July 3, 2024 • 31 mins
We break down what the sentence of death means in The State of Idaho vs Bryan Kohberger and experts weigh in on the accused's stunning alibi.
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):
Ryan Coberger outstargazing and driving the night four University of
Idaho students were murdered. That's part of the alibi he's
offering to the.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Court sometimes and then this won't shock anybody who's done
defense work. Clients will lie to their attorneys.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
This is the Idaho Massacre. A production of KAT Studios
and iHeartRadio, Season two, Episode four, A Hamster Wheel of Justice.
I'm Courtney Armstrong, a producer at KAT Studios, with Stephanie
Leidecker and Gabe Castillo. On December thirtieth, twenty twenty two,
(00:50):
six weeks after the murders of Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle,
Madison Mogen, and Kaylie Gonzalvez, twenty eight year old criminology
PhD student Brian Coburger was arrested at his family home
in Pennsylvania's Pocono Mountains. Here's Monroe County Assistant District Attorney
Michael Mancuso.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
Mister Coburger was found awake in the kitchen area, dressed
in shorts and a shirt and wearing latex medical type
gloves and apparently was taking his personal trash and putting
it into separate ziploc baggies.
Speaker 5 (01:29):
Here's Stephanie just picturing the accused Brian Coburger wearing shorts
and a T shirt in surgical latex gloves. Is such
a chilling detail, So let's just play this out for
a second. If in fact, Brian Coburger did this, that
would actually mean that he murdered four people. Then he
went back to class in the days thereafter. Then his
(01:51):
dad picks him up at his apartment in Washington, and
as we know, the two of them infamously drove in
Brian's white Alantra across country to go home for Thanksgiving break.
You'll also remember that the police hold Brian and his
dad over twice allegedly to see if he had any
scratch marks on his hand, and bodycam footage shows that
(02:12):
he did. Now he's home, he's at his parents' house
for Thanksgiving break, and he realizes his car is a
crime scene. So now he's wearing these latex gloves and
leaning it out, making sure that things are put in
their proper ziploc bags. CNN reported that he cleaned his
car inside and out, not missing an inch. That's a
(02:34):
pretty big deal. Does that mean he's just trying to
make sure there isn't any evidence left behind, or, as
the defense would probably say, maybe he's just a meticulous
guy that doesn't like germs and just likes to forever
be wearing a latex glove.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
On January fourth, twenty twenty three, the accused was extradited
back to Idaho, where he appeared in court to wave
his right to a speedy trial. Seven long months after that,
on August two, twenty third Judge John Judge, who continues
to preside over the case, pushed back the initial start date,
which was set for October second, twenty twenty three. As
(03:10):
of this recording, a new trial start date has still
not been set. Recently, victim Kaylee Gonsalvez's family released a
statement saying this case is turning into a hamster wheel
of motions, hearings, and delayed decisions. Can we all just
agree that this case needs to move forward and the
judge needs to start setting hard deadlines in this case.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Kaylee's mom says she feels like they've been in limbo
now for more than a year, and while she's hopeful,
mostly what they want is a trial date to be.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Said, to get a better understanding of these pre trial proceedings.
I spoke with Kirk Nurmi, legal analyst and former defense
attorney to Jody Arius. Arius was in a widely publicized
death penalty case in twenty thirteen from murdering her ex
boyfriend Travis Alexander in Arizona. In the state of Idaho,
(04:05):
three people have been executed since the mid nineteen seventies.
For context, during that time, nearly sixteen hundred felons have
been put to death in the United States. I asked
Kirk about a hearing in this case that took place
on January twenty sixth, twenty twenty four. At that hearing,
Coberger's defense attorney, Ann Taylor, tried for the second time
(04:25):
to get all charges dismissed. I asked Kirk if it
was rare for attorneys to take a second bite at
the apple.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
No.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
We have to understand in a death penalty context, if
a defendant is sentenced to death, what the attorneys did
or did not do will be examined for years down
the road. I mean, if somebody is sentenced to death,
usually it takes about fifteen years for that execution to
actually take place, and during those fifteen years, the federal
(04:57):
courts will take a look at it, and it will
go all the way up to the US Supreme Court.
One of the reasons about fifty percent of the death
penalty verdicts get overturned, and one of the reasons for
that is the council's failure to pursue certain avenues of defense.
So it is reasonable and expected and really minimum practice
for the defense attorneys and the death penalty case to
(05:20):
pursue every avenue possible, even multiple times if there is
reason to do that.
Speaker 6 (05:26):
The victim's family, you want the trial to be expedited.
It sounds like the judge as well wanted to expedite
the case, but defense obviously has been pushing hard to delay.
Speaker 7 (05:38):
Can you speak to that.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Yeah, I mean it goes back to some extent about
having things done right. I mean, the prosecution knows, and
with all due respect to the family, understand why they
want justice to be swift. But the prosecution understands that
if they are investing all these resources. I mean, it
always costs the state pursuing death penalty, both for the
(06:01):
prosecution team and for the defense team. It costs a
lot of money, it costs a lot of court resources, etc.
They want to make sure they do it once if
it is expedited in any way, and in that review
process years down the road, of course, there's no wait
a minute, this tra happened too fast because you did
not give the defense proper notice on this particular issue
(06:24):
or proper time to investigate the mitigating circumstances surrounding mister
Colberger's life. Then then it could be redone again, and
so hasty justice doesn't necessarily mean justice. It has to
be justice done thoroughly and one hundred percent correctly. Or again,
there's a fifty percent chance that a sentencing verdict would
(06:44):
be overturned.
Speaker 7 (06:46):
Wow, that's a crazy high statistic.
Speaker 6 (06:48):
Is the pressure so much higher because of that extra
judicial oversight?
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Sure? I mean there's an expression amongst defense attorneys that
death is different, and that is exactly the case. It
is a meticulous, high stress situation where every avenue must
be pursued because of that scrutiny that is going to
face years down the road. No defense attorney wants to
be considered ineffective. Nobody involved wants to have to try
(07:16):
the case again. That fifty percent rate I talk about
it is always related to the sentencing. It doesn't have
anything to do with guilt or innocence, but it has
to do with that death sentence. And that means that
the judge, the prosecution, and the defense attorney all have
to do their job almost perfectly, if you will, because
the penalty is one from which no redress can be
(07:38):
made once it's imposed.
Speaker 6 (07:40):
Here's something I don't know about, and I don't know
how much listeners do at all. What do people need
to know about closed door hearings for a grand jury?
And what is a grand jury?
