Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Body Bags With Joseph Scott Morgan: Is Kohberger the New "OJ"? Did Defense Find The "Real Killer"?

Episode Date: June 8, 2025

The judge in the Bryan Kohberger trial is still searching for the person or persons who leaked info to Dateline that was used in NBC’s 2-hour special on the Idaho Student Murders, “The Terrible Night on King Road” revealing new details and never before seen video that may be key evidence in the state’s case.  Joseph Scott Morgan and Dave Mack talk about the latest news in the case and JSM breaks down some issues with how forensic evidence was moved from the scene, how the entire crime scene was treated in the days following the murders, as well as what the coroner did or did not do that could create problems at trial. No matter what happens in court or in the media, there are still four young adults who were murdered, and they must be remembered. They deserve justice. Remember the Victims: Ethan Chapin, 20 Xana Kernodle, 20 Kaylee Goncalves, 21 Madison Mogen, 21   Transcribe Highlights 00:13.15 Introduction - Part 2 - Kohberger Case 01:46.38 Judge is displeased with the leak in the case 05:04.66 Risk at trial, slipshod manner the way the trial claimed 09:40.54 Implies some kind of trace element left behind on 14:00.17 Evidence: a mattress was driven down the road in the back of a truck19:54.71 Kohberger lawyer previously represented mother of victim, Xana Kernodle24:04.54 Judge is completely aware 29:01.53 Does the defense have a suspect other than Kohberger?33:43.00 Timeline is going to be very important39:14.10 Not all testimony will be available to public, some will not be streamed 43:47.94 Whoever did this quadruple murder is/was a monster44:11.81 ConclusionSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Body Vax with Joseph Scott Moore. Dave, I've got to say with, with Coburger, one of the things that has come up relative to this Dateline special is that the judge, to say the very least, ain't happy. Ain't happy at all. You know, and there are reasons that judges do things. And they put this gag order in place because of the sensitive nature of it, because they know that the media is all over it. There is a temptation that abounds out there when you have information and money that can

be injected into a circumstance that would draw somebody out. Now I'm not saying that anyone is on the take, however I'm just saying when those bright lights are shown upon you and I'm talking about from the media and you're in some kind of job where you otherwise wouldn't have any attention at all and you get the really important people from New York. They're going to show you some attention and show you value. I tell you man, it's a it is a fruit of the poisonous tree. It truly is and it's a dangerous thing. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan and this

is Body Bags. The judge wants somebody's hide in this case, Dave. And I don't know if he's going to get it or not, Joe, but when I, from the very beginning of this case, they've done things there that were just patently wrong. Um, from the very first thing that we heard from the, uh, the County coroner. Yeah. It wasn't a medical examiner, right? It was a coroner. Yeah. Lawyer. There was an elected lawyer. Yeah, that's what it was. And we've got, we had all those shenanigans right at the very beginning.

We had a number of social media people that were making accusations and a lot of crazy stuff was going on, but you still had four college-age students who were murdered in a house, in a party house. And there are still questions that a lot of us have about what took place and why we don't have certain information. By the way, nobody owes me any information. They owe the families, I think. I've got a real problem with them tearing the house down.

They've torn down evidence. And so the judge can be as mad as he wants about things getting out, but they've set it up to be like this. I mean, they have destroyed this case to the point where, I'm going to be honest, Joe, I'm really bothered by the fact that they tore that house down. I really am. Yeah. At this point, sometimes I think about this and I think about the journey that we've been on

now. We're in 25. We're coming up on the third year anniversary this upcoming November. I've been covering it since the day after I started appearing on air. I've got to tell you, sometimes I've looked at this thing and it seems as though I got to tell you, right, sometimes I've looked at this thing and it seems as though for the prosecution, and I guess the judge by extension, because his judge was like introduced into this. He's not who they started out with. It's almost like trying to tape together jello sometimes. You look at it and it's just so, you really wonder how this thing is going to come out.

