I SPEAK WITH RETIRED FBI PROFILER ON THE SUSPECT ARRESTED FOR IDAHO MURDERS OF THE FOUR STUDENTS1

None

Episode Transcript

(00:06):
Welcome to Inside the Criminal Mind podcast, where we analyze some of the most
notorious criminal cases with psychology and criminologycombined. Welcome back, everybody, Welcome
back, Andy, Hey, Carlos, how are you. I'm doing great?

(00:27):
Well. You know what, It'sa good end for twenty twenty two.
I have to say, because theyarrested that suspect. Is what we're
going to be talking about today,folks, the Idaho murders suspect, Brian
Coburger, So we'll be talking aboutthat case. You're going to be talking
about process. If you don't knowAndrew Bringle, you can find out more
about him the Behavioral Science Unit LLCdot com. But he's a former FBI
profiler and a judge. So we'regoing to get a lot of insight information

(00:51):
here, not inside information, Alot of insight is what I wanted to
say, a lot of insight intothis process of how this all unfolded.
And we're limited for time, sowe'll just get right get to the go
here. I just want to makea quick disclaimer of Carlos in that we're
not going to speculate in terms ofinnocence or guilt of any particular individual.

(01:14):
Anyone arrested. Anyone that is asubject or suspect in this investigation is deemed
or is considered innocent until proven guilty. And the person that has been named
in the media by the police departmentand the DA's office out of Idaho is

(01:34):
certainly presumed innocent until all evidences isput forth in a court of laws.
So we're not going to talk aboutthat. We're going to talk about the
processes of the investigation and a coupleof things that have come out of this
investigation because of its national interest.So I just wanted to say that because
we're going to focus more on judicialprocess, investigative process, and some of

(01:57):
the ancillary issues that have come aboutup because of the interest of this investigation.
I think all of those are veryinteresting topics. Well they are.
Well I'm gonna do is just tellyou what so far the media has said.
This is open source information. Doesnot mean he's guilty, folks,
does not mean he's not guilt.We have no idea. But like as
Andy said, innocents are proven guilty. And the latest thing that I just

(02:19):
read now is that his family wasworried because of his bizarre eating habits,
but they didn't say anything about itexcept they had dietary restrictions. That really
doesn't tell us much about anything.Because if they were meat eaters and he
was a vegan, which is whatthey're claiming he was, that means nothing.
I've known people who eat meat whothink vegans are weird, and the
vegans who people he meet, theythink they're weird. So he doesn't tell

(02:42):
me much of anything there. Thething that it did start make me a
little interested. This is not againnot saying that he is the suspectause I
mean he did it. That hisuncle had to buy new pots and pants
because he would not eat anything thathad ever had meat in them. That
is not super weird. They sayhe seemed very OCD just because of that.
I've seen that before with other people. That could be religious reasons.

(03:07):
Who knows. There's a whole hostof things there. So again, I'm
just trying to make sure people don'tjump to the gun or conclusion because the
media is going to try to hypethis up, but there's no tomorrow because
they define OCD and try to correlateit already with that one sentence, and
OCD has criteria, OCD has duration, and those are things you don't know.

(03:29):
Yes, I'll let I think,I'll let you talk about that.
You want me to talk about that, Andy Well, and he was doing
He was telling me right now thatrecords indicate Coburger was a doctoral candidate.
So this is something you can seein the New York Post and criminal Justice
of Washington State University. And Andyand I have talked about this before.
Maybe confirm this. We've seen peoplewho have been convicted. This is guys.

(03:52):
We don't know what he's in listnerguilty yet, but the people who
have been convicted, we've seen afew of them actually get involved in cases
themselves. This is a little differentscenario because he's actually going through he's studying
it. So for whatever reason hestudied it. I don't know what his
adendo was, but he was adoctoral candidate criminal Justice of Washington State University.

