August 28, 2024 • 32 mins
We dive into your most pressing questions, offering insights, and discussions in this special episode dedicated entirely to answering listener questions.
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):
Every bit of evidence has been gathered, what on the
off chance that it has not, and that could be
the one piece that seals the fate of the case.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Either way, the big stunner of this case is that
these weren't people that necessarily even interface, not even once.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
This is the Idaho Massacre, a production of KAT Studios
and iHeartRadio, Season two, Episode twelve, Listener Questions. I'm Courtney Armstrong,
a producer at KAT Studios with Stephanie Leidecker and Gabe Castillo,
who you'll hear reading the questions. We wanted to take
(00:52):
this opportunity to answer some of the listener questions that
have come in over the course of the season, and
also to have a couple of listeners who were able
to make the time on the show so we can
speak with them. We're starting it off with page from Hobooken. First,
Stephanie high paid. Hi.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
So my question is why you think the nine one
one call hasn't been released yet.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
There can be a multitude of things at play, for example,
and Stephanie and I were talking about just this very
thing recently. And in another case we covered, which is
another high profile mass murder, the Pike did Masacer, which
is our other podcast. The nine one one call was
indeed released well before trial, well before the accused were known,
(01:41):
so that's something that can happen in this case. Obviously,
the nine on one call has not been released. There
have been articles people quoting that the prosecution will release
it quote when it's time, which means we may need
to wait until the actual trial to hear the nine
on one call.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Which is also interesting because I think this particular gular call,
maybe unlike other calls from other cases, does speak a
lot to the circumstances of how the bodies were found
and discovered. You know, there's been a couple of very
big questions about this timeline. One exactly who discovered the bodies.
(02:17):
We know that the bodies were discovered hours later, and
who that person was. All we know it to be
is a friend of Ethan's. From my understanding, I would
imagine if we hear their voice on the nine to
one one call, that would no longer be anonymous. And
they've been very tight lipped about releasing the information of
the nine one one call and also the surrounding roommates, right,
(02:40):
you could imagine that it must have been Mayhem when
they make this grizzly discovery. We've heard nine one one calls,
then there's nothing more harrowing or horrifying than hearing that
guttural sound. But we don't know.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Yeah, And just to add to that, within the cloud
of sort of confusion that Stephanie was speaking about, should
we believe and there's no reason not to. The timeline
of the murders, which places that happening between approximately four
am and four twenty am. The nine to one one
call was not placed until just a few moments before noon,
so that's eight hours later. And as Stephanie said, it's
(03:17):
not clear precisely who necessarily made the call, but we
know the call came from one of the surviving roommate's
cell phones, but it was not them who was initially
making connection with nine one one. It was initially reported
as an unconscious person or person's which seemed ought for
(03:40):
what was ultimately found. And it turns out that that
was actually the categorization that that nine one one call
center used to let police know this is in the
realm of someone unconscious versus say a fire or something else.
So it was a nine one one designation.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Which is such a really interesting point and page. It's
such a good question because it's such an unknowable thing, right,
But that particular nine to one one call would answer
so many questions. It would answer the who, the how,
the state of affairs at that time.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
Anything else you want to say, ask or wonder about.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
There was speculation that the fraternity across the street, the
two roommates went there and had some of the guys
go around the house to make sure that no one
was there, which I think might be another thing, Like
I think there was a lot of foot traffic in
the house before they called the police.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
That's really interesting.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
I have seen that as well, and I think it's
another thing that will come to bear. One thing that's
been reported is that there will quote multiple voices on
the nine one one call. So who exactly all of
those voices are we don't yet know, but soon to
find out.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Thank you, Thank you for coming on, of course, have
a good night, guys, Bye bye.
Speaker 4 (05:05):
In a previous episode, it was mentioned that one of
the journalists had gone down to Moscow, Idaho, and noted
that in and around the area they noticed a lot
of ring cameras in the neighborhood and from what we
know there has been footage that was released from a
ring camera, So my question is, do you think police
have a lot more information than what has been released?
(05:27):
Is this why we have yet to see the first
day of trial?
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Multilayered question, Do I think there's more we haven't seen?
I would bet any amount of money in the world
that there is. Do I bet that investigators on every
level canvassed the neighborhood and procured every piece of evidence
possible at the time. Absolutely, I do. Is that part
(05:53):
of the delay and trial? I mean, it's interesting and
I don't have this stat at the tip of my tongue,
but I know we have to it before the enormity
of digital and other evidence that has been gathered that
has to be gone through by the prosecution, by investigators,
and then when hands it over by the defense as well.
(06:17):
So I think that's part of it. Also, of course,
being a death penalty case that, as we've discussed, you know,
exacerbates a timeline because there's so many things that need
to be done correctly. But my knee jerk too, is
there more evidence from ring cameras we don't know about? Absolutely?
Speaker 2 (06:34):
I would really really hope so, because so much of
the evidence that we've been unpacking and has been set
into the public or the media, you know, really has
some circumstantial sides to it. So I would have to
imagine that there is a larger footprint from a technology
standpoint that frankly, we're just not aware of. It's amazing
(06:55):
that you can get away with any crime in today's
day and age, with the level of cameras and cell
phones and things that are tracking us real time. It's
actually pretty astounding that there was such a blind spot
if in fact there was, so I would assume that
we don't know this. But on the other side of that,
we have interviewed defense attorneys that would say, look, if
(07:16):
there was a ton of great information, they would be
yelling that from the rooftops and that would be front
page news, and we would be unpacking the fact that
there's a ring camera that has footage of someone else
other than the accused, Brian Coburger, walking into this murder house.
