Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Bryan Kohberger Experts Make EXPLOSIVE Claims in Idaho Murders

Episode Date: April 28, 2026

Bryan Kohberger, 31, pleaded guilty to murdering four University of Idaho students. But experts for his defense team have cooperated with the author of a new book to reveal what they claim were key issues with the evidence used to arrest him for the murders of Maddie Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Ethan Chapin and Xana Kernodle. Chris Whitcomb writes about issues that one expert claimed could have led to the Ka-Bar knife sheath being excluded from the trial. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy talks with Whitcomb about his claims 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 bonus for every gallon on your first tank of gas.Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest:Chris Whitcomb https://www.instagram.com/christopherwhitcombauthor/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/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.

Do I see overwhelming issues with this case writ large that nobody has seen or talked about? Yes, I do. The author of a new book about the Idaho murders raising questions about the evidence and Brian Coburger's guilty plea. And I think I'm the first lightning rod that takes, you know, that people talk about. But there are others coming. This is not over. This is the beginning. Could Coburger's case end up back in court?

I'm Annette Levy. And this is Crime Fix. Before we get into talking about this new book, I want to tell you about an app I've been using that I really like. It's called Upside. It will give you cash back on things you use all of the time like gas, groceries, and carry out. Here's what you do. You download Upside for free. You claim an offer at one of their 100,000-plus locations,

and you pay like you normally would with a credit card. Then you verify the purchase, and boom, you get money back. So say I need gas or I want takeout one night. I'll search for Upsides offers first after I spend. Money appears in my app that I can transfer straight into my bank account. Upsides frequent users earn an average of $254 a year. Who can beat that? So to start getting your cash back, click the link in the description or scan that QR code

that you see right there on your screen and use our promo code Crime Fix to get an extra 25 cents back on every gallon on your first tank of gas. Brian Koeberger is serving four consecutive life sentences in Idaho's maximum security institution for the horrific murders of Maddie Mogan, Kaylee Gonzalez, Ethan Chapin, and Zana Kurnodal. In prison, he's a number, 163, 214. Coburger pleaded guilty to those gruesome murders, the stabbing deaths of those four beautiful college students. Back in July of 2025, we all watched it unfold on camera. The plea was somewhat of a shock because Koberger's defense team was heading toward trial, despite losing every motion to suppress

evidence and a last-ditch effort to delay the trial after a massive leak of evidence to the NBC show Dateline. The investigation into that leak I've learned is ongoing. Coburger pleaded guilty. He said he committed the crimes and waived his right to appeal, although, as I've told you before here on crime fix, he can still appeal. Now a new book available as you're watching this is raising questions about the evidence used to arrest Brian Coburger. And it's revealing new claims that we haven't heard before. The author of this book, Chris Wickham, a former FBI agent,

was provided with things that the public hasn't seen tens of thousands of files and expert reports. He's written about it in his new book, Broken Plea. Now, experts for Brian Coburger's defense team who fully expected to go to trial and were shocked when he pleaded guilty cooperated with Wickcombe for the book,

only two allowed their names to be used. They were former FBI agent, Chris Holland, and criminologist. Dr. Brent Turvey. In the book, Wickcombe questions the chain of custody regarding the K-Barr knife sheath found next to Maddie Mogan's leg on her bed. DNA analysis revealed that Coburgers' DNA was found on the leather strap of that sheath. Turvey claims to have discovered the potential issue with the chain of custody in the days

before the plea deal was announced. And Wickham says it could have resulted in the sheath being tossed out as evidence. Now, we don't know if that's true. Typically, an issue like that is litigated far before a trial. Chris Whitcomb will explain this issue for you very shortly. The book also includes details about interviews with Brian Coburger's mother and father after Coburger's arrest. FBI agents interviewed Michael and Marianne Coburger.

Marianne Coburger called Brian My Angel. She told an FBI agent that her son was not acting strangely when he came home for Christmas break in 2022. She also said he wasn't dating anyone and didn't have. have many friends. It didn't sound like she knew about his troubles at WSU. Now, those interviews are things that I have requested from the FBI and Moscow police, and those requests have been denied. So I want to bring in the author of this new book, Broken Plea, Chris Wickcombe. He is a former FBI agent. He's also worked in the intelligence community. Chris, thank you so much for coming on.

