Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Bryan Kohberger's Eerie Homework Proves He Can Cover-Up a Crime: State

Episode Date: April 3, 2025

Prosecutors believe a final paper Bryan Kohberger wrote in college shows he knew more than enough about crime scenes to carry out the murders of four University of Idaho students. The paper outlines the processing of a crime scene where a woman was stabbed in a trailer park and how to avoid leaving DNA behind. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy does a deep dive into the 12-page paper with forensic death investigator Joseph Scott Morgan in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Find out if you're overpaying on car insurance with FinanceBuzz's FREE tool at https://financebuzz.com/crimefix. Drivers save an average of $600+ per year! Just answer a few quick questions to unlock your lowest rates.Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest: Joseph Scott Morgan https://x.com/JoScottForensicCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this law and crimes series ad free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Prosecutors are digging into Brian Koberger's past and his schoolwork to try to prove he murdered four University of Idaho students. I take a closer look at a crime scene paper that Koberger wrote and why the state says it really matters. Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Brian Koberger was a PhD student in criminology. We all know that. And he got really good grades. So it should be no surprise that he knows a thing or two or more about crime scenes. But did he know too much? Prosecutors want to argue at his trial later this year that Koberger knew a lot about crime scenes, how they work, how law enforcement treats them,

and how not to contaminate one. And they're digging into his college years and his homework at DeSales University to prove it. Now, to be clear, what Brian Koberger was studying, criminology, is different from crime scene investigation. And we'll talk about how those topics differ later. But could a paper he wrote as an undergrad, this paper right here, help prove that he is a quadruple murderer? Prosecutors believe so. Koberger's attorneys say that he maintains his innocence in the murders of Maddie Mogan, Kaylee Gonsalves, Ethan Chapin, and Zanna Kurnodal. The four students were stabbed to death at the house on King Road in Moscow, Idaho in November of 2022. The four were students at the university, and this case has captured the attention of people around the world.

Koberger had just started his Ph.D. work in criminology at Washington State University in Pullman, Washington, about nine miles away. By all accounts, Koberger arrived in Washington in the summer of 2022. His Washington driver's license was issued on July 1st. An FBI agent is expected to testify for the state that Koberger's phone was within 100 meters, or 328 feet, of the house on King Road on 23 occasions from July 2022 to November 7th, just six days before the murders. Another FBI agent will testify that this white car seen driving to the house on King Road the morning of the murders was the same make and model as the white Hyundai Elantra that Koberger drove. Prosecutors also claim that Koberger's DNA was found on the inner

snap of a knife sheath, just like this one, left next to victim Maddie Mogan on her bed at the crime scene. Leaving part of a murder weapon at a crime scene with your DNA on it would seem like a major fail in Crime Scene 101. But right now we are talking about Criminal Justice 361 Forensic Investigation. It was a class that Brian Koberger took at DeSales University in the spring of 2020 when he was an undergrad. And the final paper was entitled Crime Scene Scenario Final. It has Brian Koberger's name on it and the date, May 5th, 2020. Now, this paper that was authored by Koberger, it's 12 pages long, and the students go by step through step on how to handle a crime scene. Prosecutors want to introduce this paper at

Koberger's trial to show his knowledge of crime scenes. Judge Hippler, of course, would have to sign off on this as being relevant. The first part of the paper is entitled Arriving at the Crime Scene. Koberger wrote, the first thing to be done is block off the crime scene in order to avoid crime scene contamination. Keeping people out of the scene minimizes evidence contamination, though many may be curious to see what occurred. The theory of transfer states that we bring something with us to the crime scene and take something away, thus skewing the crime scene from the original state by contamination. This is because the original state of the crime scene was left by the criminal suspect.

A lack of contamination allows the scene to be a snapshot in time. So right there, Koberger is demonstrating for the professor that he knows how important it is to take precautions when entering a crime scene and that you can leave evidence of yourself behind when entering. Koberger then writes about the victim, I must call my immediate supervisor and inform them of the deceased white female who is approximately 35 years of age. Now, one thing that is interesting is that this 35-year-old woman in this scenario is a victim of a stabbing in a trailer park. So that's interesting, given Koberger's current situation. I reached out to DeSales and a spokesperson told me this was a typical assignment for this class. When I asked if the professor was the one who came up with the scenario, she said she didn't have any other information about the assignment. I want to tell you about FinanceBuzz.com, which is sponsoring this episode of Crime Fix. FinanceBuzz is your

expert source for smarter financial decisions, whether it's cutting costs on car insurance, finding the best credit cards, or growing your investments. If you are paying hundreds a month or more for your coverage, then you will want to hear this. Car insurance rates have nearly doubled in the last few years. How can they keep charging you more and more every year? It's insane. Here's what to do. Click the link below or scan that QR code that's on your screen and head to their auto insurance comparison tool. Enter your zip code,

