November 5, 2025 • 71 mins
Despite receiving “five figures” to his bank account in jail awaiting his trial, after pleading guilty in a plea deal that provided restitution to his victims, the convicted murderer Bryan Kohberger now wants to bargain for the lowest possible pay out to the family of the victims he slaughtered. Let’s take a look at today’s enraging hearing. This hearing brought into focus how murderers game the system and profit off their crimes at the expense not benefit to their victims. Let’s talk about it!
Get access to exclusive content & support the podcast by a Patron today! https://patreon.com/robertaglasstruecrimereport
Throw a tip in the tip jar! https://buymeacoffee.com/robertaglass
Support Roberta by sending a donation via Venmo. https://venmo.com/robertaglass
Become a channnel member for custom Emojis, first looks and exclusive streams here: https://youtube.com/@robertaglass/join
Thank you Patrons!
Beth, Shelley Safford, Carol Mumumeci, Therese Tunks, JC, Lizzy D, Elizabeth Drake, Texas Mimi, Barb, Deborah Shults, Debra Ratliff, Stephanie Lamberson, Maryellen Sudol, Mona, Karen Pacini, Jen Buell, Marie Horton, ER, Rosie Grace, B. Rabbit, Sally Merrick, Amanda D, Mary B, Mrs Jones, Amy Gill, Eileen, Wesley Loves Octoberfest, Erin (Kitties1993), Anna Quint, Cici Guteriez, Sandra Loves GatsbyHannna, Christy, Jen Buell, Elle Solari, Carol Cardella, Jennifer Harmon, DoxieMama65, Carol Holderman, Joan Mahon, Marcie Denton, Rosanne Aponte, Johnny Jay, Jude Barnes, JenTheRN, Victoria Devenish, Jeri Falk, Kimberly Lovelace, Penni Miller, Jil, Janet Gardner, Jayne Wallace (JaynesWhirled), Pat Brooks, Jennifer Klearman, Judy Brown, Linda Lazzaro, Suzanne Kniffin, Susan Hicks, Jeff Meadors, D Samlam, Pat Brooks, Cythnia, Bonnie Schoeneman-Dilley, Diane Larsen, Mary, Kimberly Philipson, Cat Stewart, Cindy Pochesci, Kevin Crecy, Renee Chavez, Melba Pourteau, Julie K Thomas, Mia Wallace, Stark Stuff, Kayce Taylor, Alice, Dean, GiGi5, Jennifer Crum, Dana Natale, Bewildered Beauty, Pepper, Joan Chakonas, Blythe, Pat Dell, Lorraine Reid, T.B., Melissa, Victoria Gray Bross, Toni Woodland, Danbrit, Kenny Haines and Toni Natalie.
Get access to exclusive content & support the podcast by a Patron today! https://patreon.com/robertaglasstruecrimereport
Throw a tip in the tip jar! https://buymeacoffee.com/robertaglass
Support Roberta by sending a donation via Venmo. https://venmo.com/robertaglass
Become a channnel member for custom Emojis, first looks and exclusive streams here: https://youtube.com/@robertaglass/join
Thank you Patrons!
Beth, Shelley Safford, Carol Mumumeci, Therese Tunks, JC, Lizzy D, Elizabeth Drake, Texas Mimi, Barb, Deborah Shults, Debra Ratliff, Stephanie Lamberson, Maryellen Sudol, Mona, Karen Pacini, Jen Buell, Marie Horton, ER, Rosie Grace, B. Rabbit, Sally Merrick, Amanda D, Mary B, Mrs Jones, Amy Gill, Eileen, Wesley Loves Octoberfest, Erin (Kitties1993), Anna Quint, Cici Guteriez, Sandra Loves GatsbyHannna, Christy, Jen Buell, Elle Solari, Carol Cardella, Jennifer Harmon, DoxieMama65, Carol Holderman, Joan Mahon, Marcie Denton, Rosanne Aponte, Johnny Jay, Jude Barnes, JenTheRN, Victoria Devenish, Jeri Falk, Kimberly Lovelace, Penni Miller, Jil, Janet Gardner, Jayne Wallace (JaynesWhirled), Pat Brooks, Jennifer Klearman, Judy Brown, Linda Lazzaro, Suzanne Kniffin, Susan Hicks, Jeff Meadors, D Samlam, Pat Brooks, Cythnia, Bonnie Schoeneman-Dilley, Diane Larsen, Mary, Kimberly Philipson, Cat Stewart, Cindy Pochesci, Kevin Crecy, Renee Chavez, Melba Pourteau, Julie K Thomas, Mia Wallace, Stark Stuff, Kayce Taylor, Alice, Dean, GiGi5, Jennifer Crum, Dana Natale, Bewildered Beauty, Pepper, Joan Chakonas, Blythe, Pat Dell, Lorraine Reid, T.B., Melissa, Victoria Gray Bross, Toni Woodland, Danbrit, Kenny Haines and Toni Natalie.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah. Roberta in the truth zone
like hitting raw, spot light, shine, and she exposed in
the fluff, the punk in the myth, breaking their facawt.
This is glass city, respect the swad on these NYC blocks,
where the skyline flects Big Roberta Glass lights and lies, where.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
The truth rig and usus frosters.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Your story's unravel.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
She's a map through the madness of gritty gravel up glass,
don't pin, the.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Facts, don't break.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
She's a stone that's called you feel the quake, exposed
to tail fish with cooked seams. Justice in the lens, shattered,
fake dreams, springs, fout, killers, painted heroes in the skies.
She burning propaganda with fire in her eyes.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
No glamour for the guilty.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
She call it straight. She backs victims, the voice, stay away,
stay stats and receipts, No spin, no clutter, cold cases, whisper.
She cuts through the mutter truths, her tempoed on confuter
the bet. She's standing for the reel while you're taking
a seat. Who climbs the block? Facts, the artillery spin
in those lives soill she checks that misery.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Ta bloyd tails get smashed. No time to play.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
She's glass had break the false to save the day. Yeah, yeah,
who crimes the block facts?
Speaker 3 (01:26):
The artillery spin in those lies? Will she checks that.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Misery tab Lloyd tails get smashed.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Oh okay, here we go. Hello Weslie Love's October Fest.
I haven't seen you here in a while. Where you been, stranger, Maestro?
First of all, I have to special shout out to
Maestro in a minute old on, Hello, Maestro, Kelly, Dean Walker, Tater.
(01:58):
I really want to thank hello everybody. Nice to see everybody.
But I want to thank my moderator, maesro Or spending
a ridiculous amount of time helping me fix my the
Google Chrome on my computer making this episode possible and
(02:20):
last episode possible. I really appreciate it. It is back
to full working order, so lovely, Hello kiddies. All right,
I have what I think is a really interesting, fascinating
(02:41):
hearing today. So for those that didn't follow it. In
the early morning hours of November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
for University of idahost students Gaily Kuns, Madison, mojin Ethan Chapin,
(03:04):
and Zana Kernodle were fatally stabbed in their off campus
housing in Moscow, Idaho, and on December thirtieth of that
same year, Brian Coburger was arrested in Monroe County, Pennsylvania,
(03:27):
charged with four counts of first degree murder and one
count of felony burglary. Coburger was a PhD student completing
his first semester at Washington State University in Pulman, Washington,
which was less than eight miles away from Moscow, Idaho,
(03:52):
and prosecutors. Prosecutors initially were seeking the death penalty. It
was such a heinous crime. I'm really that we've never
learned the motive for. But and there was lots of
true crime channels grifting and saying that the law enforcement
(04:15):
had done a bad job, that they caught the wrong person,
that it was maybe someone else, that familiar story. But
on July second, twenty twenty five, Brian Coburger himself put
an end at least for a little while. I'm not
(04:38):
saying it won't be resurrected. That kind of true crime
media around this case, the kind of who done it,
solving solved crimes, true crime media or true crime entertainment
that we've come to expect from the Western world. But
(05:01):
he put an end to that by pleading guilty to
all charges and mainly to avoid the death penalty. And
it's a really good argument for why the death penalty
should exist for plea deals like this. Not all the
(05:25):
victim's family members were happy with it. Certainly Gaily Gonzalez's
father spoke out very strongly against it. He wanted a trial,
and I said at the time, I'm not sure that
he knows what he would be up against in a trial.
(05:47):
I think this was like the plea deal was about
the best outcome I felt for all the victims' family members,
and many of them supported the plea deal. So he
was sentenced to four consecutive life sentences. He's never getting out, hopefully.
(06:08):
You don't know how laws will change or how things
change over time. Certainly we've seen in true crime court
orders coming down one way and changing on a dime.
People are given life sentences and watching those life sentences
being overturned. But in this case, we're hoping he never
gets out. And part of that plea deal, so this
(06:30):
is the really important part to today's episode and the
hearing that we're about to watch. Part of that plea
deal was that Brian Cooberger signed and that his defense
team agreed to was that he would pay restitution to
the victims' family members. And now he's saying, look, I'm
(06:54):
despite as the prosecution brings up in this hearing, despite
getting a five feet years added to his bank account
and jail awaiting trial, so an amount of five figures,
he just can't pay it. And the defense team is
(07:20):
saying that he can't pay it and he can't be
expected to pay it, and it's unclear at least by
this hearing what they're really if they're willing to pay
any of it. So we'll watch it together, but it
brings up I think one of the more fascinating spoiler alert.
(07:42):
One of the more fascinating parts of this hearing is
when they talk about the prosecution talks about wanting to
put in a provision specifically into that Brian Coburger should
not benefit in any way at all from his crimes,
(08:04):
and the defense says, well, of course, he's not going
to benefit from his crimes. He's not going to get
wreak any financial benefit from his crimes. That's illegal. We
have laws against that in Idaho. And this is something
I've been saying for a long time on this channel.
Those laws mean nothing. So listen to the judges response.
(08:25):
He goes specifically, in all the ways that Brian Cober
Coburger could benefit by selling his story that might benefit
the victim's family, there is no benefit to Brian Coburger
selling his story that would benefit the victim's family. All
(08:48):
the true crime entertainment that's going to benefit where the
finances are in some way going to benefit Brian Coburger.
He is going to be the kind of making a
murderer innocent fraud mockumentaries that we've seen the real podcasts
(09:09):
just more innocent fraud or let's solve a solved crime
kind of media that we've all become so accustomed to.
So let's just take a look at this together. It's
not a long hearing, but and one that Brian Coburger
didn't attend himself, but when I found absolutely fascinating, fascinating
(09:32):
and was really excited to come on and talk about
it with you guys, because it backs up so much
what I'm saying at what I've been saying on this
channel about how we treat victims and how killers gain
the system. So just for those in the back when
(09:53):
Brian Coburger signed this flee deal, they would have gone
over his lawyers would have gone over he little detail
with him. Are you're willing to do this? You're willing
to do that?
