October 4, 2023 • 29 mins
The prosecution decides to pursue the death penalty against Bryan Kohberger. The move triggers a series of legal maneuvers by both the defense and prosecution that could impact the trial.
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 (00:03):
Big breaking news out of Idaho involving the death penalty
and the man.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Accused of murdering for University of Idaho students.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Prosecutors say they will pursue the death penalty for Brian Coberger.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
This is the Idaho Massacre, a production of KT Studios
and iHeartRadio episode nine, Life or Death. I'm Courtney Armstrong,
a television producer at KT Studios, with Stephanie Leidecker, Jeff Shane,
and Connor Powell. With less than three weeks before the
(00:46):
legal deadline to decide whether or not to seek the
death penalty, prosecutors announced on June twenty sixth they would
recommend the maximum sentence for Brian Coberger.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Calling him a continuing threat to society.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Under Idaho law, prosecutors have sixty days to formally notify
a defendant after they enter their plea if the state
plans to pursue the death penalty. In a short to
the point three page court filing, Leida County Prosecutor Bill
Thompson wrote that based on the known information, there were
no mitigating circumstances preventing prosecutors from pursuing the death penalty.
(01:27):
He also cited a number of quote aggravating circumstances in
the brutal slayings as reasons his office was seeking the
death penalty for the former criminology student.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
The Leytaw County prosecutor says the murder of four University
of Idaho students was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting
exceptional depravity.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Thompson noted that Coberger acted with reckless indifference to human
life and that the November twenty twenty two murders of
Keighley Gonsalvez and Mogen Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin were
carried out during another crime like burglary. The decision was
months in the making, but also left the families of
the victims divided. Under a new Idaho law, Brian Coberger
(02:15):
could be executed by firing squad if he is convicted.
In twenty twenty three, Idaho became the fifth state to
adopt execution by firing squad as an alternative to lethal injection.
It was to be expected, giving what he is accused
of doing. The prosecution's decision to seek the death penalty
for Coburger was not a surprise, but it did raise
(02:37):
the stakes of the upcoming trial, and the move triggered
a series of many legal maneuvers by both the defense
and prosecution ahead of a pivotal motions hearing on the
next day. In the weeks leading up to Leeda County
Prosecutor Bill Thompson's decision to pursue the death penalty for
Brian Coburger, prosecutors turned over a mountain of evidence to
(03:00):
the twenty eight year old's defense team as part of
the legally required discovery period. Among the boxes of evidence
were thousands of pages of reports and other written material,
ten thousand, two hundred photographs, nine thousand, two hundred tips
that were delivered to investigators, and fifty one terabytes of audio,
(03:21):
visual media, and digital materials. As the state pushed their
case forward against Brian Coberger, the twenty eight year old's
lawyer began to lay out their defense strategy ahead of
the key June twenty seventh hearing.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
They are not conceding anything here and will fight every
piece of evidence.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
In recent days, Coburger added two new members to his
defense team, Attorney Stephen Mercer of Maryland and Bicka Barlow
of California. Both are experienced defense lawyers and experts in
criminal cases involving DNA evidence, particularly the use of the
new DNA field of investigative genetic genealogy. Led by Coberger's
(04:00):
chief counsel, Anne Taylor and her deputy Jay Logston, the
new team immediately began to attack that prosecution's case. These
new court filings offered a preview of a brewing legal
battle over DNA evidence between the defense and the prosecution.
Speaker 5 (04:16):
In new court documents, Coberger's attorney accusing the state of
hiding its entire case.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Defense attorney Jay Logsen tore into the prosecution's case, saying
there was no evidence of connection between Brian Coberger and
the four victims. He argued that there is quote no
explanation for the total lack of DNA evidence from the
victims in Coberger's apartment, office, home, or vehicle building. Upon
that argument, the defense also demanded investigators provide information about
(04:45):
three other male DNA samples that were discovered at the
murder scene. Here's Jeff and Stephanie.
Speaker 6 (04:54):
According to Coberger's defense, by December seventeenth, about one month
after the murders, lab technicians had isolated three other male
DNA samples, two of which came from inside the house
and a third pull from a black glove that was
found outside the home a week after the murders. But
get this, police investigators didn't originally find that glove. It
was found by a podcaster and a retired homicide detective
(05:14):
who was just sort of poking around. He saw the
glove nestled among some leaves and branches on the ground
behind a trash can near the home on King Road.
He then told police about it, and they photographed the
glove before collecting it for lab tests.
Speaker 7 (05:25):
How is that possible? Now, Again, no one really knows
when that glove first appeared or if it had any
connection to the murders.
Speaker 6 (05:33):
To me, the big question is what type of glove
is it. It was in the thirties the night of
the murder, so people very likely would have been wearing
winter gloves. But if it's a latex glove, that tells
a different story. And while we don't know what type
of glove it was or if it was even connected
to the crimes, we do know that investigators found male
DNA inside of it.
Speaker 7 (05:52):
Now, what the defense wants to know is what type
of testing was conducted on that glove, as well as
the other two samples.
Speaker 6 (06:00):
Ran short tandem repeat or STR DNA on the three samples.
Speaker 7 (06:05):
But the defense is wondering if there were any other
DNA tests that were run, because look, when the information
from the str DNA test was actually submitted to the
FBI database, no male DNA profiles were identified.
Speaker 6 (06:18):
So stuff to break that down. What we know is
three men's DNA was connected to these samples, but we
don't know who they are and if they have any
connection to the crime.
Speaker 7 (06:28):
And it doesn't appear investigators tried to do a genetic
genealogy DNA test to identify them in the same way
that they did for Brian Coburger.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
In addition to requesting information about the three unidentified male
DNA samples, the defense also challenged the prosecution's use of
investigative genetic genealogy to initially identify Brian Coburger from the
DNA on the knife sheath. Coburger's lawyer suggested the prosecution
is purposely withholding details of the genetic genealogy research, saying
(07:02):
in a court filing, a massive investigation came to focus
on Coburger and Coburger alone. The state appears to be
trying to hide its original domino, such as he cannot
discover why. It is not uncommon for defense lawyers to
challenge the use of new and emerging technology like investigative
genetic genealogy, and Coberger's defense team has demanded access to
(07:26):
all of the FBI genetic genealogy data used to tie
Coburger to the crime against Stephanie and Jeff and Now.
