Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - 9 Huge Updates in Bryan Kohberger's Murder Case

Episode Date: March 6, 2025

Bryan Kohberger's lawyers are revealing new details about evidence they want to limit at his trial including testimony about three DNA profiles found under the fingernails of victim Maddie Mogen. The defense is also revealing new photos of a white car seen near the King Rd. house the morning of the murders along with details of Kohberger's Autism diagnosis. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy breaks all of it down in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://www.forthepeople.com/CrimeFixHost:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guests: Philip Dubé  https://x.com/PhilipCDubeDr. Daniel Bober https://www.instagram.com/drdanielbober/CRIME 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/lawandcrimenetworkSee 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. The real story is exculpatory to Mr. Koberger. He was not stationary around that house. He was never at that house. He did go to Moscow. Brian Koberger's attorneys are gearing up for trial as they try to keep testimony about a white car near the murder scene out of trial. Plus, three sources of DNA found under Maddie Mogan's fingernails.

Was any of it Brian Koberger's? And what does Koberger's defense say his autism means about him? Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. I have a lot to talk about today. We're learning a lot about some of the evidence that Brian Koberger doesn't want the jury to hear or see in his trial later this year. Some of it has to do with testimony about DNA found under the fingernails of victim Maddie Mogan. There was DNA from three sources. That's what we're learning. Was Brian Koberger's DNA found under the fingernails of Maddie Mogan's left hand? The state tested it to find out, and the defense is taking issue with some of the

testimony that might relate to that from a DNA analyst. We'll have more on that shortly. We're also seeing new photos of a white car caught on video by a home security camera system in the early morning hours of November 13th, 2022, the morning of the murders. That car is driving on King Road toward the house where Maddie Mogan, Kaylee Gonsalves, Ethan Chapin, and Zanna Cronodal were stabbed to death in the early morning hours of November 13th, 2022. Koberger says he did not kill the four students. But prosecutors say that white car that you're looking at is Brian Koberger's white Hyundai Elantra.

Koberger's attorneys are saying, not so fast on that testimony from the FBI. I'll explain why. And there's more. The defense also doesn't want Judge Hippler to let one of the surviving roommates testify about that man she saw walking through the King Road house having bushy eyebrows. I also told you last week that Koberger's defense is asking Judge Hippler to strike the death penalty citing autism spectrum disorder. Now we're learning more about what they're claiming about Brian Koberger, and I'm not sure that some of it is actually helpful to him. So let's start with that DNA from Maddie Mogan's fingernails.

The crime lab labeled her fingernails Q13.1. The defense says the analyst found a mixture of DNA from three people, and one of those samples could have been Maddie Mogan's DNA. So to be clear, DNA from three people was found on fingernail scrapings that came from the left hand of Maddie Mogan. And a lot of this motion is redacted. But the defense is basically saying at grand jury, an analyst testified about statistics and ratios related to the DNA and whether any of the sources belong to Brian Koberger and some other people whose names were redacted. And basically, it said that it was inconclusive. Koberger's attorneys write, More importantly, Mr. Koberger has disclosed that through further independent laboratory testing, he is eliminated as a contributor to item 13.1.

When Mr. Koberger sought to overturn the grand jury indictment, he argued that Miller's testimony was inadmissible and misleading. The state argued that the testimony was presented to the grand jury as exculpatory and an effort to elicit favorable evidence for Mr. Koberger. The independent lab testing conducted by the defense related to item 13.1 is indeed exculpatory. Mr. Koberger is excluded and the state should be precluded from misleading the jury in any way by saying it's inconclusive. Now to that testimony about the white car that Brian Koberger's lawyers don't want the jury to hear from the FBI. Take a look. These are screen grabs the defense put in their motion. They show a white car on King Road at 3.56 a.m. and at 4.20 a.m. right before and after the murders are

believed to have occurred. They came from a camera at the house right next door to the house where the students were murdered. When I was in Moscow in January of 2023, we actually saw that camera. We shot video of it. You can even see the pumpkins on the railing of the house that you see in one of the black and white surveillance camera screen grabs. Brian Koberger doesn't want an FBI agent testifying at trial that that white car was a white Hyundai Elantra. Why? Well, his lawyers say the FBI agent didn't ID the car from that video. Ann Taylor talked about the video that was used to ID the white Hyundai Elantra at a hearing in January. The way it's laid out would cause one to think that the vehicle's identified on the camera near the house,