If that was the case, I think we would really
know about it. So, on the one hand, I completely
(07:38):
agree with you, Courtney, and on the other no, no,
some of this feels like a little bit of a
house of cards.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
That's a fair point because now that you say that,
thinking about the fact that even the identification of the
car took three times for the FBI, and this is
no dig on them, but it took three times to
publicly get it correct what the carr was, assuming, of course,
the accused is whose car that we should be looking for.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
And by the way, we don't even have an actual
idea of the person driving that car. So yes, he
was driving a white Lantra, and yes it was in
and around the area, and yes that is wildly suspicious,
no question. But where's the visual of him actually behind
the wheel? I have to assume that exists, or that
there is some way to get around the fact that
(08:28):
it doesn't appear that we.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
Have that it doesn't. I mean, it certainly hasn't been
public that or any glimpse to the public's knowledge of
a license plate. So I don't know. Maybe my bet
all the money in the world was a little a
little quick on the trigger.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
To that end. So let's unpack a little of that,
because there do seem to be these big ticket items
that gets discussed in the press, and we certainly have
discussed this here as well, Like these big items that make.
Speaker 5 (08:58):
It this no question, This is the guy, there's DNA,
and there's this car, and he was acting fishy and
bushy eyebrows and and and by the way, it does
all sort of seem like a pretty bad day and
a pretty bad morning and a pretty bad stretch frankly
(09:19):
of a lot of terrible things that had to happen
in the worst of timing for this accused Brian Coburger
to ultimately be accused of this crime. And then when
you take a step back, there are a lot of
these touch points that are like, what are the odds
of that happening?
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Number one? Having all of these images of this car
in and around the area, but no actual idea of
who's driving it or the license plate. I feel like
if I roll through a red light, not that I
ever have, I guarantee you that there's a ticket in
my mailbox waiting for me somehow. So big brother is
watching just not that morning, and then we talk about
(09:56):
this bushy eyebrow id but like, really, is is that.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
The big thing? So a question we did get speaking
of all the quote coincidences had to do with a
shooting that happened on the morning that Brian Coberger and
(10:21):
his father departed Washington to head on their cross country
drive to Pennsylvania. And the question comes from Amy from Warwick,
Rhode Island. Is there a connection between the swat shooting
of Brent Kopaka related to the Idaho massacre.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
I mean, it doesn't appear that there is, and we
have gone down this rabbit hole. It is shocking to
me that something that is violent, like holding somebody hostage,
let alone holding your roommate hostage, happening in and around
the time of these violent murders. But again, it does
seem as though that may have just been a coincidence.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
It does, and for listeners who aren't aware, this incident
happened on December fifteenth, twenty twenty two, so it was
about one month after the November thirteenth murders. A man
named Brent Kopaka was ultimately shot by Washington State Police
in Pullman, Washington, where the accused Brian Coburger lived, and
(11:25):
that's where people burned up the connection. Officers were alerted
that Kopaka was allegedly threatening the lives of his roommates.
There was a standoff, and according to reports, there were
unsuccessful negotiations, there was escalating behavior that ultimately ended in
the swat team killing Kopaka. This happened to happen on
(11:50):
that same morning of the drive, and in fact, when
the Coburger men were pulled over, Brian Coberger's father mentioned
the incident. Can hear it on the audio to one
of the officers.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Can you imagine? I can't. Can you imagine that you're
this father, You're getting pulled over and you're basically saying, wow,
I feel for you. Officers. A lot going on back there.
You're in a white a Landra and you're allegedly driving
the accused to be. But the police just happened to
pull the Coburger father son duo in this white car
(12:27):
driving across country. What are the odds that they get
pulled over two different times? That's been reported about so
many different ways here included. We were under the impression
because that's what we were told. We had early reported
that that was a very choreographed event that Brian Coberg
was being pulled over because the police were looking to
(12:48):
see if he had slashes on his hand, And now
we're hearing that that might not have been the case,
that it was just a really bad day behind the wheel.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
It seems like it really was artis this is to
swallow coincidence. It has since come to bear and hold on.
I have actually from the report here. The FBI has
maintained its agents were not involved in the stops, and
also the Sheriff's office in Indiana, who actually did the stops,
(13:21):
also have said publicly that this had nothing to do
with the murders whatsoever. It was a separate drug interdiction check. Yes,
it's been confirmed by both the agencies that the FBI
did not call for those stops. They did not know
what was going to happen. It was literally coincidence.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
And it was coincidence that on the same day that
Dad and son depart on their cross country escapade of
a trip, that there is also a hostage situation that
a nearby neighbor is shot down by authorities because he's
holding his roommate hostage, was suffering from mental illness, and
(14:03):
has many many layers to this story.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
All officials have said there is no connection, and in fact,
this is a really it's a good example of a
horrible thing which is when people do make connections because
of circumstance or because of coincidence when indeed there isn't
And actually Coopaka's family has spoken out, as have his
(14:28):
good friends, you know, saying that the speculation of his
involvement with the murders has marred his name. And he
was a vet, he earned a purple heart. And it's
just a tragedy in and of itself, and it's a
further tragedy of what can happen when people are linked,
whether in the news or via social media, without factual merit.
(14:54):
Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
a moment.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
This is from Marcella via Instagram. Do you think if
Brian had left his phone at home he would have
been arrested? Could the DNA and surveillance of his vehicle
have been enough?
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Court, you got to take this one. This is a
rabbit hole that I may never get out of. It's
an excellent question, and it's.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
A much debated question, and it's ultimately an opinion. Right,
So the DNA, and this is just my opinion. The
DNA is what tied Coberger to this investigation by his
name through his father. Once the DNA on the knife
sheath was found, and according to court documents, Coburger's DNA
(15:45):
is at least five point three seven octillion times more
likely to match DNA found at the scene than a
person unrelated to Coburger's father. So those are pretty strong
odds to overcome.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Those numbers are shocking, of course, and we read that
for the first time it was like, Oh, I guess
this guy did it. However, listen, some of this stuff
can be explained away. I know we covered this at
some point this season, But imagine that you're a knife
enthusiast when you go to these like a convention for
people who are fishermen and hunters, and there's a lot
(16:21):
of knives for sale there, and they're on display, and
you might be looking at the various knives for purchase,
and yeah, you want to pick it up, maybe handle
it a little bit, and in doing so, hey, guess what,
It's possible that a droplet of your DNA is now
under the sheath of that knife. And now you put
it back down, and this person goes about their merry way,
(16:43):
and that knife eventually gets sold to someone and it
winds up at a murder scene. That could be the connection.