Sure. Appreciate talking to you. Thank you. How did you get involved in writing this book? about the Idaho case? I had just finished or I was finishing another book about another crime, a missing person's crime from about 30 years ago. And I was having coffee with a former FBI colleague. We start talking about what we're doing catching up. And he told me about this case. And I had not heard about it.

I'd been buried in two books for two years. And when I'm writing, I'm pretty much in the project. So he started explaining to me and I said, well, look, they've made the arrest. It seems like the evidence is overwhelming. It's headed for trial. Why would I have any interest? And I didn't.

I went on with what I was doing. Then he came back and he said, well, take a look at this. And he started to show me things that he had seen that he was working on because he had access for various reasons. And I started to realize very quickly that things I saw in the file did not match with the narrative that was being discussed pretty widely. It was a very sensationalized case. So that piqued my interest. and over time, over a couple weeks probably, I saw more and more documents. I became more and more involved, and eventually we ended up here.

What were the things that really stood out to you, those things that you found most interesting? The two things that I was introduced to first was Paulette Sutton's report, which showed anomalies, as I, many people would call them anomalies, but things that stood out because you have three discrete crime scenes within this house itself. It's a large house, three stories. Six bedrooms, three bathrooms. We all know the house. The bedroom on the third floor looked like a traditional crime scene. The bedroom on the second floor, Zana's bedroom, looked very, very similar. The characteristics, the blood spatter, the things that you would see in a homicide of this investigation, an investigation like this homicide investigation. And then the common areas of the second floor, how the killers got from the third floor to the second floor, based on Paulette Sutton's report, eventually on Dr. Brent Turvey's report. and what I was seeing, it stood out as very, very different. The blood that was diluted with an unknown substance, many, many things that stood out as problematic. Then as I got looking into the details of the case, the knife sheath came up, and the knife

sheath seemed to be problematic. From there, it became more and more compelling and led to an examination that turned into this book. Let's talk about, let's break that down a little bit. Let's go back to the blood with the diluted substance. We've seen that in kind of the little snippets of the expert reports that have been released. And this is discussed also in your book. How is it that they're unable to determine what the blood would have been diluted with?

I'm kind of confused by that because I would think that a lab would maybe look for that or be able to tell. But is that just to CSI? I think it's kind of CSI. It's amazing what technology can do now, but I do believe very strongly, and I talk about it in great depth in this book, that the public thinks DNA, DNA analysis and forensic testing of dried fluids, in this case serum fluids, she brought up mucus and blood. It's very different than what many, many people think. So the lab reports were fairly straightforward. You go down, it's a continuum, right? So you take a sample from a crime scene, in this case, either blood samples or swabs of those,

goes to a lab, and they test them for certain things. First, is it blood? Does it test positive for blood? If so, it could go type. It could go various things along the way that end up with a DNA, a microscopic DNA examination that would hopefully be able to trap that specific sample to a specific person. So along that continuum, things go wrong, things become confusing. Mixtures of blood can be particularly confusing.

And in this case, trying to determine the chemical composition of something that would dilute blood from the blood itself because you don't want to compromise the blood itself. So I think there are many chemicals. And I say I think because I'm not a chemist. I'm not a forensic chemist. But based on everything that I've read in the files, seems to indicate that if there were a chemical composition like bleach or like a lysol type disinfectant if that were the case that may have left chemical something that you could analyze chemically in this case there was no record of that

which might indicate that it was water but no one ever said paulette sutton in a new report talked about the lab reports which said the the blood fat the blood stains found in the common areas of the second floor outside the third floor bedroom and outside the second floor bedroom. Those were almost all, almost all, found to be diluted with an unknown substance. Her words, that's a quote. And that, of course, creates the immediate question, why? Why would the blood stains in the third floor characteristic of what wouldn't expect to find in a scene like that? And why would they match the second floor bedroom? And why would this very large area down the hallway from the second floor bedroom across the living room, the beer pong table, moving up the

staircase into the third floor bedroom. Why would those blood stains? And they were prolific. There were a lot of blood stains. Why would those look different? Why would they test different? Why would they prove to be different in the characteristics? What happened that altered the chemical composition, the physical characteristics of those blood stains? And that had not been addressed, but it presents, at least in my estimation, and other law enforcement people I talk to, really significant questions, and then we went from there. Yeah, I mean, if it had been something like bleach, I mean, I know enough, you know, I've covered enough cases to know that that just kills DNA.