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Sure? Well, a grand jury, you know, you think about
it just like any other former jury. Duty might be
the way that people can relate to it most. But
when you're in a grand jury, it's secretive. It's just
the prosecution presenting evidence, and the question is there probable
cars to charge a defendant with a certain crime. The
defense is not there. They do not provide evidence. It's
(08:13):
not a trial. But ultimately it's that secret proceeding to
decide whether or not a charge is made. So the
difference really is the secrecy of it and the charging decision.
It's a lower standard versus you know, guilty or not guilty.
What a normal jury does in a public setting.
Speaker 6 (08:31):
And are these just regular jury like I was on
jury duty yesterday as a matter of fact, Is this
just the normal population? Yes, I don't know why it
seems very mysterious to me.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Well, I think it sounds mysterious because it's someone is
I mean, it happens behind closed doors. Nobody knows, you know,
about the preceding. The future defendant doesn't know that this
is going on. The testimony doesn't take place in open court,
there's no cross examination. All is that has really seen,
(09:05):
at least in my experience in Arizona. When it's done,
is the transcript of the proceedings?
Speaker 8 (09:10):
That's it is?
Speaker 7 (09:11):
The transcript? Does that go on the official record?
Speaker 6 (09:14):
And is that something that can be looked at by
the defense or anyone else at a later time.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Yeah, certainly. And we see this in a lot of
death penalty cases, but also other cases where they might
challenge the sufficiency of the indictment, and those challenges are
all based on the grand jury. If the prosecution failed
to present exculpatory evidence that they knew they had, etc.
If a witness lied during the grand jury in order
(09:43):
to precipitate an indictment being filed, those sort of things
can be something that they looked at because you again,
you're not subject to cross examination. So if a police
officer goes in there and says something that is not
true or is later contradicted, they contradict themselves on the stand,
that testimony can be used to attack their credibility and
(10:05):
or attack the credibility of the indictment.
Speaker 7 (10:07):
One more follow up with that.
Speaker 6 (10:09):
Let's say that scenario just happened a police officer or
any witness is then you know their testimony is found
to be contradictory. Could that mean midstream that the charges
are then changed, that those are then dropped or is
that not the case?
Speaker 2 (10:25):
No, that's unlikely because when you that is a challenge
that would maybe take place at the grand jury challenging
the grand jury transcript. So let's say Officer X goes
in and testifies to something and his police report is
completely different. You could maybe challenge the grand jury proceedings
on that basis. If it gets to the trial portion
(10:47):
of the proceedings, you could go back and impeach his
credibility with that prior testimony. Like in Arizona, there's limits
and I forget the exact amount of days, but you
have to challenge the grand jury finding within a certain
amount of days that precedes trial. So once that window
is closed and or things are ruled upon, that becomes
(11:07):
an issue for the appellate record, not trial per se,
other than to impeach the witness with their prior testimony.
Speaker 6 (11:14):
So the second hearing I wanted to talk about this
happened February twenty eighth of this year, and this hearing
was open to the public. So in this instance, a
lot was made on the fact that the defendant, Brian Kolberger,
was wearing a suit. Can you give your thoughts on that,
the judge's decision, the family's reaction.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Sure, and I understand seeing some of the family's comments
how they don't appreciate seeing that what have you. But
we have to remember, going back to what I said
earlier about the propriety that everything is done right. In
a death penalty case, a defendant is presumed innocent, and
we tend to forget that, I think in the court
of public opinion, and if they are seen especially when
(11:58):
we talk about a high profile case like this, if
they are seen in jail garb or shackled with a
stun belt and chains, and what have you. Then people
begin to inform an impression not only of his guilt,
his violent nature. They begin forming those oppressions off those visuals.
So you want to prevent that at every stage of
(12:20):
the proceeding before guilt has been established, if you will.
So that is very important. Again, if you have an
appellat attorney looks down years down the road and says, well, look,
this guy was put in shackles and paraded in front
of the entire jury panel of Leta County, and therefore
(12:41):
his trial wasn't fair. That could be a viable argument
that could have a disc sentence reversed.
Speaker 6 (12:47):
So really it sounds like for the greater good of
the sanctity of not having the case overturned.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Almost well, yeah, I mean, that's one less issue of pursuit,
if you will, on the appellate level at the federal.
Speaker 6 (12:59):
Level, with your court room experience, I don't know if
you've had the experience of where a defendant is both
dressed in civilian closed and dressed in shackles, and is
there a different feel sort of in the room or
from the jury.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Well, the jury is only going to see a defendant
in street clothes. Quote unquote. If they are a danger,
every effort is made to mask any restraints that they
have on them. They're not going to be sitting there
with handcuffs on unless there's some particular reason for it.
The jury would probably be instructed not to make any
(13:35):
inferences from that. So anytime somebody's in front of a jury,
they are going to be in quote unquote street clothes,
and any restraints will be masked.
Speaker 6 (13:45):
That's a really interesting point because I must have conflated
seeing pre trial hearings because I'm like, oh, well, I
can picture plenty of defendants and clothes, but not in
front of the jury.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
That's true. So if there is a pre trial where
it's only the judge, if you will, and not televised,
then the judge has knowledge obviously of the defendant's custodial
status because in many cases they've set that status. They
don't need to be protected from it if it doesn't
interfere with the sixth Amendment right of the defendant. Because ultimately,
(14:18):
in a courtroom, it is the jury that makes the decision.
They are the final arbiter of guilt or innocence.
Speaker 7 (14:24):
Yeah, that makes perfect sense, perfect sense, Thank you.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
a moment. There have been well more than a dozen
pre trial hearings in this case, but the most significant
revelation is the alibi of the accused.
Speaker 9 (14:48):
So here.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Their alibi defense apparently is that he likes to drive
around and see the moon and the stars.
Speaker 8 (14:54):
The new alibi. I have like a little theory about that.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Do I buy it? No?