It's such a small amount on the other side of it.
That is no question that the DNA that is found
on that she is connected to the accused Brian Coburger.
(17:04):
That's pretty damning.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
I mean, listen, I think these are all points that
will be brought up by the defense if I had
to guess, because you know they are valid. But yeah,
just to simply answer your question, Marcella, yeah, I do.
I do think that and the surveillance of his vehicle
would have been enough. Because the last thing I will
say on this, because you said, you know what if
(17:27):
we took the cell phone pings out of it, keep
in mind that during the time of the murders, as
we understand it, there was no reporting to the network
from Coburger's phone. His phone was turned off or was
somehow unavailable, whether it was under a rock or somehow.
(17:49):
It stopped pinging off of any cell phone towers at
two forty seven am, and then it did not go
back to being received by cell phone towers until four
forty eight. So in a way, there are no pings
at that time.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
What a coincidence, right, That would be hard to throw
under the coincidence box. I mean, I guess that's what
is so interesting about this case. Yes, while some of
these pieces of the puzzle do in fact seem circumstantial
when when looked out individually, I guess that's the whole point,
right You dump them all in a bag and you're like,
that's a lot of circumstantial evidence in one bag.
Speaker 4 (18:31):
We do have a follow up question from Marcella. She
unfortunately couldn't join us today, but her follow up question is,
I believe the killer was watching the house before he entered.
Do you think he entered the house after the food
was delivered in hopes that they would pin it on
the food delivery driver.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Great question, by the way, I mean we have discussed this,
we really have. The difference is though here you would
have to be predicting that food would be ordered and
therefore delivered at a certain time to ping it on
the guy, unless they always received food at the same time,
which is not untotally unheard of. I would imagine in
(19:08):
a college party house when you're out kind of late,
but it's sort of a leap. That would be a
lot of premeditation. Or maybe the person who committed this
crime just went forward after they saw there was somebody
exiting and entering the house.
Speaker 4 (19:26):
And next up is another listener question. Here's Maya from Colorado.
Speaker 6 (19:31):
So my question is, like, let's say they ordered it
from Uber Eats. If he is an Uber Eats driver,
which I don't know what if he is, he would
get a notification that at that address they ordered food,
so he could be aware that they ordered food and
that it was going to be arriving at so and
so time.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
It seems like for that to be the case, then
the murderer is would then have to themselves be a driver. Correct.
I love that question, but I think that actually goes
back to the fact that there was in Coberger's case,
his phone was unresponsive to any cell phone towers. So
actually I think that because of that reason that that
(20:09):
couldn't be the case.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
David from Massachusetts asks via email, do you think the
accused committed the murders that night knowing that he was
going home for Thanksgiving and had a reason to make
a cross country road trip, thinking that might be enough
to make the police look a different direction.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
This goes to knowing what's in someone's mind, which I
do not, but the thought of knowing that fairly soon
after a crime is committed, you will have three thousand
miles worth of distance between yourself and the crime scene.
That certainly could be something that comes into play, especially
(20:50):
the alleged is a criminology student.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
Yeah, I'm going out on a limb here, so to
take this with a grain of nothingness, But yes, of
course he was going home for the holidays, and that
there would be a break, and that that was a
kind of a nice way to exit the worst situation ever.
I always thought it was slightly interesting that his birthday
is a week later than the murders, so he would
be turning twenty nine in one week. So you commit
(21:17):
a murder of four, hop in a car with your dad,
drive across country, get pulled over twice, and then go
home to your mom, who's cooking for you and maybe
preparing for your birthday celebration as you're oddly unpacking any
evidence from your car, allegedly in putting things into baggies
because you're wearing plastic gloves. I don't know. It's just
(21:40):
so wild it seems impossible, but or does it.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
It's a follow up question, why did he coburger let
one roommate live after she had seen him? And the
murders were so violent and seemed so personal that the
accused doesn't really have any connection to the victims. Why
do you think that he made them look so violent?
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Well, I think I'm going to jump in real quickly
here because I think this is the cross section of
this entire case, and what is so compelling and maddening
about it is, yes, it feels so intimate, but yes,
there's no connection. And I guess that's the real look
at where we live today with social media is making
us feel so connected, not just social media. That's not
(22:24):
an attack on all things media obviously, but just we're
all really connected to people that we actually don't really
have access to. And you know, we can look at
that till we're blue in the face. But I think
that's probably what's the big stunner of this case is that, yeah,
these weren't people that necessarily even interface, not even once necessarily,
(22:46):
but probably had some cross section on their phones.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
It's staggering, And I think you're right, Stephanie, so David
from a situate, you have your finger on the pulse
of what is so compelled at the center of this case.
And it's so hard to imagine why whomever committed these
murders allowed an eyewitness and an ear witness to remain.
(23:14):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
Thank god they did right, Thank god they did underscore
exclamation point in bold letters, shout it from the rooftop.