And here's the problem that you hear and it's something I've heard for years and years. You know, I might, and even when I was a practitioner, if you go to a party or something and somebody mentions a case to you that they've heard about in the news and they say, well, if it was me, that guy would, you know, we'd hang him on a sour apple tree. You know, that's what I would do. And you hear that all the time. Well, that's all fine and good. You can say that.

But the problem with being that cocksure about something and that reactive and not being purposed in what you do, just to think that you're going to win because the guy looks creepy or that you have some physical evidence, you have some electronic, that doesn't render a verdict. And the courts don't care what you or I think or the general public. There's a set of rules that you have to play by. And wouldn't that be the ultimate insult to these families if because, you know, this kind of slipshod way that apparently this is being played out before us, that this actually

risks the trial. I heard, I was talking to somebody the other day, and for the life of me, I can't remember, it was an attorney, and it was in the wake of this. And one of the things that came up says, you know, it's not necessarily going to harm the trial itself. The evidence will be presented, and if it's persuasive enough for a jury, they will find him guilty as charged. Okay? But even if he is found guilty, this attorney friend of mine, they hold that it's not that you have to worry about.

You have to worry about the fact that he might have a real shot at an appeal, like a serious shot because of everything that happened beforehand. This is a freight train. We're standing in the middle of the tracks right now that's headed towards, it's not going to swerve. You have to get out of the way of it. It's coming one way or another. The only thing that could happen is I guess that they could say, we want to could happen is I guess that they could say, we want to move the trial date for some reason, but I can't see why they would do that. But yeah, this is a huge mess that has been created. And look, ABC, Dateline, they can say all they want to. You know, freedom of the press, that we have to protect our sources. Well, here's the problem. This is not actual reporting. This is meddling at this point in time. Those are two separate

things completely. Somebody in there gave information they weren't supposed to give. Yeah. And when you look, Dave, let me ask you this. Just let me ask you. I want to hear your reaction. When you consider the data that they put out on Dateline, if you had to hazard a guess, we don't know any more than anybody else, but if you had to hazard a guess, given the nature of this information, of this information, who would be on your likely list of suspects? And you don't have to name a specific person. Just what would, if it is from within the law enforcement or prosecutorial environment, what division within that do you think would be the most likely candidate? You know, when you're looking at what we're talking about here,

yes, you have the the alleged cell phone activity of Brian Coburn that was not public knowledge that was in the Dateline episode. You have the searches that included you and the podcast Ted Ted Bundy, and porn. Some of the cell phone things that we- Wait, hang on, you've coupled me with Ted Bundy and porn now, thanks Dave, I appreciate it. Well, part of the investigation. Yeah.

But there were gruesome details about the crime scene that also became public after the Dateline show. For instance, Ethan was, Ethan Chapin was, we were led to, we were told he was, that he was already asleep. And when he was killed, he was asleep. But then we find out that he's had his leg carved, something in his leg. And the way they've made it sound is that he was alive

when that happened, but it didn't wake him up. That's, you know, I don't know how that's possible, but yeah. So, but again, this is information that was not available outside of a very small group of people, and I'm thinking somebody in the sheriff's department, the police department, somebody in there and underling, probably it's not going to be anybody that's had a career up to this point. It's going to be somebody that probably has a friend. Yeah. And, you know, one of these things with, hey, let me show you this.

Yeah. You know, and that sort of thing. And then they just continue to feed them. I don't have anything to back that up. No. All of this stuff is, you know, look, I know because there was the other thing that came out, I was reflecting on this. I don't know if we have mentioned this, but I think that they had mentioned that someone

had sat, perhaps the perpetrator had sat in the chair in the room with the girls upstairs. And that implies that some kind of trace element was left behind and may have been on that individual. But a lot of the stuff, particularly images, movement, that, oh my gosh, that video, that new video that has popped up, you know, with the vehicle. We've never seen that before. I mean, that was something that was like really held close to the vest. I don't know, this smacks of digital to me, Dave.