Speaker 3 (15:00):
The prosecution is currently taking great issue with what they
claim is the defense's lack of progress in furthering the
details of the defendant's alibi, and in April twenty fourth,
twenty twenty four, filing from prosecutor Bill Thompson, he writes,
it has now been approximately eleven months since the state
filed its request for discovery disclosure alibi demand on May
(15:22):
twenty third, twenty twenty three, and almost a year and
a half since the homicides occurred. The defendant has been
given more time than he is legally entitled in order
to provide his alibi. The state is substantially prejudiced and
compromised in its ability to investigate and respond to new
or additional alibi related disclosures.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Ryan Coburger outstargazing and driving the night four University of
Idaho students were murdered. That's part of the alibi he's
offering to the court.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
That's crime reporter Antoinette Levy, who's been following this case
from the beginning. She continues describing the alibi details on
a recent an episode of Law and Crime Network's Crime
Fix with Antoinette Levy.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
So he says he certainly wasn't at that house. Instead,
his lawyer's right mister Coburger was out driving in the
early morning hours of November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, as
he often did to hike and run and or see
the moon and stars. He drove throughout the area south
of Pullman, Washington, west of Moscow, Idaho, including Wawaii Park
(16:28):
in Idaho. If a defendant is going to claim they
have an alibi, they have to tell the prosecutor about
a specific place or place is where they were when
a crime took place, and they have to identify a
witness or witnesses who can vouch for them.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
In the state's motion filed after the alibi was revealed,
Prosecutor Bill Thompson writes, the state respectfully submits that the
defendant's supplemental alibi response continues to lack the specificity required
by Idaho Code nineteen Dash five, Pine nine, which provides
that the defense shall state the specific place or places
(17:05):
at which the defendant claims to have been at the
time of the alleged defense, and the names and addresses
of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to
establish such alibi. In an effort to better understand the
legalities of these motions, I continued my conversation with Kirknermi.
I asked him to explain why the prosecution had such
(17:25):
a strongly worded filing after the alibi was revealed.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
It's interesting because idahol must be a little different. An alibi,
in my experience in Arizona, is nothing that has to
be supported or enunciated. I mean, you might call witnesses
to support it, but you wouldn't have to enunciate it
if you will.
Speaker 7 (17:47):
I'd love clarification of the fact that in this case,
the prosecution said the lack of a finalized version of
Coberger's alibi was concerning and argue that a deadline was
necessary to ensure the alibi was not affected by evidence
unveiled during discovery I guess first, what is discovery because
my understanding was that was the finding out of information.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
Yeah, I mean there is a bit of mystery surrounding
that because we don't have all the information. My understanding
is that what the Coburger team is saying with this
stargazing alibi, if you will, is that they will be
able to support this alibi, not by persons or you know,
(18:31):
video evidence, but strictly by cell phone evidence that contradicts
the cell phone evidence brought in by the state. And
they are also making the assertion, as I understand it,
that the state has not fully disclosed all the cell
phone evidence that would be supportive of the alibi. Thus,
(18:52):
they are simply putting out there that he was stargazing
and their cell phone expert will support that.
Speaker 6 (18:59):
I have to ask, what's your knee jerk reaction to
the alibi?
Speaker 7 (19:03):
If you want to share, do I buy it? No?
Speaker 2 (19:07):
But if that's what you're asking, do I buy it no?
But it remains to be seen what the cell phone
evidence is going to demonstrate. A lot of people send
to think that a defense attorney or a group of
defensive attorneys sit down and concoct a defense or that
they sit down with their client and they make up
a defense. But sometimes this won't shock anybody who's done
(19:28):
defense work. Clients will lie to their attorneys, right, and
a lot of times sometimes you know you can lie
in a way that there's no affirmative proof to the contrary.
So he says, I'm out stargazing. He very well could
have been stargazing before or after he committed this crime.
(19:50):
There's no proof to the contrary. So my guess is
mister Kolberger believes he's very smart and says, hey, this
is my alibi. You can't disprove it.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
Stephanie joins the conversation.
Speaker 5 (20:02):
That does sound like it's right out of a movie.
Speaker 8 (20:05):
Is that what actually happens.
Speaker 5 (20:07):
Somebody seems so tricky that they're going to create this
entire fabric of a story to their defense attorney. As
a defense attorney, are you able to call bs or
do you have to play along?
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Well, as a defense attorney, unless you can disprove it,
you have to allow the client to tell their story.
You are not judging jury. You are there to help
them tell their story, whether you believe it or not.
So if a client comes up and we continue with
the alibi example, how can you disprove that? Is there
some way to disprove that? No, if there's not, that's
(20:41):
the point. Unless the attorney can prove the alibi to
be false. Let's say he says I was with my
mother or I was buying gas, and there's no evidence
to support the alibi. Then he or she can confront
their client with this evidence. There's no gotcha moment, right,
There's no one more thing ask you this because you
can't disprove it. And that's why a lot of criminal
(21:04):
defense think, hey, this is a great story because it
cannot be disproven. They've got time to sit in jail
and vet their lie, if you will. And this cannot
be disproven, can't be able to be proven, but it
certainly can't be disproven.
Speaker 5 (21:19):
Is it as simple as somebody checking the weather to
say that that particular night there were no stars to
be seen in the sky.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
No, not at all. I mean it's you could still stargaze,
you can still gaze at the clouds, you could do anything, right.
I mean, there's you could say it's less probable, but
you can't definitively prove it to be a lie.
Speaker 5 (21:39):
Can you, as a defense attorney. You hear this story,
you're not buying it. Are you able to excuse yourself
as the defense attorney?
Speaker 2 (21:49):
No, just because you don't believe a story doesn't mean
that you are not the right attorney for the car.
I mean clients all the time in my so, I
want an attorney that believes in me. I want an
attorney that believes in me. And the response is fine,
if you want one, stupid enough, go find one. But
I'm not going to buy this story, and I don't
think a jury will. But if that doesn't knock the
(22:12):
client off the story, then they they the client can
get up on the stand and tell that story. Brian
Colberger can get up on the stand and tell the
story that he was stargazing that night. That does not
violate the ethics of the attorney, and as a matter
of fact, it is their ethical obligation. Particularly in a
death penalty case. An attorney can't say, well, you know what,
(22:33):
I had this defense or I had this bit of mitigation,
but I didn't believe it, so I didn't present it
to the jury because it's not what the attorney believes,
it's what the jury believes.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
After this conversation, we checked the weather and saw that
when Coberger is alleged to be stargazing, it was overcast
with intimate and isis fog. Having spoken with defense attorney
Kirk Nurmi, Stephanie and I wanted to balance the equation.
Here's a turn me and former prosecutors Steven Greenberg's take
on the suspect's alibi and how he thinks it might
(23:05):
play in court.
Speaker 9 (23:08):
It underscores the lack of sophistication of the sense team.
It really does. I mean, are you going to open
through a jury and say that the jury that we
have a moon in the stars defense that's our alibi.
Come on, they're going to look at you and say,
my goodness, where did you come from?
Speaker 6 (23:27):
Is there anything to the fact that you kind of
can't poke holes in it versus saying, you know, I
went to the gas station at twelve thirty three am.
So is that perhaps the rationale that there's nothing specific
about it, that it is so vague.