(04:12):
He was studying a planning to studythat the emotional and psychological conditions of
would be criminals. That was accordingto a Dassel University where he got his
master's was an email tied to acryptic ret Reddit post amazing how much they
can access with somebody. They foundhim because the White Hyundai Electra Elantra was
matched to the description of the investigatorswere looking for. They found him over

(04:36):
in Pennsylvania, which probably all ofyou know by now. They are saying
the crime scene at the time ofthe merge was also confiscated from the scene
of the rest His DNA had alsobeen matched has also been matched to samples
recovered at the scene of the deaths. But we've seen this before too.
Just because it was there doesn't meanhe did anything, So we really don't

(04:58):
know that yet. So those arejust some of the things that I've that
I've seen right now. The doctoralcandy does make me wonder a little bit
of what was going on there.Let's talk a little bit about let's talk
about the process. Well, firstof all, let's let's start, you
know, very beginning with well,let me let me finish this real quick.
My thought the mental health issues thatI was looking at, because his
ability to complete a master's program andgoing to a doctorate program is pretty pretty

(05:24):
pretty intense. You only got aboutfive or six percent of the US it
has a doctorate, So for himto be able to do that makes me
wonder if he has a mental healthcondition. It's definitely not going to be
psychosis, at least not for thatreason. That's he's gone through a lot
of education. Unless he developed itnow he's twenty eight years old. I
mean, very possible could have developedsome kind of schizophrena at the end,
but I don't know, doctor Iheard that. Isn't that a little late

(05:45):
though? For schizophrenia? It can? But you know, not everything works,
so you know, nice and cutclockwork, yeah something, There's a
lot. Listen, there's a lotgoing on. As you know, getting
your dad is very stressful, andthere's not just mental health and mental illness,
but there's also emotional illnesses as well. And you look at you know,

(06:08):
those types of topics of motive emotionaland psychological motive for violent crime,
and you could, you know,be I hate the term sucked in,
but you could be seduced by itin the sense that if your fascination is
how do people get away with crimesof those types? Always looking at his
ability mentally to handle it, Yeah, but his discipline because that certain mental

(06:31):
health issues is really difficult to beable to go through school and be able
to last because you don't have thediscipline, any attention to do it.
So it kind of rules out alot of several mental health issues. It'll
be curious, you don't have tohave mental health issues. And I'm not
even tying it back to this particularindividual. But let's go back to the
process. I mean, you knowwhat was interesting about the news conference was

(06:56):
the Chief Frud went back and talkedabout the beginning of the investigation from the
patrol officers, the first responders tothe crime scene, and how good a
job they did in containing that crimescene. Now we know it was contaminated
because the two surviving roommates called somepeople over. These are the facts that
were you know, an open sourceand it's very difficult. I bend a

(07:20):
number of crime scenes. It's verydifficult to make sure that it's secured and
contained so that there isn't contamination.It was vital in this case because of
the type of scene that has beenreported. Four victims brutally murdered, blood
everywhere, blood literally leaking out ofthe outside door into the outside of the

(07:42):
house. Again reporting from the newsmedia and open source information from the police
that at least two of the victimshad defensive wounds, indicating that they fought
back. And again we talked aboutthis just in general terms. You stab
someone, it's not an instant death. The person is going to fight back,

(08:05):
right and even if you're attacked whileyou're waking up, because you've been
stabbed and you're going to fight back. And it's highly likely that the subject,
as we've stated in the past,was injured or during the defense of
one of the victims, the victimgouged or scratched or somehow pulled hair.

