June 19, 2024 • 31 mins
In the wake of one of the largest investigations in the state of Idaho, all sides are heated over the fate of the scene of the crime: Is it a stain on Moscow that should be demolished or the biggest piece of evidence that should stay standing?
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 (00:05):
In this Idaho murder case, the decision was made right
or wrong to demolish that house. Do you have an
opinion on that.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
I can see no viable, tangible reason for that home
to be destroyed before the trial is complete.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
Is there an immediacy for a jury going to a house?
Psychologically speaking, I would say yes.
Speaker 4 (00:41):
This is the Idaho Massacre. A production of KAT Studios
and iHeartRadio, Season two, Episode two, Murder House. I'm Courtney Armstrong,
producer at KATI Studios with Stephanie Leidecker and Gabe Castillo.
We were reminded last episode of the details of the
(01:04):
grotesque horror that occurred at eleven twenty two King Road
on November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, when Madison Mogan, Kaylie Gonzalvez,
Ethan Chapin, and Xana Kernodle lost their lives. After the murders,
it was seen by some as a forensic scene or
a tomb, or a macabre reminder of the horrors that
(01:26):
happened there. But before all that, the house, located just
off campus and on fraternity Row, was full of life.
It was a party house where friends gathered. Here's on
air reporter Antonette Levy, who has covered the case on
the ground since the very beginning. I asked her to
(01:47):
describe the house and what it felt like standing in
front of it.
Speaker 5 (01:51):
This house makes me sad, and it made me sad
because it was frozen in time. I'm standing there looking
at the window and there's a pair of pink cowboy
boots in the window. When I was there in December
of twenty twenty two and then returned in early January
after the arrest.
Speaker 6 (02:10):
What made me so sad is there was this string
of lights across the back porch and they were on.
They were on. There was a couch out there, like
this leather couch. As a mom, I'm like, what are
you doing with a couch outside? But you know that
you're they're college kids. You know, it's a college house
and this is a place where you know, it was
a party house. But it was frozen in time in
(02:32):
the worst possible way. The lights were on the entire time,
from the night this happened till I got back in January,
and there's the couch covered in snow, and you know,
you could kind of see into the kitchen. Everything stopped
because this awful thing happened at this house that should
have just been full of kids and laughter, and if
(02:55):
they were going to not be there, it should have
been because they were going home for Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Everything was shattered. That was my impression of it. I
have mixed feelings about the demolition of the house. I
understand that Ethan Chapin's family supported the demolition of the
house because it had become this horrible, macabre tourist attraction,
which I think is horrific. But at the same time,
(03:18):
I would hate for something to come up at the
trial where it was needed. So I see both sides
of the coin.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
As Angeinette says, there are two sides to this coin,
and most people fall strongly on one side or the other.
Speaker 7 (03:34):
The family of the only male victim, twenty year old
Ethan Chapin, saying in a statement, we're supportive of the
decision to take down the King Street House for the
good of the university, it's students, including our own kids,
and the community of Moscow.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
The house was considered the largest piece of evidence that
they had.
Speaker 4 (03:51):
The university defending their decision to move forward.
Speaker 8 (03:54):
Well, I understand he's from a legal standpoint.
Speaker 6 (03:56):
Everyone was finished with the house.
Speaker 9 (03:57):
You kind of want to scream from the mountaintops, just
let be leave it alone, don't touch it until the
trial's over.
Speaker 4 (04:05):
The house was ultimately demolished on December twenty eighth, twenty
twenty three. It took one day and occurred to thirteen
months after the murders. Shortly after the demolition, Stephanie has
a discussion with forensic expert Joseph Scott Morgan and data
analysts body move In. You may remember her from Netflix's
Don't Have with Cats.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
That particular house that they were murdered in was very specific.
It was a unique layout, but the house itself was
owned by the campus and highly debated turn of events.
They decided to destroy the house to get rid of
it altogether over winter break, and it's been a really
heated discussion. On the one hand, you know that for
(04:50):
the university, it's a bit of a real heartbreak on
the town, on the school, also for students who went
there who were maybe triggered emotion only by this heinous
crime that happened while they were attending school. Just generally speaking,
probably just feels hideous to have this marker exist. And
(05:10):
on the flip of that some of the family members
and including some people participating in the trial, say that
this is an active investigation site and that from a
forensic standpoint, it has to stay intact at least until
after the trial.
Speaker 8 (05:25):
I spend a lot of time on the Internet, as
you all know, That's what I do. And I talk
to a lot of people who live in Moscow and
they are all affected by this house. They have to
drive by it. It's in a really dense neighborhood. The
jury is never going to be allowed to go in there.
They're never going to be allowed to go in there.
There's no the acoustics are different, flooring's been removed, walls
(05:46):
have been removed. I have photos and you can see
all the dry wall that's been cut out of Maddie's room. Like,
they're not going to go in there. It's just not
going to happen. It's so uncommon for a jury to
visit a crime scene so on com.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
But it happens though. By the way, sidebar one of
the victims has a sister and a brother who do
it also still attend the university. So if I'm a
family member of one of the victims, I want justice,
or if I'm even a family member of the accused,
and i want justice. How can we destroy the forensicstru.
Speaker 10 (06:19):
Here's my real problem with it is the fact that
there are homicides that take place every single day. There's
a homicide going on right now as we speak somewhere
in America. I can promise you that they're not going
to go out and tear down that structure. This is
an outlier. As far as tearing down a structure.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
It is incredibly rare for a jury to visit the
side of a murder. It's also rare for a building
where a murder took place to be demolished. However, the
ones that fall into either category are usually multi victim
murders that are exceptionally heinous and highly publicized. Some cases
where the juris did go back to the literal scene
of the crime can often include cases where they may
(07:01):
hinge on some form of integral spatial logistics. For example,
Michael Peterson, where jurors walked the stairs where his wife died,
Alex Murda so jurors could appreciate the scale of the
large property, and the twenty eighteen Parkland school shooting, which
Joseph tells us.