Thank goodness, the remaining roommates were spared. It's a stunner,
right to.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Your point, David, that the lack of connection that both
the prosecution and the defense have stipulated for the court
record that previously it had been thought that there was
some stalking personally of the victims, and they have both
agreed that that was not the case. So yeah, we
(23:54):
will see this all come to bear. Let's stop here
for another break. We'll be back in a moment. We
have waded from Baltimore calling in, Hello, Wade. I was
(24:15):
wondering if you all feel that the house demolition may
alter the verdict.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
Yeah, if I'm guilty, I want that house demolished.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
But if you're not guilty, wouldn't you also potentially want
it there for any shred of evidence that could be
found to exonerate you and to then implicate the person
who actually did it.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Yes, if I'm guilty, I want it gone because there's
no evidence to be had. But if I'm not guilty,
of course, yes, You're absolutely right. You want to be
able to make sure that there could be some proof
and some new evidence discovered.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
To specifically answer this. Wead I felt different after speaking
with a bunch of art different experts and hearing their
points of view, because my knee jerk goes that, Okay,
this has been gone over. It has been gone over thoroughly,
and there are three D pictures and every bit of
evidence has been gathered. What on the off chance that
(25:10):
it has not, and that could be the one piece
that seals the fate of the case either way. So yeah,
I think it could be affected by the demolition. Over
the course of the season, we've gotten a lot of
listener questions and we appreciate all of them. And I
will say one of the most commented on episodes was
(25:35):
about Howard Bloom's book When the Night Comes Falling, and
the questions are all valid, all of them are, and
it was a little bit controversial. People had different perspectives
they walked away from the episode with, and I think
our answer is, of course, we were going to interview
the person who comes out with the book that's on
(25:57):
the topic of what we're discussing. It would have been
odd for us, honestly, not to is it. You know,
it's a big moment in time for the case, and
we want to glean from all perspectives and let all
different avenues of information flow into us and out to you.
So that's the main thing I would say about it
(26:19):
is it was a It was a touch point in
this timeline, and we thought it was important to note it.
Speaker 4 (26:30):
Sheila, via email has asked, I wonder if Brian Koberger
is listening to you. It ennerves me a bit. Have
you ever thought about that?
Speaker 1 (26:40):
Well, now that unnerves me a bit too, because until
this moment I have not what a question.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
I mean, think about it.
Speaker 6 (26:50):
Though.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
This guy is by himself in a cell in the
basement of the courthouse with probably not too too much
going on. It's been reported that he watches the news
through the bars of his cell and that he is
interested in the coverage. No, I don't like it, but
I will say this if they accused Brian Coburger, if
(27:11):
he has a burning listener question, we would like to
hear it.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
Last question, since it's the end of the season, is
there anything else you guys want to say? Any last
thoughts for the listeners?
Speaker 2 (27:28):
I would say, sometimes our contributors become a part of
the headlines themselves because what they're reporting on catches wind
in the media. And it's worth noting that we get
every single thing legally vetted by First Amendment right lawyers,
So we have to take a lot of stuff out.
You'd be shocked about all the things that we can air,
(27:49):
because look, we don't want to accuse anybody of murder.
We don't want to interrupt a police investigation, and we
don't want to get it wrong. So the spirit of
this has been to curate information because there's been so
much misinformation. The big ticket items, not only this season,
but just seemingly in the case in general, is the
vehicle and then the fact that he's not IDD in
(28:10):
the vehicle DNA evidence. Hard to explain that away, except
it's so little DNA evidence. Does that make that hard
to stick? And then there's odd, creepy, weird behavior. We've
heard all of those words. Those are not our words.
That's what we've been told. Does having an odd personality
make you a killer? Of course not. We really just
(28:34):
do not know. And I think the roommates, the first responders,
the friends that had to call nine to one one.
Those are big pieces of the puzzle, and we just
don't have the answers, and we respect their privacy, and
we know quite obviously why authorities are keeping that information
very close to the vest they have to. There's been
(28:54):
so much back and forth about sharing of evidence in
the defense saying that the prosecution is holding back evidence,
and you know, look, we just saw that not too
too long ago with the Alec Baldwin trial. Suddenly it
appeared that the prosecution was holding onto something that was
really relevant. Again, different cases. I'm not making any comparison
and just simply this evidence piece of it, right, It's
(29:15):
kind of an interesting nuance to this whole thing. And
I think that's what's also really both scary and really
interesting about this case. We've talked to so many people.
When you're in front of one person, you're like, that
totally makes sense, and then the next person's like, well,
Devil's advocate, and I'm like, good point, that makes sense,
Like there's a three sixty about good points. So I
(29:36):
guess it depends where you really want to throw your
heart into it. But our hearts are not the thing
that are supposed to keep the justice wheel moving it's
supposed to be facts, and in this case it's it's
pretty plentiful on both sides. I'm more confused than ever.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
I think part of our collective goal in this season
of the podcast was, it's a very specific moment time.
The arrest has been made of the one suspect in
the case that happened a while ago. The trial has
not yet begun, However, there has been so much, so
(30:14):
many facts, so many feelings, and we wanted to kind
of give that three p sixty view of what are
the touchstones of what's going on now, what is the
importance of these pre trial motions, and so it was really,
I think for us, a really specific look at a
specific moment in time and to try and responsibly gather
(30:39):
and present to you the information that exists to the
best of our ability. The trial is slated to happen
next summer, that summer twenty twenty five, and we will
be keeping very close tabs on everything going on in
the meantime. As new information arises, we will be back
with new episodes and greatly look forward to the time.
Speaker 2 (31:01):
And also to listeners who have reached out with information
and tips so interesting and helpful and we really do
try to address all of them, so please keep it coming.
And I want to make sure that we touch on
the point that because oftentimes we're always talking about the
case and the forensics and unpacking the legal process and
(31:24):
looking at jurisdictions, and our goal is to unpack and
offer all sides, and sometimes we could lose the reality
of the four victims that we're talking about and Xanna, Madison,
Ethan and Kayley. We just really want to make sure
that anybody listening ourselves included, that we're all taking a
(31:44):
moment to send healing thoughts to their families and to
know that we are fighting with them alongside in our hearts,
and that the goal to find justice is one that
we all share. To make sure that everyone knows that
collectively we're all interested in them and want them to
(32:05):
feel supported.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
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 Toois, Music by Jared Aston.
The Idaho Masker is a production of Kat's Studios and iHeartRadio.