Speaker 9 (23:44):
I think it's like throwing a whole bunch of stuff
against the wall helps something sticks or something will come
out later on. They should have got the prostitutions trying
to avoid that will boaster it. They just want to
have it out there. They're obligating it to disclose their albi.
Speaker 3 (24:02):
Stephanie speaks with Inside Edition reporter Chris Bargo, who followed
the case from the beginning, to get his thoughts on
the alibi revelation.
Speaker 10 (24:11):
Right now, when people ask you about his guilt or
innocence based on what we know concretely, I mean, it's
hard to really say one way or the other. I mean,
we don't really know much about the prosecution's case, but
we know the defense is entire alibi, so that you know,
at this point when you think about it, the defense
has a much better case just because we know so little.
We know the proba will cause affidavor that says he
is in the cell phone area. They don't have math
house in that Affidavid. We don't know. There could be
fingerprints in the house we don't know about. There could
(24:32):
be a million things we don't know about. What we
know for a fact. They know we have his car
leaving Washington State University. We know his car arriving back
at Washington State University. We know foods a few sightings
of it along the way heading towards Moscow, leaving and
we have some photos of the car. No, we have
photos of the car. We don't have photos of Brian Coberger.
None of those things say that they have photos of Brian.
But they could prove that Brian is there. They could
(24:53):
say they have a car that looks like Brian's driving.
It's certainly reasonable. Doubt wise, it's not awful. They don't
have his car park there. For what we know, they
don't have him getting out of the car. They don't
have him inside the house of the information we have
so far, So based on that alone, it's hard to
convict someone with that alibi at this stage given what
we know, because we don't really have any other evidence
of definitively places in there.
Speaker 5 (25:14):
And by the way, most of this information is really circumstantial.
Speaker 7 (25:17):
Is it very.
Speaker 5 (25:18):
Likely that all these small things all happened to lead
to the same guy?
Speaker 8 (25:23):
Who the hell knows?
Speaker 5 (25:24):
That's just the reality of it. We don't know, And
the sum of small things I'm not convinced should equal
death in my humble opinion. And of course, you know,
we're still at the phase of gathering information.
Speaker 10 (25:36):
The burdens right now are aligning with the prosecution the defense.
Like I said, the defense. Alibi is not much in
the way of a It's not like he was with
a friend who was driving alone. If you have to
pick an alibi and you couldn't think of one that
you know, I was alone doing something. But with this
case and what we know, it's again reasonable doubt. So
could you say, knowing what we know, could you one
hundred percent say that he's guilty of deserves that I
(25:58):
would not want to put someone to death based on
that nolgulum. There's something there that's going to be mind
boggling when it's presented.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
I reached out to data analysts Body Movin, host of
another KTI Studios podcast, Drew Crimes. Her incredible soothing skills
came to be known in the public with Netflix documentary
Don't f with Cats. After dissecting the alibi, motion Body
had her own particular thoughts to share.
Speaker 8 (26:27):
I think what's interesting maybe to talk about is the
alibi the new alibi, because I have like a little
theory about that.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
Body reads to the amended alibi.
Speaker 8 (26:37):
Brian Coberger's amended alibi says that he was busy with
classes at work and at Washington State University, and he
was running and hiking and those activities decreased but did
not stop. Instead, his nighttime drives increased, and it says
this is supported by data from mister Coberger's phone showing
(26:58):
him in the countryside late at night or early in
the morning on several occasions. The phone data includes numerous
photographs taken on several different late evenings and early mornings,
including in November, depicting the night sky. And then it
goes on to say mister Coburger was out driving in
the early morning hours of November thirteenth, as he often did,
(27:19):
to hike and or run see the moon and stars.
He drove throughout the area of south of Pullman, Washington,
west of Moscow, Idaho, including Wahwawee Park. So it's basically
saying he always goes driving late at night, and there's
evidence of pictures taken on his phone, including pictures that
were taking in November. Now, it doesn't say that he
(27:41):
has pictures from that night or that morning. It just
says including in November. So we need to make that
clear right now because a lot of people are running
with well he has pictures from his phone that night.
No he doesn't, No, he doesn't. So that's number one,
because that's a big thing online right now. People are like, well,
it's done, he's got a picture, it's got metadata. No, no, no,
(28:01):
I very much doubt that. And number two, the PCA
says Brian Coburger either turned off his phone, turned it
onto airplane mode, or was out of service and then
picked back up after the murders. Here's what I kind
of think and something I kind of want to talk
to you about. In the alibi, it states that there's
going to be this Sirae who's the CSLI expert, the
(28:23):
cell phone tower, cell phone and other radio frequency expert
to corroborate that Brian Coburger's phone was south of Pullman
and west of Moscow. Well, we've got a map of
Idaho or in Washington, where is Waweb Park. It's south
of Pullman and west of Moscow. Okay. So here's what
(28:43):
I kind of think. And it's a bad service area.
By the way, it's important to note that it's a
bad service area.
Speaker 3 (28:51):
Let's stop here for another break. We'll be back in
a moment. Body goes on to say this herself, but
it's important to note that the following is her own opinion.
Based on extrapolations made from reviewing legal documents.
Speaker 8 (29:12):
I think what happened is, is it possible that Brian
Coberger actually did go to Wawei Be Park just outside
the gate or along that area and left his phone
like in a bush or something, drove to Moscow because
it took him like an hour, did his murders, and
then drove back to Wawi Bee Park and got the phone.
(29:33):
Because it puts his phone at a location where he's
been previously many times, but it's got terrible service, so
it gives him credibility to this alibi. And if that's true,
is that an area that police now and whatnot need
to be looking at for a k bar dicky coveralls?
(29:55):
Do you know what I mean? Like evidence of a
dumping of some kind?
Speaker 7 (29:58):
Like that's a really really interesting thought.
Speaker 8 (30:02):
If what I said about, you know, leaving the phone
at what we We park is true, then that shows intention.
I mean, obviously there was intention, clearly, but what I
mean is like premeditation in ways that I hadn't really
considered all that much. It just shows a lot more
purpose because it's very sheet. But again it's just a theory.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
More on that next time for more information on the
case and relevant photos. Follow us on Instagram at kat
Underscore Studios. The Idaho Masker is produced by Stephanie Leideger,
Gabriel Castillo and me Courtney Armstrong. Editing and sound design
by Jeff Trois, Music by Jared Aston. The Idaho Masker
(30:52):
is a production of Kat's Studios and iHeartRadio. For more
podcasts like this, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
wherever you listen to your favorite shows. You can follow
Kirknermi on Instagram and x at Nermi Unchained, and find
his books on Amazon.