Speaker 7 (07:36):
Remember when Idaho investigators first found the DNA on the
knife sheath, they ran it through the Combined DNA Index
System database.
Speaker 6 (07:46):
However, this person's DNA was not actually in the CODIS
database and investigators were unable to identify the individual, but
they didn't give up. The FBI jumped in to help
and use a rare, controversial DNA technique called investigative genetic
genealogy we talked about Traditionally, it's really only used in
cold cases. Most famously, it was used to capture the
Golden State killer Joseph DiAngelo in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 7 (08:08):
It's actually rarely used in active investigations because some states
have laws discouraging it, and many public genealogy companies, for example,
like ancestry dot com, they prohibit law enforcement from using
their databases for investigations, but in this case, the FBI
took the DNA sequence data from that knife sheath sample
(08:30):
to a private testing facility in Texas called authorm, who
then utilized public genealogy websites to identify Coburger's family tree.
Speaker 6 (08:39):
However, despite the defense's request, the prosecution is saying that
Coburger and his defense team have no right to the
FBI data and the paperwork from this process.
Speaker 8 (08:48):
Is who become a DNA case. That's what it's going
to be all about. The spushy eyebrow identifications going nowhere.
But it's a battle of experts. So usually the government
has a lot of money, much more than a public
defender's office. So one of the problems for the defense
is going to be to get enough money to hire
the appropriate experts to deal with this issue of DNA,
(09:10):
because that's really what it's going to come down to.
And I also believe that there are some serious problems
in terms of the way this thing was handled, in
terms of sending it out. I mean, I was shocked,
truthfully to see that.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Stephen Greenberg is a legal expert and former federal US attorney.
He spoke with Stephanie and Jeff Colberger's defense team believes
the FBI's handling of the investigative genetic genealogy data is
crucial evidence and could be exculpatory.
Speaker 8 (09:43):
Exculpatory evidence means exactly what it sounds like. It's exculpatory
to the defendant. The Supreme Court a number of years
ago decided a case called the United States versus Brady
A long time ago. So this besides lawyers call it
Brady material, And what it means is prosecution that has
and its possession anything that in any way is helpful
(10:03):
of defense. It must be turned over, and if they
don't turn it over, it could be the end of
the case for them. Many times there's been a guilty
verdict and then an appeal it turned out that there
was Brady information or exculpatory information that wasn't turned over
and the guilty verdict was vacated.
Speaker 6 (10:21):
Is there a time when that window closes or is
it every moment up until the verdict is read.
Speaker 8 (10:28):
In terms of when they have to turn it over, Yeah,
never ceases. Even if during the trial, let's say something
came up that all of a sudden landed in the
lap of the prosecution and it was helpful of defense.
It has to turn it over. It's a constant obligation
that the prosecution has.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Using genetic genealogy to identify a suspect is a painstaking
process and requires skilled researchers and analysts to put the
complicated puzzle together. During the process, it can also identify
a huge number of people connected to a potential suspect.
Stephanie and Jeff.
Speaker 6 (11:05):
How exactly does DNA work. Each person's DNA comes from
roughly fifty percent of their parents and twenty five percent
of their grandparents, and with each generation you go back,
the genetic similarities are reduced a quarter, meaning you share
about twelve point five percent of your DNA with your
first cousins and three point one two five percent with
your second cousins, and actually less than one percent with
(11:26):
your third cousins. In most public genealogy databases, it's pretty
easy to find third or second cousin matches because the
bar is so low. That's why you see headlines where
celebrities say they're related to famous dead presidents.
Speaker 7 (11:38):
But in this case, to narrow it down to a
specific person, genetic genealogists at Authorm that's the testing company
we were talking about, and the FBI had to do
a lot of digging through birth certificates and other genealogy
information to build the tree. And this is the important
part for the defense because they want to know the
process from start to finish.
Speaker 6 (12:00):
Yeah, Steph. What they're saying is that if all this
painstaking work was done, there should be a long paper
trail of how this research was executed, and you would
think AUTHRAM or the FBI would have logged it somewhere, But.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
The prosecution has so far refused to provide the data
to Coburger's defense team, with the prosecution insisting they don't
have it. The prosecution also says they won't use this
information at Coburger's trial because they want to protect the
names and personal information of hundreds of innocent relatives on
(12:34):
Coburger's family tree and the names of the publicly available
genetic genealogy services used. The question is does the FBI
and AUTHROM have the records the defense wants, were any
of the records kept or has all of it been destroyed? Regardless,
this is a potential issue for law enforcement and the
prosecution's case because of the Supreme Court mandated obligation to
(12:57):
provide all Brady evidence to a defendant, especially a defendant
and a death penalty case. Here again, former federal prosecutor
Stephen Greenberg.
Speaker 8 (13:07):
The only thing that popped out to me so far is,
for some reason, when the Bureau went through all the
different phases it went through in trying to match the
DNA with this defendant, and they failed, and then they
tried to build a tree and they sent it all over.
They didn't keep records. There's no way to attack the
indictment that I have seen yet other than this issue.
(13:28):
We're talking about about exculpatory or brainy material or very
simply put information that's helpful of the defense that the
prosecutor has. Why they didn't download all of these things
that bureau did makes no sense. If it's helpful of
the defense, it has to be turned over. It will
be a pre trial hearing on this issue of chain
of custody and the use of DNA, and that will
(13:52):
you know, that will be determined because if that hearing
goes the way I think it might. I don't know
who the judge is, I don't know what his or
her particular ratings are. But if the prosecution gets whacked
on this issue, then there'll be either be a play
to a much lesser charge, be a dismissal. But that
(14:13):
issue will be decided long before try.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
a moment. The prosecution is likely to counter the defense's
demand for the AUTH room and FBI's research at the
June twenty seventh hearing by insisting the only relevant DNA
(14:38):
information for a trial is the buckle swab taken from
Coburger's mouth when he was arrested at his parents' home
and the paternal DNA sample taken from the Coburger's trash.
Both of these DNA tests show an indisputable statistical match
between Brian Coburger and the DNA on the knife.
Speaker 5 (14:55):
Sheath, the likelihood that this is Brian Coberger's DNA, and
it is five point three seven octillion times more likely
than not that this is a match.