(32:33):
For more podcasts like this, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Every bit of evidence has been gathered, what on the
off chance that it has not, and that could be
the one piece that seals the fate of the case.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Either way, the big stunner of this case is that
these weren't people that necessarily even interface, not even once.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
This is the Idaho Massacre, a production of KAT Studios
and iHeartRadio, Season two, Episode twelve, Listener Questions. I'm Courtney Armstrong,
a producer at KAT Studios with Stephanie Leidecker and Gabe Castillo,
who you'll hear reading the questions. We wanted to take
(00:52):
this opportunity to answer some of the listener questions that
have come in over the course of the season, and
also to have a couple of listeners who were able
to make the time on the show so we can
speak with them. We're starting it off with page from Hobooken. First,
Stephanie high paid. Hi.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
So my question is why you think the nine one
one call hasn't been released yet.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
There can be a multitude of things at play, for example,
and Stephanie and I were talking about just this very
thing recently. And in another case we covered, which is
another high profile mass murder, the Pike did Masacer, which
is our other podcast. The nine one one call was
indeed released well before trial, well before the accused were known,
(01:41):
so that's something that can happen in this case. Obviously,
the nine on one call has not been released. There
have been articles people quoting that the prosecution will release
it quote when it's time, which means we may need
to wait until the actual trial to hear the nine
on one call.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Which is also interesting because I think this particular gular call,
maybe unlike other calls from other cases, does speak a
lot to the circumstances of how the bodies were found
and discovered. You know, there's been a couple of very
big questions about this timeline. One exactly who discovered the bodies.
(02:17):
We know that the bodies were discovered hours later, and
who that person was. All we know it to be
is a friend of Ethan's. From my understanding, I would
imagine if we hear their voice on the nine to
one one call, that would no longer be anonymous. And
they've been very tight lipped about releasing the information of
the nine one one call and also the surrounding roommates, right,
(02:40):
you could imagine that it must have been Mayhem when
they make this grizzly discovery. We've heard nine one one calls,
then there's nothing more harrowing or horrifying than hearing that
guttural sound. But we don't know.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Yeah, And just to add to that, within the cloud
of sort of confusion that Stephanie was speaking about, should
we believe and there's no reason not to. The timeline
of the murders, which places that happening between approximately four
am and four twenty am. The nine to one one
call was not placed until just a few moments before noon,
so that's eight hours later. And as Stephanie said, it's
(03:17):
not clear precisely who necessarily made the call, but we
know the call came from one of the surviving roommate's
cell phones, but it was not them who was initially
making connection with nine one one. It was initially reported
as an unconscious person or person's which seemed ought for
(03:40):
what was ultimately found. And it turns out that that
was actually the categorization that that nine one one call
center used to let police know this is in the
realm of someone unconscious versus say a fire or something else.
So it was a nine one one designation.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Which is such a really interesting point and page. It's
such a good question because it's such an unknowable thing, right,
But that particular nine to one one call would answer
so many questions. It would answer the who, the how,
the state of affairs at that time.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
Anything else you want to say, ask or wonder about.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
There was speculation that the fraternity across the street, the
two roommates went there and had some of the guys
go around the house to make sure that no one
was there, which I think might be another thing, Like
I think there was a lot of foot traffic in
the house before they called the police.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
That's really interesting.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
I have seen that as well, and I think it's
another thing that will come to bear. One thing that's
been reported is that there will quote multiple voices on
the nine one one call. So who exactly all of
those voices are we don't yet know, but soon to
find out.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Thank you, Thank you for coming on, of course, have
a good night, guys, Bye bye.
Speaker 4 (05:05):
In a previous episode, it was mentioned that one of
the journalists had gone down to Moscow, Idaho, and noted
that in and around the area they noticed a lot
of ring cameras in the neighborhood and from what we
know there has been footage that was released from a
ring camera, So my question is, do you think police
have a lot more information than what has been released?
(05:27):
Is this why we have yet to see the first
day of trial?
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Multilayered question, Do I think there's more we haven't seen?
I would bet any amount of money in the world
that there is. Do I bet that investigators on every
level canvassed the neighborhood and procured every piece of evidence
possible at the time. Absolutely, I do. Is that part
(05:53):
of the delay and trial? I mean, it's interesting and
I don't have this stat at the tip of my tongue,
but I know we have to it before the enormity
of digital and other evidence that has been gathered that
has to be gone through by the prosecution, by investigators,
and then when hands it over by the defense as well.
(06:17):
So I think that's part of it. Also, of course,
being a death penalty case that, as we've discussed, you know,
exacerbates a timeline because there's so many things that need
to be done correctly. But my knee jerk too, is
there more evidence from ring cameras we don't know about? Absolutely?
Speaker 2 (06:34):
I would really really hope so, because so much of
the evidence that we've been unpacking and has been set
into the public or the media, you know, really has
some circumstantial sides to it. So I would have to
imagine that there is a larger footprint from a technology
standpoint that frankly, we're just not aware of. It's amazing
(06:55):
that you can get away with any crime in today's
day and age, with the level of cameras and cell
phones and things that are tracking us real time. It's
actually pretty astounding that there was such a blind spot
if in fact there was, so I would assume that
we don't know this. But on the other side of that,
we have interviewed defense attorneys that would say, look, if
(07:16):
there was a ton of great information, they would be
yelling that from the rooftops and that would be front
page news, and we would be unpacking the fact that
there's a ring camera that has footage of someone else
other than the accused, Brian Coburger, walking into this murder house.
If that was the case, I think we would really
know about it. So, on the one hand, I completely
(07:38):
agree with you, Courtney, and on the other no, no,
some of this feels like a little bit of a
house of cards.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
That's a fair point because now that you say that,
thinking about the fact that even the identification of the
car took three times for the FBI, and this is
no dig on them, but it took three times to
publicly get it correct what the carr was, assuming, of course,
the accused is whose car that we should be looking for.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
And by the way, we don't even have an actual
idea of the person driving that car. So yes, he
was driving a white Lantra, and yes it was in
and around the area, and yes that is wildly suspicious,
no question. But where's the visual of him actually behind
the wheel? I have to assume that exists, or that
there is some way to get around the fact that
(08:28):
it doesn't appear that we.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
Have that it doesn't. I mean, it certainly hasn't been
public that or any glimpse to the public's knowledge of
a license plate. So I don't know. Maybe my bet
all the money in the world was a little a
little quick on the trigger.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
To that end. So let's unpack a little of that,
because there do seem to be these big ticket items
that gets discussed in the press, and we certainly have
discussed this here as well, Like these big items that make.