Speaker 10 (07:19):
About I even reflect back to Parkland, which I covered extensively,
and look, I understand that the interior of Parkland was
not changed at all. One of the most moving moments
is where they talk about how when they led the
jurors into that structure. Remember Parkland had taken place on
(07:43):
Valentine's Day. There were dried, crumbling roses laying on the floor,
teddy bears with hearts on them, there were still blood
stains on the floor. And it too is government controlled.
And let's face it, the University of Idaho's a government
entity and it is owned by the University of Odaho.
Speaker 4 (08:04):
Of all the divisive factors in this divisive case, it
seems the homes demolition drew more opposing opinions than almost
anything else. Here's journalist Chris Bargo, who spent a lot
of time covering the case. I started by asking him
about the money spent on security of the home leading
up to the demolition. It was seven hundred dollars a
(08:24):
day for securing the home alone, clocking in at one
point two million dollars months before the home was even
torn down. Here's Chris.
Speaker 9 (08:34):
The brunt of that is really being absorbed by the university.
The university has really kind of cost a lot of
money for them because of security reasons. You know, obviously
when the house, the house was up for so long
and that house had to be protected that entire time,
people they had twenty four seven watch dealing with this
influx of people on campus. You know, safety measures for students,
but there's not really much you can do to get
around those costs. And because it took place in a university,
(08:55):
there's a lot of costs that come along with that
because they want to make sure the students feel safe.
They want to make sure the students protected, and they
also want to make sure that this major piece of
evidence is house is left untouched. When there are thousands
of people descending on this town who probably want to
do nothing more than to get inside it or take
a look around. They have to make sure no one
get went in that house. So that was a really
really big cost to bear.
Speaker 11 (09:14):
What are your thoughts on the demolition of the house.
Speaker 9 (09:19):
I do not think that the defense of prosecution would
be okay with it if they thought there was any
possible chance there was even like a little piece of
evidence inside there. I think on the most sort of
human and basic level. The last thing in the world
do you want those kids to deal with, which we
are already dealing with so much, is have to see
that house. It's probably a horrible reminder. So for that reason,
I'm really glad you know that it's not there. I
don't know how much the scene was going to be
helpful in that case. At this point, it seems like
(09:41):
they're in trouble even placing him at the scene, So
I don't know what was going to be accomplished. Maybe
by having anyone visit the house, But like I said,
I think that if there's any sort of bit of
evidence that prosecutor saw that could get out of it
or bring people to the house, they would have kept
it up. And clearly they didn't think there.
Speaker 7 (09:52):
Was out there.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
The FBI prosecution and defense teams had access to the
home on multiple occasion. The prosecutor's last visit was just
one week before the demolition. The president of Idaho University,
Scott Green, released a statement on December fourteenth, twenty twenty three.
He wrote, it is the grim reminder of the heinous
act that took place there. While we appreciate the emotional
(10:18):
connections some family members of the victims may have to
this house. It is time for its removal and to
allow the collective healing of our community to continue. Let's
stop here for a break. We'll be back in a moment.
(10:40):
Stephanie continues her conversation with forensic expert Joseph Scott Morgan
and data analyst Body Movin.
Speaker 10 (10:46):
Once it's gone, it's gone. The most intriguing images that
I saw of the entire coverage relative to Idaho was
there was a snap moment where you had agents that
were back in the brush line rear of the second
floor where the sliders are, and they were squatted in
the brush and they were looking back towards the building.
(11:10):
They were looking for fields of view. At that point
in time, What could you observe from this low growth
scrub that was back there, these trees. Is it a
location where the perpetrator could have parked. Is it an
observation point where they could have seen people moving around
at night? Is it at that key moment that he
decided that when those lights went down, that he was
going to make us move and make entry into that environment.
(11:32):
All reference for that is gone now.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
Not to mention a big piece of the defense's case
right now is that Brian Coberger claims to have an alibi. Again,
we're talking about potentially more than one person being there
or a different set of people being there where there
are multiple attackers. It was Brian not even there in
the first place. Why would you destroy something? And I've
learned this from you, by the way, the plumbing could
(11:56):
have evidence in it. The concrete in an around the
location and could have evidence in it.
Speaker 10 (12:02):
Yeah, let me say something about the plumbing real quick.
And this brings the car into play. You know, they
think they've got a timeline settled here, but let's just
say that an individual may have taken time to have
gone and clean themselves. Did you take drain traps out?
Did they run a camera down in the drain? I
think my big thing is in anybody that's kind of
listening to us, our friends out there. If you live
(12:24):
in a home that has a stair an internal staircase,
what does footfalls sound like on the treads on the
interior staircase? Can you hear that? Can you hear somebody
wrestling about if you're on the second floor and it's
going on the third floor, can you hear it? If
you're in the basement. We don't have a point of
reference anymore. Still, can't take the jury back out there.
You can't have them go into any one of these
(12:46):
rooms where these ghastly murders were committed and asked questions.
Jury can't ask a question based upon well, gee, look
at that window and how you can see and from
there to here, and how far away is the distance
from the entrance to the bedroom room to the fly
stairs down to the second floor. Who would it take
me to egress from the third floor to the second
floor landing and then down the hallway.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
You think about the feeling it a clown jurs. You know,
we saw that in Pike County.
Speaker 4 (13:12):
Stephanie's referencing the murders of eight members of the Rodent
family that occurred in Piked in Ohio. It's the topic
of another Katie Studios podcast and a case we worked
closely on with Joseph.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
After the massacres occurred there and right before the trial,
the jury was.
Speaker 4 (13:29):
Put on a bus and set.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Yes, they were out to observe the landscape where the
homes where those murders happened had occurred. And you know,
we were always told it was extremely powerful. There's nothing
like being in the location, especially when it's still furnished,
and those personal belongings that have now been removed for
sentimental reasons, they should remain in that crime scene to
(13:53):
really make it personal.
Speaker 9 (13:55):
That's part of it.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
This is the most personal thing imaginable. Why would you
make a game day decision a year before the game
by destroying what could potentially be relevant. Doesn't this speak
to the original point that the house should not have
been destroyed.