Speaker 2 (10:08):
You're short.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
Now they say, oh, we can't pay it. Sorry to
come back to the court. Is I mean another judge
might have been really angry at a defense attorney who
came to the court after they had their client sign
a blea deal like this, not five years ago, not
(10:32):
ten years ago, but several months ago. I don't know
several What is what is July? I don't know when
did he? What is July? What? What is July till November?
What kind of word would you use to describe that?
(10:52):
Whatever you want to describe from July to November? I mean, unreal, unreal.
So take to listen. Here we go and it's done
by zoom. Brian Coburger didn't have to attend.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
He was.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
Absent.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
H All right, let's go on the record. In stately
(11:48):
Coburger c R. Zero one two four three, one sixty
sixty five. UH.
Speaker 5 (11:53):
The defendant has been excused from today's proceedings, is not present.
The UH defense is represented by a Miss mass Off, Miss.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Taylor, and Miss Barlow, States represented by mister Thompson. This
is a time set for hearing on the state's supplemental
requests for restitution. The state can argue first.
Speaker 6 (12:24):
Thank you, honor. We attached documentation. It doesn't appear that
there's a question about the amounts. I think the question
that has been raised is whether the propriety of any
additional restitution being ordered at this point. Yesterday afternoon, we
did receive a supplemental filing from the defense, and I
(12:46):
want to respond to that just for the record, before
I addressed the merits of the restitution requests themselves, as
we indicated our response to the defense subjection to the
additional restitution request. At the time that we entered into
the plea agreement, Missus Jennings and I were under the
(13:08):
impression that crime victim's compensation could be available to cover
reimbursement of travel expenses, and I have to clarify that now.
It is true that before trial, the families approached our
offer asking if there were any resources we were available
to pay in advance for travel expenses or expenses related
(13:32):
to them attending trial itself, and we looked into that.
(14:12):
Our staff looked into that and advised them, No, it
was my understanding, and I'm mistaken. I realized I was
mistaken at this point. It was my understanding back in
early July, late June when we were talking about the
Flee agreement that crime victims compensation could be available to
reimburse expenses like that. I now know that's not correct,
(14:36):
and it was certainly my mistake.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
I will so does everybody get that's no, can't pay
for your travel expenses? Hope your loved one gets murdered nearby,
because now there's not only can they not pay for
your travel expenses, there's no big it's rights law in
(15:01):
the books that pays for your travels expenses. They can't
ask for the killer to pay for your travel expenses.
So there's no money for the travel expenses. So you
considerable cost to you to travel to the area.
Speaker 6 (15:24):
We'll own it as far as our state of mind
going into the plea agreement.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
So that being said, go ahead, IM sorry.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
Go ahead. I'll let you finish the point on the
plea agreement that I have a question for you about that.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
And I was just finishing that point. You're on it.
So it's a good time, okay.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
So it's pretty well settled that plea agreements are interpreted
as contracts, which they are. I think it's pretty well
settled contract law that a unilateral mistake does not relieve
one of its contractual obligations and restrictions. So how can
(16:06):
I enforce how can I order this restitution if the
express terms of the plea agreement, though mistaken understanding by
the state, don't allow such extra crime victims compensation fund reimbursement.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
And your honor.
Speaker 6 (16:32):
I recognize that, and that's what I was just getting
ready to address. In response to the defense's objection, the
state has modified or adjusted our position on the restitution.
We are pursuings of the plea agreement seeking restitution for
the funeral related expenses, which are the urns that are
(16:54):
described and exhibit to our response. We are not affirmatively
advocating for the travel expenses and lodging spits to the family,
because we know.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
So already they've kind of game the system because they
didn't ask for it ahead of time in the restitution agreement,
and they're no longer asking for travel expenses. They're not
even sure if they thought that the law covered it,
sounded like to my ear. Let me know if I'm
(17:29):
hearing it right, And it doesn't cover it, so they
can't ask for it. They didn't work it out ahead
of time, and now they're walking it back and they're
just asking. And listen to this where these small sums
of money for funeral expenses. I mean, just remember that
(17:49):
Brian Coburger. Brian Coburger hadn't done this, they'd all be
alive and talk about lack of remorse. I mean, what
a ballsy move. So I am not a judge. I
mean just seeing this from the defense, this kind of
motion from the defense would enrich me as a judge.
(18:13):
Now you don't want to pay anything. You want to
get all the benefits from a plea deal, and now
you don't want to pay anything. Really, Hey, Wesley Little's
October Fest, thanks for the cat door cash. Appreciate it,
isn't it, Kelly? Kelly says the goal right, Yeah, they're
(18:37):
cue and right, But I'm not sure so sure, Bossy, Hey, Bossy,
I'm not so sure. To Bossy, Texas Chick says, so
Thompson messed up. I can hear Steve Gonzalez now u
oh so Kat would prefer the buddy go to the
(18:59):
Tree Fund. There's plenty of money in the treat Fund.
The Treat Fund, the Treats are always well well stocked here.
Believe me. I'm not sure. I just don't think that
they before they asked for this travel expense thing, I
(19:20):
don't think it's covered. I think that's why it wasn't.
I bet they followed some kind of standard plea deal,
agreement and restitution is probably worked out in some kind
of supplemental deal. But now they say it's just too much.
I'd love to know exactly how much Brian Coburger got.
(19:42):
The defense makes it sound like it's all from his family,
and then they make it sound like things have changed,
right so that now that he's pled out, his family
no longer wants to give him any money, which I
don't believe, which makes me think that most of it
came from the public thinking that he was innocent and
(20:05):
once he pled out, for now it's dry until people
start capitalizing on some true crime innocent fraud media and
start capitalizing on this case again, and people will start
sending him money. So I would think that a lot
(20:28):
of this came from the public. A lot of that
five figures. I mean, we've seen Luigi Manngoni get over
a million. I've heard as high as a million and
a half with that accused killer, other famous pre trial
(20:48):
murder cases. Karen Reid, she made more than a million dollars.
I think a lot of money on this and it's
still catching in on it on her crime. Crime pays
in America, but to come and pretend like you can't
pay anything.
Speaker 6 (21:08):
It's legally advocate for those At the same time, the
families provided those to us, and we want to provide
them to the court and counsel disor.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
Everybody was aware that they are there, but we are
not arguing affirmatively.
Speaker 6 (21:21):
For that because of the wording of the plea agreement itself.
So what the state is actually requesting today is just
additional restitution for the funeral related expenses, which are the
urns for the families.
Speaker 3 (21:35):
Okay, thank you, any you can address the other issues
as well.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
I'm sorry on which other issues, Well.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
The issues if you'd like raised in opposition to your motion,
including the lack of ability to pay by defendant, etc.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Yes, thank your honor. I apologize.
Speaker 6 (22:06):
The defendants has raised the issue of his alleged and
ability to pay. And we recognize that he's going to
be incarcerated until he dies, but that in and of
itself doesn't mean that over the course of the balance
of its life he might become he might receive assets,
and in fact, we attached breakdown the types of money
(22:28):
that he has received during his incarceration. We also noted
the statute that allows the treasurer to intercept perspective moneies
that might be received based on any attempted publication of
the story of the defendant, and those, if received, would
be something that a restitution order could be enforced against.
(22:52):
We also note that the language of the statute and
the case law interpreting the restitution statute, which is nineteen
fifty three for if I believe alf the top of
my head.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
Right, So he's saying, like, should he make any money
from selling his story, it would go to the victim's family,
a little bit like OJ Simpson's book where the Goldman
family had to sue and then they owned the rights
to that manuscript. Because OJ constantly insisted on profiting off
(23:27):
of his crime. And that's an interesting aspect to look
at it. In the Karen Reid case. Should the Okey
family win civilly, what's going to happen with her movie money,
et cetera, all the other ways that I would predict
Karen Reid will try to profit in the future.
Speaker 7 (23:49):
So just.
Speaker 4 (23:56):
I'm just wondering where the outrage is. Where the DA
is supposed to be a voice for the victims family, They're
not gonna I mean, do they want him, Do they
want this kind of media out there? Do they want
him making deals? Would they prefer the horribly offensive media
to gain the money? Should the money go to them
from that horribly offensive media that's going to be created
(24:20):
out of that? I mean, what's happened with true crime
media is that victims, the idea of considering victims family
members and their feelings have been totally forgotten. It's how
much money can you make? What killer can you prop
up as innocent? It gets more stomach turning every year
(24:44):
to watch this community and there's so few not doing it.
I mean, pick any of them. All the major channels
are doing it, you know, podcasts or grifting off of
innocent fraud and innocent fraud media. I mean, how would
(25:08):
Brian Coburger sell his story? I guess he could say
why I did it? If I did it, Why I
did it? Oj kind of book or documentary, maybe they could,
but again it's just kind of a re victimization of
the victim's family members.
Speaker 6 (25:29):
Talks about current inability to pay is not necessarily a
block to the order of restitution. It's just merely a
factor for the court to consider. And it's our position
given the relative use of the defendant, the fact that
he has been receiving significant monies during his incarceration already,
and that there is a possibility of future monies, whether
(25:51):
by virtue of the statute with the treasure impounding proceeds
from a story related to this, or perhaps from an
inheritance from this family or others. You know, we can't
see into the future. We don't have a perfect crystal ball.
The state's position is having this additional restitution place, which
is really fairly minimal, would be appropriate. And I have
(26:16):
that available that if the dependent comes into assets, that
the families would be able to try to satisfy the
restitution orders from them.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
Thank you, And then who's arguing for defense?
Speaker 8 (26:33):
I will be your honor all right, thank you.
Speaker 7 (26:38):
Given that the state has clarified its position that it's
only seeking.
Speaker 8 (26:42):
Reimbursement for the earns.
Speaker 7 (26:44):
It's my understanding that that amount is fourteen twenty for
one family, fifteen eighty seven seventy nine, and then another
one hundred and sixty seven seventy nine, which would be
a total I believe, if my map is right, of
two thousand and seventy five dollars.
Speaker 8 (27:01):
And fifty eight cents.
Speaker 7 (27:03):
My understanding of bringing the victims compensation Code nineteen fifty
three oh four is that the court must still do
an analysis on mister Koberger's ability to pay, and as
the State has addressed, we are arguing that.
Speaker 8 (27:21):
He does not have an ability to pay.
Speaker 7 (27:24):
While there have been lump sums provided to you regarding
some funds that he received prior to his plea agreement,
what the court does not have is a breakdown of
how those funds came into the inmmy system for his expenses,
and the fact that they were primarily family certainly his situation.
Speaker 4 (27:50):
Okay, so you heard it was primarily family. Primarily family
to say, his family members giving five figures, and he's
our already in the time that he's been locked up,
he's already been through five figures worth and there's nothing
there for anyone. I mean, it's such a small sum.
(28:13):
He has also has fines. So the total of this
with the victim restitution is three hundred thousand dollars. Am
I correct on that? Hold on one second, let me
double double check that. But I think I'm right on that.
