Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - BRYAN KOHBERGER MURDER TRIAL BOMB: DNA FOUND UNDER VICTIM'S FINGERNAILS

Episode Date: March 6, 2025

Bryan Kohberger’s defense team has revealed a major development in his upcoming trial. A newly unsealed court filing shows that investigators found three unknown DNA profiles under victim Madison Mogen’s fingernails. Clippings from Mogen’s left hand contained the samples, but testing has not determined their source. Comparisons between the profiles and Kohberger’s DNA were inconclusive, meaning he has neither been confirmed nor excluded as a contributor. Kohberger’s defense is seeking to have the DNA evidence dismissed, arguing that the term “inconclusive” could mislead a jury into believing he might be one of the three individuals whose DNA was found under Mogen’s nails. The attorneys also argue that likelihood ratios, which simply compare the state’s hypotheses, may be wrongly interpreted as a probability of identity. Kohberger claims that independent testing by the defense excluded him as a contributor. His defense team is also arguing that his autism diagnosis should bar him from receiving the death penalty. The attorneys claim that symptoms of autism could prejudice jurors against him, citing his ‘limited facial expressions’ and ‘atypical eye contact’ as behaviors that might be misinterpreted as a lack of remorse or disrespect in the courtroom. Attorney Anne Taylor specifically points to media descriptions of Kohberger’s expression as an ‘eerie’ or ‘creepy’ stare Joining Nancy Grace today: Philip Dubé  - Former Court-Appointed Counsel, Los Angeles County Public Defenders: Criminal & Constitutional Law, Forensics & Mental Health Advocacy Dr. Bethany Marshall - Psychoanalyst, Author of "Deal Breaker," and featured in hit show: "Paris in Love" on Peacock; Instagram & TikTok: drbethanymarshall, X: @DrBethanyLive Chris McDonough - Director at the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective, and Host: "The Interview Room"   Suzanna Ryan - Laboratory Director and Forensic DNA Analyst at Pure Gold Forensics, and Forensic DNA Consultant at Ryan Forensics; X: Sryan4n6DNA  Joseph Scott Morgan - Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University, Author of"Blood Beneath My Feet," and Host: "Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan;" X: @JoScottForensic Germania Rodriguez -  Chief US Reporter, DailyMail.com; Host: Welcome to MAGAland podcast See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. The Brian Koberger quadruple murder trial bomb. DNA evidence found under the victim's fingernails. What does it reveal? I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us.

I mean, at first it was rumors of murder, suicide, things like that. When you live in a small college town, it hurts to not know exactly. Four students from University of Idaho murdered. One of the neighbors down there of the girls called and said, I want to tell you I'm a neighbor and Kaylee and Maddie are both dead. That was then. This is now. Brian Koberger's defense

team has revealed a major curveball for his upcoming trial. A newly unsealed court filing discloses that investigators found three unknown profiles from DNA underneath victim Madison Mogan's fingernails. Clippings from Mogan's left hand unearthed the samples, but testing has not determined who they belong to. Comparisons of the profiles to Koberger's DNA were inconclusive. The accused quadruple killer has not been confirmed or excluded as a source. Okay, let me understand. We are just now learning that there is DNA evidence under one of the dead victim's fingernails. Think it through. Let's follow this through to its logical conclusion. It's not being named as Koberger's. so shouldn't the defense be happy? But yet they're trying to suppress it. I think I smell a rat.

Straight out to Hermania Rodriguez, chief U.S. reporter with Daily Mail. Hermania, what's happening? That's right, Nancy. This is more information we did not know about because it had been sealed until this week. Koberger's team now claims that there was a three-person mixture of DNA found under the nail clippings of Madison, and they have now claimed that independent testing that they did ruled out Koberger. However, the grand jury heard that this evidence was inconclusive. So already, there are some discrepancies between what the prosecution has claimed about this DNA evidence

and what the defense is claiming. But as you said, it is strange that the defense now wants this evidence ruled out if it was inconclusive for Koberger, because they could open the door for whether there was more than one killer in this horrific crime. OK, you know what? I understand what she's saying. You're hearing Hermano Rodriguez, chief U.S. reporter with Daily Mail. Joe Scott Morgan joining me, professor of forensics, Jacksonville State University, death investigator, has investigated over 1,000 death scenes. Author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon, star of a hit series, Body Bags. Joe Scott, in a nutshell, what's happening? Well, here's the problem that they're running up against. I think, Nancy, when these samples were taken off of the left hand of the victim at the morgue, there is a distinct

possibility that you could have commingled samples in here. And what that means is that they're saying that they have three. Well, we don't know what the source of these three are, but the profile that they have or attempted to build out of these three was not sufficient enough to rule Cobger in or out. So that really leaves them twisting in the wind, Nancy. OK, you know what? To me, it boils down to this. Three DNA sources are found under the fingernails of a murder victim.

Why is it the defense is fighting tooth and nail to exclude it? See, in my mind, if I were a defense attorney, which would never happen, I would be running up and in front of the courthouse back and forth with a big banner saying inconclusive, inconclusive. There's DNA under the victim's fingernail and it's not it can't be proven to be my client. Hence, it's somebody else. But they're not. They actually want this suppressed. What more do we know about this bombshell DNA evidence under the victim's fingernail? In grand jury proceedings, an Idaho State Police forensic scientist testifies that statistically,

it can be assumed that Mogan is one of the three individuals. Investigators went on to test two hypotheses based on that assumption, that both remaining profiles belong to unrelated individuals, or that González, whom Mogan slept next to that night, accounts for one of the profiles and there is only one unrelated individual. The test results measured as likelihood ratios all came back inconclusive, falling just above the state police's standard for exclusion. The DNA of three individuals is found under the fingernails of Maddie Mogan.

What does this mean? It's got to mean something. Now, you heard that in grand jury proceedings, which are secret, we don't have a right to hear all of that. This is for a jury to hear this evidence. What does it mean? Three individuals, DNA under the fingernails of Maddie Mogan. Now, there's speculation that because Kelly Gonsalves slept with Maddie that night, slept next to her. Could some of this be her DNA?

Joining me right now is a very special guest, Susanna Ryand, Lab Director and Forensic DNA Analyst at Pure Gold Forensics and Forensic DNA Consultant at Ryan Forensics. 25 years in the fields of DNA and serology. Susanna, thank you for being with us. You know, Susanna, when I first introduced DNA in front of a jury, I insisted that the scientists from the crime lab, brilliant woman, bring me all of the evidence to show to the jury. It looked like, oh gosh, undeveloped film that you just pulled out of the camera covered in dots and specks. I quickly took it out of her hands and put it away because it was blurry. It didn't make any sense. The defense was just as worried about

it as I was. They never even cross-examined on it. They're like, what is that? Now I'm asking the same thing. What does inconclusive mean? Can you make sense out of what we're learning? Hi, Nancy. Yes. where the data is very low level and they're unable to include or exclude Koberger based upon their internal laboratory guidelines. Now, it is possible that other laboratories are going to have

other guidelines. And I think that this is why the defense is fighting to try to keep this out. They're afraid that the jury is going to hear inconclusive and think, hey, he actually can't be excluded. It might be him. There's just not enough DNA to really link him. And reading between the lines of this motion, it sounds like in other laboratories, this exact same result would actually be considered limited support for exclusion. So anytime you have a likelihood ratio of less than one, it points towards exclusion versus inclusion. Now, I've got a question for you. Actually,

many questions. Everybody on the panel, jump in. We've got Susanna Ryan with us, especially Joe Scott Morgan. Please, any questions for her? But, you know, Susanna, you said this lab couldn't come up with an answer. Aren't there specialty labs that deal with degraded or let me say their word is ineligible. It's ineligible DNA. First of all, what does that mean? It is ineligible DNA mean there's not enough of it. But can't you replicate DNA, regenerate it so you have enough to make a comparison? First of all, is there not enough? Is it degraded? For instance, has DNA been mixed with mud or blood to the point where you can't get a DNA analysis?

Or is DNA commingled? Here we got three DNA types. Are they commingled to the point that you can't get a good answer? Ergo, couldn't this DNA be sent to another specialty or boutique lab, you know, like Othram maybe, that specializes in degraded or ineligible DNA? Okay. That's a lot of questions. All right. I'm going to try and answer them all. But so ineligible typically means it's ineligible for upload to CODIS, right? So we can't put it into CODIS. Maybe it's too low level. We don't have results at enough low or areas. Why? Why? Because look, I'm just a trial lawyer. Why can't I load it into CODIS? Why can't I compare it? Because if it's a mixture, you're going to get so many hits that you don't even know what to do with it. Right. So and also the FBI has very particular rules about what can be uploaded and cannot. Susan, hold on. Wait, wait. What about not loading it, the ineligible DNA into CODIS, but just comparing it to the victims in Coburger?

They have. Can we do that? Right. Yes. And they have. And this is what we got. Yes. And I believe when we talk about these three contributors, one of them is clearly Madison Milgan, right, based on what I'm reading.

And that doesn't surprise me. It's under her fingernails. Well, it's under her fingernails. Exactly. Yes. And then what it sounds like is there are two, at least two, you know, very probably low level contributors. When I see likelihood ratios where there are multiple individuals that have a less than one likelihood ratio as reported in this motion, but they're just a little bit less than one, you know, 0.4, 0.2, things like that. That informs me that probably the data, the amount of DNA material under the nails foreign to Madison is just really low level. Wait, wait, wait, wait. You got me drinking from the fire hydrant, Suzanne Orion. Okay. Low level, low level. See, I'd have to put that in terms that

I and the jury could understand. You mean, for instance, if one of the DNA contributors to the evidence under Maddie Mogan's nails, let's just pretend was Keila Gonzalez. You say low level. That means just maybe a bare touch. Maybe she touched her hair. Maybe she touched her PJ. Maybe she touched her arm in the night. Is that what you mean by low level? Yes, absolutely. And so that's the other thing to be aware of. Just because somebody has foreign DNA, DNA not consistent with themselves under their nails, that doesn't mean that it got there through some struggle or scratching event. You know, studies have been done on this and it is not uncommon at all for a person to have somebody else's DNA at a low level under their nails.

Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Guys, there's another way to look at this. Bomb. Bomb. Torpedo. Let me rephrase that. A stink bomb has just been dropped in Brian Koberger's quadruple murder trial. Three unknown DNA contributors found under the nails of Maddie Mogan. Problem, we can't tell who contributed them.

To Chris McDonough joining me, he and I have been to the scene many, many times. This is near here's jurisdiction. Former homicide detective with over 300 homicide investigations to his credit. I found him on YouTube at the interview room, but he is also director cold case foundation. Chris, what about this? This marks the first time that we are learning there is additional DNA at the scene. And I believe the defense is all, they want this suppressed. There is a reason they want it suppressed because this DNA hurts them. We're all okay. We're like the blind, the three blind guys, and we're touching the elephant. You say,

what are you feeling? One says, describes the tail. One describes the foot. One describes the foot one describes the trunk we're in the dark here but this is what I know McDonough the defense wants this evidence out therefore I want it in I don't know what it is and I don't know what it means but the defense wants it out that means they think it proves something against their client what about about this, McDonough? We're just learning about this fingernail evidence. This indicates to me that there is more DNA evidence at that scene that we don't know about yet. Thoughts? Yeah, Nancy, I would agree with you that, you know, this is, remember that old line, so there's a chance then, that this is one of those situations from the defense's perspective.

They don't want to put this type of evidence in front of a jury because that jury may say, hey, well, you know, we can't we can't be positive for sure based on what the lab is telling us. So you're right. I would agree with you. This is probably the tip of the iceberg. Koberger claims he was driving his car, as he often did, to hike and run and or see the moon and stars. Our defense team firmly, and I mean firmly, believes in Mr. Koberger's innocence. Did you get that?

Firmly believes. Okay. All right. I'm glad she believes her client because blind faith is definitely going to enter into this defense. Well, that's not all. The shock and new claim that Brian Koberger is autistic has snuck back into the courtroom. Listen. Koberger's defense team is also arguing that his autism diagnosis should bar him from receiving the death penalty.

The attorneys claim that symptoms of his autism may prejudice jurors against him, citing Koberger's limited facial expressions and atypical eye contact as things that could be perceived as a lack of remorse or even disrespect in the courtroom. And Taylor specifically points to the media labeling Koberger's expression as an eerie or creepy stare. Okay. Joining me, Dr. Bethany Marshall, high profile psychoanalyst out of L.A., author of Deal Breakers. You can see her on Peacock now and you can find her at drbethanymarshall.com. Dr. Bethany, he's never been diagnosed as autistic, even though he has had extensive testing in the past for his, what was it? White snow syndrome. He suffered when he was a teen where I guess you either see or hear something like TV static. That's it. He had extensive testing. Then he wrote about how it made him feel that he felt

no remorse. He had no conscience. Nothing bothered him. How about he's not autistic? How about he actually is creepy? Nancy, this is just the right amount of wrong, meaning that the defense attorneys are noticing that he has lax and lax empathy for the victims, which is a common symptom of predators and serial murderers. And because of that, they're going to have to explain that away. Like the jury is going to notice that he's sitting there at the table with dead eyes and they're going to see the dead eyes and they're going to say, like, what does this mean? So now the defense is like, oh, it's autism. Because when you're autistic, you notoriously do not track with the feelings and emotions of others.

What I really think, Nancy, is this doesn't do a disservice to people who are autistic. OK, you know, Philip Dubé joining me so many cases where I look at the jury and they'd have this horror look on their faces like they're and I follow their gaze. The defendant will be looking at them and they'd be like, oh, OK. Then I had a case in a murder trial where the defendant, his attorney finally told him, don't move your head. Why? Because he had carved into the back of his hair, hit man number one.

So naturally I kept walking over to that side of the courtroom to make him turn that way so the jury could get a good look at the advertisement he placed that screamed guilty on the back of his head. So here we've got the defense attorney, Ann Taylor, concerned that if the jury even looks at Koberger, they'll think he's, quote, creepy. Why is that? It's because of the outward symptoms, if you will, how the people who are on the ASD spectrum present. And I can understand the concern. Unless you educate the jury ahead of time so that they understand the symptomatology associated with ASD, it's very possible that they can interpret it as evidence of guilt. When you have creepy eyes, when you have the shark eyes, when you have that gaze, that stare,

it makes it look like you're empty and vapid inside and purely homicidal. They need a tutorial. You can be bold. Have you considered that? I mean, the guy's made it to nearly 30 years old, and he's never once been diagnosed as autistic until Ann Taylor diagnosed him, his defense lawyer. Eye on the ball. Thoughts? Eye on the ball.

Yeah, eye on the ball. A true verdict. That's what I'm looking for. A true verdict. No, the agenda is to spare his life. And he looks creepy because he is creepy. I understand that. Then you need to rewrite the DSM, amend it and edit it so that autism spectrum disorder

no longer qualifies as an intellectual incapacity. And unless and until you do that, he qualifies under Atkins for an exemption from the death penalty. That's the end game. Philip Dubé, does the DSM, wait, wait a minute. Are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist? I thought you were a child lawyer. Not yet. I am both. I mean, that's what defense lawyers are.

You're a psychologist and a psychiatrist. We're life coaches. We're social workers, life coaches. We're pseudo-intellectual psychologists, neuropsychologists. We're all of it. We're trained how to detect the problems so we can get the appropriate experts commissioned to evaluate the client. So I take that as no, you're not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. But in the DSM, does it allow your defense attorney to diagnose you as being under the spectrum? Does it? That's a yes, no. No, of course. No, of course not. So you get a doctor and they did.

They got a neuropsychologist appointed who did extensive testing and came back with this result. It's not as if they just yanked it out of the firmament and said our client is autistic or has Asperger's syndrome or some other intellectual disability. It's all documented by the experts. News came in that the police are responding to a call of someone found unconscious before additional bodies. Koberger allegedly entered a home with six occupants and a dog only armed with a small knife. Hermione Rodriguez joining us. Chief U.S. reporter Daily Mail. Did I understand this correctly?

The defense attorney, Ann Taylor, wants the DNA evidence suppressed so the jury never finds out that Maddie Mogan had DNA under her fingernails from three people. They want that. diagnosed almost 30 years old, the PhD student, the TA teaching assistant, him, the guy that made incredible great grades and has held down jobs, him. They want the DNA evidence excluded. They want him declared autistic and the death penalty off the table. And now they want any mention of, quote, bushy eyebrows disallowed in court. Yeah, Nancy, the defense team seems to really be trying to control what a potential jury is going to hear in this case. Some may say they're just continuing to try to delay this trial. That's a schedule for August. I also wanted to note they apparently have also diagnosed him with an eating disorder and obsessive compulsive

disorder and as you said they want the judge to bar any witnesses or the prosecution from using the terms psychopath sociopath and bushy eyebrows which is really unbelievable because as we have discussed here the surviving witnesses description of the suspect has been fundamental in the prosecution's case against Koberger. And of course, usually in cases like this, a witness can describe what they saw. So this really is a long shot for the defense to try to tell witnesses that they cannot say bushy eyebrows, especially when it comes to the testimony of that surviving witness. That's going to be fundamental for the prosecution's case. Specifically, Taylor, the defense lawyer, demanding this. Taylor also demands the descriptor bushy eyebrows be barred from testimony.

Taylor claims that surviving roommate Dylan Mortensen's bedroom was covered in sketches of eyes, and according to Taylor, nearly all of them had prominent eyebrows. She describes as heavy, voluminous, puffy, or perhaps subjectively bushy. Taylor claims that if Mortensen is allowed to use the term on the witness stand, it will be as damning as her pointing to him and saying, he is the man that did this. So let me understand, Dubé. Koberger has bushy eyes. That's his signature style. So now the defense attorney wants to rule the eyewitness testimony out because she said the killer had bushy eyebrows. That's correct, because you've got to understand something. It was a suggestive identification based on all the drawings and the sketches in her bedroom of men or other people with bushy eyebrows.

And when you have suggestive identifications, they lead to misidentifications. That's not true. It could. A suggestive identification is when the state suggests to the witness who they should identify or how they should identify the defendant, the suspect. I don't know if you think I just fell off the turnip truck, but I have law degrees from Mercer University and NYU and tried over 100 felonies in Superior Court alone, all violent. So don't try and contort the law with me, Dubé. Don't. As a matter of fact, listen.

Taylor once again argues that Dylan Mortensen's entire statement with the description of the suspect should be excluded. Taylor reveals that Mortensen told police she frequently experienced lucid dreams where she was being kidnapped or chased and was not sure if she was conscious or dreaming when she encountered the suspect. Joining me is Chris McDonough, veteran homicide detective, star of The Interview Room on YouTube. Chris, have you ever heard, I hate to throw a technical legal term at you like this, but such a line of BS in your life that the witness, the girl that survived, can't say the killer had bushy eyebrows. I mean, this, in addition to many other arguments, makes the defense almost laughable. But I want to remind everybody, it wasn't laughable the morning

that those parents got calls from neighbors stating your child is dead. It's not laughable. This is contorting the law. Yeah. And that's the bottom line, right, Nancy? I mean, you have done this, you know, like you said, hundreds of times. And I'm just waiting for the defense, quite frankly, to start, you know, introducing narratives that this guy used to work at his local, you said, hundreds of times. And I'm just waiting for the defense, quite frankly, to start, you know, introducing narratives that this guy used to work at his local, you know, animal shelter on the weekend delivering puppies. I mean, we're down to this place where now the defense is arguing, you know, hey, we need to be specific about the types of words that can be utilized in a court of law. It's getting ridiculous, actually. And I

think the judge is getting fed up with it. You know, I'm thinking about what they want suppressed. Dr. Bethany Marshall, I need you to explain this to me. They also want the word psychopath and sociopath barred from being mentioned in court. Now, they have dug up a psychologist, Dr. John Edens, and he claims that those are not accurate diagnoses for Koberger and that the terms are unfairly prejudicial. What do those terms mean, Dr. Bethany Marshall? Psychopaths and sociopaths means that there is no attachment to the victim. There's no attachment to anybody else in their lives. So sociopathy is a disorder of attachment. And so what we're going to see with the defense is that they're going to see

that Brian Kober was not connected to the victims in any real way. I don't like him looking like he did a white collar crime. This isn't a white collar crime. This is people, you work your whole life to get them to go to college, and then they get killed while they're asleep that night. And they're good. And we're going to treat this guy like he just traded insider trading with his own company stocks? It's not white collar. Not only is the case rocked by three unidentified DNA evidence samples under the fingernails of victim Maddie Mogan, the defense wants that suppressed.

They want the death penalty taken off the table because now, after almost 30 years, they have decided that Brian Koberger is autistic and, quote, looks creepy. That's their words, not mine. They want the word psychopath and sociopath barred from evidence. They want any description of Koberger's bushy eyebrows by an eyewitness thrown out. The jury will never hear it. And now they want this. And Taylor also has a problem with the word murder. Taylor calls to prohibit any form of the term murder, murdered, murderer, or murder weapon from the courtroom, except in charging

documents and jury instructions. Taylor writes that the trial will serve to answer the question of if the killings at issue are murders and whether the murders were committed by Brian Koberger. Taylor argues that labeling Koberger as a murderer and asserting that any of the four decedents were murdered by Brian Koberger denies her client's right to a fair trial. Trial lawyer Philip Dubé joining me. Wait a minute. Dubé, this is a murder trial. Trial lawyer Philip Dubé joining me. Wait a minute. Dubé, this is a murder trial, right? And Kupferberg's defense doesn't want the word murder in the courtroom. Really? Every state defines the names of all the parties in a criminal action. A defendant, for example,

the people of the state of Idaho, victims, witnesses, you can refer to him as a defendant, for example, the people of the state of Idaho, victims, witnesses, you can refer to him as a defendant. You can refer to him as Brian, as Mr. Koberger. But when you refer to him as the psychopath, the murderer, the killer, it necessarily implies guilt before you put on one shred of evidence. And to avoid that type of suggestibility, you back off and refer to people by their names or by their legal title. That's not what the motion says. The motion doesn't just say he cannot be called a murderer, which, of course, under the law, he can in opening and closing statements. But they don't want the term murder or murdered or murder weapon in the courtroom.

I'm not talking about labeling Koeberger as the murderer, which, of course, they have the right to do definitely in closing statements. But the word murder, the word murdered or murder weapon, they want excluded and disallowed to be spoken in the courtroom. That's what I'm asking you to address. Don't tell me this when I'm asking you this. I know you're trying to avoid the question. So just answer if you can. Copy. Wilco.

So here's the deal. When you say the word murder, it necessarily implies that a crime has been committed by the defendant, as opposed to referring to it as a death, maybe even as a killing. But when you use the word murder, it necessarily encompasses malice aforethought, premeditation, and all the special allegations for the enhancement without putting on any evidence. And when you keep repeating the word murderer, murder, it sort of conditions the jury into saying, aha, we got him. We are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Okay. So you're not really giving this jury any credit at all. It brings to mind the case of Travis Alexander. He was a young man that was stabbed nearly 30 times.

Some say more, but there were overlapping stab wounds. So we really don't know. Then shot in the head. Then his killer, Jody Arias, left him to decompose naked in his shower. In that case, the defense, Jody Arias' defense moved to have the word victim barred from the trial. Let me understand what's happening. To Hermonio Rodriguez joining us, the defense is now arguing that in addition to DNA evidence exclusion and exclusion of the words bushy eyebrows, we're not going to hear the word murder in the courtroom. Isn't that what the indictment says?

Four counts of premeditated murder? This is again, the defense has been building for months this idea that Koberger cannot possibly get a fair trial because the way the media has covered this case and the years that has passed since it occurred. Now this is their latest attempt to say that it's already an unfair playing field for Koberger. So they say that barring these terms from the courtroom might mitigate what the media has done. But as you say, everything they're saying means that they

basically cannot trust any trial to give Koberger a fair shot. So again, the defense continues to try to delay the trial with these motions. They're going to have a hard time keeping the word murder out of the courtroom since that is in the indictment. I guess Philip Dubé and the defense attorney Ann Taylor would advocate not reading the indictment to the jury, not letting them look at the indictment. That's how every case starts with the impaneling of a jury. The indictment is read out loud in courtroom, typically by the prosecutor. In some jurisdictions, the judge, what do they say? Just a beep, boop.

Koberger is charged with boop. No discussion of murder. And they also don't want the word psychopath or sociopath mentioned in the courtroom. They're concerned that Koberger looks creepy and they, the defense is trying to say that's because he's autistic. I have worked with many, many people under the spectrum, under the spectrum, and they were not creepy at all. So I'm curious where they're getting that from. As a matter of fact, the inmates

with Koberger have noticed that he's creepy and looks homicidal. Listen. This individual, as described by other inmates in the facility, has the look of Lance, the fellow who killed other people. There's this stare that we've heard about at the student union with young ladies looking at him and him looking at them. I mean, there is something evil connected with this individual as based on his own behavior. The person who did this crime looked at one of the victims and said, I'm here to help. If that's not malice, that's the most type of evil that you could ever hear. That shouldn't be rewarded with a suit.

And a fresh haircut every time. And a beacon meal. That's wild. That's wild. And this hour as the defense tries their best to torpedo the state's case, having DNA evidence suppressed, the jury will never hear about that. Having the eyewitness, Dylan Mortensen, having her I.D. and her statement suppressed, having bushy eyebrows, the words suppressed, which obviously describe Koberger, having the word murder barred from a murder trial, having the word psychopath and sociopath disallowed in the courtroom. While the state is near being stripped of its evidence, we learn the disturbing emergence of something called Brian Nation. Since Koberger's arrest

and the murders of Ethan Chapin, Zanna Kernodle, Madison Mogan, and Kaylee Gonsalves, a number of social media groups have emerged proclaiming his innocence. A subreddit called Brynation has recently been banned from the platform, but several Facebook groups with names such as Justice for Brian Koberger are still active with thousands of members.

At least one woman has sent Koberger love letters. According to many, many reports, fans have gone, quote, crazy over new photos of Brian Koberger charged in the murders of four beautiful University of Idaho students. This must be a dagger to the hearts of the victims' families. I don't understand it. Straight up to Chris McDonough joining me, veteran homicide detective. Chris, I don't understand how, it's like Luigi Mangione being idolized and glamorized. One look at an actual crime scene could cure every member of Brian Nation.

These people have no idea what they're talking about. Yeah, they don't, Nancy. And this is kind of a shock to our society as a whole that we're even, you know, contemplating this conversation here that he's having a mini fan club. I mean, just think about the verbiage that he used. If it's him, obviously he's innocent until proven guilty by a jury. But just think of that verbiage. I'm here to help. And then think of the slaughter that you're talking about. You know, that's going to impact not only the families, but a community and quite frankly, anybody that's going to see those photographs in that court of law. Multiple posters in Facebook groups are dedicated to supporting the nearly 30 year old murder defendant, giving him a, quote, five star approval for his new mugshot. To Joseph Scott Morgan, professor of forensics

and star of Body Bags podcast. Joseph Scott, can we just give all the members of Brian Nation a reality check about what was found at this murder scene? I would love to. And I'm glad that my friend Chris brought up the term slaughter. I got some words for this defense attorney as well. When you begin to think this, you know, what is she, an English professor? We're going to start diagramming sentences now and defining what a gerund is. This is absolute absurdity. My friend Chris used the word slaughter. I'll use the word also butchery.

When you begin to think about this, this is going to be a scene that is absolutely bathed in blood. And here, if you like that one, here's another one. When that jury is empaneled and they're sitting in there, defense counsel knows that these photographs are coming down the track. It's like a train that cannot be avoided. And they're going to try to get some of these excluded. But when that jury sees what is headed their way, when they see these grotesque images of what was done to these college students, it will make them absolutely petrified that they're in the same room with this individual. You talk about stairs, their heads are going to be on a swivel and they're going to look at this guy sitting on the

table. Ann Taylor knows that that's coming, Nancy. And when these investigators get up there and they begin to describe what they saw, it's going to be unbelievable. Just think about the witnesses that actually found the body. They're going to be powerful in this case. That's why they're retreating. That's why they're doing all this. They're trying to pull out all the stops because when it comes down to it, this is going to be one of the most ghastly things that we have seen in many, many years. Susanna Ryan with me, lab director, forensic DNA analyst at Pure Gold Forensics. Susanna, in your world, you see the clinical analysis of blood, DNA, and more.

Do you ever, I do, disassociate what you're looking at from what it really is, blood from a murder scene. Because it's kind of easier to get through if you don't think about what the victims went through. Yes, absolutely. I don't think I could do my job if I were constantly thinking about, you know, how did the evidence that I'm looking at get to be as bloody or as torn up or, you know, whatever it is? I definitely compartmentalize that. That's my work. And I don't spend a lot of time thinking about those things, especially, like I said, in

the laboratory, because I need to be focused on what I'm doing and make sure I do it properly. And if I'm thinking about what this person went through for the evidence item to look like it does, I'm not going to be able to objectively complete my work. Well, you're right, Susanna Ryan. Right now, the Brian Koberger defense is doing everything it can to sanitize, to airbrush what this case is about. It is about the murders, the gruesome butchering, as Joe Scott said, of four innocent, beautiful young University of Idaho students murdered in their beds, according to insiders, so Koberger could see, quote, what it felt like. We wait as justice unfolds. And now we remember an American hero. Police officer Christopher Morton, Clinton PD, Missouri. Shot and killed in the line of duty. Army National Guard vet.

Survived by parents, Daryl and Tara. Siblings, Derek and Lindy. American hero. Police officer Christopher Morton. Nancy Grace signing off. Goodbye, friend.