Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Bryan Kohberger Judge Drops Evidence Bombshells in Murder Case

Episode Date: April 21, 2025

The judge presiding in Bryan Kohberger's death penalty case revealed new details about the purchase of a Ka-Bar knife and sheath on Kohberger's Amazon account and a possible effort to hide it after four University of Idaho students were murdered. The new details came as the judge began issuing orders on evidence to be presented at Kohberger's death penalty trial later this year. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy has the new details in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Go to https://thrivemarket.com/CrimeFix to receive 30% off your first order AND a FREE gift when you join Thrive Market today!Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest: Josh Ritter https://www.youtube.com/@CRConfidentialProducer:Jordan ChaconCRIME 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 & Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. And maybe I'm completely out to lunch, but as I understand it, to buy something on Amazon, you've got to put it in your shopping cart and hit purchase. Am I wrong about that? The judge in Brian Koberger's case dropped some bombs about the K-Bar knife purchased on Amazon and a possible effort to hide it. I have the details.

Plus, will the jury hear a surviving roommate testify about bushy eyebrows? She never mentions eyebrows herself initially. The person who asked about eyebrows was law enforcement. Judge Hippler decides on that and much, much more on this episode of Crime Fix. initially. The person who asked about eyebrows was law enforcement. Judge Hippler decides on that and much, much more on this episode of Crime Fix. Before I get into the latest orders in the Idaho case, I want to talk a little bit about crime news and law and crime merch. The Law and Crime Docket is your one-stop shop for trending stories, thrilling body cams, and an exclusive look at brand new shows and podcasts from the faces that you love. Sign up for our Docket newsletter by scanning the QR code you see here,

or click on the link in our description and pinned in the comments under this video. At the beginning of June, we will pick 10 new Docket subscribers and we'll send a Law & Crime hat. Winners will be announced in the newsletter. Now back to those orders issued by Judge Hipler in Brian Koberger's case. These are decisions about the evidence the jury will hear when the trial begins later this year.

And in one of those orders about Amazon ClickData and a KBAR knife and sheath order, Judge Hipler released some new information that doesn't look good for Brian Koberger at all. Koberger maintains he didn't kill four University of Idaho students, Maddie Mogan, Kaylee Gonsalves, Ethan Chapin, and Zanna Kernodle, in the house on King Road in November of 2022. Some of Judge Hippler's decisions were expected. Brian Koburger's lawyers had asked Hippler to stop the prosecution from presenting a lot of evidence, arguing it was prejudicial or that one witness wasn't competent and that another wasn't qualified

to testify about certain aspects of DNA. The defense threw a lot at the wall, hoping that some of it would stick. And one of the most important pieces of evidence in the case, the piece of evidence that actually led police to Brian Koberger, is a K-Bar sheath, just like this one. Police say Koberger's DNA was found on the inside of the snap, on this part of it, actually. Well, the sheath was found next to Maddie Mogan's body. Prosecutors say Koberger bought a K-Bar knife, sheath, and sharpener on Amazon in March of 2022, eight months before the murders. His lawyers argued that Koberger's Amazon click history shouldn't come in because it was unreliable.

The argument was a bit of a stretch. Hipler says the evidence can come in, and in issuing the order, he confirmed the knife and sheath were delivered to Brian Koberger, something his defense will argue against. And there's more. Hipler wrote, the evidence is highly relevant.

A K-bar knife sheath was found lying next to the body of one of the deceased victims, all of whom were stabbed to death. Defendant's DNA was found on the knife sheath. Records from an Amazon account registered to defendant's name and email purchase of a K-Bar knife and sheath was made from the account approximately eight months prior to the homicides. Click activity on the same account shows the customer also viewed pages associated with K-Bar style knives at the time and in the week following

the purchase, viewed pages associated with the shipping progress of the knife and sheath. The product was shipped to Brian Koberger at his family address in Pennsylvania. After the homicides, the activity from the same account showed the user navigated pages related to the deletion of account activity and a week later viewed pages associated with a K-bar knife and sheath. This evidence establishes a significant connection between defendant and a K-bar knife and sheath. Now, when I read this, I did a double take. Not only is Hipler saying the knife and sheath were delivered to Brian Koberger at his family's home, he's saying the data shows after

the homicides, there was activity on the account that showed efforts to delete the account activity tried to cover it up. That could look very, very bad in front of a jury. Then there was a search again for a K-bar knife and sheath, which the prosecution believes was a search for a replacement. Hipler says the Amazon evidence is coming in. The judge wrote, it will be up to the jury to consider all the evidence and decide whether the defendant was the clicker. If you are serious about boosting your energy

and improving your overall health, the food you choose is key, but let's get real. Shopping for healthy, sustainable food can be really overwhelming. That's where Thrive Market comes in. Thrive Market is my go-to for healthy, sustainable groceries. And the best part, it's delivered right to my front door. With Thrive Market, I get access to thousands of high quality brands with products guaranteed at the lowest price. Everything from pantry staples to eco-friendly cleaning supplies.