and that's not so. It's not identifiable. The state's experts said it's not identifiable from that particular video. It's piecing together the other videos that they come up with something. What's the evidence that law enforcement relied on the Ridge Road footage to identify the vehicle? What did they rely on? What's the evidence that they relied on Ridge Road, which you say doesn't show anything. What's the evidence they relied on that to ID the vehicle? They relied on the Ridge Road camera, and you can see that in the emails from Imo and the other law enforcement officers when they say they have Paradise Creek Road, and then they say

we finally got a good one. And it produced to us is the 1125 Ridge Road footage and photograph, and that's the only one that you can make a positive ID on the car. Taylor included this email, which shows an FBI agent saying, got a good one with screen grabs from a Ridge Road camera attached. She wrote, labeling the cars from various bits of footage as the same vehicle is speculative. Mr. Koberger seeks an order prohibiting the state linking vehicle identification of the make and model of the vehicle in the 1112 King Road video based on identification of the car at 1125 Ridge Road and referring to the vehicle as suspect vehicle one. The speculative nature of testifying that the vehicle is the same vehicle renders it irrelevant to these proceedings, far more

unfairly prejudicial than probative. This is also a jury question and testimony calling the two vehicles the same invades the province of the jury. Thus, this court should exclude testimony linking the two vehicles as the same. Here's what Ann Taylor said about Koberger's car at a hearing back in January. The real story is exculpatory to Mr. Koberger. He was not stationary around that house. He was never at that house. He did go to Moscow. He did drive around, but he wasn't over there. And the phone records absolutely show that. So we'll see how the state responds and what Judge Hippler has to say about all of this. Brian Koberger's lawyers are also asking to strike the death penalty, saying he has

autism. This was a bit shocking when this came out. This is the first time anyone has mentioned that he's on the autism spectrum. His attorney's right. Mr. Coburger's autism spectrum disorder reduces his culpability, negates the retributive and deterrent purposes of capital punishment, and exposes him to the unacceptable risk that he will be wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. So basically, the defense is saying making Brian Koberger eligible for the death penalty would violate his rights. And if you ever thought you might

see Brian Koberger testify, it doesn't sound like that's going to happen. The defense writes, a defendant like Mr. Koberger is just as likely as someone with intellectual disability to make a poor witness. Mr. Koberger's speech is awkward, both in its content and delivery. As Dr. Orr observed, his tone and cadence are abnormal, his interactions lack fluidity, and his language is often over inclusive, disorganized, highly repetitive, and oddly formal. The defense continues. He uses abrupt, matter-of-fact phrases that would be considered rude. He carries on about topics in a circular manner and perseverates about specific non-essential details. These symptoms of Mr. Koberger's ASD will alienate him from the jury and significantly hamper his ability to make a

persuasive showing of innocence or of mitigation. So it doesn't sound like we'll see Brian Koberger on the stand. The defense also wrote about how autism spectrum disorder impacts Koberger's appearance. Mr. Koberger also exhibits atypical eye contact, including an intense gaze. Mr. Koberger's facial expressions, including his lack of affect and concentrated stare, are already being assigned sinister meaning by observers. And you might remember, there was a New York Times story back in 2023 that said Brian Koberger made female students at Washington State University feel uncomfortable, and allegations can easily be explained by Mr. Koberger's ASD. Given their difficulty interpreting social cues, people with ASD may misconstrue social niceties as romantic interest. It is also no surprise that Mr. Koberger came across as socially awkward or that he struggled to adapt to professional norms.

These impairments are hallmarks of his disability. And later, we're going to talk with a forensic psychiatrist more about this whole autism issue. But first, I want to turn to Philip Dubé. He is court-appointed counsel in California. And Philip, we've been talking a lot about this. You and I talked about the autism spectrum disorder diagnosis last week. I want to get your thoughts on this new information that the defense is revealing about Brian Koberger.

