September 13, 2023 • 35 mins
How did Bryan Kohberger go from just a name on a list of owners of White Hyundai Elantras to the suspect in the University of Idaho Murders? And what role did a new DNA method play in capturing him for the crime?
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):
The Moscow Police Department put out a renewed call for
social media content, pictures and videos.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
From the community.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Investigators are still asking anyone with any information to contact
the Moscow tip Line. The investigation into who killed four
University of Idaho students has now received ten thousand tips.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
This is the Idaho Massacre a production of KT Studios
and iHeartRadio, Episode six The Hunt Courtney Armstrong, a television
producer at KT Studios, with Stephanie Leidecker, Jeff Shane, and
Connor Powell. Weeks after four University of Idaho students were
(00:53):
murdered in their off campus home, investigators are on a
relentless search for the killer as the tips rolled in.
Multiple law enforcement agencies, including the Idaho's d Police and
the FBI, were working with the Moscow PD to crack
the case. They were methodically zeroing in on their main suspect,
(01:15):
following the evidence from the mysterious white Atlantra to the
DNA left at the scene. While observing Brian Coberger at
his family's home in Pennsylvania, the twenty eight year old
was seen wearing rubber latex gloves in public and putting
trash in neighbor's garbage cans. Coburger's family also noticed this
bizarre behavior. According to reports, one of his own sisters
(01:37):
began to wonder if her brother could have been involved
in the murders, at one point even saying loudly that
her brother lived near the victims and drove a white
Honda Atlantra. While some in the Coburger family may have
had their suspicions about him, unbeknownst to them, their own
family's genetic DNA would be key to linking Brian Koeberger
to the murders.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
Big crack in this case came from das a specifically
genetic genealogy.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Within days of the gruesome murders, police suspected the white
Houndai Alantra seen repeatedly driving near the King Road crime
site was connected to the murders. Investigators immediately began compiling
a list of white Lantras registered in the region. Investigators
first sought cell records. They then most likely looked for
(02:25):
every person who panged the Moscow Tower and owned to
white Alantra, but the search of the long list of
white Alantra's didn't turn up anything conclusive for weeks. Here's
Jeff and Stephanie.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
As November was coming to a close, the Moscow police
assured the public that there was no threat to the
community and that they were in fact making progress.
Speaker 6 (02:49):
And at this point cops were really combing through thousands
of tips and pieces of information, most of which frankly
led nowhere.
Speaker 5 (02:57):
Can you imagine the pressure. Not only are they concerned
about the safety of this college town, but they have
the whole world watching them.
Speaker 6 (03:05):
I remember this time, the public really wanted information, and
every day that went by without an arrest, people were
getting angrier and angrier.
Speaker 5 (03:14):
Yeah, it's a really unfair expectation, but at this point
there really was no credible suspect or murder weapon.
Speaker 6 (03:20):
And then by early December, investigators had combed through the
victim's classmates, their friends, as well as any perhaps registered
sex offenders in the area, stalkers, any individuals known for
violently harassing people. They even looked into a local white supremacist,
but again, sadly, it all led to nothing.
Speaker 5 (03:42):
The white Alantra was truly the best lead, but it's
an incredibly common car. In twenty twenty one, Hyundai sold
over one hundred and twenty four thousand Lantras, In fact,
the number of aluntras sold last year compared to the
year before increased forty seven percent, So it's basically like
finding a needle in a haystack.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
For weeks, Brian Coberger was simply a name on an
ever growing list, one of the many white Atlanta owners,
and then he was the lone suspect and under arrest.
Speaker 7 (04:13):
Suspect Brian Coburger is behind bars after investigators linked his
DNA at the crime scene two of a DNA taken
from the trash at his parents' home.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
The official public story laid out in the Probable Cause
AFFI David is that investigator's positively identified Coburger by matching
DNA evidence from the knife sheath to Coburger's father's DNA.
But investigators in the Idaho Police Lab didn't have a
positive DNA match for the twenty eight year old criminology
(04:45):
student until at least December twenty seventh, when a surveillance
crew pulled his father's DNA from the trash. So how
did investigators know and with such confidence to start surveillance
on Coburger long before the conclusive DNA match.
Speaker 6 (05:00):
Investigative genetic genealogy was used to point them in his direction.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
The path to positively identify in the Washington State University
PhD student, employed and new, and at the same time
one of the most controversial modern crime solving techniques. It's
a DNA method that is only reluctantly talked about by
law enforcement. Before we can explain what genetic genealogy is
(05:27):
and why it's so rare and controversial, we need to
explain how DNA material is normally collected and used in
a criminal investigation.
Speaker 4 (05:36):
So DNA is what makes us what we are, and
every single cell of our body, with a few exceptions,
has the same DNA. I like to describe it as
an enormous encyclopedia.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
That's Daniel Padini, the head of the forensic Sciences department
at George Washington University speaking with Jeff.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
And every cell of our body kind of harvests or
looks at parts of that encyclopedia that it needs to
become what it needs to develop in. So the liver
cell will look at the encyclopedia chapter on how to
become a liver cell. The retina cell will do the same,
but it's going to be a different chapter. But the
entire encyclopedia is present in every single cell, so we
(06:22):
can look at parts of this encyclopedia that are different
among individuals, and we can generate the DNA profile that
has a very very low frequency in the population to
the point that we can essentially identify a single individual.
Speaker 5 (06:42):
How has that now kind of changed the way investigators
work on criminal cases.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
Yeah, it really has dramatically changed the forensic investigations in
terms of being able to identify an individual that was
a crime scene. If a biological evidence is recovered at
a crime scene, a DNA profile can be generated and
then compared either to a database everybody's heard about the
(07:13):
CODIS Combined DNA Index System, which is a repository of
DNA profiles from convicted defenders or directly to the DNA
of suspect in order to identify the person that left
their DNA at the crime scene.
Speaker 5 (07:29):
And as we know, there was touch DNA found on it.
Can you explain to us what touch DNA is.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
Touch DNA is a very general term that refers to
the DNA that is deposited on a surface through touching it.
There's a lot of different types of cells that can
be deposited when touching a surface. For example, if I
scratch my nose or I cough in my hand, they're
(07:56):
being me some cells that come from the mucus or
from sali. There's also epithelial cells from my skin that
I'm gonna deposit. And also there's a lot of cell
free DNA that is secreted in sweat. So there's a
bunch of different types of sources of DNA that we deposit.
(08:17):
So exactly what touch DNA is we don't know, but
it's a combination of all of those and so, and
you can't really see it with a naked eye, so
you have to trust or you have to make some assumptions,
and generally you're going to try and collect that from
surfaces dead will have been touched.
Speaker 5 (08:40):
Is it how we see in the movies where they
like dust it and there's like a perfect thumbprint on
the ground or wherever.
Speaker 4 (08:47):
No, it's not quite like that. Sometimes if there's a
blood stain or a semen stain or a saliva stain,
then yes, it's it's pretty simple. You swab that area,
you transfer the biology stain onto a swab, and then
you extract the DNA directly from the swab. At times,
though you're not able to see the DNA, you can
(09:09):
assume that there is DNA in that area, and so
you swab that surface. In the case that we're talking about,
they found this knife sheet and they swabbed the area.