It really does. Like somebody that would have access to that specific data. Everything would have been digitized. You're right. Everything you're talking about from, yeah, you're right. Okay. Yeah. File. It's a file on somebody's laptop, somebody's desk that they shouldn't have had. Yeah. And how does it, how does it make it into the hands of a Dateline producer? You know, I don't, I don't understand that. And, you know, look,

you see the people on the screen that appear, you know, I don't understand that. And, you know, look, you see the people on the screen that appear, you know, for Dateline. That's not who's driving the ship on those things. I hate to burst everybody's bubble. Like if you sit at home, you scream at the screen because you see some talking head that's giving you information. They're not driving the ship. It's the producers that drive the ship. You know, from beginning to end, It's the producers that drive the ship.

From beginning to end, that's how this works. Trust me. I've been involved with media now for a long time. But the idea that you would take a case that's not even near being adjudicated at this point in time, and you would populate the airwaves with this. And it's not... and it would still be bad, but it's not like it was... It was done on the local public... Public television channel at 11 o'clock at night. You're talking about Dateline. And everybody in true crime, I mean, has watched Dateline at one point in time. They all have their favorite person that's on Dateline. It's interesting. It's so funny, Joe, because something you just said

is something that doesn't happen anymore. It's not something that just popped up for 30 seconds on a local television station at 11 o'clock at night. Because now everything's viral. Everything is everything, no matter where you are. if it's on the line, if it's on somewhere, everybody has it. My neighbors across the street, when this story first broke, having a daughter in that age group, they became an am just all about the story. And they were telling me about things that were going on with it. And I was like, where are you getting this? And they would

tell me I'm like, I don't think that's accurate, you know? And I would go back and check my notes to see what we had. And I do know how you get information from a local source. I've chosen not to go down that path in my life because it only hurts people. It doesn't help you along the way. You don't win. You're not, you're gonna brown nose your career like that. It's not a way to live. I will tell you, I learned, I watched when the Natalie Holloway case broke because it happened. I was on the air in Birmingham, Alabama at the time when that story broke and was very involved in a lot of that early coverage in terms of involved in a lot of that early coverage in terms of national media coming in and using local people, local media people. And I didn't tell them Jack because they wanted

information. They wanted private personal information about people. And you're talking about this is somebody's daughter, man. This is somebody, this is a person. This is not a story. Same thing is true here. It's why you dealt with such kick gloves at this story when you were covering it and talking about the students that were involved. So for somebody, whether it's Dateline, NBC, or primetime, or whatever, to go after this story knowing what's at stake and to get stuff and put it on the air knowing it's wrong, everybody knows there's a gag order, you're not supposed to have this information.

No. If you truly care about the law, you don't do this. No, you don't. And listen, the investigators that worked this case, and it's a multi-agency event that took place, you've even got the feds involved in it. Yeah, I have made my comments about the house, it being gone. Some of the things I saw procedurally with the evidence, you know, I think the thing stands out in my mind is that mattress being driven down the road in the back of a pickup

truck uncovered. But, however- Nat Wiltz Wait a minute, go back to that, Joe. Explain what you just said. For those who didn't catch that, what did you see? What happened? Joe Buechert Yeah, it was the image of, uh, they had a pickup truck that was backed up to the door and the police had loaded in a bare mattress into the back of that truck. And I was, I had to, you know,

shake the cobwebs out of my head and try to take the measure of what I was seeing because it didn't, it didn't compute didn't compute. I'm thinking, wait, it's snowing up there, debris is blowing about. You've got a mattress that's going into, I'm assuming that since so much of this case involves bedrooms, that that mattress held a certain level of evidentiary value and we got it in the back of a pickup truck and you're hauling away. I mean, I've worked around several police agencies that were very poor, but they had vans. You know, at least in a van, you've got this thing shut up in the back and it's protected.