date of birth, and email, and the site will search for cheaper insurance for you. The best part, it only takes a few minutes and you don't need to talk to anyone on the phone, which is really great. Just click the link below in the description and pinned in the comments or scan the QR code on your screen to see how much you could save. Now, Koberger talked in the paper about the importance of calling the coroner if the victim had passed away or calling EMS if they hadn't been called already. This would have been important for many reasons. Her livelihood is one reason, but from the stance of a patrol officer or criminal investigator, she may have given a dying declaration of her attacker when informed of her impending death. There's also a discussion about rigor mortis setting in about 12 hours after death,

which can help determine when the person died. The next section is entitled, Equipment I Will Have on Hand for the Investigation. Koberger wrote, To be prepared for crime scene investigation, I must ensure I have a crime toolkit for the investigation. Koberger wrote, to be prepared for crime scene investigation, I must ensure I have a crime toolkit containing the following. Koberger discusses a 35 millimeter camera or digital camera that can videotape with adequate film and power. Moving down, Koberger writes about needing latent fingerprint equipment and gloves to protect the scene from contamination. This will enable that I avoid leaving my latent fingerprints. He also writes about needing a small saw to take evidence, for example, drywall. And farther down, he writes protective clothing, boot covers, eyewear, fiber-free overalls,

face masks, hairnets, gowns, and anything that will prevent me from contaminating the scene with things I bring with me. Now the next section, entering the home from crime scene documentation and initial photography slash videography. Koberger writes, I may enter upon judicial approval of the search warrant and should do so with the minimum number of personnel. Again, Koberger mentions gloves. I must ensure that myself and my fellow crime scene personnel are wearing gloves and other Again, Koberger mentions gloves. Now, this paper is very, very detailed, and it discusses documenting everything. The exact time photos are taken, the weather, and the badge number of those involved. Later,

Koberger writes, is the mark on her neck related to the hanger near her? The photographs make it sure that these items were indeed present at the crime scene. Then he writes, the knife should be photographed under adequate light and a marker should be placed next to the knife to give the best photographic representation of the evidence. On page six, Koberger outlines the crime scene sketch and the importance of not including too many details, but there are some interesting things in this section. Koberger wrote, even if there was an item introduced to the scene by an offender to throw off investigators, it is not the job of the criminal investigator processing the crime scene to jump to conclusions. He also wrote staging is common.

For example, the offender may have taken items from the house to make it look like a burglary turned robbery, which went wrong. Koberger also wrote about how evidence can point to an M.O. confirming and disproving alibis using federal resources such as the FBI and the importance of swabbing the victim's fingernails because she may have fought the attacker and DNA could have been left there. Koberger earned a master's degree in criminology at DeSales, studying under Dr. Catherine Ramsland, a world-renowned forensic psychologist and expert who studies serial killers. She studies the criminal mind, and that's what Brian Koberger wanted to do as well. So that's a different thing from the forensic investigation class that Koberger wrote the final paper for in 2020. So the question is, does this paper really matter when it comes to the case in Idaho? Prosecutors believe it's relevant. And are they going to try to draw some type of connection between this idea that the person that the surviving roommate saw walking through the house, possibly wearing a mask like this, was covering themselves from head to toe to possibly prevent contamination?

We'll have to wait and see. So I want to bring in somebody who's an expert in crime scenes to talk about this. He is the host of the Body Bags podcast, also a professor at Jacksonville State University and a forensic death investigator. He is Joseph Scott Morgan. So Joseph, thank you so much for coming on. It's been a while. Yeah, it has.

My pleasure joining you, Anjanetta. Yeah, I'm excited to talk with you about this. I wanted to get your gut reaction, your first thoughts when you read through this paper. This was for CJ 361, you know, forensic investigation class. Brian Koberger took it. Crime scene scenario final. When you read through this, what did you think? Well, I thought it was a standard template that had been given to these undergraduate students, a 300 level class, by the way, is a junior level class. So you're already three years in in your undergraduate studies at this class in order to advance on to the next to the 400 level classes. And success is measured in the sense that as crime scene or crime scene procedures are being taught to the students, there are certain points that you have to tag along the way. You know, and it's a soup to nuts approach. And I've been involved in multiple programs over the years, both in academia and training of law enforcement, where these it's almost like a recipe, if you will. One committee that I was on at one point in time, we used to use the adage of every scene, every time. reason we would say that is so that you get a sense that if you follow the proper procedures every single time, if you go down the list, you're not going to train wreck your case.