Plus their commitment to sustainability means I'm not only taking care of myself, but the planet too. And with their easy to use website and app, I can filter by dietary preferences, whether you're keto, gluten-free, vegan, or just trying to make healthier swaps. Thrive Market has something for everyone. I actually found some amazing high protein snacksotein snacks like Catalina Crunch Cinnamon Toast Cereal. It's perfect for my midday cravings. Every product is carefully vetted by Thrive Market's expert team for its quality and ethical sourcing, so I feel good about what I'm putting on my table and into my body.

So if you're ready to make healthy food shopping as easy as a few clicks, check out Thrive Market. Scan the QR code on your screen or click the link in the description or head to thrivemarket.com slash crime fix to get 30% off your first order and get a free gift when you join Thrive Market today. Trust me, you won't regret it. Next, Judge Hippler ruled on the defense's request to bar the surviving roommate, DM, from describing a man wearing all black walking through the house that morning as having bushy eyebrows. Now, DM said that the man was wearing an all black mask, kind of like this one. It's called a balaclava and that she could only see his eyes and an eyebrow or eyebrows. The defense has said that DM's account of what happened wasn't reliable because she had been drinking and doubted what she saw. She described herself as, quote, probably very drunk. And given the amount of alcohol she told law enforcement about consuming the entire day,

that makes sense. She started with champagne mimosas in the morning, then white claws nine to 10 throughout the day. Then that night before she got home, she was involved in a drinking game and drank Borg, which is hard alcohol and flavoring. Her degree of attention, given this, supports unreliability. Factor three, the accuracy of the description. Her description is that she saw a person wearing all black, not insanely tall. She doesn't know if she saw lips and nose. She is certain he is white. She never mentions eyebrows herself initially.

The person who asked about eyebrows was law enforcement. Koberger's lawyers also focused on some things Diem said that could be considered inconsistent. Diem expresses in each interview how she was afraid and did not know what she was hearing and also contradicts this when she thought everything was quote, okay and XK was simply just passed out on the floor. But prosecutors argued that Diem was remarkably consistent in describing what she saw that morning. Every time she described this person as being white, male, wearing all black, a few inches taller than her, she's 5'10", wearing a mask, skinny, athletic tone build, and not a voice that she recognized. During three of those interviews, she then describes the male's eyebrows and she describes them as being bushy. Now, this motion is also how we got to see

that selfie of Brian Koberger that prosecutors said was taken at 1030 a.m. the morning of the homicides to show the appearance of his eyebrows.cutor Ashley Jennings said at trial they would introduce this photo through another witness. Judge Hippler didn't buy the arguments from the defense that DM wasn't competent to testify, so she will be able to use those words, bushy eyebrows, to describe the man walking through the house on King Road. Judge Hippler wrote, DM's description of the intruder having bushy eyebrows will not reasonably compel a jury to find defendant guilty simply because he may have similar eyebrows. He continued, there is a large gulf between a finding that a witness is not competent to testify about what

they personally witnessed and simply allowing impeachment by vigorous cross-examination. This is a matter for cross-examination. This is a matter for cross-examination by defendant, and any concerns with DM's ability to perceive and remember what she claims she saw may be tested in that manner. Now, the defense also lost its effort to keep analysts from the FBI from testifying that a white car seen on surveillance cameras in the King Road neighborhood are all suspect vehicle one or a white Hyundai Elantra. The defense said there wasn't a continuous video of the car, but Judge Hippler said it'll be up to the jury to decide. Judge Hippler also denied the defense's request

to tell the jury in opening statements that Brian Koberger has autism spectrum disorder. This is why the defense said the jury had to know about Koberger's autism. The jury needs to know from the very outset that they will hear testimony about Mr. Koberger's autism spectrum disorder generally and how his physical presentation in the courtroom should be considered. For example, aside from his flat affect, piercing stare, stiffness, holding still, when emotional evidence or picture evidence comes in that a neurotypical person will react to, he will not react. And that is only because he has a physical disability that prevents a neurotypical reaction. It would be unfair for him to be judged for that given his disability, or at the very least, the jury needs to have some understanding of why that may be. The prosecution objected to this at the hearing.

