October 4, 2023 • 29 mins
Bryan Kohberger has said he looks forward to being exonerated. In the final episode of The Idaho Massacre, his defense team begins to lay out their strategy to prove his innocence.
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):
The accused Idaho student killer, Brian Coberger, was back in
court today.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Appearing in a Moscow, Idaho courtroom for a pre trial
hearing as his lawyers prepared to defend him against four
counts of first degree murder and now the death penalty.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
This is the Idaho Massacre a production of KT Studios
and iHeartRadio episode ten Building a Defense. I'm Courtney Armstrong,
a television producer at Kat's Studios, with Stephanie Lydecker, Jeff Shane,
and Connor Powell. When Brian Cobeger walked into the courtroom
(00:48):
on the afternoon of Tuesday, June twenty seventh, he looked different.
He carried himself differently. Flanked by his defense team Anne Taylor,
Jay Logstin and Alyssa Masseth, Coburger entered the courtroom wearing
a dark suit and tie with a white dress shirt.
(01:10):
His face was clean shaven, his hair styled with jel.
Gone was the bright orange prison jumpsuit that the twenty
eight year old quadruple murder suspect had worn for most
of his previous court appearances. In another world, the former
PhD criminology student looked like he could be testifying as
an expert witness for another case rather than appearing as
(01:34):
a murder suspect. But on June twenty seventh, Coburger, who
was accused of brutally murdering Kaylee Gonsalvez, Madison Mogan, Xana Kernodle,
and Nathan Chapin, was simply in the Alida County courtroom
to listen to his lawyers begin to lay out their
defense and fight to keep him from being executed.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
All right, this is State of Idah O versus Brian
Koberger on mister Coberger is JIMI Corp.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
In the days leading up to this much anticipated hearing,
there was speculation that Coberger's defense team would ask the
judge to force the prosecution to provide information and documents
on a wide range of topics. However, before the defense
and prosecution made their presentations to Judge John Judge, he
first addressed the issue of cameras in the courtroom. A
(02:34):
month earlier, Coberger's defense team had asked the judge to
remove press cameras. They worried the continued focus on Coburger
my prejudice potential jurors against Coburger at his trial, especially
as analysts legal commentators and social media influencers pick apart
Coberger's body language and every blink of his eye. Yet,
a month after the defense made the request, the judge
(02:56):
had not made a decision, instead opting to warn at
the start of the hearing about how the media should
conduct themselves and cover the courtroom.
Speaker 5 (03:07):
I have deferred my decision about cameras. One of the
things that's going to be really important, that is very
important is that the people with the camera and media
need to follow the rules.
Speaker 6 (03:20):
And we've had some issues where people were pushing the envelope,
particularly focusing on the tables where council sits. I would
prefer if you want to continue to have cameras in.
Speaker 7 (03:35):
This courtroom, is to back off make sure that we
just have the totality of what is happening in the
court and not just focus, for example, on this co
River's face.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
With the media warned, the hearing turned the defense's motions.
In the days leading up to this much anticipate hearing,
there was speculation that Coberger's defense team would ask the
judge to force the prosecution to provide information and documents
on a wide range of topics from the investigation into
the suspected white vehicle, to the grand jury proceedings, to
(04:15):
cell phone data, to the FBI's DNA records. For weeks,
Coberger's defense team had been sending signals that they were
unhappy with the slow pace that the prosecution had been
turning over key documents. Here's defense attorney and Taylor, and
during the course of.
Speaker 8 (04:31):
The last several months, there has been a lot of
discovery that's been requested in a lot of business supply.
I come here asking the court to compel discovery. I'm
seeing and order directing that we received his discovery by not.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Seeing any other kind of spanking.
Speaker 8 (04:47):
I don't saying that the prosecutor has done something wrong.
I've come here saying that there are things that we
have the disagreement about whether I should get them or
when I should get them, and we see it.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Co or to in this regard.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
Once the hearings started, defense Attorney An Taylor limited the
scope of a request to two single topics. First, she
requested the prosecution turn over the investigative and training records
for three specific Idaho police officers.
Speaker 8 (05:19):
Are one of the Courtant Council to be aware, it's
not a psiane's division either real items that are really
necessary to investigate this pace into paranis or coworker's events.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Taylor argued the defense needed more information about the criminal
investigation that led to Coberger's arrest in December of twenty
twenty two, and these three officers since they were at
the center of that investigation. Taylor said, one officer interviewed
a key witness at the scene of the murders, and
another conducted dozens of interviews with witnesses and attended the
(05:52):
victim's autopsies.
Speaker 9 (05:54):
You're one of these.
Speaker 8 (05:55):
We have not asked for training records for every officer
that acidity thing to do with the case. I would
not want to stand here and what the court think
that this is an exhaustive list of the officers that
we might need.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Training records for that.
Speaker 8 (06:09):
These are three officers that we've requested or in the
stake has indicated they're not willing to get us as
training records. These three officers are officers that have each
conducted critical interviews with critical witnesses in the case, made
decisions about the interviews, made decisions about evidence, and conducted
(06:34):
other kinds of investigations. We seek their training records to
understand that their processes.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Taylor added that this request is not unusual, nor did
you believe it was a particularly difficult request.
Speaker 8 (06:48):
I have often received training records where I under state
police officers in the correporation of other cases during the
course of my career. They are imperative for us to
understand the specialty in interrogating and interviewing people and from
making the decisions that they made with regard to things
(07:09):
taken as evidence in the case where Base followed back
on Will not followed that.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Leida County Deputy Prosecutor Ashley Jennings, however, responded and said
that none of these officers would be called to testify
at the trial, and that hundreds of officers worked on
the investigation that led to the arrest of Brian Kobeger.
She said she feared this motion could become a burden
for the prosecution.
Speaker 10 (07:37):
Our concern with allowing training records for these view which
we can't understand why there's a substantial.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Need for these particular ones.