And there's a way, yes, there's even a way to package a mattress in our world. You know, I even look back to, you talk about a big mess step with this. You know, I think, I don't think Coburger had been extradited back to Idaho at this point, but he had retained council. And I think the council he had retained was in Pennsylvania. And do you remember this brother where they said they were going to release the scene and have it cleaned? And the Coburgers' counsel at that time was like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Remember the people were in the Tavek suits outside of the house and they had put the plastic up over the door so the guys that do the crime scene cleaning could go in and clean. And his team, at that time, and I think he was, if I remember correctly, I think he was still in Pennsylvania at the time, they said, whoa, hold your horses. We've got our own investigators that we want to send there, that want to appreciate it, all those sorts of things. And they still had like the plastic, they create like this plastic tunnel on the outside of the door that you kind of walk in, you're wearing the respirator and all that stuff, you're going to go in and clean, it's just the way they do things. And they

had to put the kibosh on that and step away from it so that their people could go and do their own observations. Listen, I understand that people are frustrated with this and they'll say, well, they, you know, tough. They didn't, no, no, no. You have to make it an even playing field. You have to look at their sports analogies are rife in this thing. You have to have an equal playing field in this.

The judge is acting as a referee or an umpire and they call the shots along the way and it has to remain balanced because in the end and I don't necessarily think that true justice in this world actually exists but if you want some semblance of justice and certainly scientific truth from us from my perspective everybody has to have everybody has to have a clean swing, if you will. They have to have their own shot at it because that's the way our courts are set up. I know it's frustrating, but that's the way it works. Does it bother you that Ann Taylor, the public defender who became Brian Koberger's public

defender only after she unloaded Xander Cunardle's biological mother who she had represented multiple times. How is that possible that a victim's mother is your client that you have represented on drug charges and other and you because you know what this case means are able to finagle the system so you can be named public defender for Brian Coburger. It doesn't necessarily, yeah, look, hey, it doesn't necessarily make me happy. But look, this is kind of ham handed, but I got to tell you, that's between her and the bar of Idaho and her relationship with God.

You know, like, how do you feel about it? Well, I have no moral compunction over doing this whatsoever. And yeah, it's smarmy. I mean, there's a certain level to that that's distasteful. But she's a practicing attorney. And if the bar says it's okay for her to do it, go ahead and do it. Knock yourself out. But you know, and she's going to get us, and she has gotten a certain amount of recognition

for this. And I know everybody wants to think that, you know, that you're crusading for justice and this can apply to both prosecution and defense. You're crusading for justice. You're there to help people and all this stuff. At the end of the day, it's like driving down the road and you see in our state, it's, well, I won't say the name, I'm not going to give them free advertisement, but you drive down the road and it says, you've been in a car accident, call us. That's where we're in your corner, that sort of thing. It's the same thing. You're advertising at that point in time. That's why in these really your corner, you know, that sort of thing. It's the same thing. You're advertising at that point in time.

That's why in these really big cases, there are attorneys that will take pro bono cases because whatever you would make, whatever you would make, say, for instance, off of the dime that the state is slipping you to do this pro bono, and there is a base, a base salary or monies that they receive, it's going to be far exceeded by what you're going to have with clients that are going to walk through your door. Oh yeah, yeah, you represented them. Now I want you.

Okay. So that's the payout in the end. Don't come to me talking about justice and all of that sort of thing. But that's, again, that's what they do. That's how they roll with it. This is, I just hope, I hope that what the judge has asked for is going to happen because there needs to be, I think, Dave, in this particular case, there has to be a message sent, like a strong message. The judge, from my understanding, looked at the DA and said,

a special prosecutor must be appointed in this case to look into this specific matter. It caught the judge's eye. And you don't want to be caught by the judge's eye at any point in time. I think about, what was the, I don't know if you've ever seen these movies, The Lord of the Rings, it's that big eye that's up in the air that kind of seeks out, you know. And you never want to fall in the gaze of the judge, certainly for nothing negative. I don't want to fall in any judge's gaze anyway. I tried to be as obedient as I possibly can.

