Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Bryan Kohberger's Amazon Purchases Spark Big Debate in Court

Episode Date: April 14, 2025

Bryan Kohberger's lawyers have tried to keep a jury from seeing records of his purchases on Amazon which prosecutors say include a purchase of a Ka-Bar knife, sheath and sharpener believed to be used in the murders of four University of Idaho students. They're also trying to stop an FBI agent from testifying about his cell phone records. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy looks at the recent arguments about the evidence in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code CRIMEFIX at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/crimefixHost:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Producer: 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. This new year, why not let Audible expand your life by listening? Audible CA contains over 890,000 total titles within its current library, including audiobooks, podcasts, and exclusive Audible Originals that'll inspire and motivate you. Tap into your well-being with advice and insight from leading professionals and experts on better health, relationships, career, finance, investing, and more. Maybe you want to kick a bad habit or start a good one. If you're looking to encourage

positive change in your life, one day and challenge at a time, look no further than Tabitha Brown's I Did a New Thing, 30 Days to Living Free. In the audiobook, Tab shares her own stories and those of others, alongside gentle guidance and encouragement to create these incredible changes for yourself and see what good can come from them. Trust me, listening on Audible can help you reach the goals you set for yourself. Start listening today when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. It's not a bad act to purchase things on Amazon. Brian Koberger's lawyers fighting tooth and nail to keep his Amazon records and the purchase of a K-bar knife out of his trial.

How it gets in your cart and what items get in your cart really has to do with the whole model and the ecosystem of the way that Amazon works. But prosecutors say this purchase and the records for Amazon should come in. AI doesn't click on things for a user. Plus, there are arguments over some of Brian Koberger's cell phone records that lead to major tension in the courtroom.

It's not an evidentiary issue in which you can lay down Mr. Ray's conspiracy theory without any evidence. Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Prosecutors and investigators believe a K-bar knife was the weapon used to murder four University of Idaho students back in November of 2022. And they say that Brian Koberger bought a K-Bar knife, a sheath like this one, and a sharpener on Amazon in March of 2022, eight months before these murders. The sheath is one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case because prosecutors say it contains Brian Koberger's DNA on it. Specifically, on this part, it's the clasp. Now, the sheath was found on Maddie Mogan's bed next to her leg. Mogan had been stabbed in her sleep and didn't fight back, according to what we've read in court documents. Maddie's best friend, Keely Gonsalves, was in the

bed next to her, and her parents have told media outlets that Keley fought back. The DNA on the knife sheath was the only solid lead police had in finding a possible suspect. The male DNA profile found on the knife sheath didn't come back to any felons in the FBI's CODIS database, so the FBI used genetic genealogy to trace the DNA to Brian Koberger. So the K-bar knife and sheath are important in more ways than one. Police believe the knife is the murder weapon and the killer left the sheath behind and Koberger's DNA is on it. The only thing Koberger's attorneys have really said about the sheath is that it's a movable object and they question how it got to the house on King Road. Koberger's lawyers made a number of arguments trying to keep the evidence of him

buying the sheath, which they're not even conceding he did at this point, in the hope of keeping it out of the trial. The first was that they wanted to exclude it as a prior bad act, which prosecutors weren't even arguing. So I'm not understanding what you mean by an in-run on that rule in this context? By saying that the argument about the Amazon purchase is that that was prior to November 13th, 2022, for the purpose of making a plan. And that's the argument that the state will make about that. I think I understand what you're saying. I just think we're completely missing each other's understanding of the rules of evidence.

Well, I still stand by my position that the state should not be able to in-run that, and I'm hearing the state say that they have no intention of doing that. Well, I'll hear what they intend to do in terms, because I think that your reading of the rule puts requirements on them that doesn't exist under the rules of evidence, but I will listen to their. So the defense is concerned about the prosecution arguing that the March 2022 purchase of the K-Bar knife will show an intent to commit murder or a plan to do so months in advance. There was also a tense back and forth between attorney Alyssa Masseth and Judge Hippler as she tried to make this argument. Nonetheless, that's my position. And another example of that is the Amazon records where they're claiming that those are self-authenticating relating to purchases. And that also has not been noticed.

It's not a bad act to purchase things on Amazon. But the state is using it, Judge, to show, using it as other things to show a plan or knowledge or intent. That is not what 404 precludes. 404 precludes a bad act, a prior criminal act, a prior, the best term is bad, something that would suggest that it is in your character to commit a bad act, to commit the crime because you've committed another bad act, right? You abused your significant other on one occasion, and therefore you have a propensity to abuse a significant other on a later occasion. That's 404B. Evidence that somebody has knowledge or has a plan not anchored to a prior bad act isn't covered by 404.