(28:38):
It's something like that. Yeah, three hundred thousand dollars in
fines and restitution. The restitution's a tiny part of that.
Why is he talking about how he doesn't want to
pay the fines. I mean, the fines are the bigger part.
It's just revictimizing the victim's family by proxy. This is
(29:01):
what this is about, the name of the game, power
and control. What about getting a job in prison? I
know it pays pennies on the dollar whatever compared to
there's no minimum wage. But I'm sure in his long
prison sentence he could definitely pay off this restitution over time.
(29:23):
Doesn't want to pay it all, can't do it. Sorry,
we'll see what the judge says. The end is kind
of fascinating.
Speaker 7 (29:34):
Hearing pre plea in sentencing was drastically different, different than
it is right now in terms of money that is
available to him, and there's nothing in the record to
provide the court with anything other than what is really
speculation based.
Speaker 8 (29:50):
On the past, as opposed to something.
Speaker 7 (29:52):
That the court might be reliable able to rely upon
about foreseeability. There's no way that mister Coburger is ever
going to profit from any sort of movie or book
because Idaho Code nineteen fifty three oh one specifically precludes that.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
Well and precludes it allows that moneies are swept from
his account for those income to pay certain things with
those certain things. If there's no debt for those certain things,
then does some money not go then to the defendant?
Speaker 8 (30:38):
That is not mine reading of the code.
Speaker 7 (30:40):
Perhaps I'm reading that statute more broadly than.
Speaker 4 (30:44):
To the judge is saying no, he can profit. That's
if he doesn't already owe money for restitution, finds something
else seems like he can profit, and then he goes
on later spoilers or alert later to say, well, maybe
someone else can pay him. There's nothing stopping someone else
(31:06):
for getting his salary and then just donating it wink
wink to him. I mean, that's not essentially how I
heard it. Later on in this hearing to Brian Coburger,
donating it to his commissary fund or whatever else it is,
whatever is prison fund. How do you go through I
(31:29):
get that everything's expensive in prison, phone time, et cetera.
But how do you go through five figures in such
a short period of time? What is he doing? I mean,
it's getting a lot of packages. I don't know what
where's all this money going?
Speaker 7 (31:50):
The court is I understood it that the purpose is
that someone can't then profit off of their crime person
to that statute, which I guess I need to read it.
Speaker 3 (32:03):
With well, even even allowing your even allowing your reading
of it. What's to prevent, for example, a family member,
uh from agreeing to uh, you know, provide information be
a part of et cetera, a story, movie book, whatever,
(32:25):
TV series about the murders about mister Coburger, and uh
and and uh you know that certainly wouldn't be as
money as they receive, wouldn't be subject to the statute,
and then they certainly would be free to to send
mister Coburger money to his account. What harm is it
(32:49):
to uh order the restitution which would then sort of
jump in line in terms of priority of payments over
some of the other ordered payments such that if mister
Coberger does receive money into his accounts from any source
that he's then that those monies are then put to
(33:11):
that use. Certainly, we're not worried about mister Coberger's credit
rating with having debts at this point. I'm not sure
what the concern would be to given the uniqueness of
this case and the potential for family members, et cetera
to earn money from it, and potentially for we've seen
(33:33):
members of the public send money to mister Coburger's my
understanding to his books. What what's the downside to ensuring
that the victims are as whole as possible from this
by ordering the restitution, which again would jump in line
(33:57):
from some of the other order to find, et cetera.
And if the money's there, it's there.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
So I mean, the reason I wanted to share this
hearing is for every time someone says it says that
oh no, oh no, you're wrong, there's Son of Sam Laws.
So the history of Son of Sam Laws is when
they wanted to make a book by Nick Polegi called
(34:28):
Wise Guys into a movie, which it did become a movie,
a very famous, critically acclaimed movie called Goodfellas, directed by
Martin Scorsese. They realized that that interfered with the Son
of Sam laws. In order to sell those book rights
(34:49):
as movie rights, they had to totally eliminate the son
of Sam laws, which they did in New York and
other states. They're so weakened. So even if you do
put some kind of like statue like this that says like, well,
they can't profit off their crime before paying the victim's
(35:12):
family members back in the state back, et cetera for
their crime. There's what the judge is saying is there's
other ways to go around it. So a movie company
could make a deal with Brian Koberger that his fee
will be paid to X person and that it will
(35:35):
be deposited in his commissary. That's part of his deal
that way, So he gets compensation that way. So there's
a million ways that they gain the system. And what's
left of those kind of even the idea of those
Son of Sam laws is really nothing in this country.
(35:58):
And we've seen Julius Jones was making like thirty thousand
dollars a month from prison selling T shirts and sneakers
and stuff. After his death sentence got overturned. Just due
to an innocence fraud campaign, nothing else. I mean, it's
(36:20):
just the profit. Even though there are statues in Oklahoma
and those kind of things, it just doesn't matter. There's
who's gonna The problem also is who cares to enforce
these laws? Not many people, and what's left of any
(36:41):
kind of victims' rights movement in this country is almost nil.
Speaker 3 (36:56):
If it's not it's not.
Speaker 8 (37:01):
Judge, I don't see that Idaho code or Idaho law
asks the court to make an analysis on the downside.
Speaker 7 (37:07):
But whether or not there is foreseeability of payment and
all of.
Speaker 8 (37:12):
The things that you just listed are pure speculation.
Speaker 7 (37:15):
There is no book or movie that's in the works
by any of his family, and to say that those
things are going to happen is absolutely speculative and there's
nothing to substantiate those sorts of assertions happening in the future.
Speaker 3 (37:33):
Well, there's a history in the three years he was
incarcerated of him receiving five figures put on his books.
Doesn't that give the court some history to suggest that
such contributions from whatever source may continue into the future.
Speaker 7 (37:53):
As I stated earlier, Jude, that was at a different
time in the case that was at a time when
you know, he had not entered.
Speaker 8 (38:01):
A plea, he was not being convicted of the crime.
Speaker 7 (38:05):
The money, a lot of that money was coming from
his family to be able to have.
Speaker 4 (38:10):
So Wait, so are they saying that his family believed
in his innocence and now they don't? Is that what
his lawyer's saying here, or is she saying that it
largely by saying the reverse, she's saying it largely came
from the family. But did it largely come from the public?
(38:30):
And now that the kind of innocent frod media has
died down, there's not as much Why is there? Listen
to how vague it guess when they talk about how
little money there is left for were this pit like
ridiculously low sum of restitution? The fines are high, the
(38:53):
these are the finds he's getting or nothing to sneeze at.
But they're asking for aotentially funeral expenses for the four
people he murdered and they don't want to pay that.
It's not like they need more time to do it.
(39:15):
They all knew this was coming. They all knew this
was coming. They signed on to this. This was part
of the plea deal. Restitution was part of the plea
deal and now they're like four months later. No, and
the goal of this defense attorney to come in and
do this. What a soulless, disgraceful human being she is
(39:44):
to come in and do this and say no, there's
no way we can actually arrange for paying for funeral expenses.
And disingenuous at that, I mean, that's a nice word
for I was saying, I don't believe her. I think
she's a liar. That's my just my opinion. Who does
believe in the audience, I'll be curious to.
Speaker 7 (40:06):
Know communications with their son and brother and to speculate
that those tens of dollars are going to be able
to happen for the next many decades is exactly that.
It's pure speculation, not based on something that is foreseeable
or based in something that's in fact before this court.
Speaker 3 (40:30):
Well, it just seems to me that one of the
you know, really obviously.
Speaker 4 (40:37):
So what I what I hear is we want the
court to be on the back foot, so when the
deal is already paid, and when we already have something
going on right now, it's a good time to say
we can't pay it. Maybe as maybe these actual funds
are low right now, maybe maybe just maybe maybe not.
(41:01):
But who's gonna be who's going to be looking and
really keeping track of Brian Coburger. Not in the next
ten years, in the next twenty years, the next thirty years.
Who's going to be keeping track of the money coming
in in his account and the true crime media created
(41:22):
around his case and the deals that he might or
might not be making. Seriously, I mean, I get that
Thompson has a different style, then I'll where's the outrage?
(41:50):
Where's the outrage?
Speaker 3 (41:56):
Even application of statute requires the court to look at
what might happen into the future, and I guess you know,
it seems to me one of the best indicators of
the future is the past. And in the past, his
family has, according you're saying, the family was the source
of much of these funds, has provided him funds in
(42:19):
order for him to communicate, etc. That necessity will still
exist going forward. I'm not aware of his family having
disowned him at this point and not wanting any contact
with him, And even if they are, that doesn't mean
that won't change. And you call it speculation, it seems
to me that it is good evidence of what may
(42:40):
occur in the future in light of what has occurred
in the past.
Speaker 8 (42:45):
Well, just there is a judgment against a any amount.
Speaker 7 (42:47):
Of twenty eight thousand dollars, and certainly at twenty percent
of every dollar that goes into his inmate account is
going to go towards paying at twenty thousand dollars. A
matter factor that the court actually can look at under
nineteen fifty three All four sub Section seven is other factors,
and those factors that other factors that the court teams
(43:09):
appromportate and that can be collateral resources that the families
obtained over two hundred thousand dollars, which definitely reimburse the
cost of the earns and earns in terms of economic costs.
Speaker 3 (43:24):
I also want to turn to the plea agreement because
does the isn't a reasonable interpretation of the plea Agreement
that the defendant will not contest the states seeking of
restitution that is outlined in the plea Agreementwise, otherwise why
(43:47):
would it need to be in the plea agreement?
Speaker 4 (43:53):
Did everybody just hear that for those in the back,
So part of what they signed in the plea agreement
was that they would not contend best paying restitution, and
here they are testing restitution. Why isn't the judge handing
this lawyer her behind you sign this? You had your
(44:18):
client sign this, now you don't want to pay. It's
so what I find is just the morality of it,
so morally offensive, but just on a surface level for
her lawyerly duties to have her client sign something and
(44:40):
then come back months later and be like, just kidding,
We're just kidding when we sign this. Weak judge week prosecutor.
This is about the tone of our The outrage has
totally left our judicial system except for convicted killers and
(45:03):
predators and their feelings. Then it's keyed up. Then the
motion is keyed up with high emphasis on empathy with
the convicted and the victim and the victim's family are
ghosted altogether out of this. This is just like a
(45:27):
mere formality. Can someone remind the court that without Brian
Coburger or people would still be alive. That the Chapin
family would still have their son, the Kernodle family would
(45:51):
still have zena Gonzalez family would still have Kayli, the
Emojin family would still have Madison. I mean, they've been
sentenced to a life sentence. Of grief. And I'm not
sure what this twenty eight thousand dollars. I whish I
(46:13):
knew more, a little bit more about that particular is
about what that they're going to pay that back in
time somehow. That judgment, Yeah, that's what happens when you
murder for people. Hopefully, hopefully it doesn't make your life
(46:37):
easy in prison, But here's the legal system or judicial
system ready to make it as easy for Brian Coburger
as possible.