Speaker 8 (14:14):
This is just my opinion, but these scans are so
advanced and so well done. The house is unsafe for
people to be in. And I don't know what kind
of situation the rooms are in, but I can't imagine
they didn't remove pieces of the floor from the both bedrooms.
It's not safe for this jury to be in well,
(14:34):
and that's what the documents say. The documents say the
house is too dangerous and that both the defense and
the prosecution agreed that this is not a place that
they're going to be bringing the jury.
Speaker 10 (14:44):
I do hope that it was sufficiently documented. I know
that they did do Pharaoh images within that structure and
also externally.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
We asked Joseph for clarification on what Pharaoh images are
and how the Pharaoh system works.
Speaker 10 (15:03):
You first see the earlier iterations of these things when
they're referred to as total stations. They were made famous
by accident reconstructionists, where you have this one machine that
they could essentially plot in it from a digital standpoint,
a motor vehicle accident, because to work a motor vehicle
(15:24):
scene is to say the very least time consuming and
the calculations are mind blowing. So they took that platform
and expanded it relative to this Pharaoh device Faro. But
you can take this Pharaoh device and place it at
a scene and just imagine it's got the ability to
(15:46):
spend on its axis thousands of different directions and all
of the while it's shooting out these little lasers and
it's taking thousands of photos, and so it can digitally
take those images and compile them and it gives you
very detailed information. It also has GPS that's in it.
You take it into a confined space like a built
(16:07):
dwelling like this, and the detail is very remarkable, and
you can create this three D world. It is quite
fascinating to see. So that's what a Faro station is essentially.
There's been some talk of some three D model that
may be created by the FBI lab in Quantico and
be presented for the court. But I got to tell you,
(16:30):
I've been out on a number of visits to homes
where homicides have taken place, and I've been there when
the juries are there, and it is the real dose
of reality for them when they show up. From an
investigative standpoint, if you have it, don't throw it away.
(16:52):
I'm not a junk collector personally, but this ain't junk.
This is where these lives ended.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
And just you know, to piggyback on that, some of
the other victims' families were very against it for this
very reason. What if there is one little morsel of
something that could bring justice to them or frankly, get
a guilty man off.
Speaker 8 (17:14):
There's other cases where they've torn the apartment down, like
for instance, Jeffrey Dahmer. However they waited for the trial.
Yeah that's the rub, you know, So yeah, I get it,
I get it.
Speaker 10 (17:25):
Yeah, I mean John Wayne Gacy's house is gone. You know,
there's nothing.
Speaker 8 (17:29):
But Pharaoh didn't really exist like it does now back then.
You know, it's a different time, and I would imagine
at some point, you know, it's going to be virtual reality,
you know, where these juries can put on a headset
and walk through the house at their leisure.
Speaker 10 (17:42):
They can. But you know you had mentioned earlier about
the acoustics might not be the same. However, people that
are impaneled on juries, they're not AI. I mean, they
are living, breathing human beings that know what it's like
to walk into a house in that sense that you
get that auditory sense of a footfall, you know, and
(18:03):
I know that part of the floor has been removed
and all this. But when you think about just the
timing element, if I were asked how long would it
take me to make it from the sliders to that
weird that if we just go on a limb here
and say, enter through the sliders, how long would it
take to make it from there to the interior staircase
and twist and turn and get up there. And also
(18:27):
in the darkness, I think about all these in the
relationship spatial relationships and all these sorts of things. And yeah,
I know Pharaoh is great and it's going to be fantastic.
I'm sure the presentation will blow everybody away if we're
permitted to see it, but there's still that one little
splinter in my brain feeling.
Speaker 8 (18:46):
I often equate it to like I like to read books,
like the actual book. I don't want to read it
on a kindle. It's like I like to touch the paper,
like to turn the pace.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
So it's maybe the.
Speaker 8 (18:54):
Same kind of lake right right thing where you're there
in person and you can smell and use all all
your senses to get an idea of what happened, and
you're not going to be able to have that with
a three D scan.
Speaker 4 (19:08):
The draw to the house after the murders is one
of the reasons it was demolished. People were coming from
far and wide to view the house, somewhat the horrible
intention of taking a souvenir from the scene. We felt
it was something important to try and understand, so we
reached out to psychiatrist doctor Gail Saltz, Clinical Associate Professor
(19:28):
of Psychiatry at New York Presbyterian Hospital and host of
the podcast how Can I Help. Doctor Salts have been
quoted in an article we found about our culture's obsession
with murder houses. Here's doctor Saltz with some information about
the phenomenon followed by Stephanie.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
The house is sort of like the museum of it.
It's easier to imagine being part of it or in it,
thinking about it the horror of it, much like if
you said, here are the clothes of the people, or
here is the weapon that was used, and you can
physically look at it and hold it. And of course
(20:12):
homes represent all kinds of things. Homes represent the place
where these people lived and had lives, and most people's
homes means feeling safe and feeling a joy of you
know whatever. It might be their family, their friends, I
mean in this case right, their friends being in college,
(20:34):
feeling invincible at that age. And of course most people
are not thinking about you could be a victim in
your home.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
It's like, how do we prevent these kinds of things
from happening, or how do we maintain our own sense
of safety when sometimes the perpetrator is so ordinary.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
Many people have a desire to feel a little scared
in a safe way, and we are naturally curious. The
identification is partially with a victim of like, how horrible
the horror of that is? Right to feel like at
that last moment, you know somebody stabbing me with the
(21:13):
you know, like those kinds of thoughts and imagining what's
inside that guy's head that he would plot this and
plan this and want to do something terrible.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
In this Idaho murder case, interestingly, the decision was made
right or wrong to demolish that house. Do you have
an opinion on that?
Speaker 3 (21:33):
I mean, there are rules and regulations about what can
happen with evidence that it can't be brought into a courtroom,
and that seems like more of a legal question.