(08:30):
And there's DNA at the crime scene. So of course DNA and the crime
scene. You know, that happensquite a bit. But you have to
be able to compare it. Sowhen we look at forensic evidence at a
murder scene and you people say,oh, DNA and they think about,
you know, what they've seen onTV. You still need something to compare
it to. A fingerprint is thesame thing. You need something someone to

(08:54):
compare it to. So the investigationcontinued well beyond the collection of that forensic
evidence. We also talked about inthe police chief. Chief Fraud mentioned the
number of tips that was received.Now, there were three agencies working this
investigation. Primarily it was Moscow PD, Idaho State Police, and the FBI.
They had over nineteen thousand tips hadto be triaged nineteen thousand. Now,

(09:18):
I know it's been seven weeks,but think about the math a right,
and a very small department, evenwith the resources that were additional from
the FBI and the state police.And I've worked these types of cases,
the Centennial bomb in nineteen ninety six, the killing of a federal judge in
nineteen eighty nine, and several othersthat even with twenty thirty forty people working

(09:41):
full time, that's still a smallgroup. When you're talking about nineteen thousand
investigative tips over three hundred interviews,What do you think how many do you
think of those nineteen thousand and it'sa complete guest on your partment, how
many do you think were actually good? It was it like five percent?
Again, it's interesting talking about processes, right. So similarly, a federal

(10:03):
judge was killed in nineteen eighty nine, blown up by a bomb. We've
talked about it in previous shows.It was the Van Pack investigation. Judge
up picks a Christmas present right innineteen eighty nine and bomb goes off,
kills him instantly. Maimes his wifeare there are one hundred FBI agents and
local police and state police looking forthe killer at that time, and you

(10:26):
go through thousands and thousands of leads, investigative leads, and you don't know
what's going to break the case openin that particular case, and I was
lucky to be part of that.I found some nails that we used in
the bomb that helped us identify thesuspect who eventually became the subject in the
investigation, convicted Walter Leroy Moody.But in the point being is that every

(10:50):
one of these cases, there isa break. There's this you know,
there's this piece of evidence that thatunravels, and is that break in the
case. I find in that processthe most fascinating part of any investigation.
It can be an interview, itcan be a forensic piece of evidence.
Typically it's two or three things tiedtogether that makes one major break in the

(11:11):
investigation. That is what the chiefChief Fry was talking about when he was
talking about Asked by the press,what was the break in the case,
he says, that'll come out becauseunder I Supreme Court ruling, they have
to seal the facts of the caseuntil he's made an appearance in the state
of Idaho and been formally arringed thereso you can hear the facts come out

(11:35):
in this and the chief mentioned that, right, But the tone I was
reading his body language. I wasreading and listening to his tone and looking
at his facial expressions. Both verbaland nonverbal behavior of the chief indicse to
me he's fairly confident that their investigationhas been thorough and successful at least to

(11:56):
this point. Now, going backto that a pivotal piece of evidence,
it will be interesting for me tosee what that is. It could be
because he mentioned and again this isopen source. We're not talking about a
particular individual. He talked about aknife. The knife the murder weapon not

(12:16):
being found yet, so he's madea further appeal through the media to the
public. Right, So it's aninteresting this is me talking, right.
This is what I find fascinating inthese cases is the interplay between the police
that need the media and need thepublic, but how that relationship has to

(12:39):
be at arms length because there areso many people like you and I that
you know, have access to amicrophone in the Internet, and they're just
espousing whatever they believe and accusing peoplethat have nothing to do with this case
of the most horrendous acts, defamingthem and slandering them all the same,

(13:01):
and the chief wants to avoid that. At the same time he wants he
needs the public to help them tryto identify the murder weapon because they don't
have it. So this kind ofcatch twenty two if you will, where
he needs them, but he doesn'twant them, but there's a risk of
using them, but the cost benefitis such that he has to rely on

(13:24):
the public's you know, see something, say something, kind of thing that
results in nineteen thousand tips. Toyour question, if ten percent of those
are legitimate, that's nineteen hundred,right, yeah, If one percent,
it's almost two hundred leads. Ifone percent are good leads, and the
fact of the matters is probably justone or two leads that led them to

(13:48):
the break in the case. Now, my math's not that good, so
I don't know what that is,but zero zero one or something. Yeah,
three hundred interviews, Carlos, imaginethat three hundred interviews in seven we
do that math, right, what'sseven in the thirties, like two hundred.
It's like a lot. But mypoint is that's that's what they're going