Speaker 3 (46:51):
It seems to me it's the plea agreement. A reasonable
interpretation is the defendant is agreeing to pay restitution for
those items that are identified in the plea agreement, which
includes victims compensation apartment, which includes in this case, funeral expenses.
So you took advantage of the plea agreement to get
(47:14):
the benefit of the bargain regarding the state's dropping of
the death penalty. Why should you not be held to
the plea agreement to pay the victims the costs of
in turning their children?
Speaker 7 (47:32):
Judge, I believe that our cleeding was clear, that we
understood that burns fell underneath a funeral costs, but that
once we have a hearing on this matter, that doesn't
eliminate the court's duty under nineteen fifty three oh four
to do the.
Speaker 8 (47:47):
Ability to pay analysis. And that's why.
Speaker 3 (47:51):
Are you in violation of the plea agreement by arguing
that your clients shouldn't have to pay those.
Speaker 7 (47:58):
We are not in violation of the play agreement, that
there was any violation of a clear agreement that took place.
It's the state seeking this when the other expenses, when
it was clear under statute and under the Idaho Victims
of Compensation rules that those were not reimbursable expenses.
Speaker 4 (49:35):
So just to be clear, thank you, Craig. So just
to be clear, Okay, just to be clear on this,
she's saying because the state got it wrong. This is
what this lawyer was saying, right because this state, Yeah,
(49:57):
it was core to me, Okay, because the state got
it wrong that they thought that they should that Brian
Coburger should pay travel expenses. That is a kin to
her and her client essentially agreeing to this plea agreement
that not only agrees to pay restitution, but agrees not
(50:19):
to fight paying restitution. So when the judge asks are
you in violation of the plea agreement, I'll answer the
question yes, she's in violation of the plea agreement. This
was done in July. This is four months later, and
(50:41):
she's back back in court saying no, no, we're not
going to pay it. They just signed it. The ink
is still fresh on this agreement and they've already already
violating it. Why isn't the job handing her her behind here?
(51:03):
I don't understand it. It's so clear to me that
she's in no standing at all to say that she
can't pay this piddly sum for the funeral expenses. I mean,
(51:27):
that's all. That's that's it. It's not like some kind
of pain and suffering clause written in her funeral expenses.
That's it. They're like, no, my client doesn't have it,
but they are, but he is paying some other kind
of twenty eight that twenty eight thousand dollars and the
(51:47):
rest of the fines, which according to the all the
media I read, comes up to about three hundred thousand
dollars altogether. That were not it's just the funeral, it's
just the things that deal with the victims family. Small
amount that we're saying we can't pay, I mean, come on.
(52:14):
And so I listened to Core TV talking about this,
and there was zero outrage, zero zero outrage. I don't know,
maybe I'm just built different. I don't get it. But
(52:38):
every day I'm watching one convicted killer predator gain the system.
In England. It's Barry George. You can't come to court
because he's sick. Here, it's Brian Coburger. You can't can't
(53:00):
pay the victim's familybody so many I mean he will.
I mean, if you think he's going to just do
his time quietly, I'd be very shocked if not. In
ten years or so, we do, or about fourteen years
(53:24):
or so, we see some kind of innocent fraud media
coming out of this case, that the state really got
it wrong, that Brian Coberger was terrified in signing the
plead agreement he had to.
Speaker 3 (53:40):
But they have effectively, they've effectively withdrawn right.
Speaker 4 (53:44):
It was so stacked against him, he was forced to
sign it, he was threatened into signing it, bad assistance
of counsel, whatever they're going to say, But it was
really some other guy did it, some other vague other person.
And then incomes the parade of new and ridiculous suspects.
Speaker 3 (54:08):
Those requests and are seeking what's outlined in the plea agreement.
What's the point of the plea agreement on restitution if
the defense is able to argue against the restitution called
for in the plea agreement itself.
Speaker 7 (54:24):
Judge Again, in our pleading, we objected to what the
state has withdrawn as of this moment. At the steering today,
we acknowledged that the earns were funeral expenses. But once
we're in a situation of having a hearing, then this
(54:44):
other section about whether or not he has an ability
to pay is triggered. We stipulated to twenty eight thousand
dollars in restitution within sixty days.
Speaker 8 (54:56):
He met the terms of the plea agreement.
Speaker 3 (55:00):
But it also says the state may seek restitution regarding
funeral expenses, and they're simply identifying additional funeral expenses.
Speaker 7 (55:10):
I don't know what more you want me to say
under the about the ears other than the.
Speaker 3 (55:16):
Found it.
Speaker 7 (55:18):
I agree that it was three seventy dollars and fifty
eight cents.
Speaker 3 (55:23):
But you say, you know you shouldn't have to pay it.
Speaker 7 (55:27):
What I've said was that the court needs to do
the analysis under Idaho code about his ability to pay.
Speaker 4 (55:34):
Why so, it's a really good question by the judge.
What's the point of the plea agreement goes unanswered if
he's not going to pay it. But what's the good
of anything? I mean, what comes to mind? I mean,
I could bring up other things. Other things get decided
in the case and it goes to a different kind
(56:02):
of court. I'm thinking Marty tanklf just off the top
of my head, when they decide not to retry him
for the murder of his adopted parents, Arlene and Seymour Tankliff.
Pomo wrote a long decision about how Marty Tankleff should
not be in any way looked at his innocent like
(56:23):
he did it essentially, and he deserves no compensation. And
then he goes on to breake in millions in compensation
from our civil court. So essentially, what does any of
these agreements mean? They don't mean they mean everything as
(56:44):
far as the state having to file follow them. But
for the defendant, there's a million ways to appeal and
go around things. You know, I think I saw Wesley.
Wesley was saying earlier that no one really cares. But
(57:07):
I mean, crime is definitely going up, and it's going
to keep going up in New York City and there's
going to be more and more victims, and more and
more victims family members. This will come to a crisis
point at some point.
Speaker 3 (57:29):
It happened, hasn't The defendant waived his right to rely
on that ability to pay by agreeing to those expenses
as part of the plea agreement.
Speaker 8 (57:40):
I don't know how the court can enter that this
order today.
Speaker 7 (57:44):
Without engaging any analysis under Idaho cod because it's required.
That's the way I review the case law and the
code that went. Once there's a theory about restitution, then
the court has to engage in the analysis on the
ability of home.
Speaker 3 (57:59):
So the agent to pay is illusory.
Speaker 7 (58:03):
No, he agreed to twenty eight thousand dollars. We agreed
that urns fall underneath.
Speaker 3 (58:08):
Does you have the ability to pay that?
Speaker 8 (58:12):
No, he does not have the ability it.
Speaker 7 (58:15):
Because it was a specific We were provided with those
receipts within sixty days. We were not provided with the
receipt for the earns within sixty days.
Speaker 3 (58:26):
So is your objection then a timeliness objection?
Speaker 7 (58:30):
We did raise a timeliness objection in our bleeding. I
have thought about that and whether or not I think
that it is a really valid argument to say that
that's completely jurisdictional. It didn't mean that the court can't
take this under the review at this.
Speaker 4 (01:00:08):
It's not exactly a timeliness issue. She's saying, I don't know,
it is all so crazy. Not exactly a timeliness problem.
I mean, most of these restitution issues when you go
to when you go to sentencing hearings, they say we're
going to work out the restitution. Usually the restitution is
(01:00:30):
worked out at the time of the sentencing, at the
plea deal. At the plea deal, ERT's say we're going
to work out restitution at sentencing. Usually you see some
of it at sentencing, and if it's not totally worked out,
it's forthcoming. But sixty days, this has been four months.
(01:00:55):
It's like this piddly sum. So the question is to
why she's why if you can't pay the twenty eight
thousand dollars, why he's opposing this pidley sum for the
victim's family is because they can walk over all over
the victims' family members. And because it wasn't worked out immediately,
(01:01:20):
and why didn't come sooner. I'd be curious to ask
Da Thompson why he didn't have the funeral expenses. Why
wasn't that submitted in sixty days? Curious why that wasn't
a priority for the DA's office there point in time.
Speaker 7 (01:01:39):
I didn't read the judgment language in such a strict
fashion that I felt like we could say sixty one
days means the court's not going to rely on not
going to consider it at all. So it is past
your sixty eight deadline. But I don't know that that
is completely jurisdic knowing the way to dropped your judgment.
Speaker 3 (01:02:07):
Anything else, No, thank you, mister Thompson.
Speaker 2 (01:02:11):
Ever rebuttal no, your honor, thank you?
Speaker 3 (01:02:15):
All right, thank you all take the matter in our advisement,
issue and opinion.
Speaker 4 (01:02:18):
And yeah, not my favorite TA and certainly not my
favorite defense attorney and judge asked some good questions, but seriously, seriously, seriously,
come on, guys, it's like the worst of offense in
(01:02:45):
our murders, consider the worst offense in our judicial system
for a reason. Where's the outrage? Where is the outrage?
(01:03:06):
I'm just going to be so curious just the way
that Brian Coburger continues to go through his time in prison.
He obviously he obviously read the room, and he doesn't
mind revictimizing the victims' family members again. I mean, one
(01:03:26):
could look at this filing as just a revictimization of
this victim's family members again in a way to just
needle them and hurt them and hope that he doesn't
have to pay them. I mean, I mean, really, the
question that was never answered is to why this and
not anything else? Why is this the thing he doesn't
(01:03:49):
want to pay, which is the sole money he owns
the victims' family members. And one could make an argument,
and I think it's a fair argument that the reason
why is because he wants to continue to revictimize the
victims' family members and make them suffer. It's one of
(01:04:13):
his last exercises of power. And there's always a and
his creepy, soulless defense attorney will do his bidding for him.
(01:04:36):
He's really like the most disturbing field of a bunch
of people, these lawyers that over the past almost I
think it's nine years I've been doing this podcast, and
I've looked at one lawyer's personality after the next, and
(01:04:57):
what they're willing to argue in front of the court.
Just I mean, talk about lost moral compass, talk about
no moral compass at all. And I mean she can
talk about code this and well it just doesn't fall
(01:05:17):
under the code like it's some kind of technicality. I mean,
none of it really has. I mean, what you heard
in this hearing was that the judge trying to make
legal sense out of it certainly doesn't make legal sense.
And the only conclusion you can come to really at
the end is that Brian Coburger doesn't want to pay
(01:05:38):
the victim's family member. He wants them to get no money.
And the part that enraged me was the Brian Coburger's
lawyer scoffing at the idea that he would profit, ever
profit from his crime, as if we are not in
(01:05:58):
a time when we are seeing murderers make a record
profit from their crimes with zero outrage. It's almost like
awe from the public and zero outrage. So when Luigi
Mangione's defense fund gets brought up, or another killer dajure
(01:06:26):
go fund me or accused killer dajors go fund me,
it's just like Wow, they raise that much, isn't it.