They expressed concern about how the defendant's demeanor is going to this at the hearing. disorders that make him appear, I guess, arguably like he's not involved or something in a negative fashion. The defendant cites no authority for this, and indeed, I'm not aware of any authority. We can't find any authority to say that the defense can come in and even before jury selection say, okay, ladies and gentlemen of the prospective jury, here's this expert testimony that our defendant has this developmental condition, this autism condition, and so he might appear different in court. And so please don't hold that against him. There's just simply no basis for that. And we looked for that. It's irrelevant to any of the factual issues in this case. It's irrelevant to the elements of the offense. Frankly, all it does is confuse and try to play the sympathies of the jury, which is exactly what Rule 403 would prohibit.

Hipler wrote, while the court is not blind to the fact that the jury will be scrutinizing defendant's courtroom behavior during the trial, allowing testimony about his ASD to explain his courtroom behavior amounts to judicial endorsement of improper evidence. If anything, presenting evidence of defendant's ASD will focus the jurors even more on defendant's behaviors that they likely would not have noticed in the first place. Judge Hippler said Koberger's autism might become relevant if he testifies. And what about Koberger's obsessive compulsive disorder? Well, the defense, they might be able to bring it up if the state opens the door by presenting evidence about him

wearing gloves like these when he was arrested. And what about Koberger's alibi? He has said he was out driving at the time of the murders. Judge Hippler wrote, at this point, defendant has only provided notice that he was out driving in the early morning hours of November 13th, 2022, throughout the area south of Pullman, Washington, and west of Moscow, Idaho. He intends to present testimony by his expert, Cy Ray, to partially corroborate his alibi using CLSI data from his cell phone. Judge Hipler points out that Koberger's cell phone wasn't reporting to a network during the time of the murders. So the judge says right now, Koberger has no alibi, partial or otherwise. I want to bring in Josh Ritter. He is the host of Courtroom Confidential on YouTube, also a former prosecutor, currently a defense attorney. Josh, I want to get your

thoughts on Judge Hippler's orders, particularly the Amazon information. We knew he was going to let this in and let the jury decide who the clicker was, as he said. But he dropped some new information about the Amazon purchase of the K-Bar knife and sheath, essentially that it was delivered to Brian Koberger at his family home. And he's saying after the homicides, there was account activity trying to delete this account activity. That seems like pretty good evidence for the prosecution. And now the defense is going to have to bring in their Amazon click data expert that they have to try to explain that away, I would assume. Yeah. And good luck with that,

because in my view, aside from the DNA that was found on the knife sheath itself, this is probably the most impactful evidence that the prosecution has revealed so far that we've learned about, because before then you had DNA on a knife sheath and the defense had tried to challenge that from a legal standpoint and that was not successful. And then they were going to try to challenge it with some sort of innocent explanation for how their client's DNA got onto that knife sheath that we'd heard. Some chatter about maybe they were going to say that it was planted and perhaps they'll still go with that theory but when we now learn that the prosecution has evidence that he had searched for and purchased this knife a sheath and a sharpener months in advance

then had tried to delete now we're learning that that same search history and then had searched for the knife and a sheath after the murders had taken place you put all that together and that's really starting to form a picture of someone who was planning a murder and a murder that involved a knife and now the idea that the defense might be able to stand up and say, well, we don't know if he ever held a knife, ever possessed a knife, ever even knew what a K-bar knife was before any of this, all kind of goes out the window with this new evidence. So I think it's going to be very, very powerful come time for the trial. And let's go to the DNA part of this, because the judge issued an order about that. I was a little surprised by this, but he's going to he's encouraging the experts in this case, the DNA experts to avoid the use of the term touch DNA.

That's a pretty common term. And he acknowledged that the defense wanted that barred entirely because they're saying, you know, this could have been so many different types of transfer. This is how this DNA, his DNA could have ended up on there. It could have been secondary or whatever type of transfer. But he's saying, look, avoid using the word touch. I'm not going to issue an order about it, but avoid it at all costs. So are you surprised that the judge is doing that?

No, I think he's trying to be fair. I think he's trying to be as close to what the evidence actually is without characterizing it in some sort of way that may give a bad impression or a misleading impression to the jury. In my view, though, this might be one of those instances where the defense trying to kind of micromanage even the vocabulary used in the trial may have not only the effect that they were looking for, but may even backfire. Because in my view, you know, talking about trace DNA or touch DNA, I've even heard it referred to as touch slash transfer DNA, whatever you want to call it. If you simply just call it DNA, to me, that's maybe even more powerful. The idea that DNA, the defendant's DNA was found on the knife sheath. And I understand where the defense was coming from. They're saying, listen, by calling it touch DNA, there's the implication that someone