Speaker 4 (21:45):
To get that legal opinion. I spoke with KIRKNRMI, legal
analyst and former defense attorney for Jody Aarius. Jody Aarrius
was on trial in twenty thirteen for murdering her ex
boyfriend Travis Alexander. The trial was televised worldwide and became
known as a circus in the press.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Here's Kirk, I can see no viable, tangible reason for
that home to be destroyed before the trial is complete.
The jury may have questions. Part of the evidence against
mister Kolberger is this eyewitness testimony of seeing someone with
(22:25):
bushy eyebrows. There's been talk of hearing footsteps from upper levels,
things of that nature, and those could be issues and
questions that the jury has in their mind. How could
someone see these eyebrows under these circumstances? Could they really
hear this? All these different things? And there could be
(22:46):
dozens more that I have not thought of. And here
you have this piece of evidence and it is destroyed
for no logical reason. Let's say something came up with
defense case and the defense said, hey, we need to
look at this, and that becomes a sixth Amendment issue.
(23:08):
Is mister Colberger getting a fair trial based on these circumstances?
And that could result in a death verdict getting overturned.
But right now, until the case is over, it seems
nonsensical to say the least to destroy the building.
Speaker 11 (23:26):
Well that's a concrete answer, but it seems like the
people who might have most wanted it taken down might
then impact the victims negatively if, for example, a sentence
is overturned because of it.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Yes, we don't know what could pop up, what could
be of evidentiary value down the line when things are challenged,
when things are questioned, So yeah, to me, it just
makes no sense at least as it relates to the
case in.
Speaker 10 (23:56):
General, and could only serve to harm the gates.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
Let's stop here for another break. We'll be back in
a moment. Stephanie and Joseph Scott Morgan discuss how items
from the now demolished house might be used during the trial.
Speaker 10 (24:19):
One other thing that's very compelling about this case is
that they hauled off the mattresses in the back of
a pickup truck. They can still bring these items into court,
and that has occurred. They can actually have been in
courts where they set beds up before. Here's the real
rub with that. If you're talking about dynamic blood stain,
(24:42):
you can say, here's the mattress that we recovered, here's
the bed frame that we recovered. We see this deposition
of blood on the surface of the mattress. Maybe they
hold up a bloody sheet. If that happens, you're going
to hear the defense scream from the rooftops over this,
because they're going to say it's prejudicial. The prosecution is
going to have to justify their rationale for bringing each
(25:06):
one of these items in there, and the defense, I guess,
could see it as prejudicial, but they could also argue
the idea that now that they are absent, that that's
something that they cannot go back and collect. It's really
important that we remember. I think that they were so eager,
they being the investigative authorities, to get this place cleaned out,
(25:30):
that they had called a cleaning crew to come and
clean up the structure before. Right, it almost happened simultaneously
with the arrest of Coberg in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 4 (25:42):
Joseph is referring to when Brian Colberger's defense attorney, An Taylor,
filed a court motion to stop the cleanup operation to
preserve the scene of the crime. This motion was filed
on December thirtieth, twenty twenty two, just hours after Colberger's arrest.
Speaker 10 (26:00):
If I remember correctly, it was his counsel, it said, whoa,
throw the brakes on. We're gonna we need to get
a team out there to take a look. And I'll
never forget seeing that image of the plastic that had
been taped up over the door so that they could
go in and move out and all this stuff. And
then there was a controversy of taking out quote unquote
personal items. And you know, once you've kind of breached,
(26:23):
you know that threshold so quickly in this environment, there's
not a damn bit of sentimental material that is out
there that's worth compromising this because, yeah, I know that
it's ghastly, it's a horrible thing, but life is full
of all kinds of horrible things. This I think is
(26:45):
potentially a diminishment of the memory of these kids that
were killed there. But now it's too late. At this point,
you can't go back and unring the belt.
Speaker 4 (26:54):
Stephanie continues her conversation with psychiatrist doctor Gail Saltz on
how a jury might be impact by the homes demolition.
Here's doctor Saltz.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
Is there an immediacy for a jury going to a house?
Psychologically speaking? I would say yes, that it's going to
stir their thoughts in a more emotionally galvanizing way, and
that that will draw them in. But it doesn't tell
(27:25):
you whether it will draw them in and make them
say guilty or innocent. And now where I think it
could affect them is if they are convinced that this
person is the perpetrator and they are brought into a
circumstance that makes them feel more emotionally distraught. I think
that could affect a sentencing, a sentencing like death no death.
(27:48):
And this is why prosecutors bring in photos and movies
and voice recordings, because you know, they are trying to
not only deliver content, but they are trying to deliver
more immediacy, deliver more empathy to a jury, and have
them feel more intensely and stronger about what's happening. I
(28:09):
think being in a house certainly could add to that.
It's not the only thing that could add to that.
I think there was a point made that the house
didn't look at all inside anymore the way that it looked,
and so that could have the opposite effect. Right, They
could go in expecting to see something that looks like
(28:29):
college students are living there and see none of that,
see a sterile space, and that could have the effect
of making them feel like what was so bad? You know,
what was so terrible. So it's hard to predict whether
that would be helpful or harmful.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
I hadn't thought of it that way. True, The disassociation
from what is now a different space is a really
good point.
Speaker 3 (28:54):
What I would say is virtual is always one step
from moved from being in person, you know. I think
courts have discovered that putting things in a video format
absolutely makes an impact. Is it eked out by the
idea that you're coming out of the courtroom and into
(29:15):
this space. I know that you're standing on the spot
where this thing happened. I think that has a more
emotional impact. Is it necessary if you have the video?
Might the video of what the inside looked like at
the time that it actually looked that way, which was
at the time of the crime, have more impact than
(29:38):
the physical plant that doesn't look anymore like it did
at the time of the crime. It might.
Speaker 4 (29:50):
Next time on the Idaho Masacer an exclusive interview with Cassie,
a former student of accused murderer Brian Koeberger's. She is
speaking out for the first time.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
What was the class about? We covered literally how to
get away with murder? Did he have any friends and
not that I saw, but kept to himself anytime I
saw him on campus or in class or office hours.
