Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - 9 Big Updates in Bryan Kohberger's Death Penalty Case

Episode Date: March 27, 2025

Bryan Kohberger's lawyers and prosecutors have filed a flurry of motions about evidence that jurors will see in his trial for the murders of four University of Idaho students in August. The motions have revealed new information about the evidence including a Ka-Bar knife purchased on Amazon, a selfie of Kohberger, a balaclava purchased months before the murders, a sketch of a mask and his Autism diagnosis. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy goes through the latest updates in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Download the FREE Upside App at https://upside.app.link/crimefix to get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas.Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5CRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this law and crimes series ad free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. I have the biggest bombshells dropped by the state and the defense. Plus, will prosecutors actually call Brian Koberger's family to testify against him? Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. We've learned more about the evidence in the Idaho murders case in the last week than frankly we have in the last two years. The new information comes from court documents filed by prosecutors and Brian Koberger's defense attorneys in preparation for his trial this August. And let me tell you, the defense is not one bit happy about that selfie of Brian Koberger that prosecutors want to use at trial. It was taken six hours after the murders. We'll have more on that in a bit, along with a description of him having bushy eyebrows.

Both sides have revealed details about the alleged murder weapon and that selfie. There are also details about DNA that police say was found on a K-bar knife sheath found at the crime scene. I'll get to that later. Koberger maintains he didn't murder Maddie Mogan, Kaylee Gonsalves, Ethan Chapin, and Zanna Carnodle in the early morning hours of November 13th, 2022. But prosecutors say they have evidence that proves Koberger committed these murders, and they may call Koberger's own family members to testify against him. In a document discussing family members of victims being allowed in the courtroom during the trial, prosecutors wrote, the state may call members of the Koberger family to testify at trial.

Prior to start of trial, the state anticipates it will motion the court or the court will, on its own accord, generally exclude testifying witnesses from the courtroom so that they cannot hear other witnesses' testimony. Prosecutors are objecting to members of Koberger's family who are on the state's witness list from being in the courtroom during the trial until after they testify. So which family members could be called to the stand by prosecutors? We know Brian Koberger's father, Michael Koberger, drove from Pullman, Washington to Pennsylvania with his son in December of 2022. That cross-country trip was pre-planned for the holidays.

Could Michael Koberger be called to testify about that drive or something that happened once they arrived at the Koberger home in Pennsylvania? Maybe. Dateline had reported in 2023 that one of Koberger's older sisters was suspicious of her brother's behavior over that holiday and suggested he may have committed the murders. One of those sisters is Amanda Koberger. She's seen in these photos from a movie she was a part of filming back in 2011. Ironically, it involved a stabbing. But what else could the Kobergers testify about? Well, we know from the defense that the Kobergers shared an Amazon account and prosecutors say Brian Koberger bought a K-Bar knife on Amazon. Koberger's lawyers have asked the judge to bar prosecutors from presenting evidence of the Amazon account's click history, arguing it was a shared

family account and AI can influence what a customer clicks on. I want to tell you about a free app that I've tried. It's called Upside. It gives you cash back on things that you use each day, like gas, groceries, and takeout. You can transfer the cash you get back straight into your bank account. When I pump gas or I go to Dunkin' for a cup of tea, I use Upside. I've even used it when I order pizza. Here's how it works. Download Upside, claim an offer for whatever you're buying, and pay as usual using a debit or credit card. Follow the steps and get paid. It's that easy. To find out how much you could earn, click the link in the description to download Upside or scan the QR code on your screen and use our promo code CRIMEFIX to get an extra 25 cents back on every gallon on your first tank

of gas. That's promo code CRIMEFIX for an extra 25 cents back on your first tank of gas. And now we may have a hint of what the defense may claim about that K-bar knife and a new document they write. The state ignores that the Amazon records reflect a household of users on the Amazon account at issue and a long list of items purchased over a period of several months for a road trip or hiking to include a roadside repair kit, a tire inflator, a backpack, and bear spray. Is the defense going to say that Brian Koberger bought this knife for a road trip or to use hiking? Not sure, but prosecutors say the click history is reliable. Prosecutor Ashley Jennings wrote, Koberger's click activity, which shows a purchase of a K-Bar knife and sheath