At least that's my understanding. They swabbed the area around
the button and they extracted the DNA from that, But
(09:30):
you don't necessarily see it, and you don't know it's
there until you've completed the extraction process and you went
through a second process that's called DNA quantification. The DNA
quantification process allows us to determine how much DNA there
is and also the quality of that DNA in terms
of it being degraded or potentially inhibited.
Speaker 5 (09:54):
So if you're an investigator, you just kind of try
to get DNA off of anything without you're kind of
blindly doing it. You're thinking, Okay, there could be DNA here,
could be DA in here, and then it's not till
you test it that you actually are are aware of
if there is DNA, and then you have to figure
out how much DNA.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
Obviously, you can't swab an entire apartment. That's just not practical,
and the DNA extraction process and analysis is expensive and
it takes time, so you need to be frugal and
keep in mind the resources that are available. So you
tend to do an evaluation of the crime scene and
(10:32):
based on the scenario, identify pieces of evidence that have
the greatest chance of providing useful information for the case.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
Here again, Stephanie and Jeff.
Speaker 6 (10:48):
Since its creation in nineteen eighty seven, DNA testing has
proven to be an incredible useful tool in identifying criminals.
It completely changed the criminal justice system.
Speaker 5 (10:58):
How it applies to this case is really fascinating. We
know that investigators pulled a single source mail touch DNA
off the button of the knife sheet that was left
at the murdercy. Touch DNA is DNA transferred from a
person to an object via contact with the object itself.
It's called touch DNA because it only requires very small samples,
for example, from the skin cell left on something after
it's been touched or casually handled, or from footprints. So
(11:24):
cops have this piece of touch DNA and they tried
to link that to criminals already in the system. Because,
as you may or may not know, when someone is arrested,
they have to give a fingerprint, which then gets put
into law enforcement's database system. So let's say whoever did
commit this massacre also had robbed a bank years ago,
cops would get a match and have all the suspects information.
Speaker 6 (11:44):
But that didn't happen here because by all accounts, Brian
did not have any kind of a criminal record. Maybe
he was busted for tailgating or something, but that was
the extent of it.
Speaker 5 (11:55):
I would think that since he had wanted to work
in law enforcement and applied for that internship, that he
might have had to give his fingerprint at some point.
Speaker 6 (12:02):
But there was no match in the system of DNA
at the crime scene. So unfortunately this was just a
dead end.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
a moment. With pressure mounting and leads coming up empty,
investigators turned to genetic genealogy as an alternative way of
identifying DNA on the knife sheath. Here's forensic expert Joseph
(12:35):
Scott Morgan.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
The cool thing about genetic genealogy, and it's almost as
if you've got people that have discovered this thing just
in the last few years, where it's this fascinating methodology
of tracking down things or putting an identity to things
or people more specifically, that otherwise have remained kind of
cloaked in secrecy for many, many years.
Speaker 5 (13:05):
How would you say it differs or doesn't differ from
regular DNA testing.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
When it comes to testing for any kind of biological element,
as it's tied back to DNA. The FEDS maintain a
database that is actually referred to it's the FBI's database
that's actually referred to as CODIS, which is combined DNA
Index System. And people hear this term thrown around quite
(13:30):
a bit, and I'm sure that folks have heard about,
you know, where you have sex offenders where they are
mandated by court to give up a sample and once
that sample is rendered, unto the courts and unto the system,
it's banked at that point in time. So those are
known offenders, all right. On the other side of the house,
you have what's referred to as a forensic database. Those
(13:52):
are these horrible crimes, just like you know, the Golden
State killer that have gone undetected from many years. Those
are forensic cases where you have a sample which is
essentially the DNA code that's built into all of us,
but yet you don't have an identity that goes specifically
to that person, and so those are the unknowns. And
(14:15):
when you're looking at serialized crimes, for instance, if you
can get a DNA sample from multiple cases and it
kind of funneled back into the system, what they're looking
for in the forensic side of the house is to
see if you get multiple hits from a single individual,
and that gives you an idea of that you have
a serial perpetrator, for instance, on your hands. Now here's
(14:37):
the thing when it comes to genetic genealogy. This throws
kind of a wrinkle into everything because for years and
years it's been all about unknown assailants. When you have
an event where you have DNA deposition at a scene,
let's say, for instance, from any kind of body fluid,
(14:59):
blood seam, whatever the case, saliva at the scene, or
maybe even partial DNA that we get from touch DNA,
if you can capture that bit of biological sample, you
can kind of kick it into the next level with
genetic genealogy because there is this massive database that exists
(15:20):
out there of people that are seeking their ancestors, or
perhaps people that are looking to find out their parentage,
people that have been put up for adoption, Who are
they related to? And so many government agencies look at
this as this kind of broad ranging spectrum that they
can dig into and utilize that to kind of connect
(15:43):
the dots, if you would, as to who an unknown
perpetrator might be. And you know, here's the thing. Many
of these cases are solved by identifying cousins of all things,
and we all have cousins. Many of us are related
to one another, and we have no idea, and so
you look for this connectivity and then you kind of
(16:05):
begin to narrow this down with genetic genealogy.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Despite having their own in state forensic laboratory, the Idaho
State Police contacted a private third party company to conduct
the genealogy testing. Athroom is a Texas based company that
specializes in forensic genetic genealogy and has helped resolve unsolved
murders and identify unknown victims. With the help of the FBI,
(16:36):
the firm was able to create a more extensive DNA
profile of the suspected killer, and then it was uploaded
to commercial genetic testing databases.
Speaker 5 (16:48):
Jeff and Stephanie, we don't know where the data profile
was uploaded. Most likely, though it was Jebmatch or family
Tree DNA, which are both familial DNA testing services. On
these sites you can find out what your heritage is
or if you have any long lost cousins across the world.
They are also both commercial websites that allow law enforcement searches.
They differ from twenty three in me or Ancestry DNA,
(17:10):
which do not allow investigators to search the records.
Speaker 6 (17:13):
That does make perfect sense from a consumer's standpoint. I mean, look,
if you go to a website like twenty three in
me or Ancestry DNA, you may not want your personal
data getting out to law enforcement or personal data regarding
anybody in your family. I would imagine that these companies
are frankly afraid that law enforcement has access to everyone's
(17:35):
DNA and then people won't upload their info, thus hurting
their ultimate bottom line. Privacy is a pretty major concern
for this industry.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
Here again Jeff speaking with forensic expert just so Scott Morgan, and.
Speaker 5 (17:50):
Would you say that's why it's controversial, because every Tom,
Dick and Harry can kind of help the police catch
their cousin in a crime.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Most people in the population that are submitting their DNA,
they don't have a point of reference for what their
constitutional standing is as it applies to privacy and these
sorts of things. And you know, I think that for
many folks when they render this DNA sample, and it's
generally a cheek swab or a cheek scraping. When you
(18:18):
go in, you take the sample, you submit it to
one of these companies and they begin to run your profile.