So this man potentially murdered four people and then he
(30:23):
went back to class. Yes.
Speaker 4 (30:29):
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.
(30:52):
For more podcasts like this, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
In this Idaho murder case, the decision was made right
or wrong to demolish that house. Do you have an
opinion on that.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
I can see no viable, tangible reason for that home
to be destroyed before the trial is complete.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
Is there an immediacy for a jury going to a house?
Psychologically speaking, I would say yes.
Speaker 4 (00:41):
This is the Idaho Massacre. A production of KAT Studios
and iHeartRadio, Season two, Episode two, Murder House. I'm Courtney Armstrong,
producer at KATI Studios with Stephanie Leidecker and Gabe Castillo.
We were reminded last episode of the details of the
(01:04):
grotesque horror that occurred at eleven twenty two King Road
on November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, when Madison Mogan, Kaylie Gonzalvez,
Ethan Chapin, and Xana Kernodle lost their lives. After the murders,
it was seen by some as a forensic scene or
a tomb, or a macabre reminder of the horrors that
(01:26):
happened there. But before all that, the house, located just
off campus and on fraternity Row, was full of life.
It was a party house where friends gathered. Here's on
air reporter Antonette Levy, who has covered the case on
the ground since the very beginning. I asked her to
(01:47):
describe the house and what it felt like standing in
front of it.
Speaker 5 (01:51):
This house makes me sad, and it made me sad
because it was frozen in time. I'm standing there looking
at the window and there's a pair of pink cowboy
boots in the window. When I was there in December
of twenty twenty two and then returned in early January
after the arrest.
Speaker 6 (02:10):
What made me so sad is there was this string
of lights across the back porch and they were on.
They were on. There was a couch out there, like
this leather couch. As a mom, I'm like, what are
you doing with a couch outside? But you know that
you're they're college kids. You know, it's a college house
and this is a place where you know, it was
a party house. But it was frozen in time in
(02:32):
the worst possible way. The lights were on the entire time,
from the night this happened till I got back in January,
and there's the couch covered in snow, and you know,
you could kind of see into the kitchen. Everything stopped
because this awful thing happened at this house that should
have just been full of kids and laughter, and if
(02:55):
they were going to not be there, it should have
been because they were going home for Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Everything was shattered. That was my impression of it. I
have mixed feelings about the demolition of the house. I
understand that Ethan Chapin's family supported the demolition of the
house because it had become this horrible, macabre tourist attraction,
which I think is horrific. But at the same time,
(03:18):
I would hate for something to come up at the
trial where it was needed. So I see both sides
of the coin.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
As Angeinette says, there are two sides to this coin,
and most people fall strongly on one side or the other.
Speaker 7 (03:34):
The family of the only male victim, twenty year old
Ethan Chapin, saying in a statement, we're supportive of the
decision to take down the King Street House for the
good of the university, it's students, including our own kids,
and the community of Moscow.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
The house was considered the largest piece of evidence that
they had.
Speaker 4 (03:51):
The university defending their decision to move forward.
Speaker 8 (03:54):
Well, I understand he's from a legal standpoint.
Speaker 6 (03:56):
Everyone was finished with the house.
Speaker 9 (03:57):
You kind of want to scream from the mountaintops, just
let be leave it alone, don't touch it until the
trial's over.
Speaker 4 (04:05):
The house was ultimately demolished on December twenty eighth, twenty
twenty three. It took one day and occurred to thirteen
months after the murders. Shortly after the demolition, Stephanie has
a discussion with forensic expert Joseph Scott Morgan and data
analysts body move In. You may remember her from Netflix's
Don't Have with Cats.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
That particular house that they were murdered in was very specific.
It was a unique layout, but the house itself was
owned by the campus and highly debated turn of events.
They decided to destroy the house to get rid of
it altogether over winter break, and it's been a really
heated discussion. On the one hand, you know that for
(04:50):
the university, it's a bit of a real heartbreak on
the town, on the school, also for students who went
there who were maybe triggered emotion only by this heinous
crime that happened while they were attending school. Just generally speaking,
probably just feels hideous to have this marker exist. And
(05:10):
on the flip of that some of the family members
and including some people participating in the trial, say that
this is an active investigation site and that from a
forensic standpoint, it has to stay intact at least until
after the trial.
Speaker 8 (05:25):
I spend a lot of time on the Internet, as
you all know, That's what I do. And I talk
to a lot of people who live in Moscow and
they are all affected by this house. They have to
drive by it. It's in a really dense neighborhood. The
jury is never going to be allowed to go in there.
They're never going to be allowed to go in there.
There's no the acoustics are different, flooring's been removed, walls
(05:46):
have been removed. I have photos and you can see
all the dry wall that's been cut out of Maddie's room. Like,
they're not going to go in there. It's just not
going to happen. It's so uncommon for a jury to
visit a crime scene so on com.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
But it happens though. By the way, sidebar one of
the victims has a sister and a brother who do
it also still attend the university. So if I'm a
family member of one of the victims, I want justice,
or if I'm even a family member of the accused,
and i want justice. How can we destroy the forensicstru.
Speaker 10 (06:19):
Here's my real problem with it is the fact that
there are homicides that take place every single day. There's
a homicide going on right now as we speak somewhere
in America. I can promise you that they're not going
to go out and tear down that structure. This is
an outlier. As far as tearing down a structure.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
It is incredibly rare for a jury to visit the
side of a murder. It's also rare for a building
where a murder took place to be demolished. However, the
ones that fall into either category are usually multi victim
murders that are exceptionally heinous and highly publicized. Some cases
where the juris did go back to the literal scene
of the crime can often include cases where they may
(07:01):
hinge on some form of integral spatial logistics. For example,
Michael Peterson, where jurors walked the stairs where his wife died,
Alex Murda so jurors could appreciate the scale of the
large property, and the twenty eighteen Parkland school shooting, which
Joseph tells us.