It's just kind of like wow, there isn't the disgust
(01:06:49):
that I think that should rightfully come with us all this,
but more. You know, there will be more victim I
mean Chicago, New York City who watching crime go up
and up and up. There will be more victims, family
members unfortunately, and the way our justice system is treating them,
(01:07:13):
and the way that not just their justice system, but
that our media public at large generally, this kind of
revictimization will continue to go on. So that's what I
have for today. I want to thank Beth Sally Stafford.
(01:07:34):
Thank you for becoming Patreon members. It's a great way
to support the channel. Thenmo also a great way to
support the channel. Send a donation, buy me a coffee,
another great way to support the channel. This is a
listener supported channel. I will be back very soon, probably
(01:07:59):
tomorrow with another episode six pm. I'll see you guys then,
thanks so much for listening and hanging out and watching
this very enraging hearing with me. I'll see you tomorrow, guys.
Have a great night, everybody. Oh wait, hold on one second,
(01:08:24):
I didn't Okay, here we go, but okay, psych I thought,
now this really is the end of the show. I'm
a great night, everybody.
Speaker 7 (01:08:50):
My check.
Speaker 1 (01:08:50):
Roberta strides through the static case True Crime got them?
Why the shadows playter place for it's to fold when
a spotlight beans fact focus queen bus propaganda schemes, glass shatter,
lives that goes through the streets, standing for victims, giving voice,
their meats, and hy c Poll's truth sharpest Knight prefer
to exposing She's an anti fried light partast warrior, dissecting
(01:09:26):
Satan's defense, twisted innocence, claims, breaking pretense.
Speaker 3 (01:09:30):
Gotham's truth seeker cuts clean with the.
Speaker 1 (01:09:32):
Blade facts in the forefront.
Speaker 3 (01:09:34):
No justice gets swayed.
Speaker 1 (01:09:35):
Cold facts dripped heavy real salt, gun purls.
Speaker 3 (01:09:38):
Cracking cases open like oysters with pearls.
Speaker 1 (01:09:41):
Innocence gimmicks crumble the dust in the wind for victims,
her creed justice till the end, headphones blazing. She dropped
heavy artillery. Now we're just twisted meat, blunt objects, civility.
(01:10:04):
Roberta God receipts that unraveled deploy exposing the lies, these
frauds that just deploy glass shadows, lies that goes.
Speaker 3 (01:10:11):
Through the streets, standards of victims.
Speaker 1 (01:10:14):
Given voice, stand meats, and by postal shops. Night Roberta
exposes used the anti fraud light
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah. Roberta in the truth zone
like hitting raw, spot light, shine, and she exposed in
the fluff, the punk in the myth, breaking their facawt.
This is glass city, respect the swad on these NYC blocks,
where the skyline flects Big Roberta Glass lights and lies, where.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
The truth rig and usus frosters.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Your story's unravel.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
She's a map through the madness of gritty gravel up glass,
don't pin, the.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Facts, don't break.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
She's a stone that's called you feel the quake, exposed
to tail fish with cooked seams. Justice in the lens, shattered,
fake dreams, springs, fout, killers, painted heroes in the skies.
She burning propaganda with fire in her eyes.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
No glamour for the guilty.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
She call it straight. She backs victims, the voice, stay away,
stay stats and receipts, No spin, no clutter, cold cases, whisper.
She cuts through the mutter truths, her tempoed on confuter
the bet. She's standing for the reel while you're taking
a seat. Who climbs the block? Facts, the artillery spin
in those lives soill she checks that misery.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Ta bloyd tails get smashed. No time to play.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
She's glass had break the false to save the day. Yeah, yeah,
who crimes the block facts?
Speaker 3 (01:26):
The artillery spin in those lies? Will she checks that.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Misery tab Lloyd tails get smashed.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Oh okay, here we go. Hello Weslie Love's October Fest.
I haven't seen you here in a while. Where you been, stranger, Maestro?
First of all, I have to special shout out to
Maestro in a minute old on, Hello, Maestro, Kelly, Dean Walker, Tater.
(01:58):
I really want to thank hello everybody. Nice to see everybody.
But I want to thank my moderator, maesro Or spending
a ridiculous amount of time helping me fix my the
Google Chrome on my computer making this episode possible and
(02:20):
last episode possible. I really appreciate it. It is back
to full working order, so lovely, Hello kiddies. All right,
I have what I think is a really interesting, fascinating
(02:41):
hearing today. So for those that didn't follow it. In
the early morning hours of November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
for University of idahost students Gaily Kuns, Madison, mojin Ethan Chapin,
(03:04):
and Zana Kernodle were fatally stabbed in their off campus
housing in Moscow, Idaho, and on December thirtieth of that
same year, Brian Coburger was arrested in Monroe County, Pennsylvania,
(03:27):
charged with four counts of first degree murder and one
count of felony burglary. Coburger was a PhD student completing
his first semester at Washington State University in Pulman, Washington,
which was less than eight miles away from Moscow, Idaho,
(03:52):
and prosecutors. Prosecutors initially were seeking the death penalty. It
was such a heinous crime. I'm really that we've never
learned the motive for. But and there was lots of
true crime channels grifting and saying that the law enforcement
(04:15):
had done a bad job, that they caught the wrong person,
that it was maybe someone else, that familiar story. But
on July second, twenty twenty five, Brian Coburger himself put
an end at least for a little while. I'm not
(04:38):
saying it won't be resurrected. That kind of true crime
media around this case, the kind of who done it,
solving solved crimes, true crime media or true crime entertainment
that we've come to expect from the Western world. But
(05:01):
he put an end to that by pleading guilty to
all charges and mainly to avoid the death penalty. And
it's a really good argument for why the death penalty
should exist for plea deals like this. Not all the
(05:25):
victim's family members were happy with it. Certainly Gaily Gonzalez's
father spoke out very strongly against it. He wanted a trial,
and I said at the time, I'm not sure that
he knows what he would be up against in a trial.
(05:47):
I think this was like the plea deal was about
the best outcome I felt for all the victims' family members,
and many of them supported the plea deal. So he
was sentenced to four consecutive life sentences. He's never getting out, hopefully.
(06:08):
You don't know how laws will change or how things
change over time. Certainly we've seen in true crime court
orders coming down one way and changing on a dime.
People are given life sentences and watching those life sentences
being overturned. But in this case, we're hoping he never
gets out. And part of that plea deal, so this
(06:30):
is the really important part to today's episode and the
hearing that we're about to watch. Part of that plea
deal was that Brian Cooberger signed and that his defense
team agreed to was that he would pay restitution to
the victims' family members. And now he's saying, look, I'm
(06:54):
despite as the prosecution brings up in this hearing, despite
getting a five feet years added to his bank account
and jail awaiting trial, so an amount of five figures,
he just can't pay it. And the defense team is
(07:20):
saying that he can't pay it and he can't be
expected to pay it, and it's unclear at least by
this hearing what they're really if they're willing to pay
any of it. So we'll watch it together, but it
brings up I think one of the more fascinating spoiler alert.
(07:42):
One of the more fascinating parts of this hearing is
when they talk about the prosecution talks about wanting to
put in a provision specifically into that Brian Coburger should
not benefit in any way at all from his crimes,
(08:04):
and the defense says, well, of course, he's not going
to benefit from his crimes. He's not going to get
wreak any financial benefit from his crimes. That's illegal. We
have laws against that in Idaho. And this is something
I've been saying for a long time on this channel.
Those laws mean nothing. So listen to the judges response.
(08:25):
He goes specifically, in all the ways that Brian Cober
Coburger could benefit by selling his story that might benefit
the victim's family, there is no benefit to Brian Coburger
selling his story that would benefit the victim's family. All
(08:48):
the true crime entertainment that's going to benefit where the
finances are in some way going to benefit Brian Coburger.
He is going to be the kind of making a
murderer innocent fraud mockumentaries that we've seen the real podcasts
(09:09):
just more innocent fraud or let's solve a solved crime
kind of media that we've all become so accustomed to.
So let's just take a look at this together. It's
not a long hearing, but and one that Brian Coburger
didn't attend himself, but when I found absolutely fascinating, fascinating
(09:32):
and was really excited to come on and talk about
it with you guys, because it backs up so much
what I'm saying at what I've been saying on this
channel about how we treat victims and how killers gain
the system. So just for those in the back when
(09:53):
Brian Coburger signed this flee deal, they would have gone
over his lawyers would have gone over he little detail
with him. Are you're willing to do this? You're willing
to do that?
Speaker 2 (10:08):
You're short.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
Now they say, oh, we can't pay it. Sorry to
come back to the court. Is I mean another judge
might have been really angry at a defense attorney who
came to the court after they had their client sign
a blea deal like this, not five years ago, not
(10:32):
ten years ago, but several months ago. I don't know
several What is what is July? I don't know when
did he? What is July? What? What is July till November?
What kind of word would you use to describe that?
(10:52):
Whatever you want to describe from July to November? I mean, unreal, unreal.
So take to listen. Here we go and it's done
by zoom. Brian Coburger didn't have to attend.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
He was.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
Absent.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
H All right, let's go on the record. In stately
(11:48):
Coburger c R. Zero one two four three, one sixty
sixty five. UH.
Speaker 5 (11:53):
The defendant has been excused from today's proceedings, is not present.
The UH defense is represented by a Miss mass Off, Miss.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Taylor, and Miss Barlow, States represented by mister Thompson. This
is a time set for hearing on the state's supplemental
requests for restitution. The state can argue first.
Speaker 6 (12:24):
Thank you, honor. We attached documentation. It doesn't appear that
there's a question about the amounts. I think the question
that has been raised is whether the propriety of any
additional restitution being ordered at this point. Yesterday afternoon, we
did receive a supplemental filing from the defense, and I
(12:46):
want to respond to that just for the record, before
I addressed the merits of the restitution requests themselves, as
we indicated our response to the defense subjection to the
additional restitution request. At the time that we entered into
the plea agreement, Missus Jennings and I were under the
(13:08):
impression that crime victim's compensation could be available to cover
reimbursement of travel expenses, and I have to clarify that now.
It is true that before trial, the families approached our
offer asking if there were any resources we were available
to pay in advance for travel expenses or expenses related
(13:32):
to them attending trial itself, and we looked into that.
(14:12):
Our staff looked into that and advised them, No, it
was my understanding, and I'm mistaken. I realized I was
mistaken at this point. It was my understanding back in
early July, late June when we were talking about the
Flee agreement that crime victims compensation could be available to
reimburse expenses like that. I now know that's not correct,
(14:36):
and it was certainly my mistake.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
I will so does everybody get that's no, can't pay
for your travel expenses? Hope your loved one gets murdered nearby,
because now there's not only can they not pay for
your travel expenses, there's no big it's rights law in
(15:01):
the books that pays for your travels expenses. They can't
ask for the killer to pay for your travel expenses.
So there's no money for the travel expenses. So you
considerable cost to you to travel to the area.