(14:09):
through. The police have done.I think a very good job of husbandry,
work of marshal lying now at theleads when they needed them. There
was a lot of criticism, youknow, in the process, and I've
been you know, in these investigationswhere similar, similar, similar criticism as

(14:33):
occurred. There you go. I'llgive you another case. It was a
kidnapping case. Young woman was kidnapped. Bad guy actually made a ransom call
and the special Agent in charge okay, it was a local police department,
very small police department, Hayleyville,Alabama, And the local police department calls
the FBI and the SAC who's nowworking with the chief of police. But

(14:54):
the chief is relying on the FBIheavily. He's got the he recorded ransom
demand from the bad guy. Nowwe're in the process of trying to catch
the bad guy, and there wasa big debate among the managers. Should
they release the audio of the demandsfrom the kidnapper, because if they do,

(15:20):
then the kidnapper knows that we havethat information at evidence, and he's
been telling the victim's family, youbetter not go to the police, right
and if that happens now that heknows that he's been recorded in his voice,
so now he kills the young lady. That was the fear. At
the same time, we had noreal needs as to where the bad who
the bad guy was, So youneed the public to help identify the bad

(15:45):
guy. Now, now you're inthe situation, you're the special agent in
charge, and the question is doyou release the audio tape and hope that
somebody's hey, that's somebody I know, and take the risk that he kills
the victim, or do you holdit close to the vest in hopes that
you identify the bad guy. Uh, by other means to one. Huh,

(16:07):
it's a tough one, right.So here's what happened. So the
sac and the chief of police decidednot to release it for a period of
about eight nine days. They didn'trelease it till we ran about every lead
we could down and still we didn'thave the victim in in our in our
custody or the bad guy. Sothey made the decision to broadcast the audio

(16:33):
tape within hours. Carlos. Withinhours a relative called and said, that's
my uncle. Bland was his firsthis last name, Jerry Bland, and
he was he was guilty. Hewas the he was the perpetrator. He
was the kidnapper. Unfortunately he hadkilled the victim before the release of the

(16:59):
audio. His accomplice and that's that'sanother aspect of this other investigation, but
whether or not there's an accomplice,and in that case, there was an
accomplice of kidnapping. Her named SherryMcPherson, a cousin of Jerry Blands and
she's in jail life without parole.But but had had that tate not been
released, then the public had wouldnot have come forward. Many of these

(17:25):
cases, in fact, most FBIbig investigations include informants or or cooperation from
the public, all the way backto John Dillinger, the woman in Red
actress, she was in an orangeskirt, but she was a cooperative informant.
And you know John Gotti and inthe Gambino case, I mean,
he was the integral part of helpingput John Gotti in in uh in jail.

(17:49):
So it'll be interesting again we're talkingabout process to how to figure out
how this process in Idaho has gone, the investigative process in in terms of
the big break in the case rightthat to me is going to be an
interesting part of this investigation as itcomes out and according to Chief Fry.

(18:10):
He says the affidavit will be released, the factual probable cause has to be
sealed until he's brought back to Idahoto stand for these charges. You and
I have talked about the process leadingto a crime, and you probably remember
when we talk about motive, we'retalking about PEPs. So you know,

(18:32):
we can look at that model personaleconomic power, political or social, and
you can overlay that in this particularcase. I, at least I won't
speculate, but our listening audience can't, and they could kind of start defining
what the possible motive might have beenbased on what they're hearing from the police,

(18:55):
and I think that's another interesting aspectof this investigation. I also think
what's going to be interesting in thisinvestigation is the collateral damage done. We
you know, we have heard fromopen source that that there might have been
at least one person targeted, andwe'll find out that's part of that you

(19:17):
know motive. You know, ifit's a personal motive and there was a
targeted attack because of a relationship,associate of a relationship, or more primary
relationship. But aside from that,I'm not talking about that. I'm talking
about the collateral damage in the generalcommunity. There was a professor, I
don't know what school she might havebeen at the Idaho State who was defamed