Speaker 10 (07:19):
About I even reflect back to Parkland, which I covered extensively,
and look, I understand that the interior of Parkland was
not changed at all. One of the most moving moments
is where they talk about how when they led the
jurors into that structure. Remember Parkland had taken place on
(07:43):
Valentine's Day. There were dried, crumbling roses laying on the floor,
teddy bears with hearts on them, there were still blood
stains on the floor. And it too is government controlled.
And let's face it, the University of Idaho's a government
entity and it is owned by the University of Odaho.
Speaker 4 (08:04):
Of all the divisive factors in this divisive case, it
seems the homes demolition drew more opposing opinions than almost
anything else. Here's journalist Chris Bargo, who spent a lot
of time covering the case. I started by asking him
about the money spent on security of the home leading
up to the demolition. It was seven hundred dollars a
(08:24):
day for securing the home alone, clocking in at one
point two million dollars months before the home was even
torn down. Here's Chris.
Speaker 9 (08:34):
The brunt of that is really being absorbed by the university.
The university has really kind of cost a lot of
money for them because of security reasons. You know, obviously
when the house, the house was up for so long
and that house had to be protected that entire time,
people they had twenty four seven watch dealing with this
influx of people on campus. You know, safety measures for students,
but there's not really much you can do to get
around those costs. And because it took place in a university,
(08:55):
there's a lot of costs that come along with that
because they want to make sure the students feel safe.
They want to make sure the students protected, and they
also want to make sure that this major piece of
evidence is house is left untouched. When there are thousands
of people descending on this town who probably want to
do nothing more than to get inside it or take
a look around. They have to make sure no one
get went in that house. So that was a really
really big cost to bear.
Speaker 11 (09:14):
What are your thoughts on the demolition of the house.
Speaker 9 (09:19):
I do not think that the defense of prosecution would
be okay with it if they thought there was any
possible chance there was even like a little piece of
evidence inside there. I think on the most sort of
human and basic level. The last thing in the world
do you want those kids to deal with, which we
are already dealing with so much, is have to see
that house. It's probably a horrible reminder. So for that reason,
I'm really glad you know that it's not there. I
don't know how much the scene was going to be
helpful in that case. At this point, it seems like
(09:41):
they're in trouble even placing him at the scene, So
I don't know what was going to be accomplished. Maybe
by having anyone visit the house, But like I said,
I think that if there's any sort of bit of
evidence that prosecutor saw that could get out of it
or bring people to the house, they would have kept
it up. And clearly they didn't think there.
Speaker 7 (09:52):
Was out there.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
The FBI prosecution and defense teams had access to the
home on multiple occasion. The prosecutor's last visit was just
one week before the demolition. The president of Idaho University,
Scott Green, released a statement on December fourteenth, twenty twenty three.
He wrote, it is the grim reminder of the heinous
act that took place there. While we appreciate the emotional
(10:18):
connections some family members of the victims may have to
this house. It is time for its removal and to
allow the collective healing of our community to continue. Let's
stop here for a break. We'll be back in a moment.
(10:40):
Stephanie continues her conversation with forensic expert Joseph Scott Morgan
and data analyst Body Movin.
Speaker 10 (10:46):
Once it's gone, it's gone. The most intriguing images that
I saw of the entire coverage relative to Idaho was
there was a snap moment where you had agents that
were back in the brush line rear of the second
floor where the sliders are, and they were squatted in
the brush and they were looking back towards the building.
(11:10):
They were looking for fields of view. At that point
in time, What could you observe from this low growth
scrub that was back there, these trees. Is it a
location where the perpetrator could have parked. Is it an
observation point where they could have seen people moving around
at night? Is it at that key moment that he
decided that when those lights went down, that he was
going to make us move and make entry into that environment.
(11:32):
All reference for that is gone now.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
Not to mention a big piece of the defense's case
right now is that Brian Coberger claims to have an alibi. Again,
we're talking about potentially more than one person being there
or a different set of people being there where there
are multiple attackers. It was Brian not even there in
the first place. Why would you destroy something? And I've
learned this from you, by the way, the plumbing could
(11:56):
have evidence in it. The concrete in an around the
location and could have evidence in it.
Speaker 10 (12:02):
Yeah, let me say something about the plumbing real quick.
And this brings the car into play. You know, they
think they've got a timeline settled here, but let's just
say that an individual may have taken time to have
gone and clean themselves. Did you take drain traps out?
Did they run a camera down in the drain? I
think my big thing is in anybody that's kind of
listening to us, our friends out there. If you live
(12:24):
in a home that has a stair an internal staircase,
what does footfalls sound like on the treads on the
interior staircase? Can you hear that? Can you hear somebody
wrestling about if you're on the second floor and it's
going on the third floor, can you hear it? If
you're in the basement. We don't have a point of
reference anymore. Still, can't take the jury back out there.
You can't have them go into any one of these
(12:46):
rooms where these ghastly murders were committed and asked questions.
Jury can't ask a question based upon well, gee, look
at that window and how you can see and from
there to here, and how far away is the distance
from the entrance to the bedroom room to the fly
stairs down to the second floor. Who would it take
me to egress from the third floor to the second
floor landing and then down the hallway.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
You think about the feeling it a clown jurs. You know,
we saw that in Pike County.
Speaker 4 (13:12):
Stephanie's referencing the murders of eight members of the Rodent
family that occurred in Piked in Ohio. It's the topic
of another Katie Studios podcast and a case we worked
closely on with Joseph.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
After the massacres occurred there and right before the trial,
the jury was.
Speaker 4 (13:29):
Put on a bus and set.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Yes, they were out to observe the landscape where the
homes where those murders happened had occurred. And you know,
we were always told it was extremely powerful. There's nothing
like being in the location, especially when it's still furnished,
and those personal belongings that have now been removed for
sentimental reasons, they should remain in that crime scene to
(13:53):
really make it personal.
Speaker 9 (13:55):
That's part of it.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
This is the most personal thing imaginable. Why would you
make a game day decision a year before the game
by destroying what could potentially be relevant. Doesn't this speak
to the original point that the house should not have
been destroyed.