Speaker 9 (15:13):
Jeff and Stephanie, we know the DNA profile found on
the knife sheath is at least five point three seven
octillion times more likely to be Brian Coburger's than someone else's.
Speaker 7 (15:24):
And that's a very big number.
Speaker 6 (15:26):
Correct. It's kind of impossibly big to wrap your head around.
We're going to do our best to kind of explain
it in terms that we felt was helpful. Five point
three seven octilian is five point three seven followed by
twenty seven zeros. And to put this number into more perspective,
there are currently about eight billion people living on planet
Earth right now, or eight followed by nine zeros. It's
(15:48):
estimated that about one hundred and nine billion people have
ever lived on planet Earth. And that's one hundred and
nine again followed by nine zeros. A reminder, five point
three seven octillions is five point three seven fall by
twenty seven zeros.
Speaker 7 (16:02):
So that's a tremendous number, and it seems impossible that
it wouldn't be Coburger. Even the defense doesn't seem to
be arguing that the DNA found on the sheath was Coburgers,
at least they're not doing that yet. But what they
are challenging is how investigators utilize DNA to conclude that
it was Coburger's DNA on the nine sheath.
Speaker 8 (16:24):
So in this case, the only fact so far that
we know of that the prosecution has to link this
particular defendant this awful crime is DNA evidence, that's it,
and from what I've seen so far, that's not that solid.
So you know, they'll show pictures of the gruesome slaying
of these poor college kids. Defense will try to keep
(16:47):
it out because they'll say it's too damaging, and it's
and the judge will say, no, it's okay because it's relevant.
That will all happen, but when push comes to CHEF,
so far, we're talking about a case that hinges on
d and we've all seen what preceded the taking of
the final swab and the match, and I just think
(17:08):
it's too early.
Speaker 6 (17:09):
You mentioned like the DNA is the big thing, because
we don't have any motive. I mean, there's no connection
that we know. The defense is arguing there is no connection.
That's the whole point. So does that matter.
Speaker 8 (17:18):
The prosecution does not have to prove any motive at all.
They have a motive, it will be helpful. The lack
of a motive will be helpful of the defense because
they will argue that there was no reason for this
particular individual. He didn't know them. There's no motive, there
was no fight, there was no money issue, there was
no girlfriend, no boyfriend. Whatever it is, there's a doctrine
(17:41):
called men's rea in the law, and men's rea is
very important here because they had The prosecution has to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that not only did this
guy take it and slash them and stab them and
all this stuff, but he had an intent to do it,
He had a specific intent, specific content or what they
(18:01):
say in Latin is men's rea, and then he's guilty
of murder one. But they have to prove intent. They
do not have to prove motive, and then the as
I said, the defense will argue, well, you know, there
was no reason for him to do it, Then the
motive goes on that side.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
One potential defense that Coberger's attorneys have yet to try
to raise is a not guilty by reason of insanity defense.
In many states, a defendant can claim insanity when charged
with felony crimes if they show a lack of mental capacity,
but Coberger's team can't make this argument. Idaho is one
of only four states, along with Kansas, Montana, and Utah,
(18:38):
that does not permit insanity as a defense. The Idaho
state legislature removed it from the state's criminal code in
nineteen eighty two, and passed a law saying that mental
conditions shall not be a defense to any charge of
criminal conduct. Stephen Greenberg says even if Idaho did provide
a legal path to raise insanity as a defense, it
likely wouldn't work. For Brian Coberger, this.
Speaker 8 (19:01):
Guy was getting a PhD in criminology. He went back
to school after all this happened, right he went to class.
So in order to succeed with an insanity defense, you
basically have to show that the guy couldn't have had
the men's rey I mentioned earlier, or the intent because
he was incapable of discerning right from wrong. Okay, in
(19:22):
some jurisdictions they call it an irresistible impulse. But the
longest short of this, in Layman's terms is if charged
individual was so incapable of discerning right from wrong and
didn't realize in any way what he was doing because
of that particular status of his mental capability, then you
don't have murder one because you don't have intent. Okay,
(19:45):
so all this kind of but I don't unless there's
something I've missed, I don't see this based on the
behavior of this particular defendant as an insanity defense.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
The mental illness may be used Idaho as a factor
in sentencing. Even if the jury finds Coburger guilty and
sentenced him to death, his lawyers can challenge a death
penalty sentence by presenting mitigating evidence as to why Coburger
should be spared execution, Meaning, if Coburger is convicted of
murdering Killy Gonsalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin,
(20:21):
then he could be spared the death penalty if he
has proven to have a mental illness. Coburger's own words
as a teenager about suicide, depression, and his rare eye
condition visual snow may come into play in the future. However,
Leida County Prosecutor Bill Thompson said in the court filing
(20:43):
announcing his decision to seek the death penalty that the
state had not seen any evidence of mitigating factors such
as mental illness in Coburger or his family. Still, Coburger's
lawyers could produce evidence of past mental health issues during
the penalty phase if Coburger is convicted of the brutal slayings.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
If you're not going to pursue the death penalty on
a quadruple murder, What type of case are you going
to pursue the death penalty on?
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Before Laida County Prosecutor Bill Thompson announced his decision to
pursue the death penalty for Brian Coberger, he met with
the families of the four victims. While not every member
of the victim's immediate family have spoken publicly, there is
a divide over Thompson's decision to pursue the death penalty.
(21:31):
Xena Kernodle's mother, Kara, has said she doesn't support the
capital punishment for Brian Cobroger.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
I'm not interested in a death penalty. That's not that's
not who I am.
Speaker 8 (21:41):
I don't believe in that, but I do think that
he should he should spend the rest of his days
in prison.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
In contrast, Xena Kernodle's father Jeff, said he supports the
death penalty for Coburger so he.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
Can never replace the loved ones that are lost, but
having some sort of justice case that's what the Gonzava's
family wants.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
While Madison Mogan and Kihi Gonsalvez's parents also support the
decision to pursue the death penalty for Brian Coberger. Steve
Gonsalvez has been particularly vocal about his support for the
death penalty, saying it is one of the reasons he
moved to the state of Idaho.
