunity.
Speaker 3 (25:08):
What a mess?
Speaker 4 (25:09):
What a mess? What a mess? You know, not to
jump around to, you know, one hideous case to the next.
But I'm obviously a Long Islander. The recent capture of
the Long Island serial killer again, who is this scary
guy that's commuting on the Long Island railroad to work
every day, sitting next to somebody who might say, God,
the guy's large and slightly creepy, but I don't know.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
He works with people every single day. And this guy's
going home and just dumping girls and burlap bags. How
does that happen?
Speaker 5 (25:37):
And the fact that the eyewitness who police say led
to the arrest told him about it in twenty eleven.
In twenty eleven, this guy said that's this is who
the person is. He'd seen him with one of the girls.
And it's twelve years later that it's finally like, okay.
Speaker 6 (25:48):
Chris, you said something about Brian Cowberger's family, and immediately
I went to the Long Island killer because his wife
immediately filed for divorce, right, you know, unlike in movies
where you know the partners serve always seems to know
or whatever. Like it's very clear she's divorced him. She's
saying she didn't know. There's also some reports that he
always killed when they were out of town and stuff
like that. But like Brian Coworker's family can't divorce them, right,
(26:11):
the parents can't. They're still the parents. The sisters are
still the sisters. And not that it's good to be
married and have the option to divorce the serial killer.
But like she gets to say, I knew nothing. I
want nothing to.
Speaker 3 (26:22):
Do with this guy.
Speaker 6 (26:23):
Brian Coworker's family, they're stuck with them. They's stuck with
the same last name. They're stuck with being the parents.
And these murders are also interesting by themselves, but when
you sort of start to think about how they're connected,
in the ways they're connected, there's just some really interesting
sort of links between these killers.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
Let's stop here for another break.
Speaker 5 (26:53):
I think that the defense filing that sort of was
poking holes is there's some good stuff.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
You know.
Speaker 5 (26:57):
They point out that the only video they claim to
have of the cards going the wrong way at the
wrong time. There's based on discovering what they're saying, there's
no clear image of the person driving the car so
far that they've received. At least the defense says that
they've still not provided any link that says that Brian
Copert knew any of the victims. I mean, again, this
is you know, it's all sort of it's playing out,
you know, and they're because of the gagguader, we can't
call prosecutors or the defense or anyone in the case
(27:17):
and ask if things are true or not, or get clarification,
which is why this case is still sort of theoretical
in many ways. But I think that the defense has
certainly put the case in a position I didn't think
it was going to be. If you ask me two
months Agoard if they could be a slamed on case,
I wouldn't think there'd be any chance of. You know,
it just all seems so perfect. And then prosecution's obviously
not saying is if anythings in their filings is the defense,
But the defense is saying a lot of things that
are sort of and to Conna's point earlier about the DNA.
(27:39):
You know, it's right if it was just a bugal swab.
People understand that we took a swab of his mouth,
we compared it to the night they matched. That's it.
It's all going to be very, very interesting to see
how this plays out. And it could just be the
prosecution is staying quiet on purpose and just you know,
sort of holding their cards tight to their chest. But
we will see in a few months.
Speaker 6 (27:55):
I think we're unlikely to see in October trial. I mean,
talking to everyone we've talked to the fact that matters
is August is are a dead month in any courtroom
in any place in America, So nothing's going to Probably
they might have one hearing in the middle of August,
but then like until after Labor Day, courts generally shut down.
So then all of a sudden, you know, you're five
weeks from the start of a trial after Labor Day,
(28:16):
so a lot has to happen for a trial to
start on October second, and it just doesn't seem.
Speaker 4 (28:21):
Likely, which also is a layer that we have to
be mindful of too. The idea that they're going for
death penalty sipulations will also make this a little bit
harder for a jury to convict, you know, that is
a big cross to bear, and if any of this
can be confusing or the filing says very little and
is very vague and it does, though, just take one
(28:42):
person to feel a tinge unclear. Maybe the death sentence
provisions is too much or is that a way of
the prosecution saying we have the goods and we are
going full blown to make sure that this person is
convicted and that justice is done and that death is
the elt.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (29:01):
I mean, Idaho is one of about three or four
states that's uniquely positioned for prosecutors to chase death penalty
without much fear that the overall population is going to
be squeamish, you know, using it. I mean, obviously there
are people in Idaho, but like Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Idaho
are probably four out of the I don't know five
(29:22):
states that if you're a prosecutor wanting to use the
death penalty as a punishment, you probably want to be in.
And I would put Idaho is probably one or two
in those in that list. I would venture to say
that the prosecution isn't worried about the jury if he
gets a conviction about you know, the application of the
death penalty in the state like Idaho.
Speaker 4 (29:39):
Like And have you heard anything, Chris, from the victims'
families at all.
Speaker 5 (29:44):
I've spoken to the families. I've spoken in all four families, yes,
at some point, and it's very interesting to see how
they are each handling it in a very uniquely different way.
There are some people like Cayley's family, the Consolvants, who
are very very involved in the trial, and then there's
people like the Chapins, who are have a very sort
of i mean, their approach to this is just very
sort of you know, it's it's incredible in the sense
they're just really not choosing to get weighed down by
(30:05):
any of the actual the murder is not something they
think about. They don't they think about losing their son,
but they don't think about how they lost their son.