It's not precluded by 404. It's our position that the state is trying to do an in run on that with this evidence. And that's why we raise the issue of 404B, anything that's unnoticed, not coming in as a bad act. yourself online, you would be absolutely shocked at how much of your personal information is out there, like your address and phone number. Ever wonder why you get so many spam calls and emails? That's because your info is public. That's where Incogni comes in. It's a service that helps you take control of your online privacy by removing your personal data from data brokers. Those are huge companies that sell and trade your info without your permission. Incogni found more than 50 brokers with my information. And here's the kicker. These data brokers have to remove you from their database if you ask them to. Now you're thinking,

Anjanette, who the heck has time to contact a data broker? Well, that's where Incogni comes in. They contact those companies for you to get your online safety back. You don't have to do a thing. And then they alert you after the request has been completed. After signing up, I get virtually no spam. So why not give it a try? Right now, anyone who uses code CrimeFix at Incogni.com slash CrimeFix gets 60% off. That's code CrimeFix at Incogni.com slashMEFIX for 60% off an annual Incogni plan. Now, we also learned during this hearing new information about how the state claims that

Brian Koberger bought this K-Bar. Special Agent Douglas's testimony, that seems to have shifted a bit from he's going to talk about bank records and debit purchases, and it's become bigger without any opinion. I don't know what his opinion about anything will be. That needs to be limited. I think he can come in and talk through the financial records and say, this shows a transaction with Mr. Koberger's credit card to purchase a Amazon gift card and that this Amazon gift card was used to purchase a knife. If he can say all of those things, I think that his ability to talk about receiving a bank record and looking at it and saw a purchase history, I think that's fine. But to provide an opinion about what that history, I think that's fine.

But to provide an opinion about what that means, that's not disclosed. Well, Your Honor, I don't want to wait to find out. I'm asking the court to... My point is this. I'm not in a position to exclude their testimony because they have. And show me that they're offering something beyond what they've disclosed. So Judge Hippler said the FBI forensic accountant will testify that Brian Koberger bought an Amazon gift card with his credit card

and then used that gift card to buy the knife. Why? What's the theory? Not sure. But there are other reasons why Koberger's defense is arguing to keep out the Amazon records. They're saying the click history isn't reliable and that AI can influence what a user sees and clicks on. The Amazon data, as I understand it, you're saying shouldn't be

relied upon or admissible because AI made me do it. Well, I think it's a broader explanation than that. But the issue is that we had received this data and without expert opinions to explain what the state intended to do with it, it left us in a spot of trying to figure that out. How was it vague? What were they trying to do with the Amazon records? It was pretty facially evident what the relevance of those. They're not facially evident, Judge. We have an Excel file that has a ton of names with metadata. And then we have what is known as an Amazon click packet that the state has produced, we think from Shane Cox, that has a sheet that talks about specific purchases that include the knife, include things like the gift card that you were just talking about, but without any context. going to be a testimony from them that somehow there was information on computer searches specifically from computer examination or the context of what metadata might explain about

the click pay documents that they got. So Alyssa Masseth has an expert that she wanted to testify at this hearing so he could tell the judge how this Amazon data works. But the judge has a declaration from the expert and he didn't need the testimony. It almost sounds like the defense could contest that Koberger bought a K-Bar knife, sheath and sharpener at all. You also just proffered that, you know, that based on the information that you understand that that equates to a purchase. And I've put a declaration in front of you from an expert that says that Amazon doesn't work exactly that way. And that's the problem, that when it is represented as a click, that that indicates to the average person that he sat at a desk and clicked and made a purchase when there's a lot more to them.

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? No, that is a step, but how it gets in your cart and what items get in your cart really has to do with the whole model and the ecosystem of the way that Amazon works, right? And so the state wants to apply argument in an argument. They will apply intent to purchase a K-bar to, you know, get to November 13th, 2022. And drop the evidence to argue at closing arguments. But we still have to have testimony that explains those things in between.

Then Masseth argued that there was context missing surrounding purchases that Koberger may have made. So in this instance, with regard to these purchases, we have very limited data regarding Mr. Koberger's purchases without the metadata and the context. And that's the reason that we are seeking to exclude it. Now- You got what they got, right? Not really, because what we have is we know that they are going to draw conclusions and that they're going to draw conclusions about intent. But the way that they've presented it

to us in data is that this relates to Amazon clicks. Well, Amazon clicks is makes it sound like to to me and you, someone goes on and actually, you know, with a mouse, clicks, opens a document, takes it into a cart, purchase it. And it's a much broader term than that. And the state's testimony from their person who will testify that this is what the Amazon data shows that Mr. Kohlberger, or at least his name, purchased the knife sheath and cleaning thing, knife who orders on Amazon does, where's it at in delivery? And then later on that same account, after the homicides,

looked at knives again. Now, I understand the defense's position and evidence and expert to be that, well, that's a shared account and anybody could have done that on that shared account. I don't know that that's a matter of exclusion, though. Isn't that a matter of just impeachment and cross-examination and your own experts? That if the court doesn't exclude it, then that would be the remedy and the approach that we would take. Would it ever be the remedy of exclusion? Judge, if you don't exclude it, then that would be the alternative, I guess. On what basis would I have to exclude it?