Speaker 8 (14:14):
This is just my opinion, but these scans are so
advanced and so well done. The house is unsafe for
people to be in. And I don't know what kind
of situation the rooms are in, but I can't imagine
they didn't remove pieces of the floor from the both bedrooms.
It's not safe for this jury to be in well,
(14:34):
and that's what the documents say. The documents say the
house is too dangerous and that both the defense and
the prosecution agreed that this is not a place that
they're going to be bringing the jury.
Speaker 10 (14:44):
I do hope that it was sufficiently documented. I know
that they did do Pharaoh images within that structure and
also externally.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
We asked Joseph for clarification on what Pharaoh images are
and how the Pharaoh system works.
Speaker 10 (15:03):
You first see the earlier iterations of these things when
they're referred to as total stations. They were made famous
by accident reconstructionists, where you have this one machine that
they could essentially plot in it from a digital standpoint,
a motor vehicle accident, because to work a motor vehicle
(15:24):
scene is to say the very least time consuming and
the calculations are mind blowing. So they took that platform
and expanded it relative to this Pharaoh device Faro. But
you can take this Pharaoh device and place it at
a scene and just imagine it's got the ability to
(15:46):
spend on its axis thousands of different directions and all
of the while it's shooting out these little lasers and
it's taking thousands of photos, and so it can digitally
take those images and compile them and it gives you
very detailed information. It also has GPS that's in it.
You take it into a confined space like a built
(16:07):
dwelling like this, and the detail is very remarkable, and
you can create this three D world. It is quite
fascinating to see. So that's what a Faro station is essentially.
There's been some talk of some three D model that
may be created by the FBI lab in Quantico and
be presented for the court. But I got to tell you,
(16:30):
I've been out on a number of visits to homes
where homicides have taken place, and I've been there when
the juries are there, and it is the real dose
of reality for them when they show up. From an
investigative standpoint, if you have it, don't throw it away.
(16:52):
I'm not a junk collector personally, but this ain't junk.
This is where these lives ended.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
And just you know, to piggyback on that, some of
the other victims' families were very against it for this
very reason. What if there is one little morsel of
something that could bring justice to them or frankly, get
a guilty man off.
Speaker 8 (17:14):
There's other cases where they've torn the apartment down, like
for instance, Jeffrey Dahmer. However they waited for the trial.
Yeah that's the rub, you know, So yeah, I get it,
I get it.
Speaker 10 (17:25):
Yeah, I mean John Wayne Gacy's house is gone. You know,
there's nothing.
Speaker 8 (17:29):
But Pharaoh didn't really exist like it does now back then.
You know, it's a different time, and I would imagine
at some point, you know, it's going to be virtual reality,
you know, where these juries can put on a headset
and walk through the house at their leisure.
Speaker 10 (17:42):
They can. But you know you had mentioned earlier about
the acoustics might not be the same. However, people that
are impaneled on juries, they're not AI. I mean, they
are living, breathing human beings that know what it's like
to walk into a house in that sense that you
get that auditory sense of a footfall, you know, and
(18:03):
I know that part of the floor has been removed
and all this. But when you think about just the
timing element, if I were asked how long would it
take me to make it from the sliders to that
weird that if we just go on a limb here
and say, enter through the sliders, how long would it
take to make it from there to the interior staircase
and twist and turn and get up there. And also
(18:27):
in the darkness, I think about all these in the
relationship spatial relationships and all these sorts of things. And yeah,
I know Pharaoh is great and it's going to be fantastic.
I'm sure the presentation will blow everybody away if we're
permitted to see it, but there's still that one little
splinter in my brain feeling.
Speaker 8 (18:46):
I often equate it to like I like to read books,
like the actual book. I don't want to read it
on a kindle. It's like I like to touch the paper,
like to turn the pace.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
So it's maybe the.
Speaker 8 (18:54):
Same kind of lake right right thing where you're there
in person and you can smell and use all all
your senses to get an idea of what happened, and
you're not going to be able to have that with
a three D scan.
Speaker 4 (19:08):
The draw to the house after the murders is one
of the reasons it was demolished. People were coming from
far and wide to view the house, somewhat the horrible
intention of taking a souvenir from the scene. We felt
it was something important to try and understand, so we
reached out to psychiatrist doctor Gail Saltz, Clinical Associate Professor
(19:28):
of Psychiatry at New York Presbyterian Hospital and host of
the podcast how Can I Help. Doctor Salts have been
quoted in an article we found about our culture's obsession
with murder houses. Here's doctor Saltz with some information about
the phenomenon followed by Stephanie.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
The house is sort of like the museum of it.
It's easier to imagine being part of it or in it,
thinking about it the horror of it, much like if
you said, here are the clothes of the people, or
here is the weapon that was used, and you can
physically look at it and hold it. And of course
(20:12):
homes represent all kinds of things. Homes represent the place
where these people lived and had lives, and most people's
homes means feeling safe and feeling a joy of you
know whatever. It might be their family, their friends, I
mean in this case right, their friends being in college,
(20:34):
feeling invincible at that age. And of course most people
are not thinking about you could be a victim in
your home.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
It's like, how do we prevent these kinds of things
from happening, or how do we maintain our own sense
of safety when sometimes the perpetrator is so ordinary.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
Many people have a desire to feel a little scared
in a safe way, and we are naturally curious. The
identification is partially with a victim of like, how horrible
the horror of that is? Right to feel like at
that last moment, you know somebody stabbing me with the
(21:13):
you know, like those kinds of thoughts and imagining what's
inside that guy's head that he would plot this and
plan this and want to do something terrible.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
In this Idaho murder case, interestingly, the decision was made
right or wrong to demolish that house. Do you have
an opinion on that?
Speaker 3 (21:33):
I mean, there are rules and regulations about what can
happen with evidence that it can't be brought into a courtroom,
and that seems like more of a legal question.
Speaker 4 (21:45):
To get that legal opinion. I spoke with KIRKNRMI, legal
analyst and former defense attorney for Jody Aarius. Jody Aarrius
was on trial in twenty thirteen for murdering her ex
boyfriend Travis Alexander. The trial was televised worldwide and became
known as a circus in the press.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Here's Kirk, I can see no viable, tangible reason for
that home to be destroyed before the trial is complete.
