Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Bombshell Claim: Bryan Kohberger's Mom Secretly Torpedoes Defense | The Idaho Murders

Episode Date: April 24, 2025

As Bryan Kohberger’s trial approaches, his defense team continues to file a series of motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a possible outcome. Sources now allege that the decision to plead not guilty came at the urging of his mother, Maryann Kohberger, who reportedly believes he should fight the charges. A conviction could put him on a path toward capital punishment. In court, an Idaho judge denied Kohberger’s request to allow defense experts to testify against the prosecution’s claims about his movements and Amazon purchase history. Prosecutors say evidence shows Kohberger bought a knife and sheath online in the months leading up to the killings. Court filings also state he searched for a replacement knife after the murders. Joining Nancy Grace today, Joshua Ritter - Criminal Defense Attorney, Former Prosecutor, Host of Courtroom Confidential on YouTube; website: joshuaritter.com; Twitter, Instagram & TikTok: @joshuaritteresq, YouTube: CRConfidential Dr. Bethany Marshall - Psychoanalyst, Author: "Deal Breaker,"   featured in hit show: "Paris in Love" on Peacock www.drbethanymarshall.com , Instagram & TikTok: drbethanymarshall, Twitter: @DrBethanyLive  Chris McDonough - Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective,  Host of YouTube channel, "The Interview Room."   www.coldcasefoundation.org/chris-mcdonough Joseph Scott Morgan - Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University, Author, "Blood Beneath My Feet", Host: "Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan", @JoScottForensic   Sydney Sumner - Crime Online Investigative Reporter See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. A bombshell claim. Is Brian Koberger's own mother secretly torpedoing his defense? I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us. Am I on the location of your emergency? defense. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us. Joining us, an all-star panel, but straight out to the author who has written the definitive book on the Koberger trial, Howard Bloom.

Joining us, Howard, question. What is the report all about that Koberger's own mother is sabotaging his defense? Brian Koberger's mother does not want to admit that her son is guilty. She is telling him and everyone involved in the defense team she has no intention of settling this case. She wants it all to go to trial, even though two things are looming over the case. I'm very curious, Howard Bloom, why the mother would gamble with her son's life since he is facing the firing squad. First, this is the death penalty, which is now going to end in a firing squad.

Idaho has passed a law requiring that the death penalty be serviced by a firing squad. The second thing is that the evidence against Brian Kohlberger is pretty convincing. You just have to go to this one salient fact. They have DNA from the knife sheath that matches DNA taken from a cheek swab after his arrest. So the defense is doing everything they can to save Kohlberger, not just from a guilty verdict, but from the death penalty. And hovering over all this is Kohlberger's mother trying to say, putting down her foot and say, no, she does not want to cross that Rubicon where her son might be a mass murderer. I'm going to get to the rest of the family. Where does the dad stand on this? Where do the

sisters stand on this? Remember, they, the sisters, are the ones that suspected Koberger, their own brother, at the get-go invoiced those concerns, and the parents beat them down, according to reports. Straight out to the panel, Josh Ritter joining me, high-profile criminal defense attorney, joining us out of L.A., host of Courtroom Confidential. Josh, thank you for being with us. This is greatly hampering the defense ability to maneuver because if the mother is behind the scenes going H-E-L-L-N-O, there will not be a guilty plea. She's setting her son, her own son up for the firing squad. So when you've got, it reminds me of a case that I consulted on in Fulton County. It wasn't my case, but I was watching it. A young man murdered his mother who happened to be

a sitting judge, judge Josephine Holmes Cook. All right. Been a defense attorney for years, got on the bench. The family kept saying, don't plead, don't plead to the son. They offered him a really light sentence, which I disagree with. But that said, he listened to the family. He got convicted. He got life behind bars. That's what I'm talking about. What about it, Josh? Well, it's about as high stakes a game as you could possibly be playing because we are talking about the death penalty here. This isn't a matter of, you know what, let me take my chances. Let me see what the evidence actually is. And this, and we heard from the author just there. And one thing I'll take issue with is he talked about the

evidence against him. I haven't seen any evidence. So, so far, what we're talking about is alleged. Pick him up, please. I've got to see if he actually has a straight face when he's saying that. Well, I want to watch you. I want to see your demeanor. Okay. Yeah. What did you just say? Did you actually say you haven't seen any evidence indicating guilt? I haven't seen an exhibit marked in court. I haven't seen a witness taken the stand under oath. So, so far, I mean we we live in america where they're presumed innocent right now there is no evidence but in this game that is being played