(19:40):
by a TikTok personality who was readingin teet cards that this female professor was
guilty. And there's been a lawsuitfile. There was a person of interest,
as they say, who was clearedby police, and police were you

(20:00):
know, made that very clear.Who was harassed online again and again.
There were several actually from I thinkan ex boyfriend to a guy at a
food truck. And the thing is, you have a lot of these amateur
sleuths that have absolutely no access tothe facts of the investigation, which doesn't

(20:22):
prevent them from speculating and calling outindividuals. And it leads to the point
that I'm going to make, whichis, and I've done this work,
I've been the case agent and thesetypes of you know, investigations, and
whether it's you know, white collarpublic corruption investigation or a bombing of a
judge, and circumstantially there are individualsthat may look like this is hey,

(20:48):
this is the guy, we gotit, this is it, and it
turns out it's not the case.There was a guy in the Van Pack
investigation. You and I talked aboutthis in the past. Who was had
a little picking shop, you know, he had like an antique shop at
his home in South Alabama. Ithink his last name was McFarlane. The

(21:11):
evidence looked like this guy had thetypewriter that was used to write a letter
to Judge Vans, And the FBIgoes and does their job right. They
go down and they execute a searchwarrant looking for this typewriter, even excavate
his septic tank because they think thathe broke it apart and put it down
in there, and turns out hehad nothing to do with it. There

(21:33):
was a guy named Richard Jewel whowas part of the Centennial bomb and of
course they made a movie about thedude because listen, he was again the
media made his life help he hadnothing to do with the bombing at Sentinel
Centennial Park and of course later ledto a lawsuit. Oftentimes, it's not

(21:57):
unusual the circumstantial evidence leads investigators andor the general public to the wrong individual,
and that's why we have to bevery careful presuming innocence until all the
facts are in. No, that'sa sad thing and today. You mentioned
it just before we started the interviewthat a lot of people jump on this

(22:18):
because they can get clicks and makethe money, and they know it makes
the money. This is it's asad reality. We live in it.
But folks, I guess my pointis, make sure wait for all the
facts to come out. Already sawtwo things come out already that he enjoyed
killing people. He wanted to seethem suffer. They have no idea,
right, that's that's not released anywhere. He hasn't said anything about it.

(22:38):
I highly doubt he will, sowe have if you did it, we
have no idea what's going on outthere. So you know, just be
careful with speculation and conjecture. Andpeople are going to say a lot of
things because they know it's going toget them visitors to their site and they're
going to make them money. Wellhere's another interesting part of a point.
So and this is procedural. Sothey as you mentioned that, evidently they

(23:02):
have somebody in custody. That's that'sknown fact. The affid David will eventually
be released. The individual has theright. He's already made one appearance in
Pennsylvania next Tuesday, will be setfor his preliminary hearing, where the government
has to the state has to layout some of the facts. Uh,
and then the individual can either waiveextradition or he can say I'm not waiving

(23:29):
my extradition. He's from the stateof Pennsylvania, and they from the process
standpoint, he can He would thenhave to force the process of extradition,
which could take you know, itcould take several days to several weeks.
Here's the point. The public wantsto wants all the information now, the

(23:53):
media wants to be the outlet thatbreaks the information. Now, there's a
process in place that has to berespected. And this judicial process, now
that it's moved into the court system, has to be done with due diligence,
with the care and the respect thatwe give every defendant that's in the

(24:15):
court system. And so one thingthat I thought was interesting from the whole
statement made by Chief Fry and thisis what we get played believe me,
in the media. He did anexcellent job. I thought in the press
conference much of the time when askedabout particulars in the investigation, he said,

(24:36):
that's part of the investigation. It'llcome out in the future. But
at one point he was asked,or they were asked, you feel like
the community is safe? And hesays, I think we have a person
in custody who committed this horrible crime. Now that speaks to me about confidence,
and we don't know what the wherethat confidence comes from. But as