You don't have this expectation that this is going to
be used to solve a crime. Now, many people might
not have a problem with that, but others do. They're
not entering into this agreement with a company so that
they're going to be crime solvers. They want to determine
(18:39):
the mystery that surrounds their heritage and to try to
determine who they came from. The Supreme Court has ruled
in the past that you do not have like a
baked in expectation of privacy if you freely surrender something, Okay,
particularly in this case we're talking about genetic material. They've
(19:00):
held that there is no expectation of privacy for a
third party. And so you've got these two that go
back and forth. What it comes down to, I think
probably for many of these companies people famously like ancestry
dot com. We've got twenty three and me that have
been out there for a while. They have vigorously stated
that they are not working with any government agency and
(19:23):
they're not going to surrender anything unless they're being presented
with a subpoena that they are in fact being compelled
to offer up these profiles that they have. And so
that in and of itself is kind of striking when
it comes to the utility of forensic genealogy.
Speaker 5 (19:39):
And is that why you think to use it or
to talk about it when they do.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Use it, I think to a great degree, police are
reticent to reveal their sources when it comes to you generally,
don't find out the veil is not lifted. If you will,
you know from their source how they went about accomplishing
this these tasks. There are companies out there that do
in fact aid in the facilitation of this. Orthum comes
(20:06):
to mind in particular, they've been around for a few
years now and they've certainly made a name from themselves
and are highly regarded from a scientific perspective and the
methodologies that they employ, and they've had great success. The
average person on the street they're asked this question, how
much do you value your privacy if the whole thing
turns upon your DNA? Are you willing to surrender that
(20:29):
bit of privacy that you have in order to solve
a crime that might facilitate someone being taken off the
street and that sort of thing. And it's not necessarily
a very simple answer. It can be very very complicated.
Speaker 5 (20:48):
This case, I think is different because we hear about
it so much for cold cases, but this is an
active investigation where genetic genealogy came into place, so obviously
the question for normally in cold cases, this is a
little bit of an outlier.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
Yeah, because this is in fact not a cold case.
From the very first day that this happened, you could
hear the whisperings already, I'd say probably within the first
twelve hours of me being on the air and covering
the case. From a forensic standpoint, I had questions being
thrown at me repeatedly about DNA and DNA linkage to
(21:21):
a potential perpetrator. How is it possible that a subject
could go into an environment which we can, I think
pretty safely state is just a blood bath and not
leave some essence of themselves behind, and you have the
genetic connection at the scene in that home where this
(21:43):
massacre took place, and then apparently you have genetic connectivity
at Coberg's family's house. So now you're looking at two
things that are kind of coalescing here, they're coming together,
and you begin to create this picture. It's a damning
bit of evidence. I think now the courts, the attorneys
(22:04):
will get together and they'll begin to question things like
sourcing and procedurally, how was this done, how was the
assessment done, How can this actually be validated? How do
we know the sample may or may not have been
contaminated because it is so very fragile. Those questions will
come up. But the fact is you have this arguably
(22:24):
astronomical numerical mountain that the defense is going to have
to climb in this case. And I look, I don't
necessarily think that the DNA data that they gathered there
in Pennsylvania, and the DNA that we know about at
least thus far from what was collected at this quadruple
homicide is the end of the DNA. There very well
(22:46):
might be more, we just don't know what it is
at this point, though.
Speaker 5 (22:51):
What's your opinion As an expert, do you think genetic
genealogy should be used for rest or narrowing down suspect less.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
I think that there is utility for it, certainly. I
don't know that I have encountered a case where it
was turned around this quickly, you know, because look, it
seems as though we've been covering Idaho forever and ever
this point, but we haven't. It's really been a very
short period of time, and this profile was turned out
very quickly. So there is obviously provable utility relative to
(23:22):
the tool. I think that it can potentially be a
very slippery slope from a privacy standpoint. There are so
many cases out there that are cold, and you would
want nothing more than to have answers to these things
that have kind of lingered in our mind and actually
have become part and parcel of our history, And certainly
(23:45):
in the true crime community. Can you even imagine if
they were able to, say, for instance, come up with
a bit of unidentified DNA from say the Black Dalia
case or from Jack the Ripper, and they were able
to construct some kind of DNA profile based upon that.
I think a lot of us would really like to
know who those individuals might be that committed these crimes. However,
(24:09):
we have to keep in the forefront of our mind
what our expectations are as American citizens. Do we have
a right to privacy? And this is not just maybe
our records or our papers that you're talking about government
authorities having access to. We're talking about our base genetic code.
Speaker 5 (24:28):
Do you think it's the future? Like, is there any
way to stop to you know, kind of put this
back in the box or is it like now police
have this in their tool, but they're going to use it.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
No, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
We're beyond that. Now we've crossed the rubicon. It will
be used and continue to be used. I just hope
that the people that wheel the tool have the best
interest of the citizenry at large, because no one in
our population is guilty until they are in fact proven guilty.
A quadruple homicide in a college town is stuff that
(24:59):
just doesn't happen every day, and it's one of these
moments in time that it has created extraordinary circumstances, and
to my way of thinking, the investigative authorities that are
involved in this case went to extraordinary measures in order
to facilitate the solving of this case, or at least
to give them an indication as to who may have
(25:22):
had a hand in this. And that's why they went
through these great links using genetic genealogy.
Speaker 3 (25:30):
Let's stop here for another break. Once FBI investigators and
authroom genealogists had the DNA, they began to look for
full or partial matches to the suspected Idaho Killers DNA.
(25:52):
The first results were distant relatives. Slowly they created a
massive family tree that utilized the genetic information of the
Coburger's immediate family cousins and all of their distant relatives.
That tree would have provided a short list of potential
suspects within the Coburger family tree. Again, Stephanie and Jeff.
Speaker 5 (26:17):
The most famous successful case of genetic genealogy mapping is
the Golden State Killer. In the nineteen seventies and eighties,
he terrorized California, murdering at least thirteen people. Likely he
killed and raped many more. But even with DNA evidence,
years went by with no solid leads and the cases
went cold. Why because the killer wasn't in any criminal database.
(26:37):
But in twenty eighteen, investigators had an idea. They used
public DNA information to see if they could locate and
identify family members of the Golden State killer using genetic
genealogy mapping. After painstakingly mapping out the killer's genetic links,
police were able to identify Joseph James DiAngelo, a retired
police officer living outside Sacramento, California.
Speaker 6 (26:56):
To me, it's super interesting that he, just like co
Burger aspired to be, was also in law enforcement.
Speaker 4 (27:04):
I agree.
Speaker 5 (27:05):
So anyways, this technique is now being used to solve
hundreds of cold cases.
Speaker 6 (27:09):
I'll say this though, it really does require a shift
in the process and the procedures that are currently in
place to catching a bad guy because labs really aren't
set up to do this type of genetic genealogy mapping.
They also don't regularly employ genealogists who map family trees.
Speaker 5 (27:26):
But all that might change because of the success of
the Idaho investigation.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
On the morning of December nineteenth, investigators positively identified their
loan suspect by mapping the genetic similarities of the killers' relatives.
Police were able to confirm through DNA genetic genealogy mapping
that twenty eight year old Brian Coberger was the likely killer.