I tried to play by the rules at all times. Anytime I had to go into some judge's court. But for me, when you look at this, you're already going to be on the radar anyway. The judge has got a very difficult job in this case. Now? Now? How happy do you think the judge is that this has been added onto their plate? Because it's an absolute train wreck. I don't know really how they're going to solve this. I'm going to be very interested to see how this plays out if and when, and I'm hoping sooner than later, the special prosecutor will be appointed. We're talking about Moscow, Idaho. Your pool of potential people there is tiny.

This is not going to take any amount of time to whittle this down. As a matter of fact, I would imagine that there are fannies that are tightening all over the place right now, or specifically those individuals that know that they were the ones that did it, or maybe a supervisor out there that is thinking, this might be my person that did this. And they're wondering, you know, what's going to happen? Is there going to be held to pay for it, Dave? See if anybody that you know in that area has hired an attorney or has met with an attorney

recently, and that's your guy. That's all I'm saying. You know, we've talked about in MnDGOT, talking about Ann Taylor and getting publicity. Mark Garagos is one of these attorneys who has a big profile. You know, he's got Peterson's lawyer. He's been doing a lot of-

Menendez. Did it, yeah. But one thing people don't know about Garagos, and this is why I'm always cautious of saying anything about what lawyers do because we don't know everything they do. Like Ann Taylor, I'm bothered by the fact that Ann Taylor was Ann Arconado's mother attorney.

And then she wrangled herself to be in this position with Koberger. That bothers me. I don't know why and it probably shouldn't, but it does. But I mentioned Garagos because he and Nancy go head to head over Diddy all the time. Oh, yeah. But you know, Mark Garagos does something that a lot of people don't know. He has close ties to Alabama. You know, every year, every year Mark Garagos does a pro bono case in Alabama, and usually it's a death penalty case for free.

I did not know that. I had no idea. And that's kind of the measure of the individual to me. So whether the Ann Taylor thing bothers anybody but me, it's just, like I said, to me, I'm thinking if this was my daughter and you're representing me in a court filing right now and you then leave to go and to get the guy that killed my daughter, allegedly killed my daughter off. Yeah. Again, maybe they're all fine with it. I don't know. I know.

Yeah. I mean, I would imagine again, you know, as it applies to two groups of people, well, a group of people and a person. The state bar, are they cool with it? Is it within the rules? And then the judge, Are they cool with it? Is it within the rules? And then the judge, are they cool with it? Because I can tell you the judge would have, they would be fully aware of this. Oh yeah. And you know, and I don't really know that there would necessarily be

a conflict of interest. I can't imagine. No, I just, I didn't like it. It has a distaste to it, I think. Yeah. But you mentioned the judge has ordered a probe into this thing. And that's where I wonder how many other things have gone under the radar. This is a big one because it was Dateline. It was a big one because information that was not readily available and not known became known. That's a big deal. You know, a lot of us have information that we kind of might've heard, might've thought we heard, you know, something along the line.

Somebody said something out of turn before there was a, you know, things like that happen all the time. Information comes out really early. This is not part of that. This is information that was developed, studied, created, finding that new video or well, new to us of a car that looks like Coburger's car, dancing around. I mean, it actually looks, it's the image that they showed is actually clearer than the other ones that

I've seen. To me it is. And maybe it's, I don't know, maybe that's after enhancement or whatever. Hey, can I return to something real quick? Please. I'm thinking that this is happening in the wake of arguably one of the most high profile cases in Idaho history, the Coburger case is. It's not like people are not aware of what the media are capable of. Because when you think about the Daybell case and just the round and round and round with that whole thing,

you would have thought that perhaps lessons had been learned. And again, it's a small population population wise, it's a small state. News travels and there's a central conduit for it if you're trying to disseminate information down to other layers of law enforcement. It's the state police. State police have been, they were involved with the Daybill case, they're involved with this case. And you would think that somebody and the state attorney general, hey, look, these are

steps you need to avoid because we've gone through a lot of stuff with the press already. But no, that wasn't good enough for them. Now they're staring down the barrel of what has just happened relative to Dayline. And I'm, you know, I'm very curious about that. You know, you begin to think about it and think, wow, is it going to be something that is going to be so catastrophic that perhaps, not everything, but maybe some of those things that have been revealed? I don't know. What's the level or lack thereof of admissibility of that evidence that's been that's been displayed.