What struck me is that they're saying he would make a terrible witness because of his autism. And some of the things that they're saying makes it almost not all of it is very flattering to him. It almost sounds like things that could make him look guilty. I agree with you and there is a very fine line between being intellectually disabled or developmentally disabled and having a quirk if you will just an irregularity in your behavior unfortunately though for the state he was seen by neuropsychologists where they did some pretty extensive testing and they came back

with a diagnosis of ASD, autism spectrum disorder. And I suspect that he has Asperger's syndrome, which has very distinct symptoms. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are profoundly autistic, but you have social awkwardness, you have communication problems, there are certain rigidities within your personality, and obviously there's communication issues. But I'm beginning to believe that most of the problems that the defense might be having are not necessarily rooted in this idea that they're trying to spare death, but he might be incompetent. The test for mental incompetency in a criminal proceeding is that the defendant either does not understand the nature of the proceedings and the charges, or he cannot

rationally assist counsel in his own defense. And it sounds like defense counsel is having a hard time getting him to rationally go along to get along. But the remedy at this point should not be exclusion of all this information. It should be to halt the proceedings and send him to rationally go along to get along. But the remedy at this point should not be exclusion of all this information. It should be to halt the proceedings and send him to a state hospital where he is restored to competency or at a minimum evaluated to see if he is incompetent. Because mental incompetency can be based on a mental defect or a developmental disability. Well, they're saying, Judge, strike the death penalty because he has autism spectrum disorder. He talks in circles. He lacks fluidity. His tone and his cadence are

abnormal. The way he speaks, the way he interacts with people, he sometimes kind of has this rocking that they talk about. I've never witnessed that in watching him in court. I mean, I try to look at him, but I haven't been there in person in quite some time when he's been in court. So I've never noticed that he seems to just kind of sit there and he's very stoic and they mention this. So they mentioned all of these things. But they're saying strike the death penalty because of this. They haven't raised the issue of competency, but they do make it sound like they have to explain things to him and they have to kind of go back over and over and over again to try to really get things into his head to make him understand, which is confounding to me for somebody who was getting a PhD in criminology. You would think that maybe he'd understand these things. Well, there's a difference between being scholastically and academically ahead of everybody or ahead of the game and being socially awkward. And he may have these difficulties in processing information, following instructions, and might need accommodations. The problem here, though, is that the law is on his side.

When you look at the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, his condition is actually put forth in the manual as a recognized developmental disability or as a mental defect or mental disorder in the United States. And based on the broad reading of Atkins versus Virginia, if you have a qualifying ailment, you're entitled to a hearing. And if in fact you can show that you have an IQ that's below 70 essentially, and that it has persisted since adolescence, you may qualify. But it doesn't mean you walk out the door that you're not going to prison. It just means that the court has the power to strike the death penalty enhancement and the jury won't have to decide it. His max would be limited to life in prison without parole.

And that would be a defense victory in a four-count murder. So are we going to see one of these hearings? Do you anticipate we will get a hearing and see a hearing about this autism spectrum disorder, this Atkins hearing? Yes. The defense filed a motion seeking to strike it, and it's based on the findings of a neuropsychologist that did extensive testing based on memory, communication, adaptive living skills, etc. And apparently this neuropsychologist is prepared to testify that he meets the criteria for developmental disability, specifically autism spectrum disorder. And then the court has to decide.

But you can bet the state's going to be getting its own experts appointed to evaluate him. And then it'll be a dueling battle, if you will, of the experts. And then the court can decide which side is more credible. But in any case, even if the court won't strike the death penalty, at least a jury can decide. It's still admissible at the penalty phase if he's convicted in the guilt phase. Let's talk now about this whole thing about the identification of the white car. Ann Taylor is saying the FBI should not be able to say, you know, the white Elantra they identified from this Ridge Road camera is basically suspect

vehicle one, the white car we see in the screen grabs and the surveillance footage we'll see more of at trial of the white car, you know, driving around a few times, making the laps on King Road, because she's saying they couldn't ID it from that, which is shocking to me because they talk about, you know, these turns. And I mean, there's a pretty good view of the car that I would assume you'd be able to see from that camera at the neighboring house. So what do you make of this?

What do you make of this argument that they're making? I understand the argument because what she's saying is they cannot state with certainty that it's in fact the Elantra, that it calls for rank speculation. You cannot make out the exact make and model, and certainly not a license plate to say that this is Brian Koberber behind the wheel. And I understand that. The problem though, for the defense lies in the rules regarding authentication of evidence and foundation. Evidence can come in if you have somebody who can take the stand to say that what they're seeing in the video is what it purports to be. In other words, as long as it satisfies the authentication

foundational showing, then a jury decides how much weight, if any, to give it. So we always say in the law, it doesn't go to admissibility. It goes to the weight of the evidence for the trier of fact to deliver. And I do predict that the judge is going to allow it all in and let a jury make its finding on it. Yeah. And it kind of makes you wonder, it's like, well, how many white cars were driving around Moscow, Idaho at 4.20 and 3.56 a.m. on November 13th, 2022. You know, it's like, I don't know. I mean, I guess that's a question for the jury as well. Let's move on now to this big one. This has gotten a lot of attention. The DNA profiles underneath Maddie Mogan's left hand fingernail scrapings. Three sources of DNA. And there's just, you know, a lot of back and forth in this motion talk about testimony about likelihood ratios. I mean, I feel like we're