Speaker 10 (07:49):
When it opened the door to us then having to
go and get obtained training records for these hundreds of
investing of officers who've been involved somewhat was your outside
of our controls.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Taylor pushed back on this concern and reminded the court
that Coburger was facing the death penalty and as the.
Speaker 8 (08:08):
Quarter is aware, the state has fiblets to notice of intantacy, death.
Speaker 11 (08:11):
Pansims of cold over.
Speaker 8 (08:14):
These are critical relevant materials, all of them, including the
police training records. They're necessary for us to prepare and
present part of fancies or co worker. They're necessary for
us to do our investigation. They're necessary for us to
prepare our case and our motion tactics meaning forward.
Speaker 5 (08:35):
These are things that we need to have.
Speaker 8 (08:38):
They're a heightened standard now that the state's filence notice
is intent to seek death and he's a very relevant
critical bits of information. They are discoverable and were asking
for order the things applied to us to.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
Judged on judge that he would consider both sides of
the argument and would issue a written decision at a
later date. After ask the court to force the prosecution
to provide the Idaho police training records, and Taylor also
asked the judge to rule on two previous requests regarding
FBI records. Taylor asked for records from the FBI's cellular
(09:13):
analysis survey team. The CAST team had been brought in
to help process data from Coberger's mobile phone.
Speaker 8 (09:21):
These are bits an investigation that the FBI conducted that
relate to mister Coberger's cell phone and the State has
relied on that in their appidated to say that mister
Coberger was in certain places at certain times.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
The original requests for FBI's cell phone data and White
Hondai vehicle information was made weeks prior.
Speaker 8 (09:45):
So these are bits of information and analysis that's been
done since December.
Speaker 11 (09:52):
We are now at the end of June.
Speaker 5 (09:54):
We do not have those records yet.
Speaker 8 (09:57):
Run they are something that's been relied on by the
stape for the puciapidata to a restuens to comorner as
well as to obtain.
Speaker 11 (10:05):
A variety of search ones.
Speaker 8 (10:06):
It's information that the state has agreed we should have,
so we asked support for an.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
Order with the deadlines with that prosecution, however, insisted they
had turned over everything in their possession.
Speaker 11 (10:20):
We have discovered or talk to me about, thirteen thousand
pages of reports, thirteen thousand photographs, over ten thousand tips,
and over fifteen one terror rites of audio and video information.
Miss Taylor has everything that we have what she is
seeking as a specific report from the theodcast team, which
(10:43):
I have indicated to her, is in its final stages
of review, and we are anticipating receiving sooner rather than later,
and as soon as.
Speaker 4 (10:51):
We do, we will send that over.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
Judge sewn. Judge ruled on the spot for the defense
and suggested the FBI documents relating to the cell phone
data and Whitehaun Dilancha vehicle information should be turned over
no later than July fourteenth. Here's Jeff and Stephanie.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Since we haven't had a substantial update on this case
in a while, there was a lot of hype for
this hearing, and while it was substantial, it didn't quite
have the same omph we thought it might.
Speaker 12 (11:25):
To your point, it was extremely short, just thirty minutes.
For note, pre trial hearings can last anywhere from two
minutes to two hours, depending upon the complexity of the case.
But since there was seemingly a lot to cover, this
went much shorter than expected.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
Well, that could be because a lot of what we
thought might get brought up didn't remember. Three days after
the announcement of the indictment back in May, the defense
asked for thirty four specific pieces of information from the
grand jury proceedings, all the transcripts, recordings, and evidence, even
the jurors names. Originally, the defense request for grand jury
information was supposed to be part of the hearing on
the twenty seventh, but then it wasn't, though it does
(12:04):
appear that the lawyers are talking behind the scenes to
try to come up with an agreement on this issue.
Speaker 12 (12:09):
The other big issue that we thought was going to
be part of the hearing, and this is a big one,
was the defense's request for the documents related to the
DNA and the FBI's effort to build out this family tree.
Like we discussed earlier, that family tree is what led
investigators to Coburger. The state ended up asking for more
time to respond in the judge granted it.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
But the issue of the DNA, how it was collected,
how it was handled, and how it was used, seems
to be a growing issue and it is not going
away anytime soon.
Speaker 9 (12:40):
So I believe there has to be a pre trial
hearing in terms of determining whether or not this is
good or whether it is outside the ability to say yes,
the procedure they used was proper and the eventual swab
that they used for traditional DNAs admissible. That's going to
be a serious because this is a DNA case.
Speaker 3 (13:01):
Since the first time DNA was used in nineteen eighty
seven to convict a suspect in the United States, DNA
has played a major role in criminal investigations and in
securing convictions. While the statistical connection between the DNA taken
from the knife sheath found of the crime scene and
the DNA taken from Brian Coberger's cheek seems very straightforward
(13:23):
and in line with how DNA is usually used in
criminal investigations, attorney and former prosecutor Stephen Greenberg says there
could be a small chance this DNA evidence is not
even admissible at Coberger's trial because of the unique role
the FBI played in narrowing the search down to Brian Coburger.
Here's Stephen Greenberg.
Speaker 9 (13:44):
It has to be a pre trial here in terms
of whether or not the DNA evidence will be admissible
at all because of the way they got there. There's
a number of issues that come into play, because if
you remember, they tried a whole number of things before
they outsourceed to the Bureau, and let's remember this you
know the f and FBI is federal. This is not
a federal case. There's no US attorney involved. This is
(14:07):
a state prosecution in a small town in Idaho. And
I'm not so sure how sophisticated the police and prosecutors are.