Yes. Well, I can't. So, you know, it's done. So, you know, that is very interesting, and it would have been interesting to see how the experts would have answered those questions at trial. Let's move on. We know that. If you want to go into that, we know the answer to this.

that. Okay, let's then tell me. Paulette Sutton did her report toward the end of the investigation in preparation for trial. The trial date had been set. This report was designed and intended for the prosecution to present and say to the jury, look at these photographs, look at this analysis by a forensic analyst, Paulette Sutton. And then Dr. Turvey came and analyzed it and they went back and forth. But she's very specific. The physical, the visual, and the chemical composition of those stains found on the second floor were different. How they got there is pretty straightforward. What happened to them after they got there or during the process, that is up for debate to this day. Let's move on now to the sheath. You know, the sheath is as close as you're going to get to a so-called smoking gun in this case.

I mean, without the sheath, in my opinion, there's no probable cause for Brian Koeberger's arrest. I mean, I don't care how many white vehicle identifications you have. I mean, that is the probable cause in this case. So what are the issues that you and these defense experts, the reports that you've been provided, what are these chain of custody issues that you've. raise. You know, I read in the book that you talk about how Talbot, the one ISP and crime scene guy, he was like the lead there. He's the lead. He says, he says like in one in one report like, well, he found it on the floor, but then, you know, it's photographed on the bed. And he wrote

that report a few weeks after being at the scene and collecting that. But there, it sounds like there's more to it in your opinion than that. So explain to me what you what you think these chain of custody issues are as it relates to the sheath. I'll point out that you talked to Dr. Turvey, I believe, or you were going to talk to Dr. Turvey. He was brought in to look specifically at that knife sheath. What stood out to him initially was the placement of the sheath in the bed relative to blood spatter and he looked at transference and various things like that. The first thing that I saw when I started to look into it was in the disclosure of the documents or my access to non-disclosed documents, the Idaho State Police during the, so let's back up, the Moscow Police Department

do the crime scene. Officer Nunez does an affidavit, which led to a search warrant. The search warrant led to an Idaho State Police forensic unit that came in and processed the crime scene. They had a standardized form, which has a place to write in, to handwrite in details as you collect evidence. On item number 14, which I bled, believe was the second page of the report. The Idaho State Police wrote, hand wrote, I can't remember for it was a pen, I think it was a pen, but it wrote item number 14, which was the knife sheath. So it says knife sheath found on floor next to victim number three. So the first thing I thought of, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he meant to write found next to the victim

on floor number three. However, on a next line or the line after that, he specifically states that Maddie Mogan where the knife was found under her thigh, he identifies as victim number three. So let's just say that there's no conspiracy here whatsoever. Let's just say that's what he wrote contemporaneous with picking up the knife sheath and he says it was found on the floor. Why is that a problem in any way? Who cares where it was found? That's a problem because by the time he wrote his typed formal report of the collection of the evidence, it was submitted, I think it was December 6th. It was about three weeks later, roughly three weeks later. Now it's in that report it is suddenly found in the bed and it becomes a different issue because of the body cam from Officer Nunez when he goes into the bedroom and films Officer Warner

directly proximal to where the knife would have been meaning his thigh was very close to it and that he did not mention it in his report nor did Officer Nunez. So you start a path of questions about that sheath. Why is it important as you just ask because that is I agree with you. It's not the white car, it's not the cell tower dumps. It is that knife sheet that becomes the critical piece of evidence because it contained DNA and we go from there. Now, getting specifically to chain of custody, many people outside law enforcement or the legal community would say, who cares? Who cares about a chain of custody? You care for this reason, and they teach this at academies from the beginning. When an officer picks up a piece of evidence, places it in a bag, and it goes to a laboratory, the defendant and the defense on his defense on his,