Speaker 5 (08:58):
It this no question, This is the guy, there's DNA,
and there's this car, and he was acting fishy and
bushy eyebrows and and and by the way, it does
all sort of seem like a pretty bad day and
a pretty bad morning and a pretty bad stretch frankly
(09:19):
of a lot of terrible things that had to happen
in the worst of timing for this accused Brian Coburger
to ultimately be accused of this crime. And then when
you take a step back, there are a lot of
these touch points that are like, what are the odds
of that happening?
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Number one? Having all of these images of this car
in and around the area, but no actual idea of
who's driving it or the license plate. I feel like
if I roll through a red light, not that I
ever have, I guarantee you that there's a ticket in
my mailbox waiting for me somehow. So big brother is
watching just not that morning, and then we talk about
(09:56):
this bushy eyebrow id but like, really, is is that.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
The big thing? So a question we did get speaking
of all the quote coincidences had to do with a
shooting that happened on the morning that Brian Coberger and
(10:21):
his father departed Washington to head on their cross country
drive to Pennsylvania. And the question comes from Amy from Warwick,
Rhode Island. Is there a connection between the swat shooting
of Brent Kopaka related to the Idaho massacre.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
I mean, it doesn't appear that there is, and we
have gone down this rabbit hole. It is shocking to
me that something that is violent, like holding somebody hostage,
let alone holding your roommate hostage, happening in and around
the time of these violent murders. But again, it does
seem as though that may have just been a coincidence.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
It does, and for listeners who aren't aware, this incident
happened on December fifteenth, twenty twenty two, so it was
about one month after the November thirteenth murders. A man
named Brent Kopaka was ultimately shot by Washington State Police
in Pullman, Washington, where the accused Brian Coburger lived, and
(11:25):
that's where people burned up the connection. Officers were alerted
that Kopaka was allegedly threatening the lives of his roommates.
There was a standoff, and according to reports, there were
unsuccessful negotiations, there was escalating behavior that ultimately ended in
the swat team killing Kopaka. This happened to happen on
(11:50):
that same morning of the drive, and in fact, when
the Coburger men were pulled over, Brian Coberger's father mentioned
the incident. Can hear it on the audio to one
of the officers.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Can you imagine? I can't. Can you imagine that you're
this father, You're getting pulled over and you're basically saying, wow,
I feel for you. Officers. A lot going on back there.
You're in a white a Landra and you're allegedly driving
the accused to be. But the police just happened to
pull the Coburger father son duo in this white car
(12:27):
driving across country. What are the odds that they get
pulled over two different times? That's been reported about so
many different ways here included. We were under the impression
because that's what we were told. We had early reported
that that was a very choreographed event that Brian Coberg
was being pulled over because the police were looking to
(12:48):
see if he had slashes on his hand, And now
we're hearing that that might not have been the case,
that it was just a really bad day behind the wheel.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
It seems like it really was artis this is to
swallow coincidence. It has since come to bear and hold on.
I have actually from the report here. The FBI has
maintained its agents were not involved in the stops, and
also the Sheriff's office in Indiana, who actually did the stops,
(13:21):
also have said publicly that this had nothing to do
with the murders whatsoever. It was a separate drug interdiction check. Yes,
it's been confirmed by both the agencies that the FBI
did not call for those stops. They did not know
what was going to happen. It was literally coincidence.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
And it was coincidence that on the same day that
Dad and son depart on their cross country escapade of
a trip, that there is also a hostage situation that
a nearby neighbor is shot down by authorities because he's
holding his roommate hostage, was suffering from mental illness, and
(14:03):
has many many layers to this story.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
All officials have said there is no connection, and in fact,
this is a really it's a good example of a
horrible thing which is when people do make connections because
of circumstance or because of coincidence when indeed there isn't
And actually Coopaka's family has spoken out, as have his
(14:28):
good friends, you know, saying that the speculation of his
involvement with the murders has marred his name. And he
was a vet, he earned a purple heart. And it's
just a tragedy in and of itself, and it's a
further tragedy of what can happen when people are linked,
whether in the news or via social media, without factual merit.
(14:54):
Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
a moment.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
This is from Marcella via Instagram. Do you think if
Brian had left his phone at home he would have
been arrested? Could the DNA and surveillance of his vehicle
have been enough?
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Court, you got to take this one. This is a
rabbit hole that I may never get out of. It's
an excellent question, and it's.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
A much debated question, and it's ultimately an opinion. Right,
So the DNA, and this is just my opinion. The
DNA is what tied Coberger to this investigation by his
name through his father. Once the DNA on the knife
sheath was found, and according to court documents, Coburger's DNA
(15:45):
is at least five point three seven octillion times more
likely to match DNA found at the scene than a
person unrelated to Coburger's father. So those are pretty strong
odds to overcome.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Those numbers are shocking, of course, and we read that
for the first time it was like, Oh, I guess
this guy did it. However, listen, some of this stuff
can be explained away. I know we covered this at
some point this season, But imagine that you're a knife
enthusiast when you go to these like a convention for
people who are fishermen and hunters, and there's a lot
(16:21):
of knives for sale there, and they're on display, and
you might be looking at the various knives for purchase,
and yeah, you want to pick it up, maybe handle
it a little bit, and in doing so, hey, guess what,
It's possible that a droplet of your DNA is now
under the sheath of that knife. And now you put
it back down, and this person goes about their merry way,
(16:43):
and that knife eventually gets sold to someone and it
winds up at a murder scene. That could be the connection.
It's such a small amount on the other side of it.