There's a chain of custody issue, because you know, they
sent this thing out and who knows where it went,
who knows who who was using it.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
a moment. After local investigators found the knife sheath cover
under Madison Mogan's comforter, they checked it for DNA and
found a very small amount on the button of the
knife sheath. Investigators then ran the DNA through a national
(14:50):
criminal database, but the DNA from the knife sheath did
not produce any matches. Instead of giving up, the DNA
information was then sent to the FB, who passed it
on to a private laboratory named Authrum, which then began
to look for relatives of the DNA sequence in publicly
available genealogy databases. Ultimately, genetic genealogists combed through hundreds of
(15:14):
names connected to the DNA and narrow down the likely
DNA profile to Brian Koberger. Greenberg says because this type
of genetic genealogy method is so new and untested in
the courts, the defense will likely challenge its admissibility in
a pre trial hearing and will put both FBI and
AUTHORAM officials under oath.
Speaker 9 (15:38):
There will have to be evidentiary hearings, see, because it's
all going to go to the issue of whether the
court's going to let in this evidence. The judge will
have to have pre trial hearings, and these people will
be on the stand because it goes to the heart
of the case in terms of the issues that we've
been talking about. So now they'll take the stand pre trial,
and they'll take the stand during the trial.
Speaker 3 (15:57):
And even if the judge allows the DNA to use
in the trial, Coberger's defense is likely to challenge it
at every turn.
Speaker 9 (16:05):
There were a universe of other people who came up
when they did the non traditional okay, the genetic and
why can't we have those names? Did they follow up
on anybody other than this one defendant? So yeah, the issues,
even if the judge allows it in that will be
cross examination material for the defense. So if the main
issue and the only issue by which a jury can
(16:27):
find this guy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is DNA. However,
all I need is write one juror for a mistrial,
And if the judge does let it in, it's still
going to be as serious. They're going to open on it,
they're going to cross examine on it, and they're going
to close on it.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Because that's the case.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
The Coburger defense team cannot challenge the DNA in a
pre trial hearing until it receives all of the FBI
and off from paperwork from the prosecution, And so far,
the prosecution has refused to turn over the FBI documents,
claiming they don't have the information, hinting that the FBI
hadn't or wouldn't turn over the information. Instead, the prosecution
(17:06):
has asked the judge to allow for more time to
respond to the defense's request. Greenberg says the delay in
turning over DNA information is unusual and unlike the FBI,
which has a long history of being on the cutting
edge of using science to solve crimes.
Speaker 9 (17:22):
Makes no sense to me. Well, let's remember this. The
responsibility is to prosecutors. The FBI here was acting as
an independent contractor, right they were investigating the case as
they would if it were a federal case. They were
just asked to do this one particular task, So whoever
they reported to was somebody in the prosecutor's office. It's
(17:43):
a prosecutor's responsibility to see to it that they get
all the information they need. Would the FBI with actually
withhold information from the people who hired them to do
the lab work that being the prosecutor makes no sense
to me, no sense at all.
Speaker 3 (17:59):
And if for some reason the FBI is reluctant and
doesn't want to turn over the genetic genealogy information, Greenberg says,
the bureau won't have a choice if the judge orders
the information to be turned over to the defense.
Speaker 9 (18:12):
Everybody who was within the jurisdiction of that court, which
obviously the FBI in this case is because they put
themselves into the case. The law of the case is
what the judge says, it is okay, he says, turn
it over. They turn it over.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
But with the start of the trial nearing, the clock
is ticking, and every day which the defense is without
this key DNA information makes the October second start date
for the trial more and more unlikely.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Coburger's lawyers asked, and the judge said yes.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
One week after the June twenty seventh pre trial hearing,
Brian Coberger's defense team scored a small but potentially important victory.
Judge John Judge ruled that the prosecution must give the
Coburger's defense team access to the training records of the
three Idaho police investigators the defense team deemed are at
the center of the investigation. The judge said of July
(19:10):
fourteenth deadline, writing that the defense adequately articulated the role
each of the officers played in interviewing witnesses and finding
and collecting potential evidence. However, the issue of the FBI
DNA documentation was still left unresolved.
Speaker 9 (19:26):
It's an important victory, and the reason is what they're
going to try to prove it is that either these
police officers who were first on the scene were inexperienced
or that these police on the scene at first didn't
follow whatever training information they were given. But the long
insured of it is there's going to be a serious
issue about how the crime scene was handled and how
(19:49):
well trained these particular officers were. And obviously the judge
felt this was important or he wouldn't have ordered the
turnover of this material.
Speaker 3 (19:59):
Defense turney Zan Taylor argued a week earlier at the
pre trial hearing that the defense needed to better understand
the methods the investigators use to exclude other suspects and
to zero in on Coburger. Stephanie and Jeff, followed by
Stephen Greenberg.
Speaker 12 (20:15):
Does this mean that the defense is going to go
after the detectives? Are they just trying to question the
motives of the detectives. It seems like such a stretch.
It reminds me of the OJ Simpson trial, for example,
when they went after LAPD detective Mark Furman back in
the day. Again, is this strategy or a stretch?
Speaker 1 (20:35):
The defense's job is to explore every possible angle, and
we don't know exactly what their strategy is yet, but
this request certainly points in that direction.
Speaker 12 (20:45):
All that to be said, it must be so difficult
for the family members to be listening to all of
the back and forth, and we just want to be
clear that our hearts go.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
Out to all of them.
Speaker 9 (20:55):
So it's a defense going to go after the police,
But they're not going to go after the police per se.
But they're going to go after the individual officers who
are responsible for being the first on this crime scene
and handling evidence.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
In a previous court filing, the defense tried to undermine
and poke holes in the state's case against Coppager by
accusing the prosecution of not being transparent and hiding their
entire case. They have also in pre trial motions raised
issues about how investigators use the DNA sample to zero
in on Copager. Attorney Stephen Greenberg says this is likely
(21:32):
part of a defense strategy to attack not the final
conclusions of the DNA results, but the initial process of
collecting and analyzing the DNA from the crime scene.
Speaker 9 (21:44):
I do believe that if the judge let's in the
DNA evidence, things like this in terms of casting doubt
on how the entire investigatory process was handled, goes into
this whole issue. Is the DNA any good or is
it not any good? Did they purposely focus on this guy?