his or her behalf, want to be able to prove that that was not compromised somewhere along the way. In this case, that knife went into a bag. The bag was sealed and it was signed. It went from there to the Idaho State Police Lab. This is all in reports. There's nothing unusual about this. However, it did not have a fix to it, a chain of custody form. It was a bag. It had a barcode at the bottom and the Idaho State, or excuse me, the law enforcement that said various things about that, But it had no chain of custody. Later, it suddenly ended up with two forms which were handwritten chain of custody saying it went from officer so-and-so to officer so-and-so to the lab to the evidence room and eventually to the laboratory. If you look at those photographs, they appear to most people, including myself, to be written in the same pen, a black marker, and in one handwriting.

Why would that be a problem? Because it is falsification of the record. And my point in all of this is, if I were the defense attorney, Ann Taylor, or any other defense attorney, the first thing I would challenge in a court of law is the provenance of that knife sheath from the crime scene to the time it gets to the FBI laboratory. And that's a fairly significant path. So the next question I've heard people come up with, and they say, well, why didn't Ann Taylor bring it up? prior to trial and make it an issue. And the answer, and it's a very, very compelling answer, is that she did not know it. This was not found until the team found the chain of custody anomaly. They presented to Dr. Brent Turvey, and that ended up being presented because he was there to look at the provenance of the knife sheath. He presented it to Anne Taylor. However, and everybody needs to know this because I know many people talk about it, Anne Taylor did not see this trouble with the chain of custody until, I think, four days, specifically four days before Brian Coburger took a change of plea. So she did not challenge it because she did not know about it until just before he changed his plea. But I guess my question would be if she is notified that there's this chain of custody issue and that, oh, my God, you could go back and get the entire case.

I mean, maybe not the entire case because if that could have been litigated, why didn't she go back to the court and say, hold the phone? We've discussed or we've discovered that there's a major potential chain of custody issue here. And we need to file a motion to suppress this knife sheath because we believe that there is some type of, and we think we, we think we, of the evidence to show in good faith that there was a chain of custody issue here. And we're going to file this motion. Why? Because the plea deal was in the works and they wanted to wrap it up and get move on? First of all, that's an excellent question. And thank you for talking this out. Because in writing a 430 page book based on hundreds of thousands of bits of data, this is one. I mean, you're talking about a small number of pages in this book. A lot of people don't understand

it and nobody's asked questions in the meaningful way that you have. But I would say two things. One, you'd have to ask Ann Taylor, number one. Number two, I think it's very obvious. Dr. Turvey, I talked to Dr. Turvey in putting this book together, but I talked to three other sources who were involved in law enforcement or on the defense side. So I'm not just getting all this information from him. But I think what rises as the answer to your question is that this didn't happen in a vacuum. Brian Coburg did not change his plea. He woke up and walked into her office and said, I'm going to change and plead guilty. The days leading up to this are shrouded in mystery. Nobody knows when the deal was made. Nobody knows how it was made. And I say deal for this reason.

It was a death penalty prosecution that right up to the scheduled day of trial was supposed to be that. The obvious change was Brian Coburger pled to four counts of murder with life. imprisonment. So it took the death penalty off the table. In something of that consequence, it is reasonable to believe that there was a lot going on between the defense and the prosecution. We know the mitigation team was on the defense side was involved. So what I'm saying is, to me, the obvious answer to your question is there was so much going on. Ann Taylor had lost almost every single motion in liminey. She lost everything. She lost everything. She lost everything. So it is plausible for me to believe that at the end, four days away from going to trial, or very, very briefly before trial, she probably looked at it and said what many people said, who cares about a chain of custody issue?

I say, I disagree wholeheartedly. If I had ever taken a case to an assistant United States attorney as an FBI agent building a case, I would have been laughed at. I would have had serious questions, probably disciplinary issues. If I had presented evidence with these issues. Now, why did that not come to trial? Because she didn't know about it until the end. I can say that unequivocally. Why she made that decision, I don't know, but it seems plausible at that point that she'd lost at every single solitary turn. And she had been presented with an offer, and she was in the process of working that out. Do I know that specifically, no?