Okay. And there's little add-ons that you can do along the way, depending upon the nature of the death. But this is very generalized, it's broad, and it's not surprising for this level of education that he would have had at that time. So it starts with arriving at the crime scene. And he talks about the importance of securing crime scene. I mean, that's like crime scene 101, even though this was a 300 level class. But he says you got to keep people out, minimize evidence contamination, even though you're going to have some looky loos running around wanting to see what's going on. He talks about the theory of transfer and about how like every time you go in, you kind

of leave something, leave a piece of you there. So, you know, he's well aware of this theory of transfer where you enter a crime scene. You can't walk in there without leaving something even if you're wearing one of those suits or something like that and then um you know he talks about the original state of the crime scene was left by the criminal suspect a lack of contamination allows the scene to be a snapshot in time so he he knows how to not contaminate a crime scene. It's kind of creepy.

I've used this language before, you know, as you say to me. And, yeah, so he's obviously familiar with one of my heroes in forensics, who's essentially the godfather of crime scene investigation. That's Edmond LeCard, who was a scientist that lived in France, and he was a professor at University of Lyon. And he came up with LeCard's principle of exchange, and it merely states that every contact leaves a trace. And you can apply that in the context of any forensic practice, whether it be a digital world or it be the physical world where you walk into a crime scene that might be bloody, that might have multiple deaths, that might have ripped elements laying about, torn furniture, torn clothing, those sorts of things. You have to take care.

And the idea here is that, and this is kind of interesting when you begin to think about this carnage in Moscow, anything that a perpetrator would have walked into that house with on their person, and I'm not talking about weapons, I'm talking about what's on the soles of their feet, what's on their hands, you know, what's falling out of their head, because you think about hair and we shed hair, we shed skin. So with the said and comparing that to this exercise, there is an awareness. And I think that that's probably one of the biggest takeaways in this whole process. When you begin to look at Brian Koberger and his relationship to his academic training, as well as what happened in Moscow. You know, and you talked about, you know, shedding hair, skin cells, things like that.

You know, to our knowledge, and this is all we know, you know, his his defense attorney Ian Taylor said has said in court, you know, this is not Brian Koberger's DNA all over the place. You know, his blood on walls. To our knowledge, the only forensic evidence of Brian Koberger in that house is his DNA on the snap of that knife sheath. So that's, you know, we've heard nothing else at this point. So, and it sounds like somebody else put that there.

Yeah, I don't know. I don't know how you would go about doing it. And I have to make a point here with Ann Taylor. I found it very interesting in one of her filings the other day. She has stated that she does not want the prosecution to use the term touch DNA. Right. She wants the traditional or the more clinical use of the term trace DNA and touch. I think for her, at least implies that hands were put on some touch or touch that or, you know, this sort of thing. And it's but, you know, Internet, that's very difficult to get away from numerically when

you're looking at at this trace touch, whatever Ann Taylor, her flavor of the month is, DNA that's been left behind on this knife sheath. You begin to do the calculus is mind-blowing. And that's what makes DNA. So, I'm not going to say foolproof, but it makes it very daunting for the defense. And it's understandable that she would want to give a head fake and say that's not his DNA or it's somebody else's DNA or whatever the case might be. Yeah. I think they're going to have a hard time with that. Even their own expert said it's his. I think they're going to say it's transfer of some sort. I just don't know what kind of transfer they're going to say it was. But some sort. I just don't know what kind of transfer they're going to say it was.

But he again goes on to talk about, Joseph, the importance of wearing gowns, protective eyewear, hairnets, you know, things like that so that you're not shedding all over the place. Fiber free, anything that's fiber free covers the mouth, hair, overall body would be helpful in avoiding the crime scene contamination since hair, saliva, skin cells, bodily fluids can be left contaminating it. You know, it's interesting to me because, and yes, they're saying we want to introduce this. We want to introduce this because it shows he knows about a crime scene. He knows his way around a crime scene, how to handle a crime scene. Do they want to show that like we have a scenario here that involves a stabbing and our only living witness, DM, says she saw a guy covered head to toe in all black and all she could see was this, you know, this is all she could see on the guy.

Is that part of where they might be going with this? It's a double-edged sword. And let me tell you why. Because, yeah, it's demonstrative of the fact that in his academic background, he had exposure to crime scene processing. The recipe list from this CJ 361 course at DeSales is something that you would introduce to a new group of detectives, okay, if they're training them at the academy. They're no longer patrol officers. They're new detectives. So you train them in this. But they could say, you know, if they're going to enter this in and say that he has exposure to this, you could say, well, do they have a criminal justice program at the University of Idaho? Do they have one at Washington State University?