That is no question that the DNA that is found
on that she is connected to the accused Brian Coburger.
(17:04):
That's pretty damning.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
I mean, listen, I think these are all points that
will be brought up by the defense if I had
to guess, because you know they are valid. But yeah,
just to simply answer your question, Marcella, yeah, I do.
I do think that and the surveillance of his vehicle
would have been enough. Because the last thing I will
say on this, because you said, you know what if
(17:27):
we took the cell phone pings out of it, keep
in mind that during the time of the murders, as
we understand it, there was no reporting to the network
from Coburger's phone. His phone was turned off or was
somehow unavailable, whether it was under a rock or somehow.
(17:49):
It stopped pinging off of any cell phone towers at
two forty seven am, and then it did not go
back to being received by cell phone towers until four
forty eight. So in a way, there are no pings
at that time.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
What a coincidence, right, That would be hard to throw
under the coincidence box. I mean, I guess that's what
is so interesting about this case. Yes, while some of
these pieces of the puzzle do in fact seem circumstantial
when when looked out individually, I guess that's the whole point,
right You dump them all in a bag and you're like,
that's a lot of circumstantial evidence in one bag.
Speaker 4 (18:31):
We do have a follow up question from Marcella. She
unfortunately couldn't join us today, but her follow up question is,
I believe the killer was watching the house before he entered.
Do you think he entered the house after the food
was delivered in hopes that they would pin it on
the food delivery driver.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Great question, by the way, I mean we have discussed this,
we really have. The difference is though here you would
have to be predicting that food would be ordered and
therefore delivered at a certain time to ping it on
the guy, unless they always received food at the same time,
which is not untotally unheard of. I would imagine in
(19:08):
a college party house when you're out kind of late,
but it's sort of a leap. That would be a
lot of premeditation. Or maybe the person who committed this
crime just went forward after they saw there was somebody
exiting and entering the house.
Speaker 4 (19:26):
And next up is another listener question. Here's Maya from Colorado.
Speaker 6 (19:31):
So my question is, like, let's say they ordered it
from Uber Eats. If he is an Uber Eats driver,
which I don't know what if he is, he would
get a notification that at that address they ordered food,
so he could be aware that they ordered food and
that it was going to be arriving at so and
so time.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
It seems like for that to be the case, then
the murderer is would then have to themselves be a driver. Correct.
I love that question, but I think that actually goes
back to the fact that there was in Coberger's case,
his phone was unresponsive to any cell phone towers. So
actually I think that because of that reason that that
(20:09):
couldn't be the case.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
David from Massachusetts asks via email, do you think the
accused committed the murders that night knowing that he was
going home for Thanksgiving and had a reason to make
a cross country road trip, thinking that might be enough
to make the police look a different direction.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
This goes to knowing what's in someone's mind, which I
do not, but the thought of knowing that fairly soon
after a crime is committed, you will have three thousand
miles worth of distance between yourself and the crime scene.
That certainly could be something that comes into play, especially
(20:50):
the alleged is a criminology student.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
Yeah, I'm going out on a limb here, so to
take this with a grain of nothingness, But yes, of
course he was going home for the holidays, and that
there would be a break, and that that was a
kind of a nice way to exit the worst situation ever.
I always thought it was slightly interesting that his birthday
is a week later than the murders, so he would
be turning twenty nine in one week. So you commit
(21:17):
a murder of four, hop in a car with your dad,
drive across country, get pulled over twice, and then go
home to your mom, who's cooking for you and maybe
preparing for your birthday celebration as you're oddly unpacking any
evidence from your car, allegedly in putting things into baggies
because you're wearing plastic gloves. I don't know. It's just
(21:40):
so wild it seems impossible, but or does it.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
It's a follow up question, why did he coburger let
one roommate live after she had seen him? And the
murders were so violent and seemed so personal that the
accused doesn't really have any connection to the victims. Why
do you think that he made them look so violent?
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Well, I think I'm going to jump in real quickly
here because I think this is the cross section of
this entire case, and what is so compelling and maddening
about it is, yes, it feels so intimate, but yes,
there's no connection. And I guess that's the real look
at where we live today with social media is making
us feel so connected, not just social media. That's not
(22:24):
an attack on all things media obviously, but just we're
all really connected to people that we actually don't really
have access to. And you know, we can look at
that till we're blue in the face. But I think
that's probably what's the big stunner of this case is that, yeah,
these weren't people that necessarily even interface, not even once necessarily,
(22:46):
but probably had some cross section on their phones.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
It's staggering, And I think you're right, Stephanie, so David
from a situate, you have your finger on the pulse
of what is so compelled at the center of this case.
And it's so hard to imagine why whomever committed these
murders allowed an eyewitness and an ear witness to remain.
(23:14):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
Thank god they did right, Thank god they did underscore
exclamation point in bold letters, shout it from the rooftop.
Thank goodness, the remaining roommates were spared. It's a stunner,
right to.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Your point, David, that the lack of connection that both
the prosecution and the defense have stipulated for the court
record that previously it had been thought that there was
some stalking personally of the victims, and they have both
agreed that that was not the case. So yeah, we
(23:54):
will see this all come to bear. Let's stop here
for another break. We'll be back in a moment. We
have waded from Baltimore calling in, Hello, Wade. I was
(24:15):
wondering if you all feel that the house demolition may
alter the verdict.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
Yeah, if I'm guilty, I want that house demolished.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
But if you're not guilty, wouldn't you also potentially want
it there for any shred of evidence that could be
found to exonerate you and to then implicate the person
who actually did it.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Yes, if I'm guilty, I want it gone because there's
no evidence to be had. But if I'm not guilty,
of course, yes, You're absolutely right. You want to be
able to make sure that there could be some proof
and some new evidence discovered.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
To specifically answer this. Wead I felt different after speaking
with a bunch of art different experts and hearing their
points of view, because my knee jerk goes that, Okay,
this has been gone over. It has been gone over thoroughly,
and there are three D pictures and every bit of
evidence has been gathered. What on the off chance that
(25:10):
it has not, and that could be the one piece
that seals the fate of the case either way. So yeah,
I think it could be affected by the demolition. Over
the course of the season, we've gotten a lot of
listener questions and we appreciate all of them. And I
will say one of the most commented on episodes was
(25:35):
about Howard Bloom's book When the Night Comes Falling, and
the questions are all valid, all of them are, and
it was a little bit controversial. People had different perspectives
they walked away from the episode with, and I think
our answer is, of course, we were going to interview
the person who comes out with the book that's on
(25:57):
the topic of what we're discussing. It would have been
odd for us, honestly, not to is it. You know,
it's a big moment in time for the case, and
we want to glean from all perspectives and let all
different avenues of information flow into us and out to you.