Speaker 9 (22:20):
If you come after Mike Child, I'm going to do
everything in my power to make sure that you know
we come after you.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
Ethan Chapin's parents have not waited on the decision, even
when asked. Stacy Chapin, Ethan's mother, has said she will
not attend the trial and her focus is on her
family and keeping Ethan's memory alive.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
It doesn't change the outcome, even looking at ahead at
the trial coming up in October. Now, it does not
change the outcome of our family. And it's energy that
we need to put into healing our kids and getting
back to a new family dynamic and work in on that.
And so we let the prosecutors do their job and
we do our job in our family.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
Let's stop here for another break. The split over whether
or not to pursue the death penalty is not the
only issue dividing the parents of Kaylee, Madison, Xana, and Ethan.
Speaker 8 (23:26):
Meanwhile, work crews started preparing the house where the murders
happened for demolition.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
In February, after Coburger was arrested, the University of Idaho
announced it would demolish the blood soaked house at eleven
twenty two King Road. University president Scott Green called it
a healing step in the wake of a crime that
shook the community. The owner of the home donated it
to the school, and plans were made to turn the
lot into a park with a separate memorial to be
(23:52):
built on the University of Idaho campus. But now with
the trial of Brian Coburger is set to begin on
October second, some of the families of the four murdered
students are pressing the University of Idaho to halt its
plans to demolish the three story structure. Here is the
Consolvates family attorney Shannon Gray, talking to the Law and
Crime Network.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
A big piece of evidence that potentially a jury might
want to see it. I mean, there's sights and sounds
and viewpoints and angles. It's an odd shaped house where
witnesses were standing, where the potentially the defendant was standing.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
The off campus two thousand, one hundred and seventy five
square foot home has sat empty ever since the brutal murders.
On November thirteenth, twenty twenty two. Today it is protected
by a high metal fence and its lawn is covered
in weeds and tall grass. Forensic investigators finished combing through
the house long ago. Both the defense and the prosecution
(24:48):
have said they are finished with the house, which has
been flooded by a surge of true crime tourists who
regularly come to visit. The university and the neighbors want
the house torn down before students return to school in
August of twenty twenty three, but the family of Kili
Gonsalvez is urging the university to wait and say that
the school is ignoring their request.
Speaker 4 (25:09):
And we've just stressed just hold on, you know, wait
till the trial is over and then then do whatever
you want with the property. But they just they will
not listen, and it's frustrating. But if they think that
they're doing it on behalf of the community or the
victim's families, it's not true.
Speaker 7 (25:29):
Stephanie and Jeff And in the same week that there
were these legal fights over DNA evidence and the announcement
from the prosecution that they were in fact going to
pursue the death penalty, workmen began preparing the three story
house for demolition. They removed the remaining furniture and any
other personal items that were left behind after the murders,
(25:51):
and that's the end of it. It seems so strange
that they wouldn't wait until after the trial.
Speaker 6 (25:56):
Yeah, despite the prosecution and the defense saying they were
done with the home, Kaylee's family was worried that the
jury may want to see it at some point. They
said publicly they wanted it left in tax so the
jurors could walk around the property to better understand the
events of the morning of November thirteenth. The family wants
the house demolished eventually, but they're afraid that if it
happens before the trial, it may hurt the prosecution of Brankoberger.
Speaker 7 (26:17):
However, despite their concerns, the community apparently wants it gone
sooner than later. According to Shannon Gray, Kaylee's family lawyer,
the university basically said that we hear you, we get
your concerns, but we are in fact going to move
forward with the demolition because it's good for the community.
Speaker 6 (26:36):
I understand the feeling of wanting the site of such
a tragedy gone as soon as possible, but if even
just one juror is suayed in either direction by seeing
this house, then they need to leave it up. Justice
is the number one goal here, and it seems shortsighted
to potentially get rid of this huge part of the
case forever.
Speaker 7 (26:52):
We've seen this happen before. In fact, in our other podcast,
The piked In Massacre, we saw that the homes where
those murders happened were also infamously moved into a warehouse,
which caused lots of controversy. Can you imagine if they
had just torn them down. It seems like they would
be destroying an active crime scene. And also in that case,
(27:13):
the jurors all went to the location of the crimes.
That was a big part of the pregame to the trial.
Speaker 6 (27:20):
Yeah, Steh, that's a good point because as Coburger's movements
on the night in question are very relevant, it stands
to reason that the same sort of thing might happen
for this case.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
The next hearing in the case of Idaho versus Brian
Coburger is set for Tuesday, June twenty seventh. Many of
these issues could be settled after this important hearing, but
the trial could also be pushed back to provide more
time to decide these issues and because Brian Coberger's life
is now at stake. More on that next time. For
(27:57):
more information on the case and relevant photos, follow us
on Instagram at kat Underscore Studios. The Idaho Masacre is
produced by Stephanie Leidecker, 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
(28:21):
is a production of iHeart Radio and Kat's Studios. For
more podcasts like this, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Speaker 10 (28:34):
I'm Diana, you may know as Body Movin, My Friend
and I. John Green were featured in the Netflix documentary
Don't f with Cats. On our new podcast, True Crimes
of John and Deiana were turning our online investigative skills
to some of the most unexplained, unsolved, and most ignored cases.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Please say.
Speaker 6 (28:52):
Thirty three year old bride Again was shot dead.
Speaker 5 (28:55):
Gunned down in front of his two year old daughter.
Speaker 7 (28:57):
Detectives confirmed that it was at targeted attack.
Speaker 9 (29:00):
It appears to be an execution style assassination.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
This is very active, so we have to be careful.
Speaker 7 (29:06):
I've heard that there's a house that has some bodies
in the basement.
Speaker 1 (29:09):
I knew.
Speaker 10 (29:10):
I just knew something was wrong.
Speaker 6 (29:12):
Maybe there's something more sinister at play than just one
young girl going missing. If you know something, heard something,
please it's never too late.
Speaker 4 (29:22):
To do the right thing.
Speaker 10 (29:24):
This is true crimes with John and Deianna, the.
Speaker 6 (29:27):
Production of KT Studios and iHeartRadio.