this game of chicken we're not just talking about somebody going to prison for the rest of their life we're talking about somebody who might possibly be facing the firing squad so i absolutely do understand why the the family pressures are going to be something that's very difficult for his defense team to be handling. If they're trying to negotiate some sort of a plea that avoids him receiving the capital punishment, the greatest punishment we have in this country, that is, I think, their first and foremost goal in this whole thing is just to try to save their client's life. You know, to Dr. Bethany Marshall joining us, guys, for those of you just joining us, apparently Mommy Koberger is torpedoing

her son's defense case, demanding that they go to trial to prove his innocence. Okay, you know what? Can love be that blind, Dr. Bethany? With me, Dr. Bethany Marshall, renowned psychoanalyst out of the California jurisdiction, author of Deal Breaker. You can see her now on Peacock and find her at drbethanymarshall.com.

Question. Love that blind that she can't see the evidence and all that that Josh Vitter just said is blah, blah, blah, blah. Of course, he's presumed innocent. He's just throwing that out there as a fallback. Yes, he's presumed innocent. He's just throwing that out there as a fallback. Yes, he's presumed innocent, but the rest of that phrase is unless and until the state pierces the presumption of innocence with evidence. Okay. They always leave that part out, but unless he wants to argue DNA isn't real, uh, Josh Ritter has a problem. Blind love, Bethany. Blind love. Not only does his mother have blinders on, Nancy, but I would imagine that this family has a long and storied

history of those two sisters being concerned about their brother, pointing out his symptoms, trying to get some kind of psychological help for him, and the mother shooting them down, not believing them. You know, I find that in families, sometimes the parents idealize the most disturbed child. So you'll have two kids who are really functioning highly in society, are bright. You'll have one child who's maybe personality disordered, maybe a sociopath, and the parent chooses to put that child on a pedestal. It's as if the idea that that child needs help is just unfathomable for them. So I think this mother, unfortunately, is not in reality. And as you pointed out earlier, she's going to hurt her son in some way through this pushing the defense attorneys. And let me point out one more thing, Dr. Bethany. He's the baby. He's the baby of the

family, the golden boy, the only boy. Okay. So I don't know how that works in the mother son dynamic. I don't know that, but it means something. I'm just a trial lawyer, but I know enough to know that the baby is coddled. The only boy is very often elevated, like you're saying. But you know, Chris McDonough, let me go to you. Unlike Dr. Bethany, who comes at it from a psychological angle, you and I have seen so many murder cases. I can't even count the number of cases I investigated, tried, or covered. Same with you. McDonough, director of Cold Case Foundation, former homicide detective, having worked over 300 homicides during his career. Also, star of The Interview Room.

Chris, let's just break down all that that Bethany just said. I've seen so many mothers where practically every mother of a defendant, they tried to fight me, physically fight me in the courtroom to defend their son. They don't believe their baby could do it. The looks I've gotten, if looks could kill. I mean, the jury has to see everything going on in the courtroom. And the mom is always front seat right behind the son charged with murder, crying and carrying on, acting like they're going to pass out. Are you surprised the mother is saying, no, you're not pleading because you didn't do it. Forget the DNA. It happens all the time, Chris. Absolutely, Nancy. And isn't it interesting that that type of unconditional love is that

blind? I mean, remember, let's go back to the point that she wrote an op-ed defending, you know, the death penalty against Ted Bundy, of all people. So, you know, we have to think through that and say, okay, well, what was the trigger between the mother and the son that has caused her, you know, to defend him in such a fashion? Now, granted, that's her son. We get that piece of the puzzle. But I think the evidence is going to be damning for the family. I think he meant she attacked the death penalty in an op ed, even though the death penalty was for Ted Bundy. You know, I interviewed some of his survivors, changed their lives forever, not in a good way. Joe Scott, I'm going to get right

to you, but I want to find out from Howard Bloom about the rest of the family. Okay, we know where the mom stands, Howard, But what about the dad? I am hearing from people close to the Koberger family, from people close to the legal teams, that the real resistance is coming from Brian's mother. His father is sort of going with the flow. Neither one of them wants to admit that their son is guilty. And I believe your information, Howard Bloom, author of the definitive book, as of now, on Brian Koberger, When the Night Comes Falling. OK, so that's the mom.