Speaker 6 (15:24):
We'll own it as far as our state of mind
going into the plea agreement.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
So that being said, go ahead, IM sorry.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
Go ahead. I'll let you finish the point on the
plea agreement that I have a question for you about that.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
And I was just finishing that point. You're on it.
So it's a good time, okay.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
So it's pretty well settled that plea agreements are interpreted
as contracts, which they are. I think it's pretty well
settled contract law that a unilateral mistake does not relieve
one of its contractual obligations and restrictions. So how can
(16:06):
I enforce how can I order this restitution if the
express terms of the plea agreement, though mistaken understanding by
the state, don't allow such extra crime victims compensation fund reimbursement.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
And your honor.
Speaker 6 (16:32):
I recognize that, and that's what I was just getting
ready to address. In response to the defense's objection, the
state has modified or adjusted our position on the restitution.
We are pursuings of the plea agreement seeking restitution for
the funeral related expenses, which are the urns that are
(16:54):
described and exhibit to our response. We are not affirmatively
advocating for the travel expenses and lodging spits to the family,
because we know.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
So already they've kind of game the system because they
didn't ask for it ahead of time in the restitution agreement,
and they're no longer asking for travel expenses. They're not
even sure if they thought that the law covered it,
sounded like to my ear. Let me know if I'm
(17:29):
hearing it right, And it doesn't cover it, so they
can't ask for it. They didn't work it out ahead
of time, and now they're walking it back and they're
just asking. And listen to this where these small sums
of money for funeral expenses. I mean, just remember that
(17:49):
Brian Coburger. Brian Coburger hadn't done this, they'd all be
alive and talk about lack of remorse. I mean, what
a ballsy move. So I am not a judge. I
mean just seeing this from the defense, this kind of
motion from the defense would enrich me as a judge.
(18:13):
Now you don't want to pay anything. You want to
get all the benefits from a plea deal, and now
you don't want to pay anything. Really, Hey, Wesley Little's
October Fest, thanks for the cat door cash. Appreciate it,
isn't it, Kelly? Kelly says the goal right, Yeah, they're
(18:37):
cue and right, But I'm not sure so sure, Bossy, Hey, Bossy,
I'm not so sure. To Bossy, Texas Chick says, so
Thompson messed up. I can hear Steve Gonzalez now u
oh so Kat would prefer the buddy go to the
(18:59):
Tree Fund. There's plenty of money in the treat Fund.
The Treat Fund, the Treats are always well well stocked here.
Believe me. I'm not sure. I just don't think that
they before they asked for this travel expense thing, I
(19:20):
don't think it's covered. I think that's why it wasn't.
I bet they followed some kind of standard plea deal,
agreement and restitution is probably worked out in some kind
of supplemental deal. But now they say it's just too much.
I'd love to know exactly how much Brian Coburger got.
(19:42):
The defense makes it sound like it's all from his family,
and then they make it sound like things have changed,
right so that now that he's pled out, his family
no longer wants to give him any money, which I
don't believe, which makes me think that most of it
came from the public thinking that he was innocent and
(20:05):
once he pled out, for now it's dry until people
start capitalizing on some true crime innocent fraud media and
start capitalizing on this case again, and people will start
sending him money. So I would think that a lot
(20:28):
of this came from the public. A lot of that
five figures. I mean, we've seen Luigi Manngoni get over
a million. I've heard as high as a million and
a half with that accused killer, other famous pre trial
(20:48):
murder cases. Karen Reid, she made more than a million dollars.
I think a lot of money on this and it's
still catching in on it on her crime. Crime pays
in America, but to come and pretend like you can't
pay anything.
Speaker 6 (21:08):
It's legally advocate for those At the same time, the
families provided those to us, and we want to provide
them to the court and counsel disor.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
Everybody was aware that they are there, but we are
not arguing affirmatively.
Speaker 6 (21:21):
For that because of the wording of the plea agreement itself.
So what the state is actually requesting today is just
additional restitution for the funeral related expenses, which are the
urns for the families.
Speaker 3 (21:35):
Okay, thank you, any you can address the other issues
as well.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
I'm sorry on which other issues, Well.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
The issues if you'd like raised in opposition to your motion,
including the lack of ability to pay by defendant, etc.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Yes, thank your honor. I apologize.
Speaker 6 (22:06):
The defendants has raised the issue of his alleged and
ability to pay. And we recognize that he's going to
be incarcerated until he dies, but that in and of
itself doesn't mean that over the course of the balance
of its life he might become he might receive assets,
and in fact, we attached breakdown the types of money
(22:28):
that he has received during his incarceration. We also noted
the statute that allows the treasurer to intercept perspective moneies
that might be received based on any attempted publication of
the story of the defendant, and those, if received, would
be something that a restitution order could be enforced against.
(22:52):
We also note that the language of the statute and
the case law interpreting the restitution statute, which is nineteen
fifty three for if I believe alf the top of
my head.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
Right, So he's saying, like, should he make any money
from selling his story, it would go to the victim's family,
a little bit like OJ Simpson's book where the Goldman
family had to sue and then they owned the rights
to that manuscript. Because OJ constantly insisted on profiting off
(23:27):
of his crime. And that's an interesting aspect to look
at it. In the Karen Reid case. Should the Okey
family win civilly, what's going to happen with her movie money,
et cetera, all the other ways that I would predict
Karen Reid will try to profit in the future.
Speaker 7 (23:49):
So just.
Speaker 4 (23:56):
I'm just wondering where the outrage is. Where the DA
is supposed to be a voice for the victims family, They're
not gonna I mean, do they want him, Do they
want this kind of media out there? Do they want
him making deals? Would they prefer the horribly offensive media
to gain the money? Should the money go to them
from that horribly offensive media that's going to be created
(24:20):
out of that? I mean, what's happened with true crime
media is that victims, the idea of considering victims family
members and their feelings have been totally forgotten. It's how
much money can you make? What killer can you prop
up as innocent? It gets more stomach turning every year
(24:44):
to watch this community and there's so few not doing it.
I mean, pick any of them. All the major channels
are doing it, you know, podcasts or grifting off of
innocent fraud and innocent fraud media. I mean, how would
(25:08):
Brian Coburger sell his story? I guess he could say
why I did it? If I did it, Why I
did it? Oj kind of book or documentary, maybe they could,
but again it's just kind of a re victimization of
the victim's family members.
Speaker 6 (25:29):
Talks about current inability to pay is not necessarily a
block to the order of restitution. It's just merely a
factor for the court to consider. And it's our position
given the relative use of the defendant, the fact that
he has been receiving significant monies during his incarceration already,
and that there is a possibility of future monies, whether
(25:51):
by virtue of the statute with the treasure impounding proceeds
from a story related to this, or perhaps from an
inheritance from this family or others. You know, we can't
see into the future. We don't have a perfect crystal ball.
The state's position is having this additional restitution place, which
is really fairly minimal, would be appropriate. And I have
(26:16):
that available that if the dependent comes into assets, that
the families would be able to try to satisfy the
restitution orders from them.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
Thank you, And then who's arguing for defense?
Speaker 8 (26:33):
I will be your honor all right, thank you.
Speaker 7 (26:38):
Given that the state has clarified its position that it's
only seeking.
Speaker 8 (26:42):
Reimbursement for the earns.
Speaker 7 (26:44):
It's my understanding that that amount is fourteen twenty for
one family, fifteen eighty seven seventy nine, and then another
one hundred and sixty seven seventy nine, which would be
a total I believe, if my map is right, of
two thousand and seventy five dollars.
Speaker 8 (27:01):
And fifty eight cents.
Speaker 7 (27:03):
My understanding of bringing the victims compensation Code nineteen fifty
three oh four is that the court must still do
an analysis on mister Koberger's ability to pay, and as
the State has addressed, we are arguing that.
Speaker 8 (27:21):
He does not have an ability to pay.
Speaker 7 (27:24):
While there have been lump sums provided to you regarding
some funds that he received prior to his plea agreement,
what the court does not have is a breakdown of
how those funds came into the inmmy system for his expenses,
and the fact that they were primarily family certainly his situation.
Speaker 4 (27:50):
Okay, so you heard it was primarily family. Primarily family
to say, his family members giving five figures, and he's
our already in the time that he's been locked up,
he's already been through five figures worth and there's nothing
there for anyone. I mean, it's such a small sum.
(28:13):
He has also has fines. So the total of this
with the victim restitution is three hundred thousand dollars. Am
I correct on that? Hold on one second, let me
double double check that. But I think I'm right on that.
(28:38):
It's something like that. Yeah, three hundred thousand dollars in
fines and restitution. The restitution's a tiny part of that.
Why is he talking about how he doesn't want to
pay the fines. I mean, the fines are the bigger part.
It's just revictimizing the victim's family by proxy. This is
(29:01):
what this is about, the name of the game, power
and control. What about getting a job in prison? I
know it pays pennies on the dollar whatever compared to
there's no minimum wage. But I'm sure in his long
prison sentence he could definitely pay off this restitution over time.
(29:23):
Doesn't want to pay it all, can't do it. Sorry,
we'll see what the judge says. The end is kind
of fascinating.
Speaker 7 (29:34):
Hearing pre plea in sentencing was drastically different, different than
it is right now in terms of money that is
available to him, and there's nothing in the record to
provide the court with anything other than what is really
speculation based.
Speaker 8 (29:50):
On the past, as opposed to something.
Speaker 7 (29:52):
That the court might be reliable able to rely upon
about foreseeability. There's no way that mister Coburger is ever
going to profit from any sort of movie or book
because Idaho Code nineteen fifty three oh one specifically precludes that.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
Well and precludes it allows that moneies are swept from
his account for those income to pay certain things with
those certain things. If there's no debt for those certain things,
then does some money not go then to the defendant?
Speaker 8 (30:38):
That is not mine reading of the code.
Speaker 7 (30:40):
Perhaps I'm reading that statute more broadly than.
Speaker 4 (30:44):
To the judge is saying no, he can profit. That's
if he doesn't already owe money for restitution, finds something
else seems like he can profit, and then he goes
on later spoilers or alert later to say, well, maybe
someone else can pay him. There's nothing stopping someone else
(31:06):
for getting his salary and then just donating it wink
wink to him. I mean, that's not essentially how I
heard it. Later on in this hearing to Brian Coburger,
donating it to his commissary fund or whatever else it is,
whatever is prison fund. How do you go through I
(31:29):
get that everything's expensive in prison, phone time, et cetera.
But how do you go through five figures in such
a short period of time? What is he doing? I mean,
it's getting a lot of packages. I don't know what
where's all this money going?
Speaker 7 (31:50):
The court is I understood it that the purpose is
that someone can't then profit off of their crime person
to that statute, which I guess I need to read it.