Speaker 6 (27:54):
Can you imagine that day for the hardworking investigators on
this case.
Speaker 5 (27:59):
Yeah, was already one of their suspects. His name had
been forwarded to investigators. He drove a white Honda a Lantra,
he lived near the victims, had exhibited odd behavior, and
his cell phone had pinged in the area of the crowd.
He checked every.
Speaker 6 (28:11):
Box, and yet without a murder weapon or some kind
of DNA evidence, police still don't really have any real
case against him. While it might seem like a lot
in hindsight, at the time, it was all really circumstantial
To make an arrest. Cops really needed something more.
Speaker 5 (28:28):
And it's not really clear if Cooberger was quote unquote
the suspect before the genealogy ampol came back, or if
his name was just on a long list of persons
of interest.
Speaker 3 (28:39):
With Coburger now identified as the prime suspect, investigators worked
to strengthen their case against him, applying for a search
warrant of Coburger's phone activity and the time period around
the murders. On the morning of the killings, the result
showed Coburger's phone hanging a tower near his home before
moving south at a rapid speed and then disco connecting
(29:00):
from the cellular phone system. Here's reporter Chris Spargo.
Speaker 8 (29:05):
So at two forty two in the morning, Brian Coburger's
cell phone is recorded as sort of being on the
network in Pullman, Washington, where his dormitory is on Washingt
State University campus. Then a few minutes later goes off
the network and is disconnected. From that point on, there's
just counts of people seeing his white han Day lantro
so is white han Day Launt scene leaving Pullman shortly
after that, and then around three point thirty ittth seen
(29:27):
in Moscow. Now, the direct route from Pullman to Moscow
is about fifteen minutes tops, and this is late at night,
so it's not going to be any traffic, so it's
assumed he took some sort of way that would have
gone around that sort of main road.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
During the exact moments of the murders, Coburger's cell phone
was offline and wouldn't return until four forty eight am,
at least twenty minutes after investigators say the murders took place.
When Coburger's phone does reconnect, it pings off several towers
south of Moscow and maps an odd early morning travel
pattern for the next forty five minutes. The data shows
(30:04):
Coburger driving on back roads and taking an off the
beaten track route to his home in Pullman, Washington.
Speaker 8 (30:12):
It's a difficult alibi for him because he has to
explain that phone called ping off the tower in the
middle of nowhere at four forty five am on the
night of the murders.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
Police also obtained cell phone data that showed that Coburger's
phone was in the area of the house on King
Road at least a dozen times in the weeks before
the attack. By December twenty third, police were closing in
on Coburger, but investigators still need a direct genetic comparison
between Coburger and the DNA on the knife sheath before
making an arrest. Four days later, Pennsylvania State Police are
(30:47):
tasked with watching Brian Coburger pull trash from his parents'
home on December twenty eighth. DNA results showed that the
mail DNA pulled from the trash can was a ninety
nine point nine nine nine eight percent likely to be
the biological father of the DNA pulled from the knife
sheath left on Madison Mogan's bed. This parental link was
(31:08):
the last piece of evidence needed for an arrest warrant.
Coburger was arrested shortly after. When Brian Coberger was arrested
in the early hours of December thirtieth, his family didn't
know the role their own DNA played in his capture,
but they did release a statement expressing sympathy for the
four Idaho families who lost their precious children. Coberger's family
(31:29):
also said they had fully cooperated with law enforcement agencies
in an attempt to seek the truth. They also asked
for privacy as the case move forward through the legal process. Later,
they found out their own family's DNA led investigators to
Brian Coburger, Stephanie, and Jeff.
Speaker 5 (31:51):
DNA has become increasingly important for successful prosecutions thanks to
something called the CSI effect, which shows like CSI, Cold
Case Without a Trace, Criminal Linds basically every other CBS series.
Everyone thinks they're a criminal expert, so a large portion
of jurors expect that the prosecutors will present some type
of scientific data as part of their.
Speaker 6 (32:09):
Case, which in some cases is a very fair assessment,
and look things like eyewitnesses and motives are still very important,
but without any kind of scientific DNA or firearm ballistics
or fingerprints, it's really hard to get a conviction.
Speaker 5 (32:26):
The CSI effect is fascinating as it may also affect
how criminals themselves act. In the year two thousand, when
CSI premiered, forty six point nine percent of all rate
cases in the United States were resolved by police. By
two thousand and five, the rate had fallen to forty
one point three percent. Some investigators attributed this to client
to the CSI effect, as crime shows often inadvertently explain
(32:47):
in detail how criminals can conceal or destroy evidence.
Speaker 6 (32:50):
But back to how this affects this case. Look, as
we know, our legal system demands proof beyond a reasonable
doubt before we can convict, and the jurors see these
types of scientific tests as frankly undeniable proof of guilt,
whereas eyewitnesses or potential motives those can be sometimes imperfect.
Speaker 5 (33:11):
There have been multiple studies that say more than seventy
percent of jurors expect scientific evidence like DNA and murder
or rape prosecutions.
Speaker 6 (33:18):
And really it has done extraordinary work in terms of
people being released from prison because the DNA testing obviously
proved their innocence despite the fact that they had been convicted,
So when you think about it, it's not surprising that
Idaho prosecutors have put a ton of weight into the
DNA elements of this case.
Speaker 5 (33:37):
If this does go to trial, it's safe to assume
that prosecutors will have to show that Brian Coberger was
in the house and his DNA was all over the
crime scene where Kaylee Madison, Sanna and Ethan were killed.
The question is, though, is that going to be an
impossible task?
Speaker 3 (33:56):
More on that next time. For worm on the case
and relevant photos, follow us on Instagram at KAT Underscore Studios.
The Idaho Masacre is produced by Stephanie Leidecker, Jeff Shane,
Connor Powell, Chris Bargo, Gabriel Castillo, and me Courtney Armstrong.
(34:16):
Editing and sound designed by Jeff Toi. Music by Jared Aston.
The Idaho Masacre is a production of iHeart Radio and
KAT Studios. For more podcasts like this, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Speaker 7 (34:36):
I'm Diana, You May Knows Body Movin, My Friend and
I John Green were featured in the Netflix documentary Don't
f with Cats. On our new podcast, True Crimes with
John and Deiana were turning our online investigative skills to
some of the most unexplained, unsolved, and most ignored cases.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
Please say.
Speaker 5 (34:54):
Thirty three year old bride Again was shot dead.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
Gunned down in front of his two year old daughter.
Speaker 8 (35:00):
Detectives confirmed that it was a targeted attack.
Speaker 4 (35:02):
It appears to be an execution style of assassination.
Speaker 7 (35:05):
This is very active, so we have to be careful.
Speaker 6 (35:08):
I've heard that there's a house that has some bodies
in the basement.
Speaker 4 (35:11):
I knew. I just knew something was wrong.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
Maybe there's something more sinister at play than just one
young girl going missing. If you know something, heard something,
please it's never too late.
Speaker 4 (35:24):
To do the right thing.
Speaker 7 (35:26):
This is True Crimes with John and Deianna, the.
Speaker 5 (35:29):
Production of KT Studios and iHeartRadio.