Speaker 9 (29:31):
Justice is something that takes different shapes or formed
Big breaking news out of Idaho involving the death penalty
and the man.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Accused of murdering for University of Idaho students.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Prosecutors say they will pursue the death penalty for Brian Coberger.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
This is the Idaho Massacre, a production of KT Studios
and iHeartRadio episode nine, Life or Death. I'm Courtney Armstrong,
a television producer at KT Studios, with Stephanie Leidecker, Jeff Shane,
and Connor Powell. With less than three weeks before the
(00:46):
legal deadline to decide whether or not to seek the
death penalty, prosecutors announced on June twenty sixth they would
recommend the maximum sentence for Brian Coberger.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Calling him a continuing threat to society.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Under Idaho law, prosecutors have sixty days to formally notify
a defendant after they enter their plea if the state
plans to pursue the death penalty. In a short to
the point three page court filing, Leida County Prosecutor Bill
Thompson wrote that based on the known information, there were
no mitigating circumstances preventing prosecutors from pursuing the death penalty.
(01:27):
He also cited a number of quote aggravating circumstances in
the brutal slayings as reasons his office was seeking the
death penalty for the former criminology student.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
The Leytaw County prosecutor says the murder of four University
of Idaho students was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting
exceptional depravity.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Thompson noted that Coberger acted with reckless indifference to human
life and that the November twenty twenty two murders of
Keighley Gonsalvez and Mogen Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin were
carried out during another crime like burglary. The decision was
months in the making, but also left the families of
the victims divided. Under a new Idaho law, Brian Coberger
(02:15):
could be executed by firing squad if he is convicted.
In twenty twenty three, Idaho became the fifth state to
adopt execution by firing squad as an alternative to lethal injection.
It was to be expected, giving what he is accused
of doing. The prosecution's decision to seek the death penalty
for Coburger was not a surprise, but it did raise
(02:37):
the stakes of the upcoming trial, and the move triggered
a series of many legal maneuvers by both the defense
and prosecution ahead of a pivotal motions hearing on the
next day. In the weeks leading up to Leeda County
Prosecutor Bill Thompson's decision to pursue the death penalty for
Brian Coburger, prosecutors turned over a mountain of evidence to
(03:00):
the twenty eight year old's defense team as part of
the legally required discovery period. Among the boxes of evidence
were thousands of pages of reports and other written material,
ten thousand, two hundred photographs, nine thousand, two hundred tips
that were delivered to investigators, and fifty one terabytes of audio,
(03:21):
visual media, and digital materials. As the state pushed their
case forward against Brian Coberger, the twenty eight year old's
lawyer began to lay out their defense strategy ahead of
the key June twenty seventh hearing.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
They are not conceding anything here and will fight every
piece of evidence.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
In recent days, Coburger added two new members to his
defense team, Attorney Stephen Mercer of Maryland and Bicka Barlow
of California. Both are experienced defense lawyers and experts in
criminal cases involving DNA evidence, particularly the use of the
new DNA field of investigative genetic genealogy. Led by Coberger's
(04:00):
chief counsel, Anne Taylor and her deputy Jay Logston, the
new team immediately began to attack that prosecution's case. These
new court filings offered a preview of a brewing legal
battle over DNA evidence between the defense and the prosecution.
Speaker 5 (04:16):
In new court documents, Coberger's attorney accusing the state of
hiding its entire case.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Defense attorney Jay Logsen tore into the prosecution's case, saying
there was no evidence of connection between Brian Coberger and
the four victims. He argued that there is quote no
explanation for the total lack of DNA evidence from the
victims in Coberger's apartment, office, home, or vehicle building. Upon
that argument, the defense also demanded investigators provide information about
(04:45):
three other male DNA samples that were discovered at the
murder scene. Here's Jeff and Stephanie.
Speaker 6 (04:54):
According to Coberger's defense, by December seventeenth, about one month
after the murders, lab technicians had isolated three other male
DNA samples, two of which came from inside the house
and a third pull from a black glove that was
found outside the home a week after the murders. But
get this, police investigators didn't originally find that glove. It
was found by a podcaster and a retired homicide detective
(05:14):
who was just sort of poking around. He saw the
glove nestled among some leaves and branches on the ground
behind a trash can near the home on King Road.
He then told police about it, and they photographed the
glove before collecting it for lab tests.
Speaker 7 (05:25):
How is that possible? Now, Again, no one really knows
when that glove first appeared or if it had any
connection to the murders.
Speaker 6 (05:33):
To me, the big question is what type of glove
is it. It was in the thirties the night of
the murder, so people very likely would have been wearing
winter gloves. But if it's a latex glove, that tells
a different story. And while we don't know what type
of glove it was or if it was even connected
to the crimes, we do know that investigators found male
DNA inside of it.
Speaker 7 (05:52):
Now, what the defense wants to know is what type
of testing was conducted on that glove, as well as
the other two samples.
Speaker 6 (06:00):
Ran short tandem repeat or STR DNA on the three samples.
Speaker 7 (06:05):
But the defense is wondering if there were any other
DNA tests that were run, because look, when the information
from the str DNA test was actually submitted to the
FBI database, no male DNA profiles were identified.
Speaker 6 (06:18):
So stuff to break that down. What we know is
three men's DNA was connected to these samples, but we
don't know who they are and if they have any
connection to the crime.
Speaker 7 (06:28):
And it doesn't appear investigators tried to do a genetic
genealogy DNA test to identify them in the same way
that they did for Brian Coburger.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
In addition to requesting information about the three unidentified male
DNA samples, the defense also challenged the prosecution's use of
investigative genetic genealogy to initially identify Brian Coburger from the
DNA on the knife sheath. Coburger's lawyer suggested the prosecution
is purposely withholding details of the genetic genealogy research, saying
(07:02):
in a court filing, a massive investigation came to focus
on Coburger and Coburger alone. The state appears to be
trying to hide its original domino, such as he cannot
discover why. It is not uncommon for defense lawyers to
challenge the use of new and emerging technology like investigative
genetic genealogy, and Coberger's defense team has demanded access to
(07:26):
all of the FBI genetic genealogy data used to tie
Coburger to the crime against Stephanie and Jeff and Now.
Speaker 7 (07:36):
Remember when Idaho investigators first found the DNA on the
knife sheath, they ran it through the Combined DNA Index
System database.