Are there are other reputative defendants out there? So that
is why the judge, I believe, turned it over. And
(22:05):
I think it's an important victory for the public defender's office.
Is it a good idea to go after the police?
And I would say if you're an inexperienced lawyer, Yeah,
you might do that. An experienced lawyer will not go
after the police per se as a particular group of
individuals who were responsible for taking care of our safety,
but rather the particular officers who were involved.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
Let's stop here for another break. One week after the hearing,
as Americans across the country were celebrating the Fourth of July,
and eerie video was uploaded to the Internet. The leaked
(22:49):
surveillance footage from a nearby apartment complex at one three
three zero Linda Lane appears to capture the moments before, during,
and after the Grizzly murders. The security camera is from
a parking lot just a few hundred yards away from
the three story house on King Road, and it is
just one of several camera views investigators have access to.
(23:12):
This video cannot be independently verified, and due to the
gag order, a verification is unlikely. Though it is timestamped Sunday,
November thirteenth, twenty twenty two and begins at three point
fifty nine in the morning. Since being posted, this video
has been removed countless times. Much of what appears in
(23:32):
the footage lines up with official statements from the probable
cause affidavit. In fact, the leaked video seems to validate
key parts of the PCA. On an otherwise dark and
quiet night, the first sign of movement in the video
comes at roughly four h five am. A light, possibly white,
sedan pulls up on the street in front of the camera.
(23:55):
Its headlights light up the screen. The vehicle stops for
a few seconds at least five, before turning around and
driving away. According to the probable Cause Affidavid suspect, Vehicle one,
as Coburger's car is described by the document, was seen
on other cameras in the area as early as three
twenty nine a m. The PCA says Vehicle one makes
(24:19):
three initial passes by the eleven twenty two King Road residents. Then,
during a fourth pass at four oh four am, Vehicle
number one is seen unsuccessfully trying to park in front
of a nearby apartment complex before turning around. This appears
to be the sequence caught on the leaked video. About
(24:39):
ninety seconds later, at four oh seven a m, there
is a sound of a short car horn and the
camera at thirteen thirty Linda Lane again captures a vehicle
driving by. This time, the vehicle does not stop and
instead continues driving back towards King Road, though it isn't
clear if this is vehicle number one and Brian Coburger.
(25:00):
The PCA does not mention a fifth loop around the neighborhood.
At four thirteen am, the camera appears to pick up
the sound of a car that could possibly be Xana
Kernodle's food driver departing after dropping off her door dash
order at four to twelve am. Over the course of
the next few minutes, the camera picks up multiple sounds,
though none are clear. There are odd sounds and thuds.
(25:24):
At four twenty one am, there is a loud sound
that appears to be a car quickly moving. According to
the probable cause affidavids, this sound happens at the exact time.
At another camera angle shows suspect Vehicle one leaving the
neighborhood at a very high rate of speed, but this
isn't the final sound. Roughly two minutes later, at four
twenty three, at the exact time investigators say the crime
(25:48):
was ending, someone gets into a large, dark vehicle, likely
in SGV, outside of the Linda Lande security camera. First
you hear the door slamming, then the engine starting. The
car leaves quickly, but by no means is it speeding
away or driving recklessly out of the parking lot. So
who was this person? Did they live in one of
(26:08):
the nearby apartments? Where were they going and where had
they been? There is no mention of anyone else in
the probable cause affidavit. Were they just an innocent bystander
completely unaware of the horrific murders that had just happened
a few yards away? And did police identify this individual
and the vehicle? Did police talk to and clear this person?
(26:29):
Or was this individual somehow connected to the brutal murders
of four young students with a lifetime of opportunity ahead
of them, Did Brian Coberger have an accessory to murder?
And is there DNA that can prove it? More on
that next time. For more information on the case and
(26:52):
relevant photos, follow us on Instagram at kat Underscore Studios.
The Idaho Mascer is produced by Stephanie lah Decker, Jeff
Shane Connor Powell, Chris Bargo, Gabriel Castillo, and me Courtney Armstrong.
Editing and sound designed by Jeff Toi. Music by Jared
Aston The Idaho Massacre is a production of iHeart Radio
(27:15):
and Kati's Studios. For more podcasts like this, visit the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
favorite shows.
Speaker 13 (27:27):
On our new podcast, True Crimes of John, Indiana were
turning our online investigative skills to some of the most unexplained, unsolved,
and most ignored cases.
Speaker 12 (27:36):
I've heard that there's a house that has some bodies
in the basement.
Speaker 10 (27:40):
I just knew something was wrong, and it was later
that night that Jared had been killed.
Speaker 14 (27:45):
Detectives confirmed that it was a targeted attack.
Speaker 13 (27:47):
This is very active, so we have to be careful.
Speaker 11 (27:50):
Listen to Two Crimes with John Indiana every Wednesday on
the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 13 (28:00):
You may know is body Moving? My Friend and I
John Green were featured in the Netflix documentary Don't Have
f with Cats. On our new podcast, True Crimes with
John and Deiana were turning our online investigative skills to
some of the most unexplained, unsolved, and most ignored cases.
Speaker 14 (28:17):
Police say thirty three year old bride Again was shot dead,
gunned down in front of his two year old daughter,
detectives confirmed that it was a targeted attack.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
It appears to be an execution style assassination.
Speaker 13 (28:29):
This is very active, so we have to be careful.
Speaker 12 (28:31):
I've heard that there's a house that has some bodies
in the basement.
Speaker 7 (28:35):
I knew.
Speaker 13 (28:35):
I just knew the move was wrong.
Speaker 11 (28:37):
Maybe there's something more sinister at play than just one
young girl going missing.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
If you know something, heard something, please it's never too
late to do the right thing.
Speaker 13 (28:49):
This is true crimes with John and Deiana, the.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Production of KT Studios and iHeartRadio.