Do they teach crime scene processing classes? Oh, so this percentage of the student population has had a background in this, or they could, if they really wanted to slam this home, they can say, well, this, you know, we'd have to include every law enforcement officer that does investigations now, wouldn't we? You know, so it's a two-edged sword. if you use this demonstratively to show that he has had experience with crime scenes and he recognizes this. Yeah, I suppose it could have a bit of power to it. But, you know, everybody else in his class in order to pass this class had to do the same thing. So I don't know how much weight it'll bear. You know, he talked also about looking at

things like whether or not, you know, the offender was going to try to throw investigators off by staging the scene or staging the victim. I thought that was really interesting. I mean, this is very, very detailed, you know, but, you know, this is a final for the end of the term. So this could be something that, you know, lessons learned from everything they studied all semester, I guess. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Semester, if you think it lasts, I don't know. It's rough. 14, 16 weeks. Hard to say. I'm in the middle of one right now. I just wish it was over with. But when you look at when you look at that, you think, well, this is cumulative.

You know, and the way we would teach this, certainly here at Jack State, is that we would start with arrival at the scene. And you would be lectured to about these points along the continuum. Why is it important? Well, let's explain and let's see what the text says. This is where you can screw up and this is where you'll have success. So you go through all of these points. And, yeah, you could cover this 11-page document very easily. Is it 11 or 14?

I can't recall. It's 12. There you go, right in the center, a meaty part of the curve. So we're right there at 12. And you could do this in a 14-week semester very easily. Breaking it down, you'd have module tests, you know, every, I don't know, every so often, maybe every three or four weeks, you'd have a test that would encompass the very first part of this document, and then the two mid-sections, and then the final section. And then it's cumulative over that period of time. So you would have learned this.

And this is a semester-ending document that they would have had to have produced. And the grad assistant or the professor would go through, and they would grade it, and they would look for it point by point. And that's essentially what they're doing. And it is like a recipe. This is not graduate level work, okay, where you're, you know, contemplating perhaps doing research on alternative theories to crime scene processing. This is a very basic, basic kind of procedure. And yes, it's voluminous, but everything we do in forensics is voluminous.

You know, he went into sales, you know, he studied under Dr. Catherine Ramsland, world-renowned psychologist, criminologist. And, you know, she established, you know, the crime scene house there to teach students. But, you know, something you and I were talking about is that there's a stark difference between criminology, study of the mind, and then this. This was like an undergraduate class about processing a crime scene. So I wanted you to just touch on that. Yeah. And even his graduate work, you know, was directed toward and I think his graduate work was also done at DeSales

in their master's program. It was directed toward criminal behavior, you know, which is, for folks that don't know, because there's been a lot of confusion about this, and just from an academic standpoint, just let me set the record straight. So, if you're talking about pure criminology, the study of criminology, yeah, you have an interest in crime scenes, but only as it goes to the behavior or the repeated behavior or the predictable behavior of individuals that are engaging in crimes. You're not looking at the science of this like we do in forensics. So you're working on more of a behaviorist model as opposed to

what we practice in, which is actually a medical scientific model, okay, in forensics. Do testing and all these evaluations of bodies and all these sorts a Ph.D. in criminology, which, again, is a doctoral level study of criminal behavior. And if he had been there long enough, you would have seen him to begin to develop questionnaires under the direction of a faculty advisor or supervisor, those areas that he's interested in. Maybe he did have an interest in how, you know, how criminals behave in the wake of committing a crime. I think that there was one questionnaire that kind of went out on one of these platforms where he's asking, it's kind of very rudimentary and primitive, you know, the way it's written. It's not a purely academic kind of approach like you would see if you had a faculty advisor helping you with this thing. So he did apparently, if we are to believe

what we're seeing, he did apparently have an interest in criminal behavior, but that does not equate to forensic science. We do cross paths with these people, but it's not the same practice. Okay. It's like if the FBI is going to work a serial crime, okay, they're going to call in the BSU, which is the Behavioral Sciences Unit, famously out of Quantico. You think about Mindhunter, the series that was on Netflix. They're looking at information gleaned from crime scenes, but they're trying to put together a bigger picture. That's more criminology.

You're not going to call one of the BSU people to come out and process the crime scene like you would if you had arguably one of the best crime scene processing units in the nation that indwells the FBI. Those two jobs are completely different. Yeah, totally. Well, I appreciate you coming on. I appreciate you offering your expertise and your thoughts about the paper. It'll be interesting to see if this actually goes in front of a jury, if the judge allows it and what happens. Thank you so much, Joseph Scott

Morgan. Hey, you bet, Anjanette. Great to join 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.