Ryan Coberger outstargazing and driving the night four University of
Idaho students were murdered. That's part of the alibi he's
offering to the.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Court sometimes and then this won't shock anybody who's done
defense work. Clients will lie to their attorneys.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
This is the Idaho Massacre. A production of KAT Studios
and iHeartRadio, Season two, Episode four, A Hamster Wheel of Justice.
I'm Courtney Armstrong, a producer at KAT Studios, with Stephanie
Leidecker and Gabe Castillo. On December thirtieth, twenty twenty two,
(00:50):
six weeks after the murders of Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle,
Madison Mogen, and Kaylie Gonzalvez, twenty eight year old criminology
PhD student Brian Coburger was arrested at his family home
in Pennsylvania's Pocono Mountains. Here's Monroe County Assistant District Attorney
Michael Mancuso.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
Mister Coburger was found awake in the kitchen area, dressed
in shorts and a shirt and wearing latex medical type
gloves and apparently was taking his personal trash and putting
it into separate ziploc baggies.
Speaker 5 (01:29):
Here's Stephanie just picturing the accused Brian Coburger wearing shorts
and a T shirt in surgical latex gloves. Is such
a chilling detail, So let's just play this out for
a second. If in fact, Brian Coburger did this, that
would actually mean that he murdered four people. Then he
went back to class in the days thereafter. Then his
(01:51):
dad picks him up at his apartment in Washington, and
as we know, the two of them infamously drove in
Brian's white Alantra across country to go home for Thanksgiving break.
You'll also remember that the police hold Brian and his
dad over twice allegedly to see if he had any
scratch marks on his hand, and bodycam footage shows that
(02:12):
he did. Now he's home, he's at his parents' house
for Thanksgiving break, and he realizes his car is a
crime scene. So now he's wearing these latex gloves and
leaning it out, making sure that things are put in
their proper ziploc bags. CNN reported that he cleaned his
car inside and out, not missing an inch. That's a
(02:34):
pretty big deal. Does that mean he's just trying to
make sure there isn't any evidence left behind, or, as
the defense would probably say, maybe he's just a meticulous
guy that doesn't like germs and just likes to forever
be wearing a latex glove.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
On January fourth, twenty twenty three, the accused was extradited
back to Idaho, where he appeared in court to wave
his right to a speedy trial. Seven long months after that,
on August two, twenty third Judge John Judge, who continues
to preside over the case, pushed back the initial start date,
which was set for October second, twenty twenty three. As
(03:10):
of this recording, a new trial start date has still
not been set. Recently, victim Kaylee Gonsalvez's family released a
statement saying this case is turning into a hamster wheel
of motions, hearings, and delayed decisions. Can we all just
agree that this case needs to move forward and the
judge needs to start setting hard deadlines in this case.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Kaylee's mom says she feels like they've been in limbo
now for more than a year, and while she's hopeful,
mostly what they want is a trial date to be.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Said, to get a better understanding of these pre trial proceedings.
I spoke with Kirk Nurmi, legal analyst and former defense
attorney to Jody Arius. Arius was in a widely publicized
death penalty case in twenty thirteen from murdering her ex
boyfriend Travis Alexander in Arizona. In the state of Idaho,
(04:05):
three people have been executed since the mid nineteen seventies.
For context, during that time, nearly sixteen hundred felons have
been put to death in the United States. I asked
Kirk about a hearing in this case that took place
on January twenty sixth, twenty twenty four. At that hearing,
Coberger's defense attorney, Ann Taylor, tried for the second time
(04:25):
to get all charges dismissed. I asked Kirk if it
was rare for attorneys to take a second bite at
the apple.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
No.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
We have to understand in a death penalty context, if
a defendant is sentenced to death, what the attorneys did
or did not do will be examined for years down
the road. I mean, if somebody is sentenced to death,
usually it takes about fifteen years for that execution to
actually take place, and during those fifteen years, the federal
(04:57):
courts will take a look at it, and it will
go all the way up to the US Supreme Court.
One of the reasons about fifty percent of the death
penalty verdicts get overturned, and one of the reasons for
that is the council's failure to pursue certain avenues of defense.
So it is reasonable and expected and really minimum practice
for the defense attorneys and the death penalty case to
(05:20):
pursue every avenue possible, even multiple times if there is
reason to do that.
Speaker 6 (05:26):
The victim's family, you want the trial to be expedited.
It sounds like the judge as well wanted to expedite
the case, but defense obviously has been pushing hard to delay.
Speaker 7 (05:38):
Can you speak to that.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Yeah, I mean it goes back to some extent about
having things done right. I mean, the prosecution knows, and
with all due respect to the family, understand why they
want justice to be swift. But the prosecution understands that
if they are investing all these resources. I mean, it
always costs the state pursuing death penalty, both for the
(06:01):
prosecution team and for the defense team. It costs a
lot of money, it costs a lot of court resources, etc.
They want to make sure they do it once if
it is expedited in any way, and in that review
process years down the road, of course, there's no wait
a minute, this tra happened too fast because you did
not give the defense proper notice on this particular issue
(06:24):
or proper time to investigate the mitigating circumstances surrounding mister
Colberger's life. Then then it could be redone again, and
so hasty justice doesn't necessarily mean justice. It has to
be justice done thoroughly and one hundred percent correctly. Or again,
there's a fifty percent chance that a sentencing verdict would
(06:44):
be overturned.
Speaker 7 (06:46):
Wow, that's a crazy high statistic.
Speaker 6 (06:48):
Is the pressure so much higher because of that extra
judicial oversight?
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Sure? I mean there's an expression amongst defense attorneys that
death is different, and that is exactly the case. It
is a meticulous, high stress situation where every avenue must
be pursued because of that scrutiny that is going to
face years down the road. No defense attorney wants to
be considered ineffective. Nobody involved wants to have to try
(07:16):
the case again. That fifty percent rate I talk about
it is always related to the sentencing. It doesn't have
anything to do with guilt or innocence, but it has
to do with that death sentence. And that means that
the judge, the prosecution, and the defense attorney all have
to do their job almost perfectly, if you will, because
the penalty is one from which no redress can be
(07:38):
made once it's imposed.
Speaker 6 (07:40):
Here's something I don't know about, and I don't know
how much listeners do at all. What do people need
to know about closed door hearings for a grand jury?
And what is a grand jury?
