Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - FBI TEARS APART Idaho 'Murder House,' Victim's Mom Defends Daughter

Episode Date: November 7, 2023

Nancy Grace and a panel of experts investigate the latest developments in the Bryan Kohberger murder trial. This episode features exclusive comments from Cara Northington, Xana Kernodle's mother, who defends her daughter from vicious rumors and theories surrounding the case.   The defense motion calling for the dismissal of the Grand Jury indictment against the accused killer was denied by a judge. Cameras will be allowed inside the courtroom. FBI Agents have entered the King Road home again, hoping to gain more information as the prosecution prepares for trial. A 3D model of the home is being built. Experts say this will help explain to the jury where evidence was found and why the placement of that evidence is important.   Latah County District Judge John Judge has also ordered the prosecution to provide more DNA information that has been requested by Kohberger’s defense team, setting a  December 1st deadline. Joining Nancy Grace today :  Jean Fisher – Former Chief Deputy prosecutor in Ada County, Boise, ID; Former Special Crimes Chief Deputy (specializing in murder, crimes against children, and sexual assault); Director of Curriculum in Building Hope Today Dr. Angela Arnold – Psychiatrist, Atlanta GA.; Expert in the Treatment of Pregnant/Postpartum Women, Former Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Obstetrics and Gynecology: Emory University; Former Medical Director of The Psychiatric Ob-Gyn Clinic at Grady Memorial Hospital; Voted My Buckhead’s Best Psychiatric Practice of 2022 Chris McDonough - Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective, and Host of YouTube Channel, “The Interview Room” Dr. Monte Miller – Director, Forensic DNA Experts LLC; Specialist in Sexual Assaults and Murder, and Former Forensic Scientist for Texas Dept. of Public Safety State Crime Lab Dr. Michelle Dupre – Forensic Pathologist and former Medical Examiner, Author: “Homicide Investigation Field Guide” & “Investigating Child Abuse Field Guide”, Ret. Police Detective Lexington County Sheriff’s Department Dave Mack - CrimeOnline Investigative Reporter  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Why is the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, tearing apart the crime scene of the Idaho 4 sleigh. Why is that happening? Why is the FBI out in Idaho tearing up carpet, looking at the walls, looking at the windows, taking pieces of board? What are they doing? This is Brian Koberger, the doctoral student charged in the slaying of four beautiful University of Idaho students in their sleep or half sleep in the middle of the night, the wee early morning around 4 a.m. While he sits in his cell getting a special vegan diet, watching whatever he wants.

He has control of his remote on TV and gathering female admirers on the internet. What's happening? When is Brian Koberger going to trial and is the death penalty still on the table? I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us here at Crime Stories and on Sirius XM 111. First of all, let's kick it off. We've got an all-star panel to make sense of what we're learning right now, but listen first to victim Zanna Kurnodal's mother. There are things like in the investigation that I would have liked to see go differently. I would have liked to see more coming from the kids that attended school there, the people that were at the frat party, the fraternity members.

What were they all doing? What was happening at the party before they came home. I really just want, and anybody who was at the grub truck with Kaylee and Maddie, or at the bar with Kaylee and Maddie, I would like to see answers coming from those people. It just, it kind of bewilders me that we haven't heard anything from any of them because they were the last people to see these kids alive. And I've got such an incredible panel joining us right now, but I want to go first to Jean Fisher, former chief deputy prosecutor in Boise, Idaho.

Idaho is this jurisdiction where the slays, the four murders went down. She specialized in murder. And you can find her today at buildinghopetoday.org. Jane, you're hearing Zanna Cronole's mother, who has lived through complete hell. You know, Jane, I thought I knew it all about grief and suffering when my fiance was murdered shortly before our wedding. But now that I have the twins, John, David, and Lucy, I didn't know anything because the worst possible thing that could happen is to lose your child.

I'm sure about that. Jane, you hear the mom, you hear Zanna Cronuttle's mom talking about things that she would like to have seen done differently in this investigation. This is Carrie Northington, and she's focusing on the parties leading up to the murders that night, the fraternity sorority parties. We know that several of the four were at a food truck really really late at night like after 1 a.m they stopped to get food at a food truck before they went home have you in your practice gene talked to victims parents and you listen to what they're saying and it may or may not be relevant to the case. The DNA shows that Brian Koberger handled the murder weapon and the sheath because the sheath has his DNA on it and it's practically under one of the dead victims.

So maybe what Zana's mother is saying is irrelevant. Maybe it doesn't matter. Who was at the party five hours before? Who was at the food truck three hours before? On the other hand, Jean, maybe it does matter because Zanna's mother thinks two people were involved. I don't. She does. But I find this significant, Jean. What if Koberger was lurking around either

of those two places? Wouldn't that solidify the case for the state? Yeah. I mean, I really feel for her, for the parents, for the survivors in this. And the common, it's so common to have parents, victims asking some of these other questions and wanting to know exactly what she's asking, who was at the party, who was at the food truck, those sorts of things. Because what's happened is unimaginable. And you just want all the answers and everything that you possibly can to understand how this could have happened now as you said some of that stuff is is irrelevant um it isn't as though it's certainly not here and not nationwide i've just seen there hasn't been substantial amount of reporting on this,

of law enforcement in the Moscow community, the photos of the girls at the food truck, trying to find everybody and anybody who talked to them. And they did do some follow-up, as you recall. They did have a... A lot. Yeah, and they thought that they had, I think it was the Uber driver.

Yeah. That was a suspect. And I mean, they did do a lot of that. You're right. And how do you deal with victims families? I mean, for you and I, we think that is irrelevant because we believe we know who the killer is. And it's not the guy at the food truck and it's not some drunk frat boy at the whatever house the sigma chi house or whatever house it was but she's right we have to exhaust as prosecutors every single avenue what if someone at that part of your food truck saw coburger what if they were connected to coburgerger somehow? So I understand where the mother is coming from. I completely understand. As a lay person, especially that's not in the

investigation every single day, she thinks, hey, is there relevance? And maybe there is. As of right now, there's not. But you hear Zanna's mother speaking out. And later I'm going to let you in on her statements regarding she thinks that there is another person involved. A lot's happening in the case against Brian Koberger right now. First of all, there has been a very powerful motion to dismiss the indictment. In other words, throw out the charges. And the judge, whose name coincidentally is Judge, it's John Judge, so he's Judge Judge. That's it.

I want you to hear what the judge says about the defense's slew of arguments to have these charges thrown out. Listen. The Idaho criminal rules, specifically rule 6.5a, expressly states that probable cause is the standard, not beyond a reasonable doubt, for a grand jury's indictment. And I think I have three or four recent, because this argument has been circulating in the state, I think I've had three or four district judge decisions denying the motion. So I am going to deny that argument.

Whew! Okay. Okay, look, we may think that there was no grounds for the charges to be thrown out, but you get one crackpot judge up on the bench, you don't know what they're going to do