I don't know. I have I have no idea. Something interesting did happen this week in light of the Dateline gag order, whatever. Apparently. Brian Coburger has fingered somebody else that did the crime. Oh, yeah. Gotcha. And the judge has given certain rules to everybody now. They have, they want to bring up this other suspect.

He's not named publicly yet. The judge has it. And the judge said, okay, you've got till May 23rd. Give me all the info you have on why this person is a suspect The judge has it and the judge said, okay, you've got till May 23rd. Give me all the info you have on why this person is a suspect and what information, what evidence you're going to bring to trial that you think can go in at trial and then we're going to give the prosecution until June 6th to straighten it out and then I'll make the call. But that happened. Can I ask you something real quick?

I'm going to be a major smart ass here and ask you a question real quick. I want to know, Dave, is he doing this because he's such an, is his team doing this because they're such altruists that care about their fellow man so much that now they're going to reveal the identity of a person that butchered these college students? Or is this information they've just come into? It's hot off the press. As a matter of fact, it's so hot, we can't even hold it. Or have they known about the suspect all along? Please, riddle me this, Ryan Coburger's team, is this information that you've had for a

protracted period of time and this person's been running the streets? Or is it something that just, like manna from heaven, that just happened to drop into your lap? I mean inquiring minds want to know I think. There were comments that were made early on. I remember the, oh, it's been so long now. Do you remember they had, it was either a cat or a dog that had been skinned. Do you remember that? I do, I do. And they, people were trying to give the impression that it was some kind of ritualistic thing

that was going on. And that, of course, turned out to be a big fat zero, you know, along the way. I don't know. Hey, and by the way, you know, I never got a call from Dateline to give them permission to use my image on the air. Do you think I got a case? I don't know. I'll have to see. Maybe I can call one of the guys on the billboards going down the highway. Maybe they'll look into it for me. What do you think, brother? I think somebody there could help you, but Joe, I, you know, there are a number of things with this case with Coburger that, you know,

I have a question for you based on what you know, took place, the injuries done to the victims. We've got four people dead in a very short window of time, according to what we've heard from the prosecution. We know Xana Cronoble was getting food delivered at four 10 in the morning. We know she was on her phone at four Oh eight. We know that Coburger was in and out of there. Allegedly, if it's Coburger, that you've got a window that starts after 4 10 and ends at 4 25.

If she's awake and she's not the first one killed, first one is Madison Mogan up top. Yep. Right. That timetable doesn't work for me. That's too close. You've got at least three people awake. Zana, who's getting food, and you've got the two, Dylan and Bethany, Dylan

Mortenson and Bethany Funk. They're both there because they're texting one another. So you got three people awake in that building at the time when the murders are supposed to begin. You're going to tell me nobody screamed, nobody heard anything. See, we can't go into that building to find out what that was like because they tore it down right away. Yeah, the acoustics are gone. Yeah. But that's something I have a lot of trouble with. I'm just wondering now that just does not, you're talking about going up and down stairs, killing four people and

only leaving minimal evidence behind. Well, I think, you know, I was talking about how everything in this case is about timeline and you know, what was happening before and after. And if that, if those, that videography that we have from, you know, the previously unseen, how does that, how does that timestamp match up with the story that we've been told thus far? Because, you know, what I know and what you know is information that has to this point been released, been released by law enforcement. A lot of the other stuff is merely speculation.