The dad is kind of just following her lead. What about the sisters, Howard Bloom? Sisters are a different case from the parents. One of them is a psychologist, a family psychologist. The other one, an aspiring actress. They're both can confront the reality, it seems, with a lot more focus and a lot more pain, perhaps, than the parents. They realize what is happening. But one sister raised questions originally with the father

over the long Christmas vacation after their father and son trip across country. She raised questions about her brother, Brian Koberger. And when she raised this to a father, what did the father do? According to my sources, he just walked out of the room. He could not deal with it. I'm not surprised. Joining me is Sidney Sumner, Crime Stories investigative reporter on the case from the very beginning. Sidney, let's think back for a moment. We were first covering the raid on the family's Poconos home. Remember, and they found Koberger wearing shorts or underwear, but knowing him, probably shorts. Okay. And plastic gloves, you know, rubber gloves. And he was sorting through

trash and putting trash in individual plastic bags or so we've been told and wait for it. Then throwing away the trash in the neighbor's Herbie Kirby, the neighbor's big outdoor trash bin. At that time, as I recall, the sisters started asking then, hey, I think he did it. What do you think? Do you remember that at the very beginning, Sid? Yeah, Nancy. So that's what the reports are saying now is that his sisters were immediately suspicious after hearing news of what was going on in Moscow. They had that description of the car not on after Koberger got home for Christmas. And they looked at their brother, they looked at his car, and they were immediately

concerned that he was somehow involved. And as Bloom said, his sources are saying that the parents completely shut those arguments down from the sisters, would not even entertain a conversation about it. And days later, the FBI shows up at their house to arrest Brian. And now we know the defense is going to blame this odd behavior with the trash on Koberger's OCD diagnosis. So he's going to say, this is an unusual behavior for me. It may have looked odd, considering I have just been implicated in this crime, but I always handle my trash weird. I have germophobia. I have OCD behaviors that require me to do this, or I feel anxiety and stress. Okay. Sydney, you're scaring me a little bit because you sound like you actually believe that. Okay. Just a quick answer from Dr. Bethany

Marshall. Did you hear what Sydney just said? Yes. That he's going to try to explain away his behavior of wearing plastic gloves or rubber gloves at what, 3 a.m.? Wasn't it 3 a.m., Sid? Some crazy time when they were watching him from outside walking around the house on the inside? Mm-hmm. 3 a.m. Okay. So how can you explain? He's not getting rid of his trash. He's separating his parents trash at his parents Poconos home wearing plastic gloves, probably a face covering to putting it in plastic bags.

And I bet they were baggies, sealable baggies. Don't know that yet. And putting it in the neighbor's trash. How can that be OCD? That's getting rid of evidence, Bethany. Hey, Reader's Digest answer, not the full volume. I have never seen an OCD patient engage in this kind of behavior. And if he did have OCD, he would be avoiding the trash, not going towards it.

Okay, here's another thing. To Joe Scott Morgan, joining me, Professor of Forensics, Jacksonville State University, author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon, death investigator over a thousand investigations under his belt and star of a hitgies, throwing it in the neighbor's trash. Could any of that disruption of the evidence possibly destroy DNA evidence? And cops watched him vacuuming, spraying with 409 or Comet, cleaning out his car. What does it take to get rid of DNA evidence? But, you know, you got to address, is it hair? Is it fiber? Is it blood? Is it touch? Respond. Well, you know, when you're talking about these categories of potential evidence or DNA rich evidence that are there, the first thing, I think probably the first thing that's the most fragile is going to

be any components of hair, because you can lose it pretty quickly. Even a strong gust of wind can blow it away. Probably second along that is going to be any kind of touch DNA. We have to remember that touch DNA actually presents as a result of dead, sloughing skin cells. So if you have dry skin, you can appreciate how easily that can be lost very quickly. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Tell me exactly what's going on.

One of the roommates has passed out, and she was drunk last night, and she's not waking up. Oh, and they saw some men in their house last night. Joining us, an all-star panel, straight out to Howard Bloom, author of the definitive book on the Idaho murders, When the Night Comes Falling. Howard, we're talking about the mother torpedoing the defense. And I've got to move on very quickly because there's so much happening in the courtroom. But do you believe any of the family is going to take the stand that's a very very tricky question because it could open up his coberger's reputation his past if the family says one slip up all that's going to come into evidence okay because it will be deemed the defense brought it up and also what am i hearing about coberger's sister is writing a book?