before the homicides, makes it more probable than it would be without the evidence that the K-Bar sheath found at the crime scene was Brian Koberger's. Second, Koberger's click activity after the homicides makes it more probable than it would be without the evidence that Koberger had a reason to search for a K-Bar knife and sheath after the homicides. These facts are of consequence to determining whether Brian Koberger committed the homicides at 1122 King Road, the central question before the jury. This evidence is clearly relevant. So prosecutors dropped that bomb toward the end of their response to that defense motion, confirming after all of this time that Brian Koberger bought a K-Bar knife, sheath and sharpener on Amazon. Jennings went on to write, the defendant touches on the issue of

identifying the account user making the Amazon search inquiries as shown by click activity. The state recognizes that the identity of the user making the inquiries is relevant, and the state intends to rely not only on the click activity, but also other circumstances to connect the defendant to the original knife purchase and subsequent search inquiries for a replacement knife and or sheath. This will include the defendant's financial activities, the click activities vis-a-vis other events such as the homicides, a related purchase activity connected only to the defendant, and testimony from witnesses with knowledge that the defendant purchased a K-bar knife.

So could one of the Koberger family members be testifying about the purchase of the knife? They would have access to that shared family account. We'll have to wait and see. Next up, the state has asked Judge Hippler to bar the defense from using the some-other-dude-did-it defense. Prosecutors say the evidence points squarely at Koberger, but the defense says they should be allowed to point the finger at other suspects in an effort to present a full

defense. Ann Taylor wrote, the state argues that literally thousands of tips regarding possible perpetrators were received by law enforcement during the course of the investigation and that none of these tips were substantiated with exception of information regarding the defendant. The state is correct that over 45,000 tips have been disclosed and tips continue to come in daily. This case is full of alternative perpetrators. The state has chosen to focus on Mr. Koberger at its own peril. Mr. Koberger will produce offers of proof related to many alternate perpetrators in this case that will meet Idaho rules of evidence 401, 402, and 403. Many alternate perpetrators can be connected to the crime. The defense has a footnote in that paragraph that references a sealed motion to suppress the genetic genealogy information in the case.

So is the defense referring to alternative perpetrators mentioned in the genetic genealogy searches performed by the FBI? It sounds like it. Now, there's been a lot of fighting in court over that investigative genetic genealogy evidence the FBI used to identify Brian Koberger as a suspect. Police said that DNA taken from this part of the snap on the K-bar knife sheath found next to Maddie Mogan came from a male. And it was a single source, but they had to use that genetic genealogy to trace it to Brian Koberger. The jury isn't going to hear about this at trial. When it comes to genetic genealogy, they'll only be told that police got a tip that led them to Koberger.

The defense claims the prosecution is going to sanitize this. Prosecutors fired back writing, it is unclear what the defendant means in the last sentence of his reply, since this testimony will be sanitized for presentation to the jury to avoid the IGG process. It must also not falsely suggest that there was any other evidence or tip that led the state to Mr. Koberger. There is substantial evidence gathered both prior to the tip and subsequently state to Mr. Koberger. There is substantial evidence gathered both prior to the tip and subsequently leading to Mr. Koberger being the person responsible for the November 13th, 2022 homicides and burglary. The state will certainly not falsely produce or refer to this other evidence, but will rely on all of this evidence at trial to establish the defendant's

guilt. Now, it will be interesting to find out what evidence police gathered prior to the tip that led to Koberger, because Moscow police detective Brett Payne testified until December 19th, 2022, he had never heard the name Brian Koberger until the FBI gave him that name. Now back to the sheath and the DNA from Koberger that prosecutors say was found on the snap. The defense doesn't want the manager of the DNA lab in Idaho, Ryleen Nolan, calling the DNA touch or contact DNA or offering an opinion about when or how Koberger's DNA ended up on the sheath. Koberger's lawyers say DNA can be transferred onto an item any number of ways. But prosecutors say not so fast, and so does Riley Nolan.