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Sure? Well, a grand jury, you know, you think about
it just like any other former jury. Duty might be
the way that people can relate to it most. But
when you're in a grand jury, it's secretive. It's just
the prosecution presenting evidence, and the question is there probable
cars to charge a defendant with a certain crime. The
defense is not there. They do not provide evidence. It's
(08:13):
not a trial. But ultimately it's that secret proceeding to
decide whether or not a charge is made. So the
difference really is the secrecy of it and the charging decision.
It's a lower standard versus you know, guilty or not guilty.
What a normal jury does in a public setting.
Speaker 6 (08:31):
And are these just regular jury like I was on
jury duty yesterday as a matter of fact, Is this
just the normal population? Yes, I don't know why it
seems very mysterious to me.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Well, I think it sounds mysterious because it's someone is
I mean, it happens behind closed doors. Nobody knows, you know,
about the preceding. The future defendant doesn't know that this
is going on. The testimony doesn't take place in open court,
there's no cross examination. All is that has really seen,
(09:05):
at least in my experience in Arizona. When it's done,
is the transcript of the proceedings?
Speaker 8 (09:10):
That's it is?
Speaker 7 (09:11):
The transcript? Does that go on the official record?
Speaker 6 (09:14):
And is that something that can be looked at by
the defense or anyone else at a later time.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Yeah, certainly. And we see this in a lot of
death penalty cases, but also other cases where they might
challenge the sufficiency of the indictment, and those challenges are
all based on the grand jury. If the prosecution failed
to present exculpatory evidence that they knew they had, etc.
If a witness lied during the grand jury in order
(09:43):
to precipitate an indictment being filed, those sort of things
can be something that they looked at because you again,
you're not subject to cross examination. So if a police
officer goes in there and says something that is not
true or is later contradicted, they contradict themselves on the stand,
that testimony can be used to attack their credibility and
(10:05):
or attack the credibility of the indictment.
Speaker 7 (10:07):
One more follow up with that.
Speaker 6 (10:09):
Let's say that scenario just happened a police officer or
any witness is then you know their testimony is found
to be contradictory. Could that mean midstream that the charges
are then changed, that those are then dropped or is
that not the case?
Speaker 2 (10:25):
No, that's unlikely because when you that is a challenge
that would maybe take place at the grand jury challenging
the grand jury transcript. So let's say Officer X goes
in and testifies to something and his police report is
completely different. You could maybe challenge the grand jury proceedings
on that basis. If it gets to the trial portion
(10:47):
of the proceedings, you could go back and impeach his
credibility with that prior testimony. Like in Arizona, there's limits
and I forget the exact amount of days, but you
have to challenge the grand jury finding within a certain
amount of days that precedes trial. So once that window
is closed and or things are ruled upon, that becomes
(11:07):
an issue for the appellate record, not trial per se,
other than to impeach the witness with their prior testimony.
Speaker 6 (11:14):
So the second hearing I wanted to talk about this
happened February twenty eighth of this year, and this hearing
was open to the public. So in this instance, a
lot was made on the fact that the defendant, Brian Kolberger,
was wearing a suit. Can you give your thoughts on that,
the judge's decision, the family's reaction.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Sure, and I understand seeing some of the family's comments
how they don't appreciate seeing that what have you. But
we have to remember, going back to what I said
earlier about the propriety that everything is done right. In
a death penalty case, a defendant is presumed innocent, and
we tend to forget that, I think in the court
of public opinion, and if they are seen especially when
(11:58):
we talk about a high profile case like this, if
they are seen in jail garb or shackled with a
stun belt and chains, and what have you. Then people
begin to inform an impression not only of his guilt,
his violent nature. They begin forming those oppressions off those visuals.
So you want to prevent that at every stage of
(12:20):
the proceeding before guilt has been established, if you will.
So that is very important. Again, if you have an
appellat attorney looks down years down the road and says, well, look,
this guy was put in shackles and paraded in front
of the entire jury panel of Leta County, and therefore
(12:41):
his trial wasn't fair. That could be a viable argument
that could have a disc sentence reversed.
Speaker 6 (12:47):
So really it sounds like for the greater good of
the sanctity of not having the case overturned.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Almost well, yeah, I mean, that's one less issue of pursuit,
if you will, on the appellate level at the federal.
Speaker 6 (12:59):
Level, with your court room experience, I don't know if
you've had the experience of where a defendant is both
dressed in civilian closed and dressed in shackles, and is
there a different feel sort of in the room or
from the jury.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Well, the jury is only going to see a defendant
in street clothes. Quote unquote. If they are a danger,
every effort is made to mask any restraints that they
have on them. They're not going to be sitting there
with handcuffs on unless there's some particular reason for it.
The jury would probably be instructed not to make any
(13:35):
inferences from that. So anytime somebody's in front of a jury,
they are going to be in quote unquote street clothes,
and any restraints will be masked.
Speaker 6 (13:45):
That's a really interesting point because I must have conflated
seeing pre trial hearings because I'm like, oh, well, I
can picture plenty of defendants and clothes, but not in
front of the jury.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
That's true. So if there is a pre trial where
it's only the judge, if you will, and not televised,
then the judge has knowledge obviously of the defendant's custodial
status because in many cases they've set that status. They
don't need to be protected from it if it doesn't
interfere with the sixth Amendment right of the defendant. Because ultimately,
(14:18):
in a courtroom, it is the jury that makes the decision.
They are the final arbiter of guilt or innocence.
Speaker 7 (14:24):
Yeah, that makes perfect sense, perfect sense, Thank you.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
a moment. There have been well more than a dozen
pre trial hearings in this case, but the most significant
revelation is the alibi of the accused.
Speaker 9 (14:48):
So here.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Their alibi defense apparently is that he likes to drive
around and see the moon and the stars.
Speaker 8 (14:54):
The new alibi. I have like a little theory about that.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Do I buy it? No?