I think, and again, this is just my hypothesis, that Brian's sister, who is a psychologist, will be taken, put on the stand. I think, and what I'm hearing is she might even confirm her brother's purchase of the Amazon knife from Amazon amazon that she's seen him with it but that's again i can't say that for a fact but this is what i am hearing and i also think that she is writing a book on this case i've heard that too and so she's been delving into this with a bit more objectivity, a bit more sensitivity, sensitivity to the family drama she's living through. And I think the her the defense will not the defense, rather the prosecution will put her on the stand to try to testify regarding Brian Koberger ordered the knife, that that was him, because we know the defense is going to argue, wait for it, a shared Amazon account. But that's it. Can I just focus on the book? The sister is writing a book. Oh, please, please, please, someone put her on the stand. Josh Ritter, that opens up a whole can of worms for cross-examination.

The sister may now have a pecuniary interest in the outcome, money interest in the outcome of this trial. Did nobody learn anything from Becky Hill, the clerk in the Murdoch case? Remember Murdoch murdered his wife, Maggie and son, Paul. Okay. In that case, the clerk of court, Becky Hill, who seemed like a perfectly wonderful person reportedly said comments to the jury that the defense claims made them come back with a guilty verdict. Yeah, I don't believe that. She may have made offhand comments, maybe even in jest, but they voted the way they wanted to vote. That said, she wrote a book and she was drawn and quartered over writing

a book suggesting that somehow she had a money motive in the outcome of this trial, that she said things to the jury to make them reach a certain verdict so she could make money. It's kind of preposterous that she could think that far in advance. I don't think that happened. Do I think there'll be a new trial? Yes. Do I think it really happened? No. Same thing here, Josh. Well, in that case, too, that's such a great example. It led to near disaster for the prosecution because the defense wasn't able to make great hay of it. I mean, these are these are no small problems when you anytime you're calling a witness as the prosecution, you're hoping that that person is coming in with no motivations, no biases that exist outside of court. Well, as you point out, Nancy, what bigger interest could somebody have but that they look to gain money off of this? They look to profit off of this. They look to profit perhaps even by the outcome of it, but certainly by the story of

it. It's not a problem to be lightly dismissed. I think it's definitely something the prosecution is going to have to deal with. The significance of putting the sister on the stand for so many reasons, watching him clean out his car immediately after the murders, obsessively, him cleaning out the trash, wearing plastic gloves, sorting it and using the neighbor's trash disposal, but also a shared Amazon account. Is this really happening? Do they think the jury will believe what? The aging mother and father ordered a K-bar knife? Listen, listen to the defense. 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 OK, you can put that on. But I'm not sure why that excludes the state's evidence. Sidney Sumner, you've come over every word that went down in the courtroom. The defense is arguing that there was a joint account on Amazon and maybe somebody else ordered the K-bar knife and sheath.

You know, it reminds me, I've taught mom Casey Anthony. Okay, that's a nightmare right there. But remember, she did that damning search on how to make homemade chloroform and her daughter, little Kelly, according to the state, was drugged unconscious and died in the mom's trunk. All right. Her mother, Tot Mom's mother, Cindy Anthony, gets on the stand and claims she was doing a search for chlorophyll because of bamboo growing in the backyard. I don't know how they did that to take the heat off Tot Mom. Okay. So I guess the theory here is somebody else

in the family on a shared Amazon account ordered the K-bar knife and sheath. And then Sidney, they went back and ordered a replacement knife when the first one got lost in a murder and then tried to delete the Amazon order history. Really? Is that what they're claiming? Yes, they are. And in their filing last month, giving more detail into this argument, they mentioned that other camping gear was purchased, a backpack, a tire repair kit, things of that nature. So they're suggesting that, oh, this was a usual purchase. This was a camping type purchase and not necessarily attributable to Brian because they share this family account. And what's interesting about that, I do the same thing. I share an Amazon account with my family and I recently realized that oh you can set up a separate account that's

under this household account that uses your name particularly so instead of shopping as my mother or my father I can shop as myself and my purchase history is separate than the other people on that household account. So they're going to try and say that, oh, somebody else was using Brian's account. And that just makes no sense. Why would somebody else in his family go out of their way to specifically shop as Brian and then have it delivered to Brian and not someone else in the family? That's what they're going to try and say someone else in the family. That's what they're going to try and say.