(25:00):
I was looking at the process andthe chief speaking, I was interested in
just how much information he was willingto release. Uh, and he did.
He didn't except for the fact thatthey don't have the murder weapon.
Uh, in this investigation, hedid not release a lot of information.
Another interesting point though, He didbring up that the house was being cleaned

(25:23):
of evidence I assume and remediation,because you know the house is up,
you know, school's back in prettysoon. They use the house. Yeah,
so they convict with that a murderweapon. Uh. Again we're talking
about you know, rules of evidencein investigations and prosts. Yes, you
can't. You can be convicted ofa crime without a murder weapon. So

(25:48):
that that is possible, does itmake it much more complicated or well it
would. It would certainly be cleanerif you had a murder weapon, and
then you can identify and then buthere's the other part. You have to
tie that murder weapon to the individual, just because you have a murder weapon
and the individual has you know,it's say that I never owned that knife,

(26:10):
so again looking at uh. Thisis the other part of this investigation
I thought was very very fairly interesting, is that it's not just the DNA.
We focus on DNA because of youknow, Hollywood and all that good
stuff, but there's a lot ofother things that they'll be looking at,
particularly now that they have got,you know, a focused subject in this
investigation. They're gonna look at thevehicle. They're gonna rip that vehicle apart,

(26:34):
looking for hair fiber, looking forDNA, looking you know, in
terms of blood, looking for anytype of evidence that that ties it back
to the helme. They're gonna belooking for a DNA. Of course,
they're gonna be looking at bank records. You know, in these investigations,
one of the things you're gonna dois look at the bank record to see

(26:56):
if that tracks. They're gonna belooking at the car's GPS. If that
that that car that they found atthat home, that that's similar to a
car they were looking for, They'llbe trying to track that car through its
GPS to c if it was atthe victims home at the time of the
killing. Of course, they're lookingfor the knife. They'll be looking at

(27:17):
the knife, they'll be looking atthe phone records. They'll be comparing all
of this to the statements made.If there were statements made. Member the
defendant in our system of justice doesn'thave to make any statements from the media.
Evidently he made one statement to themedia or to the police as they
were arresting them. He said,is anybody else arrested? Again, in

(27:41):
terms of just the process that information, that statement will be used by investigators
and it could mean something. Itmay not mean anything at all. Well,
what you know, the people arespeculating, what would that possibly mean?
Is there an you know, obviouslythe knee jerk is if he says,
is anyone else? Have you arrestedanyone else? Then there must be

(28:04):
an accomplice, right, and severalpeople who have speculated all along that the
type of crime that was committed,it'd be difficult for one person to commit
it by themselves, or the suspectwould be placing at least doubt in everybody's
mind. There you go, Somaybe a suspect or subject is doing that
to create leverage for future negotiations.One of the things we're talking about processes

(28:29):
and law. Idaho does have adeath penalty, Oh it does. It
does have a death penalty, andso you know that's in play obviously.
And I don't know all of theprocesses, all of the stipulations for death
penalty case in Idaho, but Iimagine they charged the charges that have been

(28:52):
outlined the four murders first degree,but also burglary charge and a lot of
states require for a death sentence tohave the murder premeditated murder be part of
another crime or in furtherance of anothercrime, So the burglary charge may have
something. There may be other chargescharges that come down. Again, I

(29:12):
don't you know, we only knowwhat's being reported by the by the media
and the and that came from thepolice department Chief Fry. Yeah. Last
execution, by the way, thelast execution in Idaho is in twenty twelve.
Yeah, in twenty eleven. Theywere done by Lethoy executions. Those

(29:33):
are the last two and they havea eight death row inmates as of April,
yeah, twenty two. Just giveyou ideas there. Yeah, So
I mean, you know, there'sthere's a lot going on there. If
I were, if I were asmart individual, yeah, I would know,

(29:56):
you know, and I was,you know, my background is in
criminology. I would know what thelaws are of the state I lived in
and what the repercussions of violating thoselaws would be. So we'll leave it
at that on that point. Butyou know, here's the thing. The
facts in this case are sealed atthis point by law, they have to
be. The Chief has promised transparencywhen the court proceedings start, and so