I started with that, that we did not have expert opinions at the time when we had to file a motion in limine regarding this data, and it's misleading that the way that you just portray it, that because there is a purchase in a household account, that that is automatically attributable to him and that there's somehow intent. It's not a purchase in a household account. It's attributable under his particular name in the account, as I understand it. Now, could somebody else in the family get to it? I don't know.

I suppose your expert will tell us that. But I'm not sure how that is excluded, and I'm not sure how that's expert testimony. I understand you have an expert to say, well, you know, all these other factors come into play, and all these other things could have happened, and okay. You can put that on. But I'm not sure why that excludes the state's evidence.

Well, it would be extremely misleading, given the declaration that we've put before the court about everything that goes into the way that Amazon functions. You're asking me to be the fact finder again. So the state has said that Brian Koberger went on Amazon again after the homicides and searched for K-bar knives and sheets. Prosecutors will argue he was looking for a replacement. Judge, this is pretty simple. Shane Cox and Mike Douglas, since he gets brought up, they're fact witnesses. They're not going to have opinions. They review records.

They're going to testify to what those records show. Shane Cox's testimony is laid out in the supplemental amended disclosure. This is exactly what he's going to testify to. And what he's going to say, he's very careful in what he says that he's going to say. That's what we're anticipating. There is no grounds to exclude his testimony. We applied for and we were granted a search warrant for Brian Koberger's Amazon.com user activity. evidence related to the seizing of knives. In this case, it was knives and knife accessories. It directed law enforcement to see certain items, his customer click activity pertaining to knives and accessories, his payment method used, details of items in cart, including all items added to the cart or removed from the cart or wish listed or in a shopping basket, all suggestions made to the account, all records regarding reviews by other Amazon users, advertising data, devices used to connect to the account, and all accounts linked to the account.

The state requested the data between limited time periods, March 20th to March 30th and November 1st to December 6th. Those were the relevant time periods. And in response, we got responsive data and that's what we plan on presenting to the jury. Amazon's use of AI is not a basis to exclude and it's completely irrelevant. AI doesn't click on things for a user. There are no legal grounds to exclude this. In the end, Judge Hippler said the jury could hear the Amazon evidence and decide what it means. So this was a big loss for the defense, but they had to expect that the Amazon evidence would come in. Then the arguments turned to the cell phone location evidence

and things got tense. And that might be a bit of an understatement. Brian Koberger's cell phone records and his phone location the night of the murders has been part of this case from the beginning. Prosecutors say Koberger turned off his phone before traveling to Moscow that night, while his lawyers say the phone went off the network

at 2.54 a.m. Koberger's lawyers believe there are seven minutes of time involving the phone that will help his case. When the phone's moving, when Brian's phone's moving the last seven minutes before it goes off the network, and you look at the locations of where the phone was, it places the phone in a place at 254.45 in the morning. And for agent balance to ignore that, there's a cascading impact on other bits of testimony that will come in. So it's imperative. Well, it's actually exculpatory to Mr. Koberger, so it's worse than that. Cell phone records are going to be a huge part of this case, no doubt. And Ann Taylor is really upset about the testimony the state will offer from FBI Special Agent Nick Balance.

There are a few things going on here, including the seven minutes I just mentioned. Then there's testimony Balance is expected to offer, where he will claim Brian Koberger's phone was near the King Road house 23 times from July to November 6th of 2022. Ann Taylor says she hasn't received information about how Balance reached his conclusions, so she doesn't believe that he should be allowed to testify about those findings. Well, I'm on notice of things that the records don't support. I'm on notice of a PowerPoint that doesn't have any analysis or opinion in it. So those are the things that I'm on notice for with regard to agent balance testifying. So it asks the court to not allow him to testify beyond the December 18th very limited disclosure. Now, this is where things got really heated, and it has to do with what kind of cell phone records the defense wants to see for

Brian Koberger. They're called timing advance records, and they can help pinpoint a phone's location. The defense's cell phone expert, Cy Ray, filed a declaration basically accusing the FBI of having these records and not sharing them with the defense. The prosecution doesn't want the defense bringing up these records at trial because they claim in 2022, AT&T only kept these records for seven days, and they say they simply don't have the records for Brian Koberger for the night of the murders. And in 2022, the days that we're concerned about are seven days. The event that we wanted records for was obviously November 13th. So in 2022, we had seven days from November 13th to get AT&T timing advance records for anyone's phone.