Speaker 4 (35:33):
Justice is something that takes different shapes or formed
The Moscow Police Department put out a renewed call for
social media content, pictures and videos.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
From the community.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Investigators are still asking anyone with any information to contact
the Moscow tip Line. The investigation into who killed four
University of Idaho students has now received ten thousand tips.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
This is the Idaho Massacre a production of KT Studios
and iHeartRadio, Episode six The Hunt Courtney Armstrong, a television
producer at KT Studios, with Stephanie Leidecker, Jeff Shane, and
Connor Powell. Weeks after four University of Idaho students were
(00:53):
murdered in their off campus home, investigators are on a
relentless search for the killer as the tips rolled in.
Multiple law enforcement agencies, including the Idaho's d Police and
the FBI, were working with the Moscow PD to crack
the case. They were methodically zeroing in on their main suspect,
(01:15):
following the evidence from the mysterious white Atlantra to the
DNA left at the scene. While observing Brian Coberger at
his family's home in Pennsylvania, the twenty eight year old
was seen wearing rubber latex gloves in public and putting
trash in neighbor's garbage cans. Coburger's family also noticed this
bizarre behavior. According to reports, one of his own sisters
(01:37):
began to wonder if her brother could have been involved
in the murders, at one point even saying loudly that
her brother lived near the victims and drove a white
Honda Atlantra. While some in the Coburger family may have
had their suspicions about him, unbeknownst to them, their own
family's genetic DNA would be key to linking Brian Koeberger
to the murders.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
Big crack in this case came from das a specifically
genetic genealogy.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Within days of the gruesome murders, police suspected the white
Houndai Alantra seen repeatedly driving near the King Road crime
site was connected to the murders. Investigators immediately began compiling
a list of white Lantras registered in the region. Investigators
first sought cell records. They then most likely looked for
(02:25):
every person who panged the Moscow Tower and owned to
white Alantra, but the search of the long list of
white Alantra's didn't turn up anything conclusive for weeks. Here's
Jeff and Stephanie.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
As November was coming to a close, the Moscow police
assured the public that there was no threat to the
community and that they were in fact making progress.
Speaker 6 (02:49):
And at this point cops were really combing through thousands
of tips and pieces of information, most of which frankly
led nowhere.
Speaker 5 (02:57):
Can you imagine the pressure. Not only are they concerned
about the safety of this college town, but they have
the whole world watching them.
Speaker 6 (03:05):
I remember this time, the public really wanted information, and
every day that went by without an arrest, people were
getting angrier and angrier.
Speaker 5 (03:14):
Yeah, it's a really unfair expectation, but at this point
there really was no credible suspect or murder weapon.
Speaker 6 (03:20):
And then by early December, investigators had combed through the
victim's classmates, their friends, as well as any perhaps registered
sex offenders in the area, stalkers, any individuals known for
violently harassing people. They even looked into a local white supremacist,
but again, sadly, it all led to nothing.
Speaker 5 (03:42):
The white Alantra was truly the best lead, but it's
an incredibly common car. In twenty twenty one, Hyundai sold
over one hundred and twenty four thousand Lantras, In fact,
the number of aluntras sold last year compared to the
year before increased forty seven percent, So it's basically like
finding a needle in a haystack.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
For weeks, Brian Coberger was simply a name on an
ever growing list, one of the many white Atlanta owners,
and then he was the lone suspect and under arrest.
Speaker 7 (04:13):
Suspect Brian Coburger is behind bars after investigators linked his
DNA at the crime scene two of a DNA taken
from the trash at his parents' home.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
The official public story laid out in the Probable Cause
AFFI David is that investigator's positively identified Coburger by matching
DNA evidence from the knife sheath to Coburger's father's DNA.
But investigators in the Idaho Police Lab didn't have a
positive DNA match for the twenty eight year old criminology
(04:45):
student until at least December twenty seventh, when a surveillance
crew pulled his father's DNA from the trash. So how
did investigators know and with such confidence to start surveillance
on Coburger long before the conclusive DNA match.
Speaker 6 (05:00):
Investigative genetic genealogy was used to point them in his direction.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
The path to positively identify in the Washington State University
PhD student, employed and new, and at the same time
one of the most controversial modern crime solving techniques. It's
a DNA method that is only reluctantly talked about by
law enforcement. Before we can explain what genetic genealogy is
(05:27):
and why it's so rare and controversial, we need to
explain how DNA material is normally collected and used in
a criminal investigation.
Speaker 4 (05:36):
So DNA is what makes us what we are, and
every single cell of our body, with a few exceptions,
has the same DNA. I like to describe it as
an enormous encyclopedia.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
That's Daniel Padini, the head of the forensic Sciences department
at George Washington University speaking with Jeff.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
And every cell of our body kind of harvests or
looks at parts of that encyclopedia that it needs to
become what it needs to develop in. So the liver
cell will look at the encyclopedia chapter on how to
become a liver cell. The retina cell will do the same,
but it's going to be a different chapter. But the
entire encyclopedia is present in every single cell, so we
(06:22):
can look at parts of this encyclopedia that are different
among individuals, and we can generate the DNA profile that
has a very very low frequency in the population to
the point that we can essentially identify a single individual.
Speaker 5 (06:42):
How has that now kind of changed the way investigators
work on criminal cases.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
Yeah, it really has dramatically changed the forensic investigations in
terms of being able to identify an individual that was
a crime scene. If a biological evidence is recovered at
a crime scene, a DNA profile can be generated and
then compared either to a database everybody's heard about the
(07:13):
CODIS Combined DNA Index System, which is a repository of
DNA profiles from convicted defenders or directly to the DNA
of suspect in order to identify the person that left
their DNA at the crime scene.
Speaker 5 (07:29):
And as we know, there was touch DNA found on it.
Can you explain to us what touch DNA is.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
Touch DNA is a very general term that refers to
the DNA that is deposited on a surface through touching it.
There's a lot of different types of cells that can
be deposited when touching a surface. For example, if I
scratch my nose or I cough in my hand, they're
(07:56):
being me some cells that come from the mucus or
from sali. There's also epithelial cells from my skin that
I'm gonna deposit. And also there's a lot of cell
free DNA that is secreted in sweat. So there's a
bunch of different types of sources of DNA that we deposit.
(08:17):
So exactly what touch DNA is we don't know, but
it's a combination of all of those and so, and
you can't really see it with a naked eye, so
you have to trust or you have to make some assumptions,
and generally you're going to try and collect that from
surfaces dead will have been touched.
Speaker 5 (08:40):
Is it how we see in the movies where they
like dust it and there's like a perfect thumbprint on
the ground or wherever.
Speaker 4 (08:47):
No, it's not quite like that. Sometimes if there's a
blood stain or a semen stain or a saliva stain,
then yes, it's it's pretty simple. You swab that area,
you transfer the biology stain onto a swab, and then
you extract the DNA directly from the swab. At times,
though you're not able to see the DNA, you can
(09:09):
assume that there is DNA in that area, and so
you swab that surface. In the case that we're talking about,
they found this knife sheet and they swabbed the area.