The jury may have questions. Part of the evidence against
mister Kolberger is this eyewitness testimony of seeing someone with
(22:25):
bushy eyebrows. There's been talk of hearing footsteps from upper levels,
things of that nature, and those could be issues and
questions that the jury has in their mind. How could
someone see these eyebrows under these circumstances? Could they really
hear this? All these different things? And there could be
(22:46):
dozens more that I have not thought of. And here
you have this piece of evidence and it is destroyed
for no logical reason. Let's say something came up with
defense case and the defense said, hey, we need to
look at this, and that becomes a sixth Amendment issue.
(23:08):
Is mister Colberger getting a fair trial based on these circumstances?
And that could result in a death verdict getting overturned.
But right now, until the case is over, it seems
nonsensical to say the least to destroy the building.
Speaker 11 (23:26):
Well that's a concrete answer, but it seems like the
people who might have most wanted it taken down might
then impact the victims negatively if, for example, a sentence
is overturned because of it.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Yes, we don't know what could pop up, what could
be of evidentiary value down the line when things are challenged,
when things are questioned, So yeah, to me, it just
makes no sense at least as it relates to the
case in.
Speaker 10 (23:56):
General, and could only serve to harm the gates.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
Let's stop here for another break. We'll be back in
a moment. Stephanie and Joseph Scott Morgan discuss how items
from the now demolished house might be used during the trial.
Speaker 10 (24:19):
One other thing that's very compelling about this case is
that they hauled off the mattresses in the back of
a pickup truck. They can still bring these items into court,
and that has occurred. They can actually have been in
courts where they set beds up before. Here's the real
rub with that. If you're talking about dynamic blood stain,
(24:42):
you can say, here's the mattress that we recovered, here's
the bed frame that we recovered. We see this deposition
of blood on the surface of the mattress. Maybe they
hold up a bloody sheet. If that happens, you're going
to hear the defense scream from the rooftops over this,
because they're going to say it's prejudicial. The prosecution is
going to have to justify their rationale for bringing each
(25:06):
one of these items in there, and the defense, I guess,
could see it as prejudicial, but they could also argue
the idea that now that they are absent, that that's
something that they cannot go back and collect. It's really
important that we remember. I think that they were so eager,
they being the investigative authorities, to get this place cleaned out,
(25:30):
that they had called a cleaning crew to come and
clean up the structure before. Right, it almost happened simultaneously
with the arrest of Coberg in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 4 (25:42):
Joseph is referring to when Brian Colberger's defense attorney, An Taylor,
filed a court motion to stop the cleanup operation to
preserve the scene of the crime. This motion was filed
on December thirtieth, twenty twenty two, just hours after Colberger's arrest.
Speaker 10 (26:00):
If I remember correctly, it was his counsel, it said, whoa,
throw the brakes on. We're gonna we need to get
a team out there to take a look. And I'll
never forget seeing that image of the plastic that had
been taped up over the door so that they could
go in and move out and all this stuff. And
then there was a controversy of taking out quote unquote
personal items. And you know, once you've kind of breached,
(26:23):
you know that threshold so quickly in this environment, there's
not a damn bit of sentimental material that is out
there that's worth compromising this because, yeah, I know that
it's ghastly, it's a horrible thing, but life is full
of all kinds of horrible things. This I think is
(26:45):
potentially a diminishment of the memory of these kids that
were killed there. But now it's too late. At this point,
you can't go back and unring the belt.
Speaker 4 (26:54):
Stephanie continues her conversation with psychiatrist doctor Gail Saltz on
how a jury might be impact by the homes demolition.
Here's doctor Saltz.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
Is there an immediacy for a jury going to a house?
Psychologically speaking? I would say yes, that it's going to
stir their thoughts in a more emotionally galvanizing way, and
that that will draw them in. But it doesn't tell
(27:25):
you whether it will draw them in and make them
say guilty or innocent. And now where I think it
could affect them is if they are convinced that this
person is the perpetrator and they are brought into a
circumstance that makes them feel more emotionally distraught. I think
that could affect a sentencing, a sentencing like death no death.
(27:48):
And this is why prosecutors bring in photos and movies
and voice recordings, because you know, they are trying to
not only deliver content, but they are trying to deliver
more immediacy, deliver more empathy to a jury, and have
them feel more intensely and stronger about what's happening. I
(28:09):
think being in a house certainly could add to that.
It's not the only thing that could add to that.
I think there was a point made that the house
didn't look at all inside anymore the way that it looked,
and so that could have the opposite effect. Right, They
could go in expecting to see something that looks like
(28:29):
college students are living there and see none of that,
see a sterile space, and that could have the effect
of making them feel like what was so bad? You know,
what was so terrible. So it's hard to predict whether
that would be helpful or harmful.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
I hadn't thought of it that way. True, The disassociation
from what is now a different space is a really
good point.
Speaker 3 (28:54):
What I would say is virtual is always one step
from moved from being in person, you know. I think
courts have discovered that putting things in a video format
absolutely makes an impact. Is it eked out by the
idea that you're coming out of the courtroom and into
(29:15):
this space. I know that you're standing on the spot
where this thing happened. I think that has a more
emotional impact. Is it necessary if you have the video?
Might the video of what the inside looked like at
the time that it actually looked that way, which was
at the time of the crime, have more impact than
(29:38):
the physical plant that doesn't look anymore like it did
at the time of the crime. It might.
Speaker 4 (29:50):
Next time on the Idaho Masacer an exclusive interview with Cassie,
a former student of accused murderer Brian Koeberger's. She is
speaking out for the first time.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
What was the class about? We covered literally how to
get away with murder? Did he have any friends and
not that I saw, but kept to himself anytime I
saw him on campus or in class or office hours.
So this man potentially murdered four people and then he
(30:23):
went back to class. Yes.
Speaker 4 (30:29):
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.
(30:52):
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.