It's conclusions that have been drawn based upon these numbers. But if those numbers are screwed up in the least, okay, then that's going to create a real problem. But we obviously have timestamps on activity. You know, I think TikTok was involved relative to Xana. She had been on TikTok at some point in time. That's going to be time stamped. The information relative to food delivery. And that also draws in another thing,

because people have asked me, is it plausible that one individual, and again, maybe this is what his defense team is going for here, is it plausible that one individual could have come in here and perpetrated this crime in this short amount of time with a sharp instrument? You're talking about killing four people and it's in the twinkling of an eye, in and out, you know? And if Taylor can at least put that plant, that seed of reasonable doubt into the mind of the jury and she's got a client that I don't know how to describe it.

If she's got a client that someone might sympathize with, then maybe that's doable. I have no idea, but the timeline is going to be very, very important. And to a broader issue too with me is the timeline from the time of death is also going to be in question because, because of the delay and getting contact with the police, these kids have been dead for hours. And if I've got a coroner that's saying, well, it looks like they were asleep. Well, if you, if that was your assessment, that was your assessment at the scene, I want to know, did you actually do a post-mortem interval assessment of the bodies at the scene? Well, you're saying they're sleeping. Turns out that they may have been in bed at some point in time, but it doesn't

sound like they were all in bed. And so, therefore, stands to reason they're not all asleep. So, you know, that information relative to timeline, the time stamps on the CCTV, time stamps relative to phone, the travel of the car, and also the PMI, postmortem interval, and how was that assessed? And was there any meat on the bone with that scientifically? Anything that you could take back to the people in Boise, which is many people want to, those autopsies were not done in Moscow. They were taken to Ada County, which is actually where the Daybell case was handled as well because that's where they have a forensic pathologist in Idaho is in Boise. And so they contract with these smaller counties and they actually do the autopsies for them.

So when that data is relayed from the scene and hopefully it was done quickly, one of the questions a forensic pathologist is going to ask, because they're not coming down there from Boise to observe these bodies. Their eyes and ears is this coroner. Well, how thorough of a job did you do there? Because I can't wait to read the coroner's report and there should be one that is generated. Every coroner generates a report

and it should be very detailed. With four bodies, Dave, let's see, let me do the calculation on my mind. With four bodies, those are four individual cases. I'm thinking at least a minimum. A minimum? If I was a supervisor in a medical examiner's office, I would want to see at least a five-page report on each and every one of these victims.

And that's including a lot of detailed information. Chief among that information is gonna be your assessment of rigidity of the body, fixation of post-mortem levity, algor mortis, which is the temperature of the body. And then not to mention the observable injuries that you see in there, the clothing, environmental status, what's the environmental

temperature like, what's the lighting like, positionality of the body, triangulation of the body in the scene. I mean, all of this data and then the history behind it. I would have to see that in a case that would have to be that robust. So you're talking about at minimum 18 to 20 pages in total of reports that should have been generated on a case like this per the coroner if they're doing their job. Wow.

And that just kind of marries up in my mind with somebody that helped design the national standards for medical legal death investigator. That's right. That's right in the sweet spot. That's right in the sweet spot, I think at least. We'll see what's in that report too. When will that information be brought out in court? Because by the way, they are going to stream the trial.

They're not going to stream jury selection, but they are going to stream the trial. There are going to be a couple of times where we're not going to be able to, they're not going to stream certain testimony, or at least the judge will decide later. But the prosecution was asking about some of the detective, some people not being streamed and I'm against that. If you use a stream or more, you're not either. Everybody gets to see everything or they don't now they have Bethany Funk and Dylan Mortenson are,

are going to give them the opportunity to be blurred on the stream. They streamed image to protect their identity or whatever. Yeah. Okay. And I mean, that's fine. It's just, I get, I get, I can't imagine what they're going through. I don't understand it either because even with, uh, and I know you've heard, well, I know you have because you've worked, worked on it with me, but for those that did not, that are not familiar with the Pike, Pike, Dunmasker, um, those trials, there were one, two,

three, four. We're still waiting on the fourth trial at this point in that case. Can you believe that? All the way from 2016, still waiting on the dad's trial. In the previous trials, they would cut the feed when certain individuals testified. And police officers, they weren't... The son that was directly responsible for shooting most of the victims, he asked that he not, that his testimony not be shown.