At least that's my understanding. They swabbed the area around
the button and they extracted the DNA from that, But
(09:30):
you don't necessarily see it, and you don't know it's
there until you've completed the extraction process and you went
through a second process that's called DNA quantification. The DNA
quantification process allows us to determine how much DNA there
is and also the quality of that DNA in terms
of it being degraded or potentially inhibited.
Speaker 5 (09:54):
So if you're an investigator, you just kind of try
to get DNA off of anything without you're kind of
blindly doing it. You're thinking, Okay, there could be DNA here,
could be DA in here, and then it's not till
you test it that you actually are are aware of
if there is DNA, and then you have to figure
out how much DNA.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
Obviously, you can't swab an entire apartment. That's just not practical,
and the DNA extraction process and analysis is expensive and
it takes time, so you need to be frugal and
keep in mind the resources that are available. So you
tend to do an evaluation of the crime scene and
(10:32):
based on the scenario, identify pieces of evidence that have
the greatest chance of providing useful information for the case.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
Here again, Stephanie and Jeff.
Speaker 6 (10:48):
Since its creation in nineteen eighty seven, DNA testing has
proven to be an incredible useful tool in identifying criminals.
It completely changed the criminal justice system.
Speaker 5 (10:58):
How it applies to this case is really fascinating. We
know that investigators pulled a single source mail touch DNA
off the button of the knife sheet that was left
at the murdercy. Touch DNA is DNA transferred from a
person to an object via contact with the object itself.
It's called touch DNA because it only requires very small samples,
for example, from the skin cell left on something after
it's been touched or casually handled, or from footprints. So
(11:24):
cops have this piece of touch DNA and they tried
to link that to criminals already in the system. Because,
as you may or may not know, when someone is arrested,
they have to give a fingerprint, which then gets put
into law enforcement's database system. So let's say whoever did
commit this massacre also had robbed a bank years ago,
cops would get a match and have all the suspects information.
Speaker 6 (11:44):
But that didn't happen here because by all accounts, Brian
did not have any kind of a criminal record. Maybe
he was busted for tailgating or something, but that was
the extent of it.
Speaker 5 (11:55):
I would think that since he had wanted to work
in law enforcement and applied for that internship, that he
might have had to give his fingerprint at some point.
Speaker 6 (12:02):
But there was no match in the system of DNA
at the crime scene. So unfortunately this was just a
dead end.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
a moment. With pressure mounting and leads coming up empty,
investigators turned to genetic genealogy as an alternative way of
identifying DNA on the knife sheath. Here's forensic expert Joseph
(12:35):
Scott Morgan.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
The cool thing about genetic genealogy, and it's almost as
if you've got people that have discovered this thing just
in the last few years, where it's this fascinating methodology
of tracking down things or putting an identity to things
or people more specifically, that otherwise have remained kind of
cloaked in secrecy for many, many years.
Speaker 5 (13:05):
How would you say it differs or doesn't differ from
regular DNA testing.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
When it comes to testing for any kind of biological element,
as it's tied back to DNA. The FEDS maintain a
database that is actually referred to it's the FBI's database
that's actually referred to as CODIS, which is combined DNA
Index System. And people hear this term thrown around quite
(13:30):
a bit, and I'm sure that folks have heard about,
you know, where you have sex offenders where they are
mandated by court to give up a sample and once
that sample is rendered, unto the courts and unto the system,
it's banked at that point in time. So those are
known offenders, all right. On the other side of the house,
you have what's referred to as a forensic database. Those
(13:52):
are these horrible crimes, just like you know, the Golden
State killer that have gone undetected from many years. Those
are forensic cases where you have a sample which is
essentially the DNA code that's built into all of us,
but yet you don't have an identity that goes specifically
to that person, and so those are the unknowns. And
(14:15):
when you're looking at serialized crimes, for instance, if you
can get a DNA sample from multiple cases and it
kind of funneled back into the system, what they're looking
for in the forensic side of the house is to
see if you get multiple hits from a single individual,
and that gives you an idea of that you have
a serial perpetrator, for instance, on your hands. Now here's
(14:37):
the thing when it comes to genetic genealogy. This throws
kind of a wrinkle into everything because for years and
years it's been all about unknown assailants. When you have
an event where you have DNA deposition at a scene,
let's say, for instance, from any kind of body fluid,
(14:59):
blood seam, whatever the case, saliva at the scene, or
maybe even partial DNA that we get from touch DNA,
if you can capture that bit of biological sample, you
can kind of kick it into the next level with
genetic genealogy because there is this massive database that exists
(15:20):
out there of people that are seeking their ancestors, or
perhaps people that are looking to find out their parentage,
people that have been put up for adoption, Who are
they related to? And so many government agencies look at
this as this kind of broad ranging spectrum that they
can dig into and utilize that to kind of connect
(15:43):
the dots, if you would, as to who an unknown
perpetrator might be. And you know, here's the thing. Many
of these cases are solved by identifying cousins of all things,
and we all have cousins. Many of us are related
to one another, and we have no idea, and so
you look for this connectivity and then you kind of
(16:05):
begin to narrow this down with genetic genealogy.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Despite having their own in state forensic laboratory, the Idaho
State Police contacted a private third party company to conduct
the genealogy testing. Athroom is a Texas based company that
specializes in forensic genetic genealogy and has helped resolve unsolved
murders and identify unknown victims. With the help of the FBI,
(16:36):
the firm was able to create a more extensive DNA
profile of the suspected killer, and then it was uploaded
to commercial genetic testing databases.
Speaker 5 (16:48):
Jeff and Stephanie, we don't know where the data profile
was uploaded. Most likely, though it was Jebmatch or family
Tree DNA, which are both familial DNA testing services. On
these sites you can find out what your heritage is
or if you have any long lost cousins across the world.
They are also both commercial websites that allow law enforcement searches.
They differ from twenty three in me or Ancestry DNA,
(17:10):
which do not allow investigators to search the records.
Speaker 6 (17:13):
That does make perfect sense from a consumer's standpoint. I mean, look,
if you go to a website like twenty three in
me or Ancestry DNA, you may not want your personal
data getting out to law enforcement or personal data regarding
anybody in your family. I would imagine that these companies
are frankly afraid that law enforcement has access to everyone's
(17:35):
DNA and then people won't upload their info, thus hurting
their ultimate bottom line. Privacy is a pretty major concern
for this industry.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
Here again Jeff speaking with forensic expert just so Scott Morgan, and.
Speaker 5 (17:50):
Would you say that's why it's controversial, because every Tom,
Dick and Harry can kind of help the police catch
their cousin in a crime.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Most people in the population that are submitting their DNA,
they don't have a point of reference for what their
constitutional standing is as it applies to privacy and these
sorts of things. And you know, I think that for
many folks when they render this DNA sample, and it's
generally a cheek swab or a cheek scraping. When you
(18:18):
go in, you take the sample, you submit it to
one of these companies and they begin to run your profile.