And I don't think it's going to hold any water. Josh Ritter, she's right. And can I also say, Ritter, that I'm so happy right now at the prospect, the defense calling the mom and the dad, I guess up in their 70s at this juncture, I'm not sure about that, to try to put them on the stand to claim they ordered the camping gear, they ordered the K-Bar. I mean, if they put that defense up, the state is going to rebut and bring on and rebuttal every single family member that had access to that Amazon account and say, did you order the K-Bar knife and have it shipped to Brian Koberger? They're not going to lie about that under oath. I hope they do it.

Nothing can make me happier, Ritter. Listen, the defense is holding the prosecution's feet to the fire here. If they want to say he bought a knife on this account, and lo and behold, that account is shared by others, well, then they better be able to back it up and prove that in fact, it was him purchasing it. Now, the idea that one account can have several different logins and that you can track that login to a particular individual, sure, that sounds like evidence that's pointing towards that direction. But who else is able to access those different sub-accounts? Does that mean that you have to have a unique login information and password? I don't know. The problem is we don't know. And therefore, the defense is making sure that the prosecution

freezes it. I'm a little surprised at you, Ritter, because you're totally losing my point. My point. Let me break it down for you, Ritter, as if you need my help. Please. Fine. Go ahead, defense. In fact, I insist you bring it up in the opening statement that somebody else could have ordered the K-bar knife. Yes, it's on the state to prove he did it, but you just heard Sidney sum it up in about three sentences. It was very convincing. Go ahead. I'd be mad if you didn't, because once you do that, the state is going to bring on everybody on that family account and ask them under oath, did you order it? Did you order it? Did you order it? Did you order it? And when every family member, all four of them say, no, I didn't order it. Then the defense looks like a big fat liar.

And so does Brian Koberger. So is that what you want, Ritter? Or they say, I don't know. You're talking about purchases made years ago. You're talking about, we make several purchases, including camping equipment, including things like knives. Is it impossible that I ever purchased a knife in the past? Would I have a specific memory of it? No, no, no. Look, somebody may fall for that BS in court, but I'm not falling for it. I appreciate what you're doing. It's very artful.

It's wily like a fox. But Joe Scott Morgan, you hear Ritter comparing apples and oranges right here. And that works a lot of time. It made my head blow off in the courtroom because I couldn't jump in like I'm doing right now. This is not about what may have been ordered three years ago. This is about what was ordered just before four students were slaughtered, butchered in their beds by a K-bar knife, by a knife matching the one Koberger ordered. So, Joe Scott, the knife. You want to tell me a knife this size, a military knife.

Let's see a picture of the knife. Please, control room. That mama and papa bought the knife. Sister, the one writing the book, the shrink, the other one, what? They bought a knife just before the murders and had it shipped to Coburger. Tell us about the knife. It's a combat knife, Nancy, and our troopers have carried it since literally prior to World War II. The Coasties used it.

Navy used it on decks. But primarily, it's generally associated with the United States Marine Corps. Matter of fact, the sheath that he had had the Anchor Globe and Eagle emblazoned on the sheath itself. And it said USMC. All right. So with that said, we have to understand. So if you're going to purchase a knife, let's say you want to go hunting. There are a lot more, there are a lot more knives out there that would be more apropos for hunting, perhaps. Why would somebody up in age want this knife?

What are they going to do? Sit around? Are they going to peel apples with it, peel potatoes with it back in the kitchen? I don't understand the utility of it in a common household. And I think one of the things that we're kind of skipping over here, we keep talking about ordering. I want to know about delivery. Where was it delivered to? Was there any contact with the person it was delivered to? I'd be interested to know if we're going to have a driver that's going to get up on the stand and make testimony.

I don't know how they'll keep track of all that sort of thing. But there will be a tracking relative to this. You know, we're tracking who's ordering the thing, but who took delivery of it? When did it show up? Where did it show up? All of these little intricacies are going to be playing into this as well, Nancy. Hey, what about this? A lot of drivers over Amazon have, like cops, have dash cam video going on.

I wonder if that has been retrieved. Or I'm trying to remember, and I think I have it in my notes, when I went to Koberger's Pullman apartment, spoke to all of his neighbors, I'm pretty sure I saw cameras. I'm not sure because I looked at so many places. But if there is surveillance from that day, from that delivery, man, that would be a bombshell. But here is the fly in the ointment. At the time the knife was ordered, it was eight months before the murders. Okay. So at that time, Koberger was not yet living in Pullman. His daddy hadn't driven him out there and tried to make friends for him, right? He actually went to neighbors saying, hey, could you befriend my son? He's very much of a loner. So anyway, the knife did go to the family's place. Now, wait, wait, wait. Sidney Sumner,

I may have an answer for that. After the murders, isn't it true that someone went online to order a replacement knife? Was that replacement knife ever delivered? No, Nancy. A replacement knife was never purchased. the homicides, somebody did go online on that shared Koberger family account and look at similar knives to the one that was used allegedly in the murders. Okay. And Sydney, isn't it true that someone also went on and tried to delete the Amazon search history? I know for a fact that that's possible because Santa tries to delete the search history so the Christmas recipients don't see the search history on the shared Amazon account. See, this jury's going to know all of this, the ins and outs. Did someone try to delete the search

history? That's also correct. We're still trying to get some more details on that timeline. Again, all of this will come out much more clearly during the trial, but we believe the time is that it was purchased eight months before the murders. At some point after that knife is delivered, somebody tries to go in and delete record of that purchase. And then a week after the murders, somebody goes and looks at that knife again on Amazon. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. You know, Chris McDonough, joining me, Director of Cold Case Foundation, also star of the interview room on YouTube.

Chris, you first raised the alarm and waved the red flag on the Amazon analytics months and months and months ago. Like, why do they care? What are they looking for? And now we know, Chris, you were right. Yeah, and what Doc Morgan was talking about, I mean, the intricacy of that particular knife. If you look at it, that knife has what they call a blood groove in it. That knife is designed to kill. It was designed for the military.

So when you talk about another fly in the ointment for a moment here, Nancy, let's also remember that somehow that knife sheath ends up a couple thousand miles away underneath one of the victims in this case. So if the family's going to say, hypothetically, if the defense is going to say, yeah, the mom or the dad or whoever the two sisters ordered this knife, well, great. Let's see their DNA. Let's see their DNA on that knife sheath. Jay Scott? Yeah. One of my biggest things here, Nancy, is the fact that if you go back and you look at this idea of who ordered the knife, I don't know who's domiciled in this house in Pennsylvania,

along with him, his mom and dad. I don't know if the sisters are there. I have no idea. But I do know this. If the occupants of that domicile are compelled to testify in this trial, not only are they going to say, well, did you order it on the family account? They're going to be asked a follow-up question. Well, we know that it was delivered. Did you sign for it? Did you take it off the porch? Did you receive it? And there's going to be a big dead silence in that courtroom because, I don't know, unless somebody were bold enough to try to cover their tracks for this guy or try to

lie on his behalf, not that they would. But aside from that, there's going to be silence in the courtroom because we know who took delivery of a knife or who collected it off of the porch. No one else is going to be there saying that they saw it. Okay, and how old is she? She's 20. 20, you said? She's 20. 20, you said? Yes, 20. Okay.

Hello? Hello? Okay, I need someone to stop passing the phone around because I've talked to four different people. Okay, sorry, they just gave me the phone. Is she breathing? Hello? Is she breathing? No.

Okay. You are hearing a female resident of the home on King Road and they had called a friend over and you hear the friend say, get out, get out, get out, because he did not want Dylan and or Bethany, the roommates, to come and see Zanna's butchered body. Speaking of Dylan Mortensen, we believe that there is a move afoot to have her on the stand for many reasons, but to make a voice and in court, front of the jury voice identification of Brian Koberger. Remember, the roommates, one or both of them heard, I'm here to help you. I'm here to help you. That was said to the murder victims before they were slaughtered. Now, we know Koberger may not take the stand. So how can Dylan

make a voice identification comparing Koberger's voice to what she heard that night? Here's a good way. What actually happened was I was stuck in the middle of the intersection. Yeah. So I was behind you the whole time. Yeah. Yeah. You just get this for you, Alex. You what? I'm just gonna get this out for you. Okay. So can you, would you explain that to me a little bit further? So in Pennsylvania, when you're stuck in their intersection, you have to make the left. So what would, what would the appropriate thing for me to have done there? Not. Just, just, yeah, there was a little bit of confusion with Sweden because someone had stopped. I wasn't sure what they were doing and then they put on their light to turn. Okay. We all learn from the OJ Simpson double murder trial,

never perform a demonstration in front of the jury that you have not practiced. Remember when Johnny Cochran tried to pull the glove onto OJ Simpson's hand? It was as big as a Virginia ham. Let me just say that. I think I could have gotten it on his hand, but that said, Dylan Mortensen on the stand to make a voice ID of Brian Koberger. Has it ever been done to our forensics professor, Joe Scott Morgan? I'm glad you threw this to me, Nancy, because one of the things I'm thinking about, we rely on eyewitness, earwitness. And I'm thinking, does that fall into the same category? Because one of the problems is, and I can't speak to this because she's a non-forensic scientist. She hasn't worked

at Langley, you know, where they can run these tapes. So I think that that's going to be a major sticking point. They can say, well, does it sound like the same person? And I can see the defense objecting to this because they'll say she's not qualified to make this assessment. So I think that the chances of her being able to actually make an I.D. and that be accepted in court, even if it gets that far, are slim and none. Well, you know what, Joe Scott Morgan, let me remind you. Wait, maybe I'm wrong. Did you go to law school behind my back? No, I've been sitting at your feet all these years learning from you. So Joshua Ritter, she absolutely, I mean, if she can do it,

she absolutely will be allowed on the stand to make a voice comparison, right? There's no hoop for her to go to. She won't be testifying as an expert. She will be making a comparison to what she heard that night. Of course, they will practice ahead of time. And if she can't make it, then they won't put her up for that reason. But Josh Ritter, there's nothing to disallow her from making that comparison. My question to you is, I wonder if that's why they did not have him speak in court. Remember, he didn't enter his own plea. He doesn't say anything. The lawyer entered the not guilty plea for him. I wonder if that's why they're keeping him quiet so there won't be any in court audio of him for her to compare.

That is an interesting point that I had never put together before as to why we've never heard him actually speak in court. But you're right. I mean, as far as asking her to make the identification, I don't know if the judge legally can prevent them. But if I'm the defense, I am still going blue in the face objecting to this. Because think of how this could work out. One, she could say, yeah. Yeah, she'll identify his voice. That's how it's going to work out.

And then the jury is going to accept that as an absolute identification of the defendant. And if she doesn't identify it, if she says, well, I can't tell. I only heard these. You're speaking, the prosecution can explain it. This was a word. Yeah, but the prosecution can explain it away. Ritter, that's what happens when the state puts up damning evidence. The jury believes it. But, you know, another issue, we don't have to have him testify

because isn't it true, Chris McDonough, you've executed plenty of search warrants while the defendant doesn't have to give a statement or speak to police under the Constitution, right to remain silent, Fifth Amendment, they can be forced to comply to a DNA sample. They can be made to walk and get their gait. They can be forced, compelled to give a writing sample. They can be forced to give a speaking sample. Yep, absolutely. And then you could give that to an acoustics expert who can measure those tremors from the voice. One loophole though is the acoustics in the house.

I think the defense can argue, hey, the house is gone. We can't do a comparative analysis. Thank you for tipping him off to that, Chris McDonough. Dr. Bethany Marshall, again, the whole specter of his autism and his OCD has been raised. The judge has said point blank, and I've got him on tape saying he doesn't appear to be impinged in any way. So unless he takes a stand, you're not bringing in autism

because he's exhibited no odd behavior in the courtroom at all. Is that real? What would you expect to see from someone that's barely under the spectrum? Well, first of all, we're all on the spectrum. Everybody is neuro atypical. So the idea that he is special in any real way, I do not buy. The fact that he was a PhD student, he was getting through school, functioning at a very high level, that means that he's competent enough to stand trial. Now, if I were the defense attorneys, I would not be introducing autism for a very specific reason. And that is that people who are very severe in terms of their diagnosis tend to have preoccupations. So if there's a homicidal preoccupation, it would be very difficult for an autistic person to get that out of their mind. They also have preoccupations

with physical objects. It could be a train. It could be a book. It could be a knife, a knife that's ordered eight months before a murder, a knife that's reordered again because that autistic person is obsessed with the knife. So I would be very careful with this autistic diagnosis if I were them. Really, it can cut both ways. We wait as justice unfolds. A trial date set for this summer and we will be there. Nancy Grace signing off. Goodbye, friend.

This is an iHeart Podcast.