Speaker 3 (32:03):
With well, even even allowing your even allowing your reading
of it. What's to prevent, for example, a family member,
uh from agreeing to uh, you know, provide information be
a part of et cetera, a story, movie book, whatever,
(32:25):
TV series about the murders about mister Coburger, and uh
and and uh you know that certainly wouldn't be as
money as they receive, wouldn't be subject to the statute,
and then they certainly would be free to to send
mister Coburger money to his account. What harm is it
(32:49):
to uh order the restitution which would then sort of
jump in line in terms of priority of payments over
some of the other ordered payments such that if mister
Coberger does receive money into his accounts from any source
that he's then that those monies are then put to
(33:11):
that use. Certainly, we're not worried about mister Coberger's credit
rating with having debts at this point. I'm not sure
what the concern would be to given the uniqueness of
this case and the potential for family members, et cetera
to earn money from it, and potentially for we've seen
(33:33):
members of the public send money to mister Coburger's my
understanding to his books. What what's the downside to ensuring
that the victims are as whole as possible from this
by ordering the restitution, which again would jump in line
(33:57):
from some of the other order to find, et cetera.
And if the money's there, it's there.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
So I mean, the reason I wanted to share this
hearing is for every time someone says it says that
oh no, oh no, you're wrong, there's Son of Sam Laws.
So the history of Son of Sam Laws is when
they wanted to make a book by Nick Polegi called
(34:28):
Wise Guys into a movie, which it did become a movie,
a very famous, critically acclaimed movie called Goodfellas, directed by
Martin Scorsese. They realized that that interfered with the Son
of Sam laws. In order to sell those book rights
(34:49):
as movie rights, they had to totally eliminate the son
of Sam laws, which they did in New York and
other states. They're so weakened. So even if you do
put some kind of like statue like this that says like, well,
they can't profit off their crime before paying the victim's
(35:12):
family members back in the state back, et cetera for
their crime. There's what the judge is saying is there's
other ways to go around it. So a movie company
could make a deal with Brian Koberger that his fee
will be paid to X person and that it will
(35:35):
be deposited in his commissary. That's part of his deal
that way, So he gets compensation that way. So there's
a million ways that they gain the system. And what's
left of those kind of even the idea of those
Son of Sam laws is really nothing in this country.
(35:58):
And we've seen Julius Jones was making like thirty thousand
dollars a month from prison selling T shirts and sneakers
and stuff. After his death sentence got overturned. Just due
to an innocence fraud campaign, nothing else. I mean, it's
(36:20):
just the profit. Even though there are statues in Oklahoma
and those kind of things, it just doesn't matter. There's
who's gonna The problem also is who cares to enforce
these laws? Not many people, and what's left of any
(36:41):
kind of victims' rights movement in this country is almost nil.
Speaker 3 (36:56):
If it's not it's not.
Speaker 8 (37:01):
Judge, I don't see that Idaho code or Idaho law
asks the court to make an analysis on the downside.
Speaker 7 (37:07):
But whether or not there is foreseeability of payment and
all of.
Speaker 8 (37:12):
The things that you just listed are pure speculation.
Speaker 7 (37:15):
There is no book or movie that's in the works
by any of his family, and to say that those
things are going to happen is absolutely speculative and there's
nothing to substantiate those sorts of assertions happening in the future.
Speaker 3 (37:33):
Well, there's a history in the three years he was
incarcerated of him receiving five figures put on his books.
Doesn't that give the court some history to suggest that
such contributions from whatever source may continue into the future.
Speaker 7 (37:53):
As I stated earlier, Jude, that was at a different
time in the case that was at a time when
you know, he had not entered.
Speaker 8 (38:01):
A plea, he was not being convicted of the crime.
Speaker 7 (38:05):
The money, a lot of that money was coming from
his family to be able to have.
Speaker 4 (38:10):
So Wait, so are they saying that his family believed
in his innocence and now they don't? Is that what
his lawyer's saying here, or is she saying that it
largely by saying the reverse, she's saying it largely came
from the family. But did it largely come from the public?
(38:30):
And now that the kind of innocent frod media has
died down, there's not as much Why is there? Listen
to how vague it guess when they talk about how
little money there is left for were this pit like
ridiculously low sum of restitution? The fines are high, the
(38:53):
these are the finds he's getting or nothing to sneeze at.
But they're asking for aotentially funeral expenses for the four
people he murdered and they don't want to pay that.
It's not like they need more time to do it.
(39:15):
They all knew this was coming. They all knew this
was coming. They signed on to this. This was part
of the plea deal. Restitution was part of the plea
deal and now they're like four months later. No, and
the goal of this defense attorney to come in and
do this. What a soulless, disgraceful human being she is
(39:44):
to come in and do this and say no, there's
no way we can actually arrange for paying for funeral expenses.
And disingenuous at that, I mean, that's a nice word
for I was saying, I don't believe her. I think
she's a liar. That's my just my opinion. Who does
believe in the audience, I'll be curious to.
Speaker 7 (40:06):
Know communications with their son and brother and to speculate
that those tens of dollars are going to be able
to happen for the next many decades is exactly that.
It's pure speculation, not based on something that is foreseeable
or based in something that's in fact before this court.
Speaker 3 (40:30):
Well, it just seems to me that one of the
you know, really obviously.
Speaker 4 (40:37):
So what I what I hear is we want the
court to be on the back foot, so when the
deal is already paid, and when we already have something
going on right now, it's a good time to say
we can't pay it. Maybe as maybe these actual funds
are low right now, maybe maybe just maybe maybe not.
(41:01):
But who's gonna be who's going to be looking and
really keeping track of Brian Coburger. Not in the next
ten years, in the next twenty years, the next thirty years.
Who's going to be keeping track of the money coming
in in his account and the true crime media created
(41:22):
around his case and the deals that he might or
might not be making. Seriously, I mean, I get that
Thompson has a different style, then I'll where's the outrage?
(41:50):
Where's the outrage?
Speaker 3 (41:56):
Even application of statute requires the court to look at
what might happen into the future, and I guess you know,
it seems to me one of the best indicators of
the future is the past. And in the past, his
family has, according you're saying, the family was the source
of much of these funds, has provided him funds in
(42:19):
order for him to communicate, etc. That necessity will still
exist going forward. I'm not aware of his family having
disowned him at this point and not wanting any contact
with him, And even if they are, that doesn't mean
that won't change. And you call it speculation, it seems
to me that it is good evidence of what may
(42:40):
occur in the future in light of what has occurred
in the past.
Speaker 8 (42:45):
Well, just there is a judgment against a any amount.
Speaker 7 (42:47):
Of twenty eight thousand dollars, and certainly at twenty percent
of every dollar that goes into his inmate account is
going to go towards paying at twenty thousand dollars. A
matter factor that the court actually can look at under
nineteen fifty three All four sub Section seven is other factors,
and those factors that other factors that the court teams
(43:09):
appromportate and that can be collateral resources that the families
obtained over two hundred thousand dollars, which definitely reimburse the
cost of the earns and earns in terms of economic costs.
Speaker 3 (43:24):
I also want to turn to the plea agreement because
does the isn't a reasonable interpretation of the plea Agreement
that the defendant will not contest the states seeking of
restitution that is outlined in the plea Agreementwise, otherwise why
(43:47):
would it need to be in the plea agreement?
Speaker 4 (43:53):
Did everybody just hear that for those in the back,
So part of what they signed in the plea agreement
was that they would not contend best paying restitution, and
here they are testing restitution. Why isn't the judge handing
this lawyer her behind you sign this? You had your
(44:18):
client sign this, now you don't want to pay. It's
so what I find is just the morality of it,
so morally offensive, but just on a surface level for
her lawyerly duties to have her client sign something and
(44:40):
then come back months later and be like, just kidding,
We're just kidding when we sign this. Weak judge week prosecutor.
This is about the tone of our The outrage has
totally left our judicial system except for convicted killers and
(45:03):
predators and their feelings. Then it's keyed up. Then the
motion is keyed up with high emphasis on empathy with
the convicted and the victim and the victim's family are
ghosted altogether out of this. This is just like a
(45:27):
mere formality. Can someone remind the court that without Brian
Coburger or people would still be alive. That the Chapin
family would still have their son, the Kernodle family would
(45:51):
still have zena Gonzalez family would still have Kayli, the
Emojin family would still have Madison. I mean, they've been
sentenced to a life sentence. Of grief. And I'm not
sure what this twenty eight thousand dollars. I whish I
(46:13):
knew more, a little bit more about that particular is
about what that they're going to pay that back in
time somehow. That judgment, Yeah, that's what happens when you
murder for people. Hopefully, hopefully it doesn't make your life
(46:37):
easy in prison, But here's the legal system or judicial
system ready to make it as easy for Brian Coburger
as possible.
Speaker 3 (46:51):
It seems to me it's the plea agreement. A reasonable
interpretation is the defendant is agreeing to pay restitution for
those items that are identified in the plea agreement, which
includes victims compensation apartment, which includes in this case, funeral expenses.
So you took advantage of the plea agreement to get
(47:14):
the benefit of the bargain regarding the state's dropping of
the death penalty. Why should you not be held to
the plea agreement to pay the victims the costs of
in turning their children?
Speaker 7 (47:32):
Judge, I believe that our cleeding was clear, that we
understood that burns fell underneath a funeral costs, but that
once we have a hearing on this matter, that doesn't
eliminate the court's duty under nineteen fifty three oh four
to do the.
Speaker 8 (47:47):
Ability to pay analysis. And that's why.
Speaker 3 (47:51):
Are you in violation of the plea agreement by arguing
that your clients shouldn't have to pay those.
Speaker 7 (47:58):
We are not in violation of the play agreement, that
there was any violation of a clear agreement that took place.
It's the state seeking this when the other expenses, when
it was clear under statute and under the Idaho Victims
of Compensation rules that those were not reimbursable expenses.
Speaker 4 (49:35):
So just to be clear, thank you, Craig. So just
to be clear, Okay, just to be clear on this,
she's saying because the state got it wrong. This is
what this lawyer was saying, right because this state, Yeah,
(49:57):
it was core to me, Okay, because the state got
it wrong that they thought that they should that Brian
Coburger should pay travel expenses. That is a kin to
her and her client essentially agreeing to this plea agreement
that not only agrees to pay restitution, but agrees not
(50:19):
to fight paying restitution. So when the judge asks are
you in violation of the plea agreement, I'll answer the
question yes, she's in violation of the plea agreement. This
was done in July. This is four months later, and
(50:41):
she's back back in court saying no, no, we're not
going to pay it. They just signed it. The ink
is still fresh on this agreement and they've already already
violating it. Why isn't the job handing her her behind here?
(51:03):
I don't understand it. It's so clear to me that
she's in no standing at all to say that she
can't pay this piddly sum for the funeral expenses. I mean,
(51:27):
that's all. That's that's it. It's not like some kind
of pain and suffering clause written in her funeral expenses.
That's it. They're like, no, my client doesn't have it,
but they are, but he is paying some other kind
of twenty eight that twenty eight thousand dollars and the
(51:47):
rest of the fines, which according to the all the
media I read, comes up to about three hundred thousand
dollars altogether. That were not it's just the funeral, it's
just the things that deal with the victims family. Small
amount that we're saying we can't pay, I mean, come on.