You don't have this expectation that this is going to
be used to solve a crime. Now, many people might
not have a problem with that, but others do. They're
not entering into this agreement with a company so that
they're going to be crime solvers. They want to determine
(18:39):
the mystery that surrounds their heritage and to try to
determine who they came from. The Supreme Court has ruled
in the past that you do not have like a
baked in expectation of privacy if you freely surrender something, Okay,
particularly in this case we're talking about genetic material. They've
(19:00):
held that there is no expectation of privacy for a
third party. And so you've got these two that go
back and forth. What it comes down to, I think
probably for many of these companies people famously like ancestry
dot com. We've got twenty three and me that have
been out there for a while. They have vigorously stated
that they are not working with any government agency and
(19:23):
they're not going to surrender anything unless they're being presented
with a subpoena that they are in fact being compelled
to offer up these profiles that they have. And so
that in and of itself is kind of striking when
it comes to the utility of forensic genealogy.
Speaker 5 (19:39):
And is that why you think to use it or
to talk about it when they do.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Use it, I think to a great degree, police are
reticent to reveal their sources when it comes to you generally,
don't find out the veil is not lifted. If you will,
you know from their source how they went about accomplishing
this these tasks. There are companies out there that do
in fact aid in the facilitation of this. Orthum comes
(20:06):
to mind in particular, they've been around for a few
years now and they've certainly made a name from themselves
and are highly regarded from a scientific perspective and the
methodologies that they employ, and they've had great success. The
average person on the street they're asked this question, how
much do you value your privacy if the whole thing
turns upon your DNA? Are you willing to surrender that
(20:29):
bit of privacy that you have in order to solve
a crime that might facilitate someone being taken off the
street and that sort of thing. And it's not necessarily
a very simple answer. It can be very very complicated.
Speaker 5 (20:48):
This case, I think is different because we hear about
it so much for cold cases, but this is an
active investigation where genetic genealogy came into place, so obviously
the question for normally in cold cases, this is a
little bit of an outlier.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
Yeah, because this is in fact not a cold case.
From the very first day that this happened, you could
hear the whisperings already, I'd say probably within the first
twelve hours of me being on the air and covering
the case. From a forensic standpoint, I had questions being
thrown at me repeatedly about DNA and DNA linkage to
(21:21):
a potential perpetrator. How is it possible that a subject
could go into an environment which we can, I think
pretty safely state is just a blood bath and not
leave some essence of themselves behind, and you have the
genetic connection at the scene in that home where this
(21:43):
massacre took place, and then apparently you have genetic connectivity
at Coberg's family's house. So now you're looking at two
things that are kind of coalescing here, they're coming together,
and you begin to create this picture. It's a damning
bit of evidence. I think now the courts, the attorneys
(22:04):
will get together and they'll begin to question things like
sourcing and procedurally, how was this done, how was the
assessment done, How can this actually be validated? How do
we know the sample may or may not have been
contaminated because it is so very fragile. Those questions will
come up. But the fact is you have this arguably
(22:24):
astronomical numerical mountain that the defense is going to have
to climb in this case. And I look, I don't
necessarily think that the DNA data that they gathered there
in Pennsylvania, and the DNA that we know about at
least thus far from what was collected at this quadruple
homicide is the end of the DNA. There very well
(22:46):
might be more, we just don't know what it is
at this point, though.
Speaker 5 (22:51):
What's your opinion As an expert, do you think genetic
genealogy should be used for rest or narrowing down suspect less.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
I think that there is utility for it, certainly. I
don't know that I have encountered a case where it
was turned around this quickly, you know, because look, it
seems as though we've been covering Idaho forever and ever
this point, but we haven't. It's really been a very
short period of time, and this profile was turned out
very quickly. So there is obviously provable utility relative to
(23:22):
the tool. I think that it can potentially be a
very slippery slope from a privacy standpoint. There are so
many cases out there that are cold, and you would
want nothing more than to have answers to these things
that have kind of lingered in our mind and actually
have become part and parcel of our history, And certainly
(23:45):
in the true crime community. Can you even imagine if
they were able to, say, for instance, come up with
a bit of unidentified DNA from say the Black Dalia
case or from Jack the Ripper, and they were able
to construct some kind of DNA profile based upon that.
I think a lot of us would really like to
know who those individuals might be that committed these crimes. However,
(24:09):
we have to keep in the forefront of our mind
what our expectations are as American citizens. Do we have
a right to privacy? And this is not just maybe
our records or our papers that you're talking about government
authorities having access to. We're talking about our base genetic code.
Speaker 5 (24:28):
Do you think it's the future? Like, is there any
way to stop to you know, kind of put this
back in the box or is it like now police
have this in their tool, but they're going to use it.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
No, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
We're beyond that. Now we've crossed the rubicon. It will
be used and continue to be used. I just hope
that the people that wheel the tool have the best
interest of the citizenry at large, because no one in
our population is guilty until they are in fact proven guilty.
A quadruple homicide in a college town is stuff that
(24:59):
just doesn't happen every day, and it's one of these
moments in time that it has created extraordinary circumstances, and
to my way of thinking, the investigative authorities that are
involved in this case went to extraordinary measures in order
to facilitate the solving of this case, or at least
to give them an indication as to who may have
(25:22):
had a hand in this. And that's why they went
through these great links using genetic genealogy.
Speaker 3 (25:30):
Let's stop here for another break. Once FBI investigators and
authroom genealogists had the DNA, they began to look for
full or partial matches to the suspected Idaho Killers DNA.
(25:52):
The first results were distant relatives. Slowly they created a
massive family tree that utilized the genetic information of the
Coburger's immediate family cousins and all of their distant relatives.
That tree would have provided a short list of potential
suspects within the Coburger family tree. Again, Stephanie and Jeff.
Speaker 5 (26:17):
The most famous successful case of genetic genealogy mapping is
the Golden State Killer. In the nineteen seventies and eighties,
he terrorized California, murdering at least thirteen people. Likely he
killed and raped many more. But even with DNA evidence,
years went by with no solid leads and the cases
went cold. Why because the killer wasn't in any criminal database.
(26:37):
But in twenty eighteen, investigators had an idea. They used
public DNA information to see if they could locate and
identify family members of the Golden State killer using genetic
genealogy mapping. After painstakingly mapping out the killer's genetic links,
police were able to identify Joseph James DiAngelo, a retired
police officer living outside Sacramento, California.
Speaker 6 (26:56):
To me, it's super interesting that he, just like co
Burger aspired to be, was also in law enforcement.
Speaker 4 (27:04):
I agree.
Speaker 5 (27:05):
So anyways, this technique is now being used to solve
hundreds of cold cases.
Speaker 6 (27:09):
I'll say this though, it really does require a shift
in the process and the procedures that are currently in
place to catching a bad guy because labs really aren't
set up to do this type of genetic genealogy mapping.
They also don't regularly employ genealogists who map family trees.
Speaker 5 (27:26):
But all that might change because of the success of
the Idaho investigation.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
On the morning of December nineteenth, investigators positively identified their
loan suspect by mapping the genetic similarities of the killers' relatives.
Police were able to confirm through DNA genetic genealogy mapping
that twenty eight year old Brian Coberger was the likely killer.
Speaker 6 (27:54):
Can you imagine that day for the hardworking investigators on
this case.