going back to statistics class here. We're going to all get a science lesson at this trial when it comes to this DNA testimony. And she's saying basically that she felt like this was misleading. It wasn't calculated properly. But basically, she's saying at grand jury, it was the testimony was that it was inconclusive. The results were inconclusive when it came to whether or not any of those DNA profiles belonged to Brian Kohlberger. But she's saying their lab testing came back and said that he was excluded. So what do you think is going to happen with that? And how important is it that there were three sources of DNA found under Maddie

Mogan's fingernails? Because one of them could have been hers. One could have been Kaylee's. We're not 100% sure because stuff is so heavily redacted in this motion. But she was also out at a bar that night. Yeah. The problem for Brian Kohlberger is that he cannot be excluded by the state's crime lab. That's the bigger problem. It leaves it open. It's undetermined. In other words, he, in fact, could be a contributor as opposed to saying, no, he is definitively excluded. And the reason why this is critical evidence against Brian, as opposed to the sheath where there's touch DNA on the snap, if a jury believes that when you look at the cumulative effect of the presence of DNA at the scene, in other words, the sheath touch DNA and the fact

that it's sort of inconclusive that his DNA is under the nail, that DNA under the nail proves direct contact with the victim. And I think the problem is it kind of tips the scale against Brian Kohlberger in suggesting that he was not only just there, but that he had his hands on her. And I understand the defense position on it. But what you do is you don't necessarily exclude it. You can maybe sanitize the term inconclusive or have the court define it or certainly have the experts define it, or you put on your own expert, which they did. They commissioned their own private independent lab to do its own

separate independent testing, and it came back excluding Brian. That is powerful evidence. And if the only way the state can rebut it is by saying, no, it's just inconclusive, I think a jury would be more apt to put weight on the fact that he's excluded and maybe even hold it against the state for even trying to present it in that light. Juries don't like it if they think prosecutors are trying to pull the wool over them. So the fact that they have a defense lab ready, willing and able to say it is not Brian Kohlberger's DNA under the nail, that to me is the win. Interesting. Let's move on now to one of these other big ones. The defense does not want the surviving roommate, DM, who saw a man walking through the house.

She says the man looked right at her and she remembered a bushy eyebrow, you know, and she was confused because the man looked at her but didn't like talk to her. And but there's been all this talk about how she was confused and she didn't know whether or not what she saw was a dream. And we also learned, which is interesting, that she called her roommate, the one that was downstairs on the first floor, and then went down there into her room after all of this unfolded. And she saw the man walking through the house. Apparently they slept in the same room together down there. And then they call 911 almost eight hours later. But they don't want the defense doesn't want her to be allowed to say doesn't want DM to say bushy eyebrow because they say basically. And I want to pull up this quote that they say in their motion. Although she has never identified Mr. Koberger testimony by DM from the witness stand describing bushy eyebrows.

While Mr. Koberger sits as the accused at trial will be as damning as her pointing to him and saying he is the man that did this. So they're saying basically this is really damning evidence in their eyes. And they're also saying, Philip, that DM, according to pictures that were taken, photographs taken by detectives, had pictures on her wall in her bedroom of like eyes on a corkboard. Some of these she had drawn and sketched herself showing eyebrows very prominent in these sketches and eyes. And but she's talked a lot about the bushy eyebrows. So they think this is prejudicial to Brian Koberger. What are your thoughts on it? Well, it's a mixed bag. First of all, it's perfect fodder for cross-examination.

Obviously, she had been drinking. She had a fuzzy memory. She was likely hungover. And her description could be called into question based on her ability to perceive, remember, recall, and recite given the condition that she was in at the time she made the purported observations. Okay. But then you couple that with the fact that now you have suggestive identifications based

on all these drawings in her room, which shows some type of fixation with the eyes, be it the brows, the lids, the eyelashes, whatever it might be, but she's got pictures in her room. Well, what does that mean legally? Well, when you have a suggestive identification, because that is in the forefront of your mind, it could tend to need to miss identifications. And for purposes of due process, you want to ensure some type of accuracy in identifying a suspect, particularly in a four-count murder. But I do believe the court's going to allow all this in and just let the defense team, you know, cross-examine her every which way, you know. And that's how you get to the truth, or at least for the jury to decide just how reliable her description is.