Speaker 3 (15:00):
The prosecution is currently taking great issue with what they
claim is the defense's lack of progress in furthering the
details of the defendant's alibi, and in April twenty fourth,
twenty twenty four, filing from prosecutor Bill Thompson, he writes,
it has now been approximately eleven months since the state
filed its request for discovery disclosure alibi demand on May
(15:22):
twenty third, twenty twenty three, and almost a year and
a half since the homicides occurred. The defendant has been
given more time than he is legally entitled in order
to provide his alibi. The state is substantially prejudiced and
compromised in its ability to investigate and respond to new
or additional alibi related disclosures.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Ryan Coburger outstargazing and driving the night four University of
Idaho students were murdered. That's part of the alibi he's
offering to the court.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
That's crime reporter Antoinette Levy, who's been following this case
from the beginning. She continues describing the alibi details on
a recent an episode of Law and Crime Network's Crime
Fix with Antoinette Levy.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
So he says he certainly wasn't at that house. Instead,
his lawyer's right mister Coburger was out driving in the
early morning hours of November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, as
he often did to hike and run and or see
the moon and stars. He drove throughout the area south
of Pullman, Washington, west of Moscow, Idaho, including Wawaii Park
(16:28):
in Idaho. If a defendant is going to claim they
have an alibi, they have to tell the prosecutor about
a specific place or place is where they were when
a crime took place, and they have to identify a
witness or witnesses who can vouch for them.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
In the state's motion filed after the alibi was revealed,
Prosecutor Bill Thompson writes, the state respectfully submits that the
defendant's supplemental alibi response continues to lack the specificity required
by Idaho Code nineteen Dash five, Pine nine, which provides
that the defense shall state the specific place or places
(17:05):
at which the defendant claims to have been at the
time of the alleged defense, and the names and addresses
of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to
establish such alibi. In an effort to better understand the
legalities of these motions, I continued my conversation with Kirknermi.
I asked him to explain why the prosecution had such
(17:25):
a strongly worded filing after the alibi was revealed.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
It's interesting because idahol must be a little different. An alibi,
in my experience in Arizona, is nothing that has to
be supported or enunciated. I mean, you might call witnesses
to support it, but you wouldn't have to enunciate it
if you will.
Speaker 7 (17:47):
I'd love clarification of the fact that in this case,
the prosecution said the lack of a finalized version of
Coberger's alibi was concerning and argue that a deadline was
necessary to ensure the alibi was not affected by evidence
unveiled during discovery I guess first, what is discovery because
my understanding was that was the finding out of information.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
Yeah, I mean there is a bit of mystery surrounding
that because we don't have all the information. My understanding
is that what the Coburger team is saying with this
stargazing alibi, if you will, is that they will be
able to support this alibi, not by persons or you know,
(18:31):
video evidence, but strictly by cell phone evidence that contradicts
the cell phone evidence brought in by the state. And
they are also making the assertion, as I understand it,
that the state has not fully disclosed all the cell
phone evidence that would be supportive of the alibi. Thus,
(18:52):
they are simply putting out there that he was stargazing
and their cell phone expert will support that.
Speaker 6 (18:59):
I have to ask, what's your knee jerk reaction to
the alibi?
Speaker 7 (19:03):
If you want to share, do I buy it? No?
Speaker 2 (19:07):
But if that's what you're asking, do I buy it no?
But it remains to be seen what the cell phone
evidence is going to demonstrate. A lot of people send
to think that a defense attorney or a group of
defensive attorneys sit down and concoct a defense or that
they sit down with their client and they make up
a defense. But sometimes this won't shock anybody who's done
(19:28):
defense work. Clients will lie to their attorneys, right, and
a lot of times sometimes you know you can lie
in a way that there's no affirmative proof to the contrary.
So he says, I'm out stargazing. He very well could
have been stargazing before or after he committed this crime.
(19:50):
There's no proof to the contrary. So my guess is
mister Kolberger believes he's very smart and says, hey, this
is my alibi. You can't disprove it.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
Stephanie joins the conversation.
Speaker 5 (20:02):
That does sound like it's right out of a movie.
Speaker 8 (20:05):
Is that what actually happens.
Speaker 5 (20:07):
Somebody seems so tricky that they're going to create this
entire fabric of a story to their defense attorney. As
a defense attorney, are you able to call bs or
do you have to play along?
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Well, as a defense attorney, unless you can disprove it,
you have to allow the client to tell their story.
You are not judging jury. You are there to help
them tell their story, whether you believe it or not.
So if a client comes up and we continue with
the alibi example, how can you disprove that? Is there
some way to disprove that? No, if there's not, that's
(20:41):
the point. Unless the attorney can prove the alibi to
be false. Let's say he says I was with my
mother or I was buying gas, and there's no evidence
to support the alibi. Then he or she can confront
their client with this evidence. There's no gotcha moment, right,
There's no one more thing ask you this because you
can't disprove it. And that's why a lot of criminal
(21:04):
defense think, hey, this is a great story because it
cannot be disproven. They've got time to sit in jail
and vet their lie, if you will. And this cannot
be disproven, can't be able to be proven, but it
certainly can't be disproven.
Speaker 5 (21:19):
Is it as simple as somebody checking the weather to
say that that particular night there were no stars to
be seen in the sky.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
No, not at all. I mean it's you could still stargaze,
you can still gaze at the clouds, you could do anything, right.
I mean, there's you could say it's less probable, but
you can't definitively prove it to be a lie.
Speaker 5 (21:39):
Can you, as a defense attorney. You hear this story,
you're not buying it. Are you able to excuse yourself
as the defense attorney?
Speaker 2 (21:49):
No, just because you don't believe a story doesn't mean
that you are not the right attorney for the car.
I mean clients all the time in my so, I
want an attorney that believes in me. I want an
attorney that believes in me. And the response is fine,
if you want one, stupid enough, go find one. But
I'm not going to buy this story, and I don't
think a jury will. But if that doesn't knock the
(22:12):
client off the story, then they they the client can
get up on the stand and tell that story. Brian
Colberger can get up on the stand and tell the
story that he was stargazing that night. That does not
violate the ethics of the attorney, and as a matter
of fact, it is their ethical obligation. Particularly in a
death penalty case. An attorney can't say, well, you know what,
(22:33):
I had this defense or I had this bit of mitigation,
but I didn't believe it, so I didn't present it
to the jury because it's not what the attorney believes,
it's what the jury believes.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
After this conversation, we checked the weather and saw that
when Coberger is alleged to be stargazing, it was overcast
with intimate and isis fog. Having spoken with defense attorney
Kirk Nurmi, Stephanie and I wanted to balance the equation.
Here's a turn me and former prosecutors Steven Greenberg's take
on the suspect's alibi and how he thinks it might
(23:05):
play in court.
Speaker 9 (23:08):
It underscores the lack of sophistication of the sense team.
It really does. I mean, are you going to open
through a jury and say that the jury that we
have a moon in the stars defense that's our alibi.
Come on, they're going to look at you and say,
my goodness, where did you come from?
Speaker 6 (23:27):
Is there anything to the fact that you kind of
can't poke holes in it versus saying, you know, I
went to the gas station at twelve thirty three am.
So is that perhaps the rationale that there's nothing specific
about it, that it is so vague.
Speaker 9 (23:44):
I think it's like throwing a whole bunch of stuff
against the wall helps something sticks or something will come
out later on. They should have got the prostitutions trying
to avoid that will boaster it. They just want to
have it out there. They're obligating it to disclose their albi.