But do I know that it was presented at the end? People say, why didn't she make this a point in the case? I do know that. Yes, I do know that. So Brian Koberger on July 2nd, 2025 walks into court and there's a statement of facts laid out. You write about it in your book. And they ask him if he's guilty. If he broke into the house with the intent to commit the crime of murder and he says, yes, four times. He also said guilty four times. I mean, Judge Hippler went over this again and again and again. Yeah. I mean, so he's basically saying like, you got.

me. I mean, I was in the courtroom. I watched him. I said guilty. There was unequivocal. He said yes. And he was, he, he said it. And I, I remember as Bill Thompson was reading the statement of facts, he was, he, he, he, he was, I was, he literally had a bird's eye view of Brian Coburger. And he sat there. He, he just stared at Bill Thompson the entire time. I don't think he blinked maybe twice the entire time. And it was, he was listening intently. to everything that Bill Thompson said. It was almost as if in my view, it was like he was listening to see if he got it right. And if it was all correct.

And so you've seen, but you've seen far more than the rest of us have. Do you believe that Brian Koberger committed these crimes factually, from a factual perspective? I think you've read the book, right? You've read the book or at least a lot of the book. I've read much of the book. Okay.

in all of the book, in every single page of the book, I've said two things unequivocally. I don't have an opinion. I don't have a theory. I don't have, I don't speculate. I say, this is the evidence. This is what occurred. And the very first pages of the book are that hearing. The book says, you're an FBI agent for years. But I can't, okay, if I come out and say what I think, immediately I corrupt everything that I've said in the book, because it's not about what I think. My job here, as I perceive it, was not to say this is a wrongful conviction. I do not show for the defense. I do not say I'm a former cop, therefore I'm all the law enforcement. What I say is I, Chris Wickham stipulate, as lawyers would say, to the fact that he pleaded

guilty. And I agree with every word that you've just said. But in the criminal justice system today, do people always plead guilty to things because they're guilty, one might argue, that sometimes they do it to make a deal. The plea deal permeates every law enforcement television show, every book, everything you've ever seen in your life, because people take deals all the time. I'm not here to argue why Brian Corbyor did it or did not take the plea. And I will say that I have great respect for the fact that you were there, and I value your opinion what you saw. I was was not there when he said those things. But we all know, and we have all talked about in great detail,

Brian Kauberger's social, I don't know, it's not a diagnosis, but the things, let me just say this to frame it. Ann Taylor filed a motion in liminey and had to get Bill Thompson to agree in a hearing before Judge Hippler that the prosecution would not refer to him in court as a psychopath, right?

That is court record. So there was a perception among you and me and various other people that he acted very oddly when he showed up in his interviews, the traffic stops, everything else. And I think that a person looking objectively would have to say, I don't know what's going on in Brian Coburger's head. He's a very, very odd guy. So looking behaviorally at a crime is important.

And I agree with you. Looking behaviorally at him is very important. But if you're going to do that, you have to look at Brian Coburger and say, there's a behavioral characteristic of the crimes themselves, what happened to each of the victims. So is it valid? Yes, your points are very valid. Do I say that Brian Coburg did or did not do it? No, I do not, nor do I have an opinion for this book or talk to you.

Do I see overwhelming issues with this case writ large that nobody has seen or talked about? Yes, I do. And I'll say this too. I'm the first one that put this together and came out with something, but I will tell you on equivocally, there are books and other projects coming out, in the not distant future that will look at other aspects of this case. And I think I'm the first lightning rod that takes, you know, that people talk about. But there are others coming.

This is not over. This is the beginning. Do you think that this is the last that we've heard of Brian Koberger? As it, as you know, part of this plea bargain did not include him, you know, sitting down for a proffer. It did not include him allocuting. He didn't have to offer, he didn't have to give anything. Nothing. Nothing.

And that's the thing. He didn't have to offer any corroborating information, which stuns me because I interviewed Bill Thompson and I said, you didn't even get a proffer from him. Nothing. Like you didn't get anything. Nor was it required. Correct. Nor was there any stipulation. I've seen all the talk in Judge Hippler says you can't mandate it.