We did do search warrants for other people's phones. We did a tower dump and we did a search warrant for three individuals. Those were all done on November 16th within that seven day period. So the state did receive some timing advance records. However, by the time that Mr. Koberger was identified in December, December 19th, and by the time we applied for a search warrant for his AT&T records, we were outside of that seven day window. So there were no timing advance records to be received and we did not receive any. But the defense suggested the FBI has some backdoor way to get these records. Judge Hippler wasn't buying it. The seven days is on paper. Sometimes they go back further than other days.

What's the evidence of that, counsel? The evidence has been in the practice that I've learned from people that I've worked with. You're giving me that testimony now? I'm not giving you testimony. I'm answering the court's question. But you've made some serious accusations against the state of hiding evidence, and yet you've provided no factual basis, zero, that that evidence existed for them to be able to obtain it in December. Your Honor, in April of, or I'm sorry, it was probably by the July date that I got it of 2024.

I got records from 2022. In some other time in 2024, I think it was May, I got 3,800 people's timing advance records. Because they were asked within seven days of the date that they sought it. It was the tower dump from the night of the murder asked within the seven days. I understand that. Okay. So where is the evidence that Mr. Koberger's timing advance records from AT&T were available to anybody in December

without a prior request that they save those? Well, I don't know if they made a prior request that they save those. Well, they wouldn't know if they made a prior request that they saved those. Well, they wouldn't because they didn't know who he was. You're correct. They didn't know who he was until I think about December 19th. Correct. Their warrant for his full scope of records, the second AT&T warrant, asked for all of the records. I haven't seen any of them. That's even if they were just the seven days back, I haven't seen any of them. What you're talking about now is a discovery issue of those seven days that don't sound like they're particularly relevant to the murder. So Judge

Hippler said what Ann Taylor was talking about is a discovery issue. And she goes on to lay out how she's requested these records in the past. It's not an evidentiary issue in which you can lay down Mr. Ray's conspiracy theory without any evidence at trial. Your Honor, we have litigated this issue quite extensively throughout the course of the case. The timing advance records, once I understood how timing advance works, became very important. We've heard different things now than I've heard at different times in the past about this, particularly about the seven days. That's newer information to me now, but the carrier

request forms tell me I should at least have that. I want the court to know that we have had motions to compel on this very issue. We have had different bits of information. For the seven days that are after December, in December? No, Your Honor, because the seven days is something that's newer and has been brought to my attention more recently. Our motions to compel related to timing advance records for November 13. Our discovery requests were for all of Mr. Koberger's timing advance records. Our motions to compel covered all of them, too. But Judge Hipler points out Cy Ray in his declaration never addressed that whole

seven-day retention period issue and that he hasn't proven the FBI has Brian Koberger's timing advance records. It's his obligation and your obligation to establish that evidence of that the state has this and you haven't done that. His affidavit is quite extensive, and he seems to ignore that issue. General, I believe that that issue is touched on with his knowledge that these kinds of records existed a long time before. He said that in a very general way about that without reference to the seven days, and he supposedly received them from some FBI expert to look at for his company and then was told not to use them. So I don't know, maybe the FBI got them in a way that they weren't supposed to at that time. For all I know, he didn't name names. He

didn't identify it. He didn't put it into any any context the state had indicated and that provided AT&T's sworn testimony that they only keep them for seven days. And yet he makes the accusations that he did in his affidavit without addressing that seven-day issue at all. And so I guess my point is, is if you want to cross-examine the witnesses about why didn't they rely on the AT&T timing information, you've got to show some factual foundation that that was available to them. By the time Mr. Koberger was on their radar as it relates to November 13. Judge Hipler agreed to allow Ann Taylor to ask Agent Balance about the timing advance records outside the presence of the jury at trial. But he still wasn't happy about this entire thing. And I'm and I'm not upset, but I just for Mr. Ray's information, because he wasn't here the first day I started this trial with you folks. I said, I don't want theatrics. I don't want accusations that aren't supported with evidence about supposed bad conduct of the parties. You're

all professionals. I respect you all. And the accusations he made in there are very concerning. The kinds of accusations of truth that would get people disbarred. And so without any evidence and apparently sidestepping the clear explanation, he makes those. And so that doesn't make me happy. Prosecutor Ashley Jennings reiterated she doesn't have the records. And to address the court's concerns of what's been raised, I think the only issue out there, I have the two search warrants. The state asked for the AT&T timing advance records in our search warrants. The state wanted that information for Mr. Koberger.

We did not receive it. I did not receive those records from AT&T. I do not have them. Thank you, Your Honor. Now get this. The day after the hearing, the defense filed an exhibit to support their objection to the state's motion regarding this whole timing advance record issue. But the judge sealed it, so we don't know what it says. So this may not be the last we've heard about this whole timing advance record issue. 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.