Speaker 6 (07:46):
However, this person's DNA was not actually in the CODIS
database and investigators were unable to identify the individual, but
they didn't give up. The FBI jumped in to help
and use a rare, controversial DNA technique called investigative genetic
genealogy we talked about Traditionally, it's really only used in
cold cases. Most famously, it was used to capture the
Golden State killer Joseph DiAngelo in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 7 (08:08):
It's actually rarely used in active investigations because some states
have laws discouraging it, and many public genealogy companies, for example,
like ancestry dot com, they prohibit law enforcement from using
their databases for investigations, but in this case, the FBI
took the DNA sequence data from that knife sheath sample
(08:30):
to a private testing facility in Texas called authorm, who
then utilized public genealogy websites to identify Coburger's family tree.
Speaker 6 (08:39):
However, despite the defense's request, the prosecution is saying that
Coburger and his defense team have no right to the
FBI data and the paperwork from this process.
Speaker 8 (08:48):
Is who become a DNA case. That's what it's going
to be all about. The spushy eyebrow identifications going nowhere.
But it's a battle of experts. So usually the government
has a lot of money, much more than a public
defender's office. So one of the problems for the defense
is going to be to get enough money to hire
the appropriate experts to deal with this issue of DNA,
(09:10):
because that's really what it's going to come down to.
And I also believe that there are some serious problems
in terms of the way this thing was handled, in
terms of sending it out. I mean, I was shocked,
truthfully to see that.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Stephen Greenberg is a legal expert and former federal US attorney.
He spoke with Stephanie and Jeff Colberger's defense team believes
the FBI's handling of the investigative genetic genealogy data is
crucial evidence and could be exculpatory.
Speaker 8 (09:43):
Exculpatory evidence means exactly what it sounds like. It's exculpatory
to the defendant. The Supreme Court a number of years
ago decided a case called the United States versus Brady
A long time ago. So this besides lawyers call it
Brady material, And what it means is prosecution that has
and its possession anything that in any way is helpful
(10:03):
of defense. It must be turned over, and if they
don't turn it over, it could be the end of
the case for them. Many times there's been a guilty
verdict and then an appeal it turned out that there
was Brady information or exculpatory information that wasn't turned over
and the guilty verdict was vacated.
Speaker 6 (10:21):
Is there a time when that window closes or is
it every moment up until the verdict is read.
Speaker 8 (10:28):
In terms of when they have to turn it over, Yeah,
never ceases. Even if during the trial, let's say something
came up that all of a sudden landed in the
lap of the prosecution and it was helpful of defense.
It has to turn it over. It's a constant obligation
that the prosecution has.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Using genetic genealogy to identify a suspect is a painstaking
process and requires skilled researchers and analysts to put the
complicated puzzle together. During the process, it can also identify
a huge number of people connected to a potential suspect.
Stephanie and Jeff.
Speaker 6 (11:05):
How exactly does DNA work. Each person's DNA comes from
roughly fifty percent of their parents and twenty five percent
of their grandparents, and with each generation you go back,
the genetic similarities are reduced a quarter, meaning you share
about twelve point five percent of your DNA with your
first cousins and three point one two five percent with
your second cousins, and actually less than one percent with
(11:26):
your third cousins. In most public genealogy databases, it's pretty
easy to find third or second cousin matches because the
bar is so low. That's why you see headlines where
celebrities say they're related to famous dead presidents.
Speaker 7 (11:38):
But in this case, to narrow it down to a
specific person, genetic genealogists at Authorm that's the testing company
we were talking about, and the FBI had to do
a lot of digging through birth certificates and other genealogy
information to build the tree. And this is the important
part for the defense because they want to know the
process from start to finish.
Speaker 6 (12:00):
Yeah, Steph. What they're saying is that if all this
painstaking work was done, there should be a long paper
trail of how this research was executed, and you would
think AUTHRAM or the FBI would have logged it somewhere, But.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
The prosecution has so far refused to provide the data
to Coburger's defense team, with the prosecution insisting they don't
have it. The prosecution also says they won't use this
information at Coburger's trial because they want to protect the
names and personal information of hundreds of innocent relatives on
(12:34):
Coburger's family tree and the names of the publicly available
genetic genealogy services used. The question is does the FBI
and AUTHROM have the records the defense wants, were any
of the records kept or has all of it been destroyed? Regardless,
this is a potential issue for law enforcement and the
prosecution's case because of the Supreme Court mandated obligation to
(12:57):
provide all Brady evidence to a defendant, especially a defendant
and a death penalty case. Here again, former federal prosecutor
Stephen Greenberg.
Speaker 8 (13:07):
The only thing that popped out to me so far is,
for some reason, when the Bureau went through all the
different phases it went through in trying to match the
DNA with this defendant, and they failed, and then they
tried to build a tree and they sent it all over.
They didn't keep records. There's no way to attack the
indictment that I have seen yet other than this issue.
(13:28):
We're talking about about exculpatory or brainy material or very
simply put information that's helpful of the defense that the
prosecutor has. Why they didn't download all of these things
that bureau did makes no sense. If it's helpful of
the defense, it has to be turned over. It will
be a pre trial hearing on this issue of chain
of custody and the use of DNA, and that will
(13:52):
you know, that will be determined because if that hearing
goes the way I think it might. I don't know
who the judge is, I don't know what his or
her particular ratings are. But if the prosecution gets whacked
on this issue, then there'll be either be a play
to a much lesser charge, be a dismissal. But that
(14:13):
issue will be decided long before try.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
a moment. The prosecution is likely to counter the defense's
demand for the AUTH room and FBI's research at the
June twenty seventh hearing by insisting the only relevant DNA
(14:38):
information for a trial is the buckle swab taken from
Coburger's mouth when he was arrested at his parents' home
and the paternal DNA sample taken from the Coburger's trash.
Both of these DNA tests show an indisputable statistical match
between Brian Coburger and the DNA on the knife.
Speaker 5 (14:55):
Sheath, the likelihood that this is Brian Coberger's DNA, and
it is five point three seven octillion times more likely
than not that this is a match.
Speaker 9 (15:13):
Jeff and Stephanie, we know the DNA profile found on
the knife sheath is at least five point three seven
octillion times more likely to be Brian Coburger's than someone else's.
Speaker 7 (15:24):
And that's a very big number.
Speaker 6 (15:26):
Correct. It's kind of impossibly big to wrap your head around.