Speaker 8 (28:56):
Justice is something that takes different shapes for four ont
The accused Idaho student killer, Brian Coberger, was back in
court today.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Appearing in a Moscow, Idaho courtroom for a pre trial
hearing as his lawyers prepared to defend him against four
counts of first degree murder and now the death penalty.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
This is the Idaho Massacre a production of KT Studios
and iHeartRadio episode ten Building a Defense. I'm Courtney Armstrong,
a television producer at Kat's Studios, with Stephanie Lydecker, Jeff Shane,
and Connor Powell. When Brian Cobeger walked into the courtroom
(00:48):
on the afternoon of Tuesday, June twenty seventh, he looked different.
He carried himself differently. Flanked by his defense team Anne Taylor,
Jay Logstin and Alyssa Masseth, Coburger entered the courtroom wearing
a dark suit and tie with a white dress shirt.
(01:10):
His face was clean shaven, his hair styled with jel.
Gone was the bright orange prison jumpsuit that the twenty
eight year old quadruple murder suspect had worn for most
of his previous court appearances. In another world, the former
PhD criminology student looked like he could be testifying as
an expert witness for another case rather than appearing as
(01:34):
a murder suspect. But on June twenty seventh, Coburger, who
was accused of brutally murdering Kaylee Gonsalvez, Madison Mogan, Xana Kernodle,
and Nathan Chapin, was simply in the Alida County courtroom
to listen to his lawyers begin to lay out their
defense and fight to keep him from being executed.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
All right, this is State of Idah O versus Brian
Koberger on mister Coberger is JIMI Corp.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
In the days leading up to this much anticipated hearing,
there was speculation that Coberger's defense team would ask the
judge to force the prosecution to provide information and documents
on a wide range of topics. However, before the defense
and prosecution made their presentations to Judge John Judge, he
first addressed the issue of cameras in the courtroom. A
(02:34):
month earlier, Coberger's defense team had asked the judge to
remove press cameras. They worried the continued focus on Coburger
my prejudice potential jurors against Coburger at his trial, especially
as analysts legal commentators and social media influencers pick apart
Coberger's body language and every blink of his eye. Yet,
a month after the defense made the request, the judge
(02:56):
had not made a decision, instead opting to warn at
the start of the hearing about how the media should
conduct themselves and cover the courtroom.
Speaker 5 (03:07):
I have deferred my decision about cameras. One of the
things that's going to be really important, that is very
important is that the people with the camera and media
need to follow the rules.
Speaker 6 (03:20):
And we've had some issues where people were pushing the envelope,
particularly focusing on the tables where council sits. I would
prefer if you want to continue to have cameras in.
Speaker 7 (03:35):
This courtroom, is to back off make sure that we
just have the totality of what is happening in the
court and not just focus, for example, on this co
River's face.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
With the media warned, the hearing turned the defense's motions.
In the days leading up to this much anticipate hearing,
there was speculation that Coberger's defense team would ask the
judge to force the prosecution to provide information and documents
on a wide range of topics from the investigation into
the suspected white vehicle, to the grand jury proceedings, to
(04:15):
cell phone data, to the FBI's DNA records. For weeks,
Coberger's defense team had been sending signals that they were
unhappy with the slow pace that the prosecution had been
turning over key documents. Here's defense attorney and Taylor, and
during the course of.
Speaker 8 (04:31):
The last several months, there has been a lot of
discovery that's been requested in a lot of business supply.
I come here asking the court to compel discovery. I'm
seeing and order directing that we received his discovery by not.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Seeing any other kind of spanking.
Speaker 8 (04:47):
I don't saying that the prosecutor has done something wrong.
I've come here saying that there are things that we
have the disagreement about whether I should get them or
when I should get them, and we see it.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Co or to in this regard.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
Once the hearings started, defense Attorney An Taylor limited the
scope of a request to two single topics. First, she
requested the prosecution turn over the investigative and training records
for three specific Idaho police officers.
Speaker 8 (05:19):
Are one of the Courtant Council to be aware, it's
not a psiane's division either real items that are really
necessary to investigate this pace into paranis or coworker's events.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Taylor argued the defense needed more information about the criminal
investigation that led to Coberger's arrest in December of twenty
twenty two, and these three officers since they were at
the center of that investigation. Taylor said, one officer interviewed
a key witness at the scene of the murders, and
another conducted dozens of interviews with witnesses and attended the
(05:52):
victim's autopsies.
Speaker 9 (05:54):
You're one of these.
Speaker 8 (05:55):
We have not asked for training records for every officer
that acidity thing to do with the case. I would
not want to stand here and what the court think
that this is an exhaustive list of the officers that
we might need.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Training records for that.
Speaker 8 (06:09):
These are three officers that we've requested or in the
stake has indicated they're not willing to get us as
training records. These three officers are officers that have each
conducted critical interviews with critical witnesses in the case, made
decisions about the interviews, made decisions about evidence, and conducted
(06:34):
other kinds of investigations. We seek their training records to
understand that their processes.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Taylor added that this request is not unusual, nor did
you believe it was a particularly difficult request.
Speaker 8 (06:48):
I have often received training records where I under state
police officers in the correporation of other cases during the
course of my career. They are imperative for us to
understand the specialty in interrogating and interviewing people and from
making the decisions that they made with regard to things
(07:09):
taken as evidence in the case where Base followed back
on Will not followed that.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Leida County Deputy Prosecutor Ashley Jennings, however, responded and said
that none of these officers would be called to testify
at the trial, and that hundreds of officers worked on
the investigation that led to the arrest of Brian Kobeger.
She said she feared this motion could become a burden
for the prosecution.
Speaker 10 (07:37):
Our concern with allowing training records for these view which
we can't understand why there's a substantial.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Need for these particular ones.