Speaker 3 (24:02):
Stephanie speaks with Inside Edition reporter Chris Bargo, who followed
the case from the beginning, to get his thoughts on
the alibi revelation.
Speaker 10 (24:11):
Right now, when people ask you about his guilt or
innocence based on what we know concretely, I mean, it's
hard to really say one way or the other. I mean,
we don't really know much about the prosecution's case, but
we know the defense is entire alibi, so that you know,
at this point when you think about it, the defense
has a much better case just because we know so little.
We know the proba will cause affidavor that says he
is in the cell phone area. They don't have math
house in that Affidavid. We don't know. There could be
fingerprints in the house we don't know about. There could
(24:32):
be a million things we don't know about. What we
know for a fact. They know we have his car
leaving Washington State University. We know his car arriving back
at Washington State University. We know foods a few sightings
of it along the way heading towards Moscow, leaving and
we have some photos of the car. No, we have
photos of the car. We don't have photos of Brian Coberger.
None of those things say that they have photos of Brian.
But they could prove that Brian is there. They could
(24:53):
say they have a car that looks like Brian's driving.
It's certainly reasonable. Doubt wise, it's not awful. They don't
have his car park there. For what we know, they
don't have him getting out of the car. They don't
have him inside the house of the information we have
so far, So based on that alone, it's hard to
convict someone with that alibi at this stage given what
we know, because we don't really have any other evidence
of definitively places in there.
Speaker 5 (25:14):
And by the way, most of this information is really circumstantial.
Speaker 7 (25:17):
Is it very.
Speaker 5 (25:18):
Likely that all these small things all happened to lead
to the same guy?
Speaker 8 (25:23):
Who the hell knows?
Speaker 5 (25:24):
That's just the reality of it. We don't know, And
the sum of small things I'm not convinced should equal
death in my humble opinion. And of course, you know,
we're still at the phase of gathering information.
Speaker 10 (25:36):
The burdens right now are aligning with the prosecution the defense.
Like I said, the defense. Alibi is not much in
the way of a It's not like he was with
a friend who was driving alone. If you have to
pick an alibi and you couldn't think of one that
you know, I was alone doing something. But with this
case and what we know, it's again reasonable doubt. So
could you say, knowing what we know, could you one
hundred percent say that he's guilty of deserves that I
(25:58):
would not want to put someone to death based on
that nolgulum. There's something there that's going to be mind
boggling when it's presented.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
I reached out to data analysts Body Movin, host of
another KTI Studios podcast, Drew Crimes. Her incredible soothing skills
came to be known in the public with Netflix documentary
Don't f with Cats. After dissecting the alibi, motion Body
had her own particular thoughts to share.
Speaker 8 (26:27):
I think what's interesting maybe to talk about is the
alibi the new alibi, because I have like a little
theory about that.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
Body reads to the amended alibi.
Speaker 8 (26:37):
Brian Coberger's amended alibi says that he was busy with
classes at work and at Washington State University, and he
was running and hiking and those activities decreased but did
not stop. Instead, his nighttime drives increased, and it says
this is supported by data from mister Coberger's phone showing
(26:58):
him in the countryside late at night or early in
the morning on several occasions. The phone data includes numerous
photographs taken on several different late evenings and early mornings,
including in November, depicting the night sky. And then it
goes on to say mister Coburger was out driving in
the early morning hours of November thirteenth, as he often did,
(27:19):
to hike and or run see the moon and stars.
He drove throughout the area of south of Pullman, Washington,
west of Moscow, Idaho, including Wahwawee Park. So it's basically
saying he always goes driving late at night, and there's
evidence of pictures taken on his phone, including pictures that
were taking in November. Now, it doesn't say that he
(27:41):
has pictures from that night or that morning. It just
says including in November. So we need to make that
clear right now because a lot of people are running
with well he has pictures from his phone that night.
No he doesn't, No, he doesn't. So that's number one,
because that's a big thing online right now. People are like, well,
it's done, he's got a picture, it's got metadata. No, no, no,
(28:01):
I very much doubt that. And number two, the PCA
says Brian Coburger either turned off his phone, turned it
onto airplane mode, or was out of service and then
picked back up after the murders. Here's what I kind
of think and something I kind of want to talk
to you about. In the alibi, it states that there's
going to be this Sirae who's the CSLI expert, the
(28:23):
cell phone tower, cell phone and other radio frequency expert
to corroborate that Brian Coburger's phone was south of Pullman
and west of Moscow. Well, we've got a map of
Idaho or in Washington, where is Waweb Park. It's south
of Pullman and west of Moscow. Okay. So here's what
(28:43):
I kind of think. And it's a bad service area.
By the way, it's important to note that it's a
bad service area.
Speaker 3 (28:51):
Let's stop here for another break. We'll be back in
a moment. Body goes on to say this herself, but
it's important to note that the following is her own opinion.
Based on extrapolations made from reviewing legal documents.
Speaker 8 (29:12):
I think what happened is, is it possible that Brian
Coberger actually did go to Wawei Be Park just outside
the gate or along that area and left his phone
like in a bush or something, drove to Moscow because
it took him like an hour, did his murders, and
then drove back to Wawi Bee Park and got the phone.
(29:33):
Because it puts his phone at a location where he's
been previously many times, but it's got terrible service, so
it gives him credibility to this alibi. And if that's true,
is that an area that police now and whatnot need
to be looking at for a k bar dicky coveralls?
(29:55):
Do you know what I mean? Like evidence of a
dumping of some kind?
Speaker 7 (29:58):
Like that's a really really interesting thought.
Speaker 8 (30:02):
If what I said about, you know, leaving the phone
at what we We park is true, then that shows intention.
I mean, obviously there was intention, clearly, but what I
mean is like premeditation in ways that I hadn't really
considered all that much. It just shows a lot more
purpose because it's very sheet. But again it's just a theory.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
More on that next time for more information on the
case and relevant photos. Follow us on Instagram at kat
Underscore Studios. The Idaho Masker is produced by Stephanie Leideger,
Gabriel Castillo and me Courtney Armstrong. Editing and sound design
by Jeff Trois, Music by Jared Aston. The Idaho Masker
(30:52):
is a production of Kat's Studios and iHeartRadio. For more
podcasts like this, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
wherever you listen to your favorite shows. You can follow
Kirknermi on Instagram and x at Nermi Unchained, and find
his books on Amazon.
Hosts And Creators
Stephanie Lydecker
Courtney Armstrong
Jeff Shane
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.