(30:23):
I imagine it'll be in the nextweek or so there'll be much more information
coming out. My hope is thatin the interest of knowledge, we don't
trump the interests in justice and thatpeople leak information that shouldn't be that would

(30:47):
somehow cause a problem with the investigationor the administration of justice. In this
case, I think that more thananything is what's owed to the four victims
and the victims fanils a tragedy.I would also say that, again,
being part of some of these typesof investigations, unfortunately in the past,

(31:07):
the work done by the Moscow PoliceDepartment, the Idaho State Police, the
FBI in a collaborative role just tremendousand tremendous considering it. You know,
people say it's been seven weeks.This is not this is not a one
hour episode of forty eight Hours,But this is not a two hour movie

(31:30):
with Brad Pitt as a lead.This is real life. And when you
let that sink in a very difficultinvestigation to date, it's long from being
over. In fact, I thinkthe chief said this is the beginning.
There'll be a lot more than thosenineteen thousand leads. He's asked for the
public an appeal to give more informationabout the individual that they have in custody.

(31:57):
I imagine that that's gonna resonate andyou're gonna get a lot of information.
If you remember the Richard Jewel situation, remember that after after the on
the bomber and all that. Yeah, right, so with Richard Jewel,
I mean the media hounded the guy, and I imagine that the media is

(32:22):
going to be very vigilant in theirpursuit of the story. And I hope
that that's in pursuit of the truth. And our objective is really just to
make sure that we oh yeah,blanked out there just second there, Oh
yes, my microphone went out ourJoe. Our goal is to give you

(32:45):
guys the right information and to highlightwhen people are just being hyperbolic using clickbait
so you don't get misled. Yeah, and I think we want to educate
our audiences best. We can't putmore importantly in these case is we want
to be mindful of two things.First and foremost, we want to be

(33:05):
sensitive and empathetic to the victims familiesand the victims themselves. The horrific,
horrific case and in these four beautifullives have been lost forever. At the
same time, we want to beconscious and considerate of the system of justice,
be respectful of that system, andmake sure that the defendant gets every

(33:31):
right due to them in a courtof law. And that's I think as
important as as anything that we pursuebecause it it is the basis of our
system. And so I think that'sthat I think that's where it's a good

(33:51):
place to leave it. Right,is that it's been It was a good
day for Idaho, a good dayfor Moscow, a good day. I
think one of the victims father said, this is the first happy day he's
had in seven weeks. So thefamilies feel closure, in some sense at
this point. Today was the memorialfor two of the victims right tonight.

(34:15):
So my heart's and my prayer goesgoes out to the victims and the victims
families and the community of Moscow.My my hope is that justices is served
properly. You know, the policeare doing their work and the media is

(34:37):
doing their work, and you know, I just make sure that the rights
of the accused or are also respectedand he's given proper day in court.
That's good, all right. We'llwrap it up here, folks, Thank
you again for listening. We'll keepyou updated as we get more information every

(34:59):
week on the Idaho murders, andwe'll cover other topics as well. But
if we see anything pertinent coming upin the next few days or anything like
that, then we'll let you knowon that well. And we want to
get back to our Psychology of Romance. I got some ideas. We got
to get back to something a littlemore light and less uh heavy than murder.
And I don't think anybody here haslistened to that one, but you
never know, you never know.They have to have romance. Our psychology.

(35:22):
They people love our Psychology of Romanceseries. It comments all the time.
I'm not sure. The criminal,well, I guess everybody's got to
have a little oh everybody, eveneven criminally. You know. Interesting whatever.
People that listening to crime to crime, they believe me, they like
romance too. They flipped the channelfrom Hallmark over to uh crime idea or

(35:45):
whatever that idea inless to give discovery. That's it, that's right. They
go back and forth. I knowit all right, folks, Thanks for
listening. To make sure to sharea suscribe and hit that I like.
But be safe out there.