Speaker 10 (07:49):
When it opened the door to us then having to
go and get obtained training records for these hundreds of
investing of officers who've been involved somewhat was your outside
of our controls.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Taylor pushed back on this concern and reminded the court
that Coburger was facing the death penalty and as the.
Speaker 8 (08:08):
Quarter is aware, the state has fiblets to notice of intantacy, death.
Speaker 11 (08:11):
Pansims of cold over.
Speaker 8 (08:14):
These are critical relevant materials, all of them, including the
police training records. They're necessary for us to prepare and
present part of fancies or co worker. They're necessary for
us to do our investigation. They're necessary for us to
prepare our case and our motion tactics meaning forward.
Speaker 5 (08:35):
These are things that we need to have.
Speaker 8 (08:38):
They're a heightened standard now that the state's filence notice
is intent to seek death and he's a very relevant
critical bits of information. They are discoverable and were asking
for order the things applied to us to.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
Judged on judge that he would consider both sides of
the argument and would issue a written decision at a
later date. After ask the court to force the prosecution
to provide the Idaho police training records, and Taylor also
asked the judge to rule on two previous requests regarding
FBI records. Taylor asked for records from the FBI's cellular
(09:13):
analysis survey team. The CAST team had been brought in
to help process data from Coberger's mobile phone.
Speaker 8 (09:21):
These are bits an investigation that the FBI conducted that
relate to mister Coberger's cell phone and the State has
relied on that in their appidated to say that mister
Coberger was in certain places at certain times.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
The original requests for FBI's cell phone data and White
Hondai vehicle information was made weeks prior.
Speaker 8 (09:45):
So these are bits of information and analysis that's been
done since December.
Speaker 11 (09:52):
We are now at the end of June.
Speaker 5 (09:54):
We do not have those records yet.
Speaker 8 (09:57):
Run they are something that's been relied on by the
stape for the puciapidata to a restuens to comorner as
well as to obtain.
Speaker 11 (10:05):
A variety of search ones.
Speaker 8 (10:06):
It's information that the state has agreed we should have,
so we asked support for an.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
Order with the deadlines with that prosecution, however, insisted they
had turned over everything in their possession.
Speaker 11 (10:20):
We have discovered or talk to me about, thirteen thousand
pages of reports, thirteen thousand photographs, over ten thousand tips,
and over fifteen one terror rites of audio and video information.
Miss Taylor has everything that we have what she is
seeking as a specific report from the theodcast team, which
(10:43):
I have indicated to her, is in its final stages
of review, and we are anticipating receiving sooner rather than later,
and as soon as.
Speaker 4 (10:51):
We do, we will send that over.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
Judge sewn. Judge ruled on the spot for the defense
and suggested the FBI documents relating to the cell phone
data and Whitehaun Dilancha vehicle information should be turned over
no later than July fourteenth. Here's Jeff and Stephanie.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Since we haven't had a substantial update on this case
in a while, there was a lot of hype for
this hearing, and while it was substantial, it didn't quite
have the same omph we thought it might.
Speaker 12 (11:25):
To your point, it was extremely short, just thirty minutes.
For note, pre trial hearings can last anywhere from two
minutes to two hours, depending upon the complexity of the case.
But since there was seemingly a lot to cover, this
went much shorter than expected.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
Well, that could be because a lot of what we
thought might get brought up didn't remember. Three days after
the announcement of the indictment back in May, the defense
asked for thirty four specific pieces of information from the
grand jury proceedings, all the transcripts, recordings, and evidence, even
the jurors names. Originally, the defense request for grand jury
information was supposed to be part of the hearing on
the twenty seventh, but then it wasn't, though it does
(12:04):
appear that the lawyers are talking behind the scenes to
try to come up with an agreement on this issue.
Speaker 12 (12:09):
The other big issue that we thought was going to
be part of the hearing, and this is a big one,
was the defense's request for the documents related to the
DNA and the FBI's effort to build out this family tree.
Like we discussed earlier, that family tree is what led
investigators to Coburger. The state ended up asking for more
time to respond in the judge granted it.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
But the issue of the DNA, how it was collected,
how it was handled, and how it was used, seems
to be a growing issue and it is not going
away anytime soon.
Speaker 9 (12:40):
So I believe there has to be a pre trial
hearing in terms of determining whether or not this is
good or whether it is outside the ability to say yes,
the procedure they used was proper and the eventual swab
that they used for traditional DNAs admissible. That's going to
be a serious because this is a DNA case.
Speaker 3 (13:01):
Since the first time DNA was used in nineteen eighty
seven to convict a suspect in the United States, DNA
has played a major role in criminal investigations and in
securing convictions. While the statistical connection between the DNA taken
from the knife sheath found of the crime scene and
the DNA taken from Brian Coberger's cheek seems very straightforward
(13:23):
and in line with how DNA is usually used in
criminal investigations, attorney and former prosecutor Stephen Greenberg says there
could be a small chance this DNA evidence is not
even admissible at Coberger's trial because of the unique role
the FBI played in narrowing the search down to Brian Coburger.
Here's Stephen Greenberg.
Speaker 9 (13:44):
It has to be a pre trial here in terms
of whether or not the DNA evidence will be admissible
at all because of the way they got there. There's
a number of issues that come into play, because if
you remember, they tried a whole number of things before
they outsourceed to the Bureau, and let's remember this you
know the f and FBI is federal. This is not
a federal case. There's no US attorney involved. This is
(14:07):
a state prosecution in a small town in Idaho. And
I'm not so sure how sophisticated the police and prosecutors are.