We're going to do our best to kind of explain
it in terms that we felt was helpful. Five point
three seven octilian is five point three seven followed by
twenty seven zeros. And to put this number into more perspective,
there are currently about eight billion people living on planet
Earth right now, or eight followed by nine zeros. It's
(15:48):
estimated that about one hundred and nine billion people have
ever lived on planet Earth. And that's one hundred and
nine again followed by nine zeros. A reminder, five point
three seven octillions is five point three seven fall by
twenty seven zeros.
Speaker 7 (16:02):
So that's a tremendous number, and it seems impossible that
it wouldn't be Coburger. Even the defense doesn't seem to
be arguing that the DNA found on the sheath was Coburgers,
at least they're not doing that yet. But what they
are challenging is how investigators utilize DNA to conclude that
it was Coburger's DNA on the nine sheath.
Speaker 8 (16:24):
So in this case, the only fact so far that
we know of that the prosecution has to link this
particular defendant this awful crime is DNA evidence, that's it,
and from what I've seen so far, that's not that solid.
So you know, they'll show pictures of the gruesome slaying
of these poor college kids. Defense will try to keep
(16:47):
it out because they'll say it's too damaging, and it's
and the judge will say, no, it's okay because it's relevant.
That will all happen, but when push comes to CHEF,
so far, we're talking about a case that hinges on
d and we've all seen what preceded the taking of
the final swab and the match, and I just think
(17:08):
it's too early.
Speaker 6 (17:09):
You mentioned like the DNA is the big thing, because
we don't have any motive. I mean, there's no connection
that we know. The defense is arguing there is no connection.
That's the whole point. So does that matter.
Speaker 8 (17:18):
The prosecution does not have to prove any motive at all.
They have a motive, it will be helpful. The lack
of a motive will be helpful of the defense because
they will argue that there was no reason for this
particular individual. He didn't know them. There's no motive, there
was no fight, there was no money issue, there was
no girlfriend, no boyfriend. Whatever it is, there's a doctrine
(17:41):
called men's rea in the law, and men's rea is
very important here because they had The prosecution has to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that not only did this
guy take it and slash them and stab them and
all this stuff, but he had an intent to do it,
He had a specific intent, specific content or what they
(18:01):
say in Latin is men's rea, and then he's guilty
of murder one. But they have to prove intent. They
do not have to prove motive, and then the as
I said, the defense will argue, well, you know, there
was no reason for him to do it, Then the
motive goes on that side.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
One potential defense that Coberger's attorneys have yet to try
to raise is a not guilty by reason of insanity defense.
In many states, a defendant can claim insanity when charged
with felony crimes if they show a lack of mental capacity,
but Coberger's team can't make this argument. Idaho is one
of only four states, along with Kansas, Montana, and Utah,
(18:38):
that does not permit insanity as a defense. The Idaho
state legislature removed it from the state's criminal code in
nineteen eighty two, and passed a law saying that mental
conditions shall not be a defense to any charge of
criminal conduct. Stephen Greenberg says even if Idaho did provide
a legal path to raise insanity as a defense, it
likely wouldn't work. For Brian Coberger, this.
Speaker 8 (19:01):
Guy was getting a PhD in criminology. He went back
to school after all this happened, right he went to class.
So in order to succeed with an insanity defense, you
basically have to show that the guy couldn't have had
the men's rey I mentioned earlier, or the intent because
he was incapable of discerning right from wrong. Okay, in
(19:22):
some jurisdictions they call it an irresistible impulse. But the
longest short of this, in Layman's terms is if charged
individual was so incapable of discerning right from wrong and
didn't realize in any way what he was doing because
of that particular status of his mental capability, then you
don't have murder one because you don't have intent. Okay,
(19:45):
so all this kind of but I don't unless there's
something I've missed, I don't see this based on the
behavior of this particular defendant as an insanity defense.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
The mental illness may be used Idaho as a factor
in sentencing. Even if the jury finds Coburger guilty and
sentenced him to death, his lawyers can challenge a death
penalty sentence by presenting mitigating evidence as to why Coburger
should be spared execution, Meaning, if Coburger is convicted of
murdering Killy Gonsalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin,
(20:21):
then he could be spared the death penalty if he
has proven to have a mental illness. Coburger's own words
as a teenager about suicide, depression, and his rare eye
condition visual snow may come into play in the future. However,
Leida County Prosecutor Bill Thompson said in the court filing
(20:43):
announcing his decision to seek the death penalty that the
state had not seen any evidence of mitigating factors such
as mental illness in Coburger or his family. Still, Coburger's
lawyers could produce evidence of past mental health issues during
the penalty phase if Coburger is convicted of the brutal slayings.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
If you're not going to pursue the death penalty on
a quadruple murder, What type of case are you going
to pursue the death penalty on?
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Before Laida County Prosecutor Bill Thompson announced his decision to
pursue the death penalty for Brian Coberger, he met with
the families of the four victims. While not every member
of the victim's immediate family have spoken publicly, there is
a divide over Thompson's decision to pursue the death penalty.
(21:31):
Xena Kernodle's mother, Kara, has said she doesn't support the
capital punishment for Brian Cobroger.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
I'm not interested in a death penalty. That's not that's
not who I am.
Speaker 8 (21:41):
I don't believe in that, but I do think that
he should he should spend the rest of his days
in prison.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
In contrast, Xena Kernodle's father Jeff, said he supports the
death penalty for Coburger so he.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
Can never replace the loved ones that are lost, but
having some sort of justice case that's what the Gonzava's
family wants.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
While Madison Mogan and Kihi Gonsalvez's parents also support the
decision to pursue the death penalty for Brian Coberger. Steve
Gonsalvez has been particularly vocal about his support for the
death penalty, saying it is one of the reasons he
moved to the state of Idaho.
Speaker 9 (22:20):
If you come after Mike Child, I'm going to do
everything in my power to make sure that you know
we come after you.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
Ethan Chapin's parents have not waited on the decision, even
when asked. Stacy Chapin, Ethan's mother, has said she will
not attend the trial and her focus is on her
family and keeping Ethan's memory alive.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
It doesn't change the outcome, even looking at ahead at
the trial coming up in October. Now, it does not
change the outcome of our family. And it's energy that
we need to put into healing our kids and getting
back to a new family dynamic and work in on that.