Nolan wrote in an affidavit, The phrase touch DNA is widely used in the forensic DNA community and was used in Dr. Ruth Ballard's expert witness disclosures for this case when referring to the DNA on the knife sheet. It is typically used to describe DNA collected from items of evidence in areas on the item that would most likely be touched by the user of that item. Prosecutors write, Ms. Nolan's use of the phrase touch DNA is not unique, but common within the field. Most tellingly, defendant's own DNA expert plans to use the phrase touch DNA in reference to the DNA on

the knife sheath. No blood, hair, or DNA from him was found on any of the crime scene evidence except the touch DNA on the knife sheath. Experts in other cases also use the phrase touch DNA in the same way. And Riley Nolan is ready to testify about the amount of DNA on the sheath. The term trace DNA implies amount. The word trace is defined as a very small amount and is used in the scientific literature when describing evidence samples with low amounts of DNA that do not yield a profile or only a partial profile. I would not be willing to use that term and it would be inappropriate to apply that term to the DNA on the knife sheath because a trace amount of DNA is not what was

detected on item 1.1 and referring to it as trace DNA would be misleading to the trier of fact. So Nolan says this was not a small amount of DNA. Recently, I spoke to DNA expert Kristen Slaper about that amount of DNA taken from the sheath. So 0.168 NG per U ul. Tell me how much DNA is that? Is that a lot of DNA? Is that a little bit of DNA? So in my opinion, that's a lot of DNA. That's 0.168 nanograms per microliter. And at least in my lab, we would run, we would target, you know target one nanogram of DNA. So you would need one microliter, which is a very tiny amount. If you took all of that sample and you put it into the system, it would be way too much for the system to handle to produce a DNA profile. All the amount of DNA, the target that you have for your system is all based on lab validation.

So this lab would have had a validation that said this is the ideal amount to get a single source profile or whatever. But you can get a DNA profile with far less DNA than what is there. So I think it's a decent amount of DNA. Can you say where it came from? No. I think the other thing that's important is it's single source. So when you start to talk about transfer, and I think even in one of the documents, they have a diagram of the different types of transfer, whether it's primary transfer, secondary. When you're talking about a single source profile that has been transferred onto an item, it seems like it stands to reason that it is from the

direct application of that DNA onto that item. Now, if you're talking about touch DNA, people shed DNA in various rates. That's one of the biggest arguments that you'll find is that there's no way of knowing if I touch something one time and then you swab it will you get my profile off of it versus if you swab the same item you may shed more DNA or more skin cells onto an item than I do so there's no way of knowing but ultimately it's from one person which means if someone else transferred Brian Kovar goes DNA onto this item they had to have something from Brian Kobarger's DNA onto this item, they had to have something from Brian Kobarger and put it on the item without also mixing themselves into there. So the biggest case that,

you know, probably in the history where planting evidence was known is the OJ Simpson trial and, or the OJ Simpson case. And if you recall the evidence in that case, there was a lot of it. Um, but they had a vial of OJ Simpson's blood that they had collected from him. So the idea that they could take his blood and potentially put it on items to plant the evidence, blood has a lot of DNA in it, and they could then take it. They would have had to know who Brian Koberger was. They would have had to have a sample from him and also put only his DNA onto this. Now, remember that selfie of Brian Koberger that I showed you last week? Prosecutors say they pulled this off of Koberger's phone and that he took it six hours after the murders. They want to show it at trial to back up the testimony of the surviving roommate, DM, who described the man she saw walking through the house as having bushy eyebrows.

Well, Koberger's attorneys, they're not happy about that selfie. Alicia Massoth writes, the photo of Mr. Koberger that the state attached to its response is not relevant and is overly prejudicial. This is akin to the state trying to identify Mr. Koberger for DM or create its own corroboration for her. DM previously said that she could not identify him. There are literally millions of people in the world who might be described as having bushy eyebrows. The term itself is subjective, and DM has a fascination with drawing eyes and eyebrows. Massif goes on to write that a detective was the first to ask DM about the color of the man's eyebrows on the day of the murders. And then DM didn't bring up the bushy eyebrows until November 17th in another interview with police.

And look at this. Massif included this sketch from DM. Detectives asked her to draw the type of mask that she saw that man wearing. I flipped it around so you could see it from top to bottom. Prosecutors are now revealing that Koberger bought a black balaclava from Dick's Sporting Goods in January 2022, and that it's similar to the mask that DM sketched. Now, Koberger's lawyers are pushing back against the bushy eyebrows description. They say allowing it would basically be pointing the finger right at Koberger.