There's a chain of custody issue, because you know, they
sent this thing out and who knows where it went,
who knows who who was using it.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
a moment. After local investigators found the knife sheath cover
under Madison Mogan's comforter, they checked it for DNA and
found a very small amount on the button of the
knife sheath. Investigators then ran the DNA through a national
(14:50):
criminal database, but the DNA from the knife sheath did
not produce any matches. Instead of giving up, the DNA
information was then sent to the FB, who passed it
on to a private laboratory named Authrum, which then began
to look for relatives of the DNA sequence in publicly
available genealogy databases. Ultimately, genetic genealogists combed through hundreds of
(15:14):
names connected to the DNA and narrow down the likely
DNA profile to Brian Koberger. Greenberg says because this type
of genetic genealogy method is so new and untested in
the courts, the defense will likely challenge its admissibility in
a pre trial hearing and will put both FBI and
AUTHORAM officials under oath.
Speaker 9 (15:38):
There will have to be evidentiary hearings, see, because it's
all going to go to the issue of whether the
court's going to let in this evidence. The judge will
have to have pre trial hearings, and these people will
be on the stand because it goes to the heart
of the case in terms of the issues that we've
been talking about. So now they'll take the stand pre trial,
and they'll take the stand during the trial.
Speaker 3 (15:57):
And even if the judge allows the DNA to use
in the trial, Coberger's defense is likely to challenge it
at every turn.
Speaker 9 (16:05):
There were a universe of other people who came up
when they did the non traditional okay, the genetic and
why can't we have those names? Did they follow up
on anybody other than this one defendant? So yeah, the issues,
even if the judge allows it in that will be
cross examination material for the defense. So if the main
issue and the only issue by which a jury can
(16:27):
find this guy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is DNA. However,
all I need is write one juror for a mistrial,
And if the judge does let it in, it's still
going to be as serious. They're going to open on it,
they're going to cross examine on it, and they're going
to close on it.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Because that's the case.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
The Coburger defense team cannot challenge the DNA in a
pre trial hearing until it receives all of the FBI
and off from paperwork from the prosecution, And so far,
the prosecution has refused to turn over the FBI documents,
claiming they don't have the information, hinting that the FBI
hadn't or wouldn't turn over the information. Instead, the prosecution
(17:06):
has asked the judge to allow for more time to
respond to the defense's request. Greenberg says the delay in
turning over DNA information is unusual and unlike the FBI,
which has a long history of being on the cutting
edge of using science to solve crimes.
Speaker 9 (17:22):
Makes no sense to me. Well, let's remember this. The
responsibility is to prosecutors. The FBI here was acting as
an independent contractor, right they were investigating the case as
they would if it were a federal case. They were
just asked to do this one particular task, So whoever
they reported to was somebody in the prosecutor's office. It's
(17:43):
a prosecutor's responsibility to see to it that they get
all the information they need. Would the FBI with actually
withhold information from the people who hired them to do
the lab work that being the prosecutor makes no sense
to me, no sense at all.
Speaker 3 (17:59):
And if for some reason the FBI is reluctant and
doesn't want to turn over the genetic genealogy information, Greenberg says,
the bureau won't have a choice if the judge orders
the information to be turned over to the defense.
Speaker 9 (18:12):
Everybody who was within the jurisdiction of that court, which
obviously the FBI in this case is because they put
themselves into the case. The law of the case is
what the judge says, it is okay, he says, turn
it over. They turn it over.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
But with the start of the trial nearing, the clock
is ticking, and every day which the defense is without
this key DNA information makes the October second start date
for the trial more and more unlikely.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Coburger's lawyers asked, and the judge said yes.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
One week after the June twenty seventh pre trial hearing,
Brian Coberger's defense team scored a small but potentially important victory.
Judge John Judge ruled that the prosecution must give the
Coburger's defense team access to the training records of the
three Idaho police investigators the defense team deemed are at
the center of the investigation. The judge said of July
(19:10):
fourteenth deadline, writing that the defense adequately articulated the role
each of the officers played in interviewing witnesses and finding
and collecting potential evidence. However, the issue of the FBI
DNA documentation was still left unresolved.
Speaker 9 (19:26):
It's an important victory, and the reason is what they're
going to try to prove it is that either these
police officers who were first on the scene were inexperienced
or that these police on the scene at first didn't
follow whatever training information they were given. But the long
insured of it is there's going to be a serious
issue about how the crime scene was handled and how
(19:49):
well trained these particular officers were. And obviously the judge
felt this was important or he wouldn't have ordered the
turnover of this material.
Speaker 3 (19:59):
Defense turney Zan Taylor argued a week earlier at the
pre trial hearing that the defense needed to better understand
the methods the investigators use to exclude other suspects and
to zero in on Coburger. Stephanie and Jeff, followed by
Stephen Greenberg.
Speaker 12 (20:15):
Does this mean that the defense is going to go
after the detectives? Are they just trying to question the
motives of the detectives. It seems like such a stretch.
It reminds me of the OJ Simpson trial, for example,
when they went after LAPD detective Mark Furman back in
the day. Again, is this strategy or a stretch?
Speaker 1 (20:35):
The defense's job is to explore every possible angle, and
we don't know exactly what their strategy is yet, but
this request certainly points in that direction.
Speaker 12 (20:45):
All that to be said, it must be so difficult
for the family members to be listening to all of
the back and forth, and we just want to be
clear that our hearts go.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
Out to all of them.
Speaker 9 (20:55):
So it's a defense going to go after the police,
But they're not going to go after the police per se.
But they're going to go after the individual officers who
are responsible for being the first on this crime scene
and handling evidence.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
In a previous court filing, the defense tried to undermine
and poke holes in the state's case against Coppager by
accusing the prosecution of not being transparent and hiding their
entire case. They have also in pre trial motions raised
issues about how investigators use the DNA sample to zero
in on Copager. Attorney Stephen Greenberg says this is likely
(21:32):
part of a defense strategy to attack not the final
conclusions of the DNA results, but the initial process of
collecting and analyzing the DNA from the crime scene.
Speaker 9 (21:44):
I do believe that if the judge let's in the
DNA evidence, things like this in terms of casting doubt
on how the entire investigatory process was handled, goes into
this whole issue. Is the DNA any good or is
it not any good? Did they purposely focus on this guy?