They really focus on their two children they still have.
They really just want to remember happy things and happy memories,
and that's how they want to sort of It's just
a really sort of beautiful thing that must be incredibly
hard to do, but what they've adopted and they just
really just want to, you know, only carry good, wonderful
things about their son or them. They don't want to really,
(30:25):
they don't seem much interested in the trial or any
of that because they just don't want to revisit that,
which is also an interesting thing about this debate about
the house. You know, these people keep talking about leaving
the house up or desmolishing it, and you have to
remember the two people who can still see the house
are Ethan's sister and brother every day, and they probably
don't want to see it. Ethan's brother can see it
from his frat house. You know, that's probably the worst
thing in the world that I might be to look
at the house every day. So I imagine, like you know,
(30:46):
it's eventually gonna get demolished, but it to be nice
if if the prosecution defense say they're done with it.
Even think it'd be nice for those two kids at
least and might have to look at that house every
time they're at school, because it's just going to be
devastating to see that and think about your brother.
Speaker 6 (30:55):
Yeah, this whole debate over the house, you can see
it from both sides or mini soides right where the families.
They want to ensure that there's a conviction. They don't
want anything to be a possibility that it hinders a conviction.
You can see it from the university's point of view,
where they're like, can we get this down. I think
the other thing that's really interesting is is that sort
of criminal tourism that people coming by to see the house.
(31:16):
If you're a neighbor on that street, I mean, God
only knows how many cars or people buses, you can
understand that that's happening. So this debate has been really
interesting to watch it unplay or play out the last
couple of months, because you can understand it from everybody's
point of view. It's one of those things like I
don't know from my point of view, I don't think
there is a right or wrong answer. There's just at
(31:37):
some point there's going to be a decision.
Speaker 5 (31:38):
Yeah, I mean it is interesting. I mean both the
defense and prosecution have said there's nothing there. I mean,
I think a house tour would probably be beneficial for
the jurors. I can. I can understand it from that aspect,
but I'm surprised at both sides of the defense and
the prosecution are both like, no, we don't need it,
which kind of surprise me because usually you'd think they'ld
be a house visit at some point during the trial,
but maybe not.
Speaker 6 (31:54):
That happened with OJ, but it doesn't actually happen in
most murder cases where they go to see it, and
that would be a media circus.
Speaker 5 (32:00):
I mean nothing, the prosecutions they plans to do it
at all, So that's why I think that nothing.
Speaker 4 (32:05):
And for our listeners too, if anybody listening has any
information or any tips or details that they want to share,
please do you know, reach out to us directly. And
needless to say, this is a case that we will
continue to cover and if this trial does in fact
happen in October or somewhere you know, close by, it
will be one of the biggest trials that this country
(32:28):
has seen in a long time, and we will one
hundred percent be there every step of the way. I'm
sure there's more hiccups and surprises to come. So Chris
Connor for your reporting this entire season, so well done.
Speaker 5 (32:42):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
More on that next time. For more information on the
case and relevant photos, follow us on Instagram at kt
Underscore Studios. The Idaho Mascer is produced by Stefan la Decker,
Jeff Shane Connor Powell, Chris Bargo, Gabriel Castillo, and me
Courtney Armstrong. Editing and sound designed by Jeff Toi. Music
(33:11):
by Jared Aston. The Idaho Massacre is a production of
iHeart Radio in Katie's Studios. For more podcasts like this,
visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
to your favorite shows. I'm Diana.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
You may know as Body Moving, My Friend and I.
John Green were featured in the Netflix documentary Don't f
with Cats. On our new podcast, True Crimes of John
and Deiana were turning our online investigative skills to some
of the most unexplained, unsolved, and most ignored cases.
Speaker 6 (33:45):
Police say thirty three year old Bride Again was shot dead.
Speaker 4 (33:48):
Gunned down in front of his two year old daughter.
Speaker 5 (33:51):
Detectives confirmed that it was a targeted attack.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
It appears to be an execution style assassination. This is
very active, so we have to be careful.
Speaker 4 (34:00):
I heard that there's a house that has some bodies
in the basement.
Speaker 6 (34:03):
I knew.
Speaker 5 (34:04):
I just knew the move was wrong.
Speaker 1 (34:05):
Maybe there's something more sinister at play than just one
young girl going missing.
Speaker 5 (34:10):
If you know something, heard something, please it's never too
late to do the right thing.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
This is true crimes with John and Deianna, the.
Speaker 3 (34:20):
Production of KT Studios and iHeartRadio. Justice is something that
takes different shapes or formed
Popular Podcasts
1. The Podium
The Podium: An NBC Olympic and Paralympic podcast. Join us for insider coverage during the intense competition at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. In the run-up to the Opening Ceremony, we’ll bring you deep into the stories and events that have you know and those you'll be hard-pressed to forget.
2. In The Village
In The Village will take you into the most exclusive areas of the 2024 Paris Olympic Games to explore the daily life of athletes, complete with all the funny, mundane and unexpected things you learn off the field of play. Join Elizabeth Beisel as she sits down with Olympians each day in Paris.
3. iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2024 Olympics.