And I would say, yes, of course that's the case. But there are certain things about Idaho. You can't take an Alfred plea in this case. You can't do certain things. And one of those things is a condition of a plea agreement could have included allocation. That's certainly an option. They could have, they could have said, we'll take death off the table. But you need to sit down.

He needs to sit down with us, Ann Taylor. And we need some corroborating information. It could have been as simple as that. Where did he put the knife? Anything. Where are the clothes? Did he bury the clothes? You know, because we know about the shovel.

And just explain the weapons. I mean, we've never found the blunt force trauma inflicted on Kaylee. Nobody's ever found, nobody even talks about the fact that something used to attack her was taken out of the house. Nobody's even ever mentioned that. I mean, it's seldom mentioned. I've talked to people. I talked to somebody who, an expert who said it could have been as easy as using the K bar and as with a fist. That some of them is possible.

Yes, that is some of that is possible. But it was not part of the dialogue. Yeah, I'm just saying like I, there are a number of explanations for that. Those horrific, horrific injuries. But I guess my point is I am not convinced that we've heard the end of Brian Koberger. I've been saying that for a while. I don't know if there's a habeas petition possibly in the works, depending on the outcome of the Dateline leak investigation.

And we don't know really what's going on with that. but I'm just saying to you, I'm not sure. It just seemed all just a little bit too tidy. And I'm not sure anything in life is really ever that tidy. I can only say thank you because I've talked to so many people and many of them were very, I mean, during the last week talking in podcasts and things like this. I've talked to so many bright people that have been very involved in this case to three and a half years. And I'm talking about attorneys. I'm talking about people retired from law enforcement. I've talked about podcasts. who followed this, other journalists who followed it.

You were the very first person, the very first person that I've talked to that had meaningful representations of fact in the context of how criminal justice works. And I'm grateful for you bringing that sense and perspective. Ask questions. I'm not saying I have all the answers. I think it's critically important that we ask questions

and here the first person I've spoken with that ask those intelligent questions, and I'm grateful. Well, so do you know the answer? I know the answer to a lot of these questions. I do. Listen. Are you going to answer my question? Is this, are we going to hear more? Is more coming from Brian?

I'm not going to, I'm not going to curse in your show, but my emotion would shine through and insert anything before yes, right? Insert an adjective before yes. I think, I believe, based on what I know about other people that are working on other angles of this case, right? And one might speculate who those people are. There were a lot of experts and there was a lot of outrage. There was a lot of outrage in this case by people who worked really hard trying to find answers who believed passionately in his defense or believed in the veracity of the prosecution's use of the evidence as it was gathered. And many of those people

came to me. I didn't get all this from one person. I got it from different people that I respected that I verified and validated. And those people are not done. Those people are not done. This is a book that brings us up to this point in time. There's more coming. I'm the beginning. I'm not the end of this. So there are people associated with Brian Koberger's defense team who are still working to try to uncover what they believe was a miscarriage of justice. They don't believe he's guilty. Correct. Yes. And so do you know if the lawyers are part of that? I do not know that.

That's another great question. I wish I'd talk to you a long time ago. But the answer is I don't know. I have no idea what Ann Taylor and her legal staff are doing, planning, anticipate, whatever. I have zero insight into that in any way. I would only trust that Ann Taylor is a ward of Brian Cobur's best interest, and she's looking at various options. But that's just my speculation based on the fact that she's a professional attorney. Dr. Turvey had said, I haven't seen his report. I've only seen what you wrote in your book.

And obviously the disclosure information that came out that was unsealed, that, you know, he was going to testify that there were at least two perpetrators. Based on your review of the evidence, do you believe that? Yes. Chris Whitcomb, author of broken plea. Thank you so much for coming on. I appreciate it. Thank you so much for talking. Now, it's important to note that Chris Wickcombe believes, let's say that Brian Koberger does go back to court and try to appeal, that it would be a long shot. I reached out to Ann Taylor to ask her about the claims that she was notified about this

potential chain of custody issue with the K-bar knife sheath. At the time of this recording, I have not heard back from her. But I should mention she has never responded to any of my emails. I will let you know if she does respond to this one. And that is it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Ann Jeanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.