I think it's a bunch of crap. I think that if you get up on the stand, I don't have a problem with them blurring images, it should be streamed. It should be streamed and you should be able to see this. If you're going to have, don't do it halfway. You know, you got one foot in the boat and one foot in the water, go all the way in on it and show it, okay? You didn't sign up to be a police officer to be hidden. All right. And this is not like, I don't know, I guess they could say, well, these police officers might be involved in future undercover operations. They don't want their identities revealed and whatever, but you're going to know their names.

Yeah. You know, and like you said, we're wired in world now. Any, you know, just because you're a police officer doesn't mean that, you know, you have anonymity far from it nowadays. I do think that with Dylan Mortenson and Bethany Funk, because I've had my own questions about the two of them and what they did or did not do. Everybody has. Yeah. And. It's been I made to feel like I'm a horrible, evil person for even asking,

you know, but I am curious if those are my kids, one of my children that had died in that. And there were two people that were awake texting one another and didn't bother to call police for seven, eight hours. I mean, I got a problem with that. I still have a problem with that. Yeah. The whole indwelling fear thing, you know, kind of it, it becomes unpalatable after a while.

You know, you have to have something more than that. And and listen, it's not for us to necessarily explain. They're going to be asked those questions when they're on the stand. Now, whether or not people will be satisfied with the answers they hear, I know I can't make any prediction about that. I wonder, you know, Joe, in all of this, where, you know, you have the one who is Dylan Mortenson with the blishy eyebrows testimony, which is going to be in there now. Yep.

Um, cause those are some of the things that were ruled on that, uh, Coburger has, they've been trying to keep certain testimony out. And it seems like each time they've tried, it's gone the other way, which is really odd to me that we never heard of a possible other suspect until after they were denied all these other things that they were trying to use to get the death penalty tossed. Well, it's like autism. Yeah, it's the same thing. Oh my gosh.

Come on, man. This guy can be in, he's in college to get his master's degree in criminal justice and yet he's not smart. He can't help with his own defense, but he can be a TA. Yeah, I don't understand that. I really don't. And again, it's a ploy of desperation. And listen, it irks me, I think, on one level, that there are truly people that struggle with autism in their life, and it's being used as a prop. I mean, that's kind of what, you know,

the way it seems to me. My grandson is on the spectrum, Joe. I've seen it. I have seen that used and I've talked to you and Kim about it because I was surprised at a number of different things. I'm very proud of what he has accomplished because he's a wonderful man. For a kid with aprecia reading beyond grade level is a big deal. And he has, he's worked really hard at it. But the thing is that I've had to study all of this stuff to figure it out.

Because I didn't know when they said on the spectrum, like, what does that even mean? I hear it, but what does it mean? And then I hear them applying it to this guy who has gone through all these years of college and he's gone cross country to study and watch. I mean, none of this adds up to me as a guy who can't help but do it. Well, it's, yeah. Again, it comes down to, now, defense hasn't said this. This is people in the media and it's people in general public that, you know, we've just talked about this

earlier that use the term incel. Incel is one of the most disingenuous, intellectually lazy terms in the world because it lacks specificity. Particularly when you're talking about a group of college kids that have been butchered. So that's your answer is going to be incel. And then we're just going to kind of leave it at that. And then you're going to, somebody is going to offer up some kind of half-assed explanation for what in cell actually means. And that's, and again, it's not in the DSM. It's not, you know, because they're trying to paint, you know, incelitis, I guess, as an actual medical condition and it's not.

It's a point of observation of people that are intellectually lazy most of the time, that they don't want to dig any deeper relative to this. And it's easy, I think it makes it easy to explain why somebody would do something like this or it gives them some kind of comfort. What it comes down to is that, I don't know if it was Brian Koberger or not, but I do know this, that whoever did this was a monster because they had no compassion. They were absent heart and they ended the lives of four promising young adults. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan and this is Body Bags.