had to have touched that actual item to leave that DNA there. I know that that's not entirely true, that there are instances where you can have transfer of DNA. And I think the reason why those terms transfer and touch are used is because it implies a type of DNA that's not coming from some sort of bodily fluid like blood or saliva or tears. But this is something that is from the the the natural kind of flaking off of skin cells that would be leave by someone touching an item or that someone touching an item and that being transferred to another item. But in this case, I think the judge is probably probably handling it the best way you can by saying, let's avoid all of that and just simply refer to it as DNA. You know, the next thing is the eyebrows, the bushy eyebrows. They did not, the defense did not want DM, the surviving roommate, to be able to talk about bushy eyebrows. And we're talking about restricting vocabulary again. I get what they're saying. She said, I don't know if what I saw was a dream or it was real. I mean, she was intoxicated. She's a college

kid. She's got pictures of people with bushy eyebrows or prominently featured eyes in her room. Still, though, to me, tough sell, big time stretch because she's an eyewitness and, you know, she's describing somebody wearing this, something similar to this. And then, you know, you're all you can see is basically maybe eyes. So I'm not surprised he denied that motion. That seemed kind of crazy to me that they would want to limit how an eyewitness could describe somebody. I agree with you. I think it was a stretch, like you said, you know, and it goes to that kind of question that judges often land on, which is this goes to the the weight, not the admissibility. The fact that she describes this person giving general description of height and build and then the one kind of outstanding feature

she's able to list for investigators is bushy eyebrows that's not something that we're going to limit we're not going to say that it's inadmissible but if you want to attack the weight of it meaning if you want to attack the idea that she may have been intoxicated the idea that it may have been dark that she only saw this person for a brief moment all of those things sure go ahead go ahead and cross examine on that. But I'm not going to actually prevent them from giving this one descriptor because there's nothing prejudicial about it. And it's, you know, just part of that eyewitnesses testimony.

There was another big ruling with this neuropsychological evidence. The defense wanted to be able to tell the jury in opening statements, you might see him sitting there and he's just kind of flat and doesn't express a lot of emotion, which I think that most defense attorneys probably would want their clients to do,

like not, you want them to behave and sit there kind of still. They're saying he won't react to graphic crime scene photos and things like that because he has autism spectrum disorder. He able to explain it that way, saying he's OCD. Yeah, again, I think the judge got this one right. The relevance of the fact that he has some sort of autism spectrum disorder it really plays no role in this trial there's not a mental defense being presented and the fact that he um has that condition is not something that the jury really should even be concerned with but it is interesting to me because it seems like the defense is very conscientious, maybe even preoccupied.

Concerned. Jurors. Yeah. Concerned. They're concerned about the way he looks for some reason. And how jurors are going to be watching him very closely during trial. And that's that's something that I think they should be thinking of. Jurors do watch the defendant.

They do watch how the defendant reacts to certain testimony and certain photographs. And it's interesting that they're concerned enough about it that they want to bring that up ahead of time. Now, is that a clever way of them kind of backdooring this information in that maybe they want the jurors to know for other reasons, perhaps. But it is interesting to me that they're very, like you said, concerned about his behavior. And the judge, I should clarify, he said it becomes relevant if he testifies. So maybe if he gets up on the stand and testifies, then it comes in.

But that's the only way it's coming in. Right. And that when when a defendant testifies, it kind of opens the door to a lot of things. So I imagine that, you know, just kind of his overall history, who he is as a person will become far more relevant. And the fact that he has autism disorder would become relevant as well. So you could understand why that would be something that they would expect to get into if he in fact testifies. Yeah, if he in fact testifies, which I personally think he may want to testify. That's my own personal opinion. I could be wrong about that. But, you know, the judge, there are still more orders to come out.

The one that really the one motion, Josh, I don't know about you, that really kind of shocked me was this whole thing about them not wanting the state to call him a psychopath or a sociopath during their case in chief, which I would be shocked if a prosecutor did that anyway. The judge is like saying, no, you're not they're not allowed to do that. They you know, they won on that one. But I think that was kind of wild that they even asked for that. Yeah. And the judge responded, I think, the same way that you did. Like, listen, the rules are the rules. I'm not going to allow you to get up as a prosecution and just start name calling and labeling someone, you know, that this these are terms that actually have, you know, medical backgrounds to that. It has to be evaluated.

It just hasn't. Exactly. But it was interesting that he didn't he stopped short of saying using the terms like murder or murderer. And, you know, the prosecution, I imagine this will be limited to when they're actually making argument. But, you know, if we're talking about a murder case, it would make sense that we would be using those terms. Yeah. Well, it will be interesting to see what happens at trial. And at least at this point, all indications are that

this is this is definitely going to trial. So we'll keep an eye on it as the months move on. But still, we're still awaiting some other rulings. And we'll keep an eye out for those as well. Josh Ritter, thank you so much, as always, for your time. Absolutely. Thank you for having me. 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.