And so we let the prosecutors do their job and
we do our job in our family.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
Let's stop here for another break. The split over whether
or not to pursue the death penalty is not the
only issue dividing the parents of Kaylee, Madison, Xana, and Ethan.
Speaker 8 (23:26):
Meanwhile, work crews started preparing the house where the murders
happened for demolition.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
In February, after Coburger was arrested, the University of Idaho
announced it would demolish the blood soaked house at eleven
twenty two King Road. University president Scott Green called it
a healing step in the wake of a crime that
shook the community. The owner of the home donated it
to the school, and plans were made to turn the
lot into a park with a separate memorial to be
(23:52):
built on the University of Idaho campus. But now with
the trial of Brian Coburger is set to begin on
October second, some of the families of the four murdered
students are pressing the University of Idaho to halt its
plans to demolish the three story structure. Here is the
Consolvates family attorney Shannon Gray, talking to the Law and
Crime Network.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
A big piece of evidence that potentially a jury might
want to see it. I mean, there's sights and sounds
and viewpoints and angles. It's an odd shaped house where
witnesses were standing, where the potentially the defendant was standing.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
The off campus two thousand, one hundred and seventy five
square foot home has sat empty ever since the brutal murders.
On November thirteenth, twenty twenty two. Today it is protected
by a high metal fence and its lawn is covered
in weeds and tall grass. Forensic investigators finished combing through
the house long ago. Both the defense and the prosecution
(24:48):
have said they are finished with the house, which has
been flooded by a surge of true crime tourists who
regularly come to visit. The university and the neighbors want
the house torn down before students return to school in
August of twenty twenty three, but the family of Kili
Gonsalvez is urging the university to wait and say that
the school is ignoring their request.
Speaker 4 (25:09):
And we've just stressed just hold on, you know, wait
till the trial is over and then then do whatever
you want with the property. But they just they will
not listen, and it's frustrating. But if they think that
they're doing it on behalf of the community or the
victim's families, it's not true.
Speaker 7 (25:29):
Stephanie and Jeff And in the same week that there
were these legal fights over DNA evidence and the announcement
from the prosecution that they were in fact going to
pursue the death penalty, workmen began preparing the three story
house for demolition. They removed the remaining furniture and any
other personal items that were left behind after the murders,
(25:51):
and that's the end of it. It seems so strange
that they wouldn't wait until after the trial.
Speaker 6 (25:56):
Yeah, despite the prosecution and the defense saying they were
done with the home, Kaylee's family was worried that the
jury may want to see it at some point. They
said publicly they wanted it left in tax so the
jurors could walk around the property to better understand the
events of the morning of November thirteenth. The family wants
the house demolished eventually, but they're afraid that if it
happens before the trial, it may hurt the prosecution of Brankoberger.
Speaker 7 (26:17):
However, despite their concerns, the community apparently wants it gone
sooner than later. According to Shannon Gray, Kaylee's family lawyer,
the university basically said that we hear you, we get
your concerns, but we are in fact going to move
forward with the demolition because it's good for the community.
Speaker 6 (26:36):
I understand the feeling of wanting the site of such
a tragedy gone as soon as possible, but if even
just one juror is suayed in either direction by seeing
this house, then they need to leave it up. Justice
is the number one goal here, and it seems shortsighted
to potentially get rid of this huge part of the
case forever.
Speaker 7 (26:52):
We've seen this happen before. In fact, in our other podcast,
The piked In Massacre, we saw that the homes where
those murders happened were also infamously moved into a warehouse,
which caused lots of controversy. Can you imagine if they
had just torn them down. It seems like they would
be destroying an active crime scene. And also in that case,
(27:13):
the jurors all went to the location of the crimes.
That was a big part of the pregame to the trial.
Speaker 6 (27:20):
Yeah, Steh, that's a good point because as Coburger's movements
on the night in question are very relevant, it stands
to reason that the same sort of thing might happen
for this case.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
The next hearing in the case of Idaho versus Brian
Coburger is set for Tuesday, June twenty seventh. Many of
these issues could be settled after this important hearing, but
the trial could also be pushed back to provide more
time to decide these issues and because Brian Coberger's life
is now at stake. More on that next time. For
(27:57):
more information on the case and relevant photos, follow us
on Instagram at kat Underscore Studios. The Idaho Masacre is
produced by Stephanie Leidecker, 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
(28:21):
is a production of iHeart Radio and Kat's Studios. For
more podcasts like this, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Speaker 10 (28:34):
I'm Diana, you may know as Body Movin, My Friend
and I. John Green were featured in the Netflix documentary
Don't f with Cats. On our new podcast, True Crimes
of John and Deiana were turning our online investigative skills
to some of the most unexplained, unsolved, and most ignored cases.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Please say.
Speaker 6 (28:52):
Thirty three year old bride Again was shot dead.
Speaker 5 (28:55):
Gunned down in front of his two year old daughter.
Speaker 7 (28:57):
Detectives confirmed that it was at targeted attack.
Speaker 9 (29:00):
It appears to be an execution style assassination.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
This is very active, so we have to be careful.
Speaker 7 (29:06):
I've heard that there's a house that has some bodies
in the basement.
Speaker 1 (29:09):
I knew.
Speaker 10 (29:10):
I just knew something was wrong.
Speaker 6 (29:12):
Maybe there's something more sinister at play than just one
young girl going missing. If you know something, heard something,
please it's never too late.
Speaker 4 (29:22):
To do the right thing.
Speaker 10 (29:24):
This is true crimes with John and Deianna, the.
Speaker 6 (29:27):
Production of KT Studios and iHeartRadio.
Speaker 9 (29:31):
Justice is something that takes different shapes or formed
Popular Podcasts
1. The Podium
The Podium: An NBC Olympic and Paralympic podcast. Join us for insider coverage during the intense competition at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. In the run-up to the Opening Ceremony, we’ll bring you deep into the stories and events that have you know and those you'll be hard-pressed to forget.
2. In The Village
In The Village will take you into the most exclusive areas of the 2024 Paris Olympic Games to explore the daily life of athletes, complete with all the funny, mundane and unexpected things you learn off the field of play. Join Elizabeth Beisel as she sits down with Olympians each day in Paris.
3. iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2024 Olympics.