But when they hear that she was hungover and that she had drawings all over her room, in theory, you could associate this to anybody who happened to be at that house, which, by the way, was a party house. Yeah, definitely. And she also said she would watch Criminal Minds a lot, fall asleep to true crime podcasts and had dreams about being chased and stuff. So there's a lot, fall asleep to true crime podcasts and had dreams about being chased and stuff. So there's a lot going on here. It'll be interesting testimony for sure. Philip Dubé, thank you so much as usual. Appreciate it. Have a great one.

I want to turn now to Dr. Daniel Bober. He's a forensic psychiatrist. Dr. Bober, your thoughts on Brian Koberger's attorney saying after all this time that he has autism, he's on the autism spectrum and he has this disorder. And that means that the death penalty should be stricken as a possible punishment. So I think what they're doing is they're being the best attorneys they can be. They're trying to spare their clients life. There are three legal cases that come to mind when I see a situation like this. And the first one is called Atkins v. Virginia. And that had to do with the execution of someone with an intellectual disability. Now, autism and intellectual disabilities are two separate distinct categories. But there are some

people who are autistic who also have intellectual disabilities. And the next case is Ford v. Wainwright, where the Supreme Court determined that the execution of an insane person was a violation of the Eighth Amendment and resulted in cruel and unusual punishment. And then finally, Panetti v. Quarterman, which was another case. The point is, is that for someone to be legally able to be executed or competent to be executed, they would need to understand the crime that they are charged with and have a rational understanding. In other words, there needs to be a connection in their mind between the crime and the punishment. So I understand what they're going for here, but just simply because he was autistic or sorry, it's just simply because he's autistic does not necessarily mean that he is legally incompetent to be executed. And that's that's kind of what gets me. I mean, autism spectrum disorder, it's a spectrum and it's a broad spectrum.

And there are people who are on the spectrum who are nonverbal. And then there are people who are on the higher functioning end of it. And I would assume that means Brian Koberger. He was trying to get his PhD at Washington State University. We've seen in body camera clips that he can he can speak. I mean, they're basically saying, yeah, when he does speak, it's terrible. You know, I'm paraphrasing what they said. They're basically saying, you know, like he talks in circles and he's always talking about himself. And I mean, some of what they're saying can be is a double edged sword. They're almost making it sound like, you know, he lacks emotion. He's self-centered. They're almost saying some things that almost make him sound narcissistic.

But they're saying, no, no, no, no. no, it's autism. Well, I think what they're getting at is sort of the lack of social skills, the odd social relatedness. But as you say, it's a spectrum. There are people that are completely nonverbal and nonfunctional. And then there are some doctors and lawyers I know that are on the autistic spectrum. So it really depends on the person. But autism per se would not render you legally incompetent to be executed. And just because you have autism and say you have autism and you're on the higher end of the spectrum, it doesn't mean you lack intelligence. Am I wrong? And it doesn't mean that you couldn't commit murder, correct? Absolutely. And, you know, again, these are different

evaluations, competency to stand trial, criminal responsibility, competency to be executed. We're looking at different things. But again, there really is no reason to say, except, you know, to try to spare their client's life, that autism per se would be a reason for him not to be executed. They would really need to demonstrate that he doesn't understand the crime. He doesn't make a connection between the crime and the punishment. Did he have trouble communicating with his lawyers during the trial? These are all things we would look at. Maybe it wouldn't serve as something that would get the death penalty off the table, but it may be in the jury's mind,

it will mitigate it to the point where they won't give him the death penalty. And that's what gets me is that they're saying, Judge Hippler, you need to strike this. You need to take it off the table as a sentencing option, period. That means that this would no longer be a capital case if he were to do that. But you're saying if he were convicted, it could be used in mitigation or as mitigation. Correct. Correct. But again, I think that the attorney is doing what attorneys do is they're trying to zealously represent their client and they're trying to spare their client's life. But again, intellectual disability, autism, two separate distinct clinical entities. Some people with autism also have intellectual disabilities and some people

are extremely high functioning. I've met plenty of colleagues that are doctors in my field who are on the autistic spectrum, but they are still very high functioning. Really interesting. Thank you so much, Dr. Daniel Bober. I appreciate it. My pleasure. Thank you. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.