Speaker 5 (27:59):
Yeah, was already one of their suspects. His name had
been forwarded to investigators. He drove a white Honda a Lantra,
he lived near the victims, had exhibited odd behavior, and
his cell phone had pinged in the area of the crowd.
He checked every.
Speaker 6 (28:11):
Box, and yet without a murder weapon or some kind
of DNA evidence, police still don't really have any real
case against him. While it might seem like a lot
in hindsight, at the time, it was all really circumstantial
To make an arrest. Cops really needed something more.
Speaker 5 (28:28):
And it's not really clear if Cooberger was quote unquote
the suspect before the genealogy ampol came back, or if
his name was just on a long list of persons
of interest.
Speaker 3 (28:39):
With Coburger now identified as the prime suspect, investigators worked
to strengthen their case against him, applying for a search
warrant of Coburger's phone activity and the time period around
the murders. On the morning of the killings, the result
showed Coburger's phone hanging a tower near his home before
moving south at a rapid speed and then disco connecting
(29:00):
from the cellular phone system. Here's reporter Chris Spargo.
Speaker 8 (29:05):
So at two forty two in the morning, Brian Coburger's
cell phone is recorded as sort of being on the
network in Pullman, Washington, where his dormitory is on Washingt
State University campus. Then a few minutes later goes off
the network and is disconnected. From that point on, there's
just counts of people seeing his white han Day lantro
so is white han Day Launt scene leaving Pullman shortly
after that, and then around three point thirty ittth seen
(29:27):
in Moscow. Now, the direct route from Pullman to Moscow
is about fifteen minutes tops, and this is late at night,
so it's not going to be any traffic, so it's
assumed he took some sort of way that would have
gone around that sort of main road.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
During the exact moments of the murders, Coburger's cell phone
was offline and wouldn't return until four forty eight am,
at least twenty minutes after investigators say the murders took place.
When Coburger's phone does reconnect, it pings off several towers
south of Moscow and maps an odd early morning travel
pattern for the next forty five minutes. The data shows
(30:04):
Coburger driving on back roads and taking an off the
beaten track route to his home in Pullman, Washington.
Speaker 8 (30:12):
It's a difficult alibi for him because he has to
explain that phone called ping off the tower in the
middle of nowhere at four forty five am on the
night of the murders.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
Police also obtained cell phone data that showed that Coburger's
phone was in the area of the house on King
Road at least a dozen times in the weeks before
the attack. By December twenty third, police were closing in
on Coburger, but investigators still need a direct genetic comparison
between Coburger and the DNA on the knife sheath before
making an arrest. Four days later, Pennsylvania State Police are
(30:47):
tasked with watching Brian Coburger pull trash from his parents'
home on December twenty eighth. DNA results showed that the
mail DNA pulled from the trash can was a ninety
nine point nine nine nine eight percent likely to be
the biological father of the DNA pulled from the knife
sheath left on Madison Mogan's bed. This parental link was
(31:08):
the last piece of evidence needed for an arrest warrant.
Coburger was arrested shortly after. When Brian Coberger was arrested
in the early hours of December thirtieth, his family didn't
know the role their own DNA played in his capture,
but they did release a statement expressing sympathy for the
four Idaho families who lost their precious children. Coberger's family
(31:29):
also said they had fully cooperated with law enforcement agencies
in an attempt to seek the truth. They also asked
for privacy as the case move forward through the legal process. Later,
they found out their own family's DNA led investigators to
Brian Coburger, Stephanie, and Jeff.
Speaker 5 (31:51):
DNA has become increasingly important for successful prosecutions thanks to
something called the CSI effect, which shows like CSI, Cold
Case Without a Trace, Criminal Linds basically every other CBS series.
Everyone thinks they're a criminal expert, so a large portion
of jurors expect that the prosecutors will present some type
of scientific data as part of their.
Speaker 6 (32:09):
Case, which in some cases is a very fair assessment,
and look things like eyewitnesses and motives are still very important,
but without any kind of scientific DNA or firearm ballistics
or fingerprints, it's really hard to get a conviction.
Speaker 5 (32:26):
The CSI effect is fascinating as it may also affect
how criminals themselves act. In the year two thousand, when
CSI premiered, forty six point nine percent of all rate
cases in the United States were resolved by police. By
two thousand and five, the rate had fallen to forty
one point three percent. Some investigators attributed this to client
to the CSI effect, as crime shows often inadvertently explain
(32:47):
in detail how criminals can conceal or destroy evidence.
Speaker 6 (32:50):
But back to how this affects this case. Look, as
we know, our legal system demands proof beyond a reasonable
doubt before we can convict, and the jurors see these
types of scientific tests as frankly undeniable proof of guilt,
whereas eyewitnesses or potential motives those can be sometimes imperfect.
Speaker 5 (33:11):
There have been multiple studies that say more than seventy
percent of jurors expect scientific evidence like DNA and murder
or rape prosecutions.
Speaker 6 (33:18):
And really it has done extraordinary work in terms of
people being released from prison because the DNA testing obviously
proved their innocence despite the fact that they had been convicted,
So when you think about it, it's not surprising that
Idaho prosecutors have put a ton of weight into the
DNA elements of this case.
Speaker 5 (33:37):
If this does go to trial, it's safe to assume
that prosecutors will have to show that Brian Coberger was
in the house and his DNA was all over the
crime scene where Kaylee Madison, Sanna and Ethan were killed.
The question is, though, is that going to be an
impossible task?
Speaker 3 (33:56):
More on that next time. For worm on the case
and relevant photos, follow us on Instagram at KAT Underscore Studios.
The Idaho Masacre is produced by Stephanie Leidecker, Jeff Shane,
Connor Powell, Chris Bargo, Gabriel Castillo, and me Courtney Armstrong.
(34:16):
Editing and sound designed by Jeff Toi. Music by Jared Aston.
The Idaho Masacre is a production of iHeart Radio and
KAT Studios. For more podcasts like this, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Speaker 7 (34:36):
I'm Diana, You May Knows Body Movin, My Friend and
I John Green were featured in the Netflix documentary Don't
f with Cats. On our new podcast, True Crimes with
John and Deiana were turning our online investigative skills to
some of the most unexplained, unsolved, and most ignored cases.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
Please say.
Speaker 5 (34:54):
Thirty three year old bride Again was shot dead.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
Gunned down in front of his two year old daughter.
Speaker 8 (35:00):
Detectives confirmed that it was a targeted attack.
Speaker 4 (35:02):
It appears to be an execution style of assassination.
Speaker 7 (35:05):
This is very active, so we have to be careful.
Speaker 6 (35:08):
I've heard that there's a house that has some bodies
in the basement.
Speaker 4 (35:11):
I knew. I just knew something was wrong.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
Maybe there's something more sinister at play than just one
young girl going missing. If you know something, heard something,
please it's never too late.
Speaker 4 (35:24):
To do the right thing.
Speaker 7 (35:26):
This is True Crimes with John and Deianna, the.
Speaker 5 (35:29):
Production of KT Studios and iHeartRadio.
Speaker 4 (35:33):
Justice is something that takes different shapes or formed
Hosts And Creators
Stephanie Lydecker
Courtney Armstrong
Jeff Shane
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.