So that's the main thing I would say about it
(26:19):
is it was a It was a touch point in
this timeline, and we thought it was important to note it.
Speaker 4 (26:30):
Sheila, via email has asked, I wonder if Brian Koberger
is listening to you. It ennerves me a bit. Have
you ever thought about that?
Speaker 1 (26:40):
Well, now that unnerves me a bit too, because until
this moment I have not what a question.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
I mean, think about it.
Speaker 6 (26:50):
Though.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
This guy is by himself in a cell in the
basement of the courthouse with probably not too too much
going on. It's been reported that he watches the news
through the bars of his cell and that he is
interested in the coverage. No, I don't like it, but
I will say this if they accused Brian Coburger, if
(27:11):
he has a burning listener question, we would like to
hear it.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
Last question, since it's the end of the season, is
there anything else you guys want to say? Any last
thoughts for the listeners?
Speaker 2 (27:28):
I would say, sometimes our contributors become a part of
the headlines themselves because what they're reporting on catches wind
in the media. And it's worth noting that we get
every single thing legally vetted by First Amendment right lawyers,
So we have to take a lot of stuff out.
You'd be shocked about all the things that we can air,
(27:49):
because look, we don't want to accuse anybody of murder.
We don't want to interrupt a police investigation, and we
don't want to get it wrong. So the spirit of
this has been to curate information because there's been so
much misinformation. The big ticket items, not only this season,
but just seemingly in the case in general, is the
vehicle and then the fact that he's not IDD in
(28:10):
the vehicle DNA evidence. Hard to explain that away, except
it's so little DNA evidence. Does that make that hard
to stick? And then there's odd, creepy, weird behavior. We've
heard all of those words. Those are not our words.
That's what we've been told. Does having an odd personality
make you a killer? Of course not. We really just
(28:34):
do not know. And I think the roommates, the first responders,
the friends that had to call nine to one one.
Those are big pieces of the puzzle, and we just
don't have the answers, and we respect their privacy, and
we know quite obviously why authorities are keeping that information
very close to the vest they have to. There's been
(28:54):
so much back and forth about sharing of evidence in
the defense saying that the prosecution is holding back evidence,
and you know, look, we just saw that not too
too long ago with the Alec Baldwin trial. Suddenly it
appeared that the prosecution was holding onto something that was
really relevant. Again, different cases. I'm not making any comparison
and just simply this evidence piece of it, right, It's
(29:15):
kind of an interesting nuance to this whole thing. And
I think that's what's also really both scary and really
interesting about this case. We've talked to so many people.
When you're in front of one person, you're like, that
totally makes sense, and then the next person's like, well,
Devil's advocate, and I'm like, good point, that makes sense,
Like there's a three sixty about good points. So I
(29:36):
guess it depends where you really want to throw your
heart into it. But our hearts are not the thing
that are supposed to keep the justice wheel moving it's
supposed to be facts, and in this case it's it's
pretty plentiful on both sides. I'm more confused than ever.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
I think part of our collective goal in this season
of the podcast was, it's a very specific moment time.
The arrest has been made of the one suspect in
the case that happened a while ago. The trial has
not yet begun, However, there has been so much, so
(30:14):
many facts, so many feelings, and we wanted to kind
of give that three p sixty view of what are
the touchstones of what's going on now, what is the
importance of these pre trial motions, and so it was really,
I think for us, a really specific look at a
specific moment in time and to try and responsibly gather
(30:39):
and present to you the information that exists to the
best of our ability. The trial is slated to happen
next summer, that summer twenty twenty five, and we will
be keeping very close tabs on everything going on in
the meantime. As new information arises, we will be back
with new episodes and greatly look forward to the time.
Speaker 2 (31:01):
And also to listeners who have reached out with information
and tips so interesting and helpful and we really do
try to address all of them, so please keep it coming.
And I want to make sure that we touch on
the point that because oftentimes we're always talking about the
case and the forensics and unpacking the legal process and
(31:24):
looking at jurisdictions, and our goal is to unpack and
offer all sides, and sometimes we could lose the reality
of the four victims that we're talking about and Xanna, Madison,
Ethan and Kayley. We just really want to make sure
that anybody listening ourselves included, that we're all taking a
(31:44):
moment to send healing thoughts to their families and to
know that we are fighting with them alongside in our hearts,
and that the goal to find justice is one that
we all share. To make sure that everyone knows that
collectively we're all interested in them and want them to
(32:05):
feel supported.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
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 Toois, Music by Jared Aston.
The Idaho Masker is a production of Kat's Studios and iHeartRadio.
(32:33):
For more podcasts like this, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Hosts And Creators
Stephanie Lydecker
Courtney Armstrong
Jeff Shane
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
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
This is Gavin Newsom
I’m Gavin Newsom. And, it’s time to have a conversation. It’s time to have honest discussions with people that agree AND disagree with us. It's time to answer the hard questions and be open to criticism, and debate without demeaning or dehumanizing one other. I will be doing just that on my new podcast – inviting people on who I deeply disagree with to talk about the most pressing issues of the day and inviting listeners from around the country to join the conversation. THIS is Gavin Newsom.