(52:14):
And so I listened to Core TV talking about this,
and there was zero outrage, zero zero outrage. I don't know,
maybe I'm just built different. I don't get it. But
(52:38):
every day I'm watching one convicted killer predator gain the system.
In England. It's Barry George. You can't come to court
because he's sick. Here, it's Brian Coburger. You can't can't
(53:00):
pay the victim's familybody so many I mean he will.
I mean, if you think he's going to just do
his time quietly, I'd be very shocked if not. In
ten years or so, we do, or about fourteen years
(53:24):
or so, we see some kind of innocent fraud media
coming out of this case, that the state really got
it wrong, that Brian Coberger was terrified in signing the
plead agreement he had to.
Speaker 3 (53:40):
But they have effectively, they've effectively withdrawn right.
Speaker 4 (53:44):
It was so stacked against him, he was forced to
sign it, he was threatened into signing it, bad assistance
of counsel, whatever they're going to say, But it was
really some other guy did it, some other vague other person.
And then incomes the parade of new and ridiculous suspects.
Speaker 3 (54:08):
Those requests and are seeking what's outlined in the plea agreement.
What's the point of the plea agreement on restitution if
the defense is able to argue against the restitution called
for in the plea agreement itself.
Speaker 7 (54:24):
Judge Again, in our pleading, we objected to what the
state has withdrawn as of this moment. At the steering today,
we acknowledged that the earns were funeral expenses. But once
we're in a situation of having a hearing, then this
(54:44):
other section about whether or not he has an ability
to pay is triggered. We stipulated to twenty eight thousand
dollars in restitution within sixty days.
Speaker 8 (54:56):
He met the terms of the plea agreement.
Speaker 3 (55:00):
But it also says the state may seek restitution regarding
funeral expenses, and they're simply identifying additional funeral expenses.
Speaker 7 (55:10):
I don't know what more you want me to say
under the about the ears other than the.
Speaker 3 (55:16):
Found it.
Speaker 7 (55:18):
I agree that it was three seventy dollars and fifty
eight cents.
Speaker 3 (55:23):
But you say, you know you shouldn't have to pay it.
Speaker 7 (55:27):
What I've said was that the court needs to do
the analysis under Idaho code about his ability to pay.
Speaker 4 (55:34):
Why so, it's a really good question by the judge.
What's the point of the plea agreement goes unanswered if
he's not going to pay it. But what's the good
of anything? I mean, what comes to mind? I mean,
I could bring up other things. Other things get decided
in the case and it goes to a different kind
(56:02):
of court. I'm thinking Marty tanklf just off the top
of my head, when they decide not to retry him
for the murder of his adopted parents, Arlene and Seymour Tankliff.
Pomo wrote a long decision about how Marty Tankleff should
not be in any way looked at his innocent like
(56:23):
he did it essentially, and he deserves no compensation. And
then he goes on to breake in millions in compensation
from our civil court. So essentially, what does any of
these agreements mean? They don't mean they mean everything as
(56:44):
far as the state having to file follow them. But
for the defendant, there's a million ways to appeal and
go around things. You know, I think I saw Wesley.
Wesley was saying earlier that no one really cares. But
(57:07):
I mean, crime is definitely going up, and it's going
to keep going up in New York City and there's
going to be more and more victims, and more and
more victims family members. This will come to a crisis
point at some point.
Speaker 3 (57:29):
It happened, hasn't The defendant waived his right to rely
on that ability to pay by agreeing to those expenses
as part of the plea agreement.
Speaker 8 (57:40):
I don't know how the court can enter that this
order today.
Speaker 7 (57:44):
Without engaging any analysis under Idaho cod because it's required.
That's the way I review the case law and the
code that went. Once there's a theory about restitution, then
the court has to engage in the analysis on the
ability of home.
Speaker 3 (57:59):
So the agent to pay is illusory.
Speaker 7 (58:03):
No, he agreed to twenty eight thousand dollars. We agreed
that urns fall underneath.
Speaker 3 (58:08):
Does you have the ability to pay that?
Speaker 8 (58:12):
No, he does not have the ability it.
Speaker 7 (58:15):
Because it was a specific We were provided with those
receipts within sixty days. We were not provided with the
receipt for the earns within sixty days.
Speaker 3 (58:26):
So is your objection then a timeliness objection?
Speaker 7 (58:30):
We did raise a timeliness objection in our bleeding. I
have thought about that and whether or not I think
that it is a really valid argument to say that
that's completely jurisdictional. It didn't mean that the court can't
take this under the review at this.
Speaker 4 (01:00:08):
It's not exactly a timeliness issue. She's saying, I don't know,
it is all so crazy. Not exactly a timeliness problem.
I mean, most of these restitution issues when you go
to when you go to sentencing hearings, they say we're
going to work out the restitution. Usually the restitution is
(01:00:30):
worked out at the time of the sentencing, at the
plea deal. At the plea deal, ERT's say we're going
to work out restitution at sentencing. Usually you see some
of it at sentencing, and if it's not totally worked out,
it's forthcoming. But sixty days, this has been four months.
(01:00:55):
It's like this piddly sum. So the question is to
why she's why if you can't pay the twenty eight
thousand dollars, why he's opposing this pidley sum for the
victim's family is because they can walk over all over
the victims' family members. And because it wasn't worked out immediately,
(01:01:20):
and why didn't come sooner. I'd be curious to ask
Da Thompson why he didn't have the funeral expenses. Why
wasn't that submitted in sixty days? Curious why that wasn't
a priority for the DA's office there point in time.
Speaker 7 (01:01:39):
I didn't read the judgment language in such a strict
fashion that I felt like we could say sixty one
days means the court's not going to rely on not
going to consider it at all. So it is past
your sixty eight deadline. But I don't know that that
is completely jurisdic knowing the way to dropped your judgment.
Speaker 3 (01:02:07):
Anything else, No, thank you, mister Thompson.
Speaker 2 (01:02:11):
Ever rebuttal no, your honor, thank you?
Speaker 3 (01:02:15):
All right, thank you all take the matter in our advisement,
issue and opinion.
Speaker 4 (01:02:18):
And yeah, not my favorite TA and certainly not my
favorite defense attorney and judge asked some good questions, but seriously, seriously, seriously,
come on, guys, it's like the worst of offense in
(01:02:45):
our murders, consider the worst offense in our judicial system
for a reason. Where's the outrage? Where is the outrage?
(01:03:06):
I'm just going to be so curious just the way
that Brian Coburger continues to go through his time in prison.
He obviously he obviously read the room, and he doesn't
mind revictimizing the victims' family members again. I mean, one
(01:03:26):
could look at this filing as just a revictimization of
this victim's family members again in a way to just
needle them and hurt them and hope that he doesn't
have to pay them. I mean, I mean, really, the
question that was never answered is to why this and
not anything else? Why is this the thing he doesn't
(01:03:49):
want to pay, which is the sole money he owns
the victims' family members. And one could make an argument,
and I think it's a fair argument that the reason
why is because he wants to continue to revictimize the
victims' family members and make them suffer. It's one of
(01:04:13):
his last exercises of power. And there's always a and
his creepy, soulless defense attorney will do his bidding for him.
(01:04:36):
He's really like the most disturbing field of a bunch
of people, these lawyers that over the past almost I
think it's nine years I've been doing this podcast, and
I've looked at one lawyer's personality after the next, and
(01:04:57):
what they're willing to argue in front of the court.
Just I mean, talk about lost moral compass, talk about
no moral compass at all. And I mean she can
talk about code this and well it just doesn't fall
(01:05:17):
under the code like it's some kind of technicality. I mean,
none of it really has. I mean, what you heard
in this hearing was that the judge trying to make
legal sense out of it certainly doesn't make legal sense.
And the only conclusion you can come to really at
the end is that Brian Coburger doesn't want to pay
(01:05:38):
the victim's family member. He wants them to get no money.
And the part that enraged me was the Brian Coburger's
lawyer scoffing at the idea that he would profit, ever
profit from his crime, as if we are not in
(01:05:58):
a time when we are seeing murderers make a record
profit from their crimes with zero outrage. It's almost like
awe from the public and zero outrage. So when Luigi
Mangione's defense fund gets brought up, or another killer dajure
(01:06:26):
go fund me or accused killer dajors go fund me,
it's just like Wow, they raise that much, isn't it.
It's just kind of like wow, there isn't the disgust
(01:06:49):
that I think that should rightfully come with us all this,
but more. You know, there will be more victim I
mean Chicago, New York City who watching crime go up
and up and up. There will be more victims, family
members unfortunately, and the way our justice system is treating them,
(01:07:13):
and the way that not just their justice system, but
that our media public at large generally, this kind of
revictimization will continue to go on. So that's what I
have for today. I want to thank Beth Sally Stafford.
(01:07:34):
Thank you for becoming Patreon members. It's a great way
to support the channel. Thenmo also a great way to
support the channel. Send a donation, buy me a coffee,
another great way to support the channel. This is a
listener supported channel. I will be back very soon, probably
(01:07:59):
tomorrow with another episode six pm. I'll see you guys then,
thanks so much for listening and hanging out and watching
this very enraging hearing with me. I'll see you tomorrow, guys.
Have a great night, everybody. Oh wait, hold on one second,
(01:08:24):
I didn't Okay, here we go, but okay, psych I thought,
now this really is the end of the show. I'm
a great night, everybody.
Speaker 7 (01:08:50):
My check.
Speaker 1 (01:08:50):
Roberta strides through the static case True Crime got them?
Why the shadows playter place for it's to fold when
a spotlight beans fact focus queen bus propaganda schemes, glass shatter,
lives that goes through the streets, standing for victims, giving voice,
their meats, and hy c Poll's truth sharpest Knight prefer
to exposing She's an anti fried light partast warrior, dissecting
(01:09:26):
Satan's defense, twisted innocence, claims, breaking pretense.
Speaker 3 (01:09:30):
Gotham's truth seeker cuts clean with the.
Speaker 1 (01:09:32):
Blade facts in the forefront.
Speaker 3 (01:09:34):
No justice gets swayed.
Speaker 1 (01:09:35):
Cold facts dripped heavy real salt, gun purls.
Speaker 3 (01:09:38):
Cracking cases open like oysters with pearls.
Speaker 1 (01:09:41):
Innocence gimmicks crumble the dust in the wind for victims,
her creed justice till the end, headphones blazing. She dropped
heavy artillery. Now we're just twisted meat, blunt objects, civility.
(01:10:04):
Roberta God receipts that unraveled deploy exposing the lies, these
frauds that just deploy glass shadows, lies that goes.
Speaker 3 (01:10:11):
Through the streets, standards of victims.
Speaker 1 (01:10:14):
Given voice, stand meats, and by postal shops. Night Roberta
exposes used the anti fraud light
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com