Are there are other reputative defendants out there? So that
is why the judge, I believe, turned it over. And
(22:05):
I think it's an important victory for the public defender's office.
Is it a good idea to go after the police?
And I would say if you're an inexperienced lawyer, Yeah,
you might do that. An experienced lawyer will not go
after the police per se as a particular group of
individuals who were responsible for taking care of our safety,
but rather the particular officers who were involved.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
Let's stop here for another break. One week after the hearing,
as Americans across the country were celebrating the Fourth of July,
and eerie video was uploaded to the Internet. The leaked
(22:49):
surveillance footage from a nearby apartment complex at one three
three zero Linda Lane appears to capture the moments before, during,
and after the Grizzly murders. The security camera is from
a parking lot just a few hundred yards away from
the three story house on King Road, and it is
just one of several camera views investigators have access to.
(23:12):
This video cannot be independently verified, and due to the
gag order, a verification is unlikely. Though it is timestamped Sunday,
November thirteenth, twenty twenty two and begins at three point
fifty nine in the morning. Since being posted, this video
has been removed countless times. Much of what appears in
(23:32):
the footage lines up with official statements from the probable
cause affidavit. In fact, the leaked video seems to validate
key parts of the PCA. On an otherwise dark and
quiet night, the first sign of movement in the video
comes at roughly four h five am. A light, possibly white,
sedan pulls up on the street in front of the camera.
(23:55):
Its headlights light up the screen. The vehicle stops for
a few seconds at least five, before turning around and
driving away. According to the probable Cause Affidavid suspect, Vehicle one,
as Coburger's car is described by the document, was seen
on other cameras in the area as early as three
twenty nine a m. The PCA says Vehicle one makes
(24:19):
three initial passes by the eleven twenty two King Road residents. Then,
during a fourth pass at four oh four am, Vehicle
number one is seen unsuccessfully trying to park in front
of a nearby apartment complex before turning around. This appears
to be the sequence caught on the leaked video. About
(24:39):
ninety seconds later, at four oh seven a m, there
is a sound of a short car horn and the
camera at thirteen thirty Linda Lane again captures a vehicle
driving by. This time, the vehicle does not stop and
instead continues driving back towards King Road, though it isn't
clear if this is vehicle number one and Brian Coburger.
(25:00):
The PCA does not mention a fifth loop around the neighborhood.
At four thirteen am, the camera appears to pick up
the sound of a car that could possibly be Xana
Kernodle's food driver departing after dropping off her door dash
order at four to twelve am. Over the course of
the next few minutes, the camera picks up multiple sounds,
though none are clear. There are odd sounds and thuds.
(25:24):
At four twenty one am, there is a loud sound
that appears to be a car quickly moving. According to
the probable cause affidavids, this sound happens at the exact time.
At another camera angle shows suspect Vehicle one leaving the
neighborhood at a very high rate of speed, but this
isn't the final sound. Roughly two minutes later, at four
twenty three, at the exact time investigators say the crime
(25:48):
was ending, someone gets into a large, dark vehicle, likely
in SGV, outside of the Linda Lande security camera. First
you hear the door slamming, then the engine starting. The
car leaves quickly, but by no means is it speeding
away or driving recklessly out of the parking lot. So
who was this person? Did they live in one of
(26:08):
the nearby apartments? Where were they going and where had
they been? There is no mention of anyone else in
the probable cause affidavit. Were they just an innocent bystander
completely unaware of the horrific murders that had just happened
a few yards away? And did police identify this individual
and the vehicle? Did police talk to and clear this person?
(26:29):
Or was this individual somehow connected to the brutal murders
of four young students with a lifetime of opportunity ahead
of them, Did Brian Coberger have an accessory to murder?
And is there DNA that can prove it? More on
that next time. For more information on the case and
(26:52):
relevant photos, follow us on Instagram at kat Underscore Studios.
The Idaho Mascer is produced by Stephanie lah Decker, Jeff
Shane Connor Powell, Chris Bargo, Gabriel Castillo, and me Courtney Armstrong.
Editing and sound designed by Jeff Toi. Music by Jared
Aston The Idaho Massacre is a production of iHeart Radio
(27:15):
and Kati's Studios. For more podcasts like this, visit the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
favorite shows.
Speaker 13 (27:27):
On our new podcast, True Crimes of John, Indiana were
turning our online investigative skills to some of the most unexplained, unsolved,
and most ignored cases.
Speaker 12 (27:36):
I've heard that there's a house that has some bodies
in the basement.
Speaker 10 (27:40):
I just knew something was wrong, and it was later
that night that Jared had been killed.
Speaker 14 (27:45):
Detectives confirmed that it was a targeted attack.
Speaker 13 (27:47):
This is very active, so we have to be careful.
Speaker 11 (27:50):
Listen to Two Crimes with John Indiana every Wednesday on
the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 13 (28:00):
You may know is body Moving? My Friend and I
John Green were featured in the Netflix documentary Don't Have
f with Cats. On our new podcast, True Crimes with
John and Deiana were turning our online investigative skills to
some of the most unexplained, unsolved, and most ignored cases.
Speaker 14 (28:17):
Police say thirty three year old bride Again was shot dead,
gunned down in front of his two year old daughter,
detectives confirmed that it was a targeted attack.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
It appears to be an execution style assassination.
Speaker 13 (28:29):
This is very active, so we have to be careful.
Speaker 12 (28:31):
I've heard that there's a house that has some bodies
in the basement.
Speaker 7 (28:35):
I knew.
Speaker 13 (28:35):
I just knew the move was wrong.
Speaker 11 (28:37):
Maybe there's something more sinister at play than just one
young girl going missing.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
If you know something, heard something, please it's never too
late to do the right thing.
Speaker 13 (28:49):
This is true crimes with John and Deiana, the.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Production of KT Studios and iHeartRadio.
Speaker 8 (28:56):
Justice is something that takes different shapes for four ont
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.