Meanwhile, prosecutors have included a photo of Koberger's driver's license from Washington state. The photo was taken four months before the murders. Koberger's lawyers are also responding to prosecutors saying their motion to strike the death penalty should be denied because Koberger's lawyers are also responding to prosecutors saying their motion to strike the death penalty should be denied because Koberger has autism spectrum disorder. The defense writes, Mr. Koberger's ASD makes a fair and just trial a challenge. The state argues news coverage is not informative on this topic. The state benefits from the biased news media. Public sentiment is that Mr. Koberger's physical presentation makes him look guilty through no fault of his own. His flat affect, intense gaze, awkward body posture, holding still in the courtroom, inability to react and process what is happening in the courtroom, and inability to show emotion could cause enough juror bias to convict him.

Without a doubt, his ability to testify in trial and the decision to testify will be nearly impossible for Mr. Koberger. He has no ability to perceive what it will feel like and whether he should in fact testify. His inability to read the room, understand the threat that cross-examination will present, or explain himself in socially acceptable ways without prosody of speech presents insurmountable hurdles for him. The defense also points to Koberger's arrest in Pennsylvania to show how his autism impacts him. The defense writes he has an inability to assist with mitigation evidence and understand the magnitude of his case. By way of example,

when he was arrested in his home with a full SWAT team, doors broken and parents zip tied, he made small talk with the detective in the back of the car during the ride to the police station. He asked the officer about his education and suggested that they get coffee at a later date. He did not perceive the profoundly serious nature of the moment and exhibited no perception of what was happening. All right. So there is a lot to talk about here. We haven't even gotten to all of it yet, but we are going to do that with Josh Ritter. He is a former prosecutor, currently a defense attorney in Los Angeles. So, Josh, I have to get your thoughts on possibly hearing from members of Brian Koberger's family. The state says they may very well call members of his family to testify against him. Your thoughts on that,

because we heard a lot about him possibly acting very strangely when he was home for the holidays. And obviously, we know his dad drove cross country with him from Washington to PA. Yeah, it's wild stuff. I mean, you just usually do not see this. Though it's not, there's nothing wrong with it. It's just kind of usually the defendant's family is off bounds for the prosecution. But in this case, it kind of makes sense if you think about it. For one, the reasons you point out, it's probably important for jurors to understand what he was doing when he was back at home in Pennsylvania. Does that include things like cleaning up his vehicle? Does that include things like discarding items in the home? Does that include things like being very meticulous

as to what was being put into the garbage. This is all circumstantial evidence of somebody who might be covering up a crime. They also might be calling them to just kind of create a timeline. Where was he? When did you last speak with him? Where can we put him? You know, is he still someone that we can put at the murder scene? What was the discussion as to why he was then going to travel back home within weeks of the murders. But the other thing, too, is the new revelation that we've had about the Amazon account. And it may be that this was a shared family account. And so they may need someone to lay the foundation as to who had access to that account, who was making purchases on that account and what purchases.

And we know one in particular that is very interesting. Who made those purchases and when? Yeah. And they said they have a witness or witnesses that have knowledge of Brian Koberger having a K-bar knife. And so that's making me think, I mean, that could be any number of people, but that makes me think, is that a family member who either logged into the account after they thought he was acting weird in Pennsylvania and they're like trying to put the pieces together? Or did they see him with this thing and they're like, how do you why do you have this thing? You're like a Ph.D. student. You know, you're not a knife guy. Exactly. And that's exactly what I was thinking as well as it it could be one in the same the family members are also the people who are going to testify as to him purchasing and actually being

in possession of that knife it could be that the knife was delivered to one of the family members homes with his name on it i mean there's any number of things uh that could establish him being the one in possession of that knife. It could also include classmates, friends, acquaintances who may have ever seen him in possession of a knife like that. I will say this, that is a remarkable type of knife. And what I mean is that's not a knife you commonly see in someone's home. I feel like it would be the type of knife that you would remember someone being in possession of. It's not a kitchen knife or some sort of typical kind of pocket knife that

some people carry. That's a knife that I feel like people are going to remember seeing in someone's possession. Yeah. To your point, Josh, look at this thing. I mean, this sheath is as big as my head. I mean, somebody remarked to me the other day about this, like when I got this thing. I mean, look at it. It's huge. And it says K-bar USMC. I don't have the knife in here, but like the knife. I mean, think about it.

It's this is a big knife. No, no, it is. And you look at it and you immediately wonder, what in the world does somebody need a knife like that for? Like I said, it doesn't appear to be kind of a common pocket utility knife that somebody might carry around. I used to carry around one of those Swiss Army knives. This is a large knife that is not going to easily fit into a pocket.

That sheath itself is meant to be tied to a belt. I mean, it's just the kind of knife that, like I said, is going to draw attention and likely have people remembering when they last saw it. Now, there are other purchases that the prosecution, they've got records, all these records they just want to introduce. I mean, they're talking about purchases that Brian Koberger made at Dick's in June of 2022 and also Under Armour. And I'm thinking to myself, they say that he was in the house. There's this guy in all black wearing a mask, wearing black boots, all black.

You don't you're not going to introduce these purchases unless you think that they were involved in the crime. You have to think that they think he bought something at Dick's and Under Armour that he wore to the crime scene. I think you're absolutely right. We're obviously doing a little bit of a guessing game here, but I think you're absolutely right that it's I was immediately thinking something like gloves, clothing, like you said, boots could be part of it. It could also be tools. If there's something that is a tool that might be a pry bar or something that could be used to gain access to somebody's home, anything that would look like, you know, what we would consider like a residential burglary kit might be items that they are most interested in, especially if these are purchased close in time before the murders took place. You know, you're purchasing gloves two years ago, maybe not as important and not as perhaps not even admissible in court,

but you're purchasing items that look like they might be involved in a break-in and murder within close period before the murders, that's going to be something that the prosecution is going to want to admit it. And was the prosecution able to find those items after the homicides? That's another question. There were also purchases at Walmart and surveillance video from Walmart that the prosecution wants to introduce. Let's go back to the sheath just for a second. The defense has said nothing about, yeah, he bought a K-bar knife and sheath. Like, I mean, what are they going to say? Because if the if the state wasn't able to recover that item in his apartment or at the house in Pennsylvania, they have to explain that. How are they going to explain that Brian Koberger bought

this in March of 2022, that his DNA is on here, they recover his DNA from here. Maybe they're going to say, yeah, it was planted or whatever, or it got on there from another type of transfer. Where did his sheath go? Did he sell it to some guy in a parking lot? Did he did somebody steal it? Right. Yeah, it's I mean, what you're outlining is just how difficult a case it is for the defense. You know, this whole case, in my view, comes down to that DNA filled on the knife sheath. Everything else is circumstantial and everything else the defense might be able to present some sort of argument. How do you explain how your client's dna ends up on a

knife sheath recovered from the crime scene where a stabbing took place and they're going to challenge it two ways they're going to either challenge it legally and try to attack it foundationally and say why it shouldn't be admitted as evidence well they've done all of that and they've failed or they have to present some sort of reasonable and innocent explanation as to how their client's DNA ended up on that knife sheet. Well, we started to hear things like, well, it was planted and getting maybe perhaps a glimpse as to what those arguments would be. But then when we realize that the prosecution has evidence of him purchasing that knife, I think those arguments even go out the window now we know he's been

in possession or there's good circumstantial evidence that he's been in possession of a knife likely the murder weapon and to your point where is that murder weapon now if the defense doesn't come up with some sort of receipt that he sold it some sort sort of eBay history showing that he sold that knife, a friend who says he gave it to me as a gift, then everyone is going to assume that that knife is either still in his possession or was discarded by him after these murders took place. Let's go now to alternate perpetrators. I mean, they want to point the finger at other people. The defense says, you know, the cops got 45 five thousand tips, new tips come in each day.

They didn't look into anybody, you know, thoroughly except our guy. The state says, no, no, no, no, no. You got to you got to give some actual evidence that there are other legitimate perpetrators. So what do you think of that? I think that the judge is likely going to decide that none of this comes in. I mean, this is one of those high profile cases where the investigators were encouraging tips. So of course, you're going to get hundreds, and in this case, thousands of tips that are really going to lead nowhere. And it's the judge's job to make sure that this case doesn't become an absolute circus by allowing all of that to come in. I will say that in response to the defense's argument that the prosecution was myopic and

only looked at their client, it is interesting that the person whose dna is found on the most pivotal piece of physical evidence recovered from the scene also cannot present any kind of a uh rock solid alibi also has a car consistent with the vehicle that was seen in that area also happens to have a facial feature that is consistent with the one eyewitness who saw someone in that home. It's just remarkable to me that everything seems to fall together, that the person whose DNA was recovered also is a very likely suspect, considering all of the other evidence. And let's talk about that, the whole alibi issue. The prosecution says, you guys missed the boat.

You haven't given us any witnesses. You should be prohibited from presenting any alibi evidence unless Brian Koberger gets up on that stand and says, this is where I was. They want to do it through a cell phone expert, this Cy Ray guy. But they're saying the prosecution saying you missed the deadline. They said Brian Koberger should get up on that stand and say, this is where I was and be subject to cross-examination. Do you agree with the prosecutor, since they haven't presented any of these witnesses or times and locations except for the park where he was possibly looking at stars or what have you? And does Brian Koberger testify? Because I personally think Brian Koberger probably wants to testify.

First, I do agree with the prosecution. Idaho is a little particular in that they do have a requirement that if you're going to offer this kind of alibi or third party culpability, we see in other jurisdictions type of defense and affirmative defense that you're going to have to present evidence of it. You're not just allowed to kind of throw things against the wall and see what sticks. Now, that doesn't mean that they can't cross-examine and impeach the prosecution's witnesses as far as trying to put Brian Koberger in certain locations. If they have evidence about where his phone was, they can certainly cross-examine those experts. But if they want to say something affirmative like Brian Koberger was not at the scene,

and we will prove that to you. He was at X location. He was in the park. He was out driving 30 minutes away from where these murders took place at the time of the murders. They have to present evidence, and they have not done that despite numerous requests by the prosecution. So the prosecution, I think, is correct in saying, listen, you still want to make those arguments and present that to defense. All that you're left with at this point is putting your own client on the stand. Now, to your second point, does Brian Koberger actually take the stand? I think it would be absolutely wild in a case like this with the with the seriousness of it the magnitude of it the fact that this is potentially a death penalty case but it is one of those things that is squarely within the control of the client of the defendant

to make that decision despite his attorney's best efforts to persuade him otherwise, he can say, I want to take the stand. And he just might be the type of personality. I mean, think about the psychology of a person willing to commit this type of a crime might be the same type of, I don't know, narcissistic, call it whatever you want, type of personality that might say, I want to have my opportunity to have my say in court. I want to get to this point now, because the defense is trying to get the death penalty stricken, saying Brian Koberger has autism. The state says you're an expert, says he's level one, high functioning. He's just a little weird and awkward. Social

stuff is not his thing. IQ of 119. Yeah, the defense is like he'd make a really bad witness. They said this in their filing. Does the autism stuff fly with this judge? I really don't think it does. And that's just because of the case law and precedent that we've seen in situations like this before. First of all, I'm no psychologist, so I'm not going to weigh in on what autism and how it affects human cognition and thinking about things. But he is in college. I mean, he is a functioning member of society. He is pursuing an advanced degree. Secondly, these murders were incredibly well-planned and premeditated just from everything that we know about it. So that shows someone that it wasn't, in other words,

some sort of reactionary spree killing that you could say was someone who had been untethered from reality at the time that it took place. And the other thing I will say is that in the cases where we have seen that the death penalty has been deemed inappropriate by someone's mental or cognitive disabilities has been when they are not able to appreciate their actions, the consequences of their actions. And so it's almost like an insanity defense in which you're saying this person really cannot be held responsible, certainly to the point of putting them to death for the things

that they did because of these different disabilities. And I don't think that they're going to be able to demonstrate that in this case. Well, we'll see what happens. There's a big hearing coming up on April 9th, the motions hearing. We'll see what happens there. Josh Ritter, thanks so much as always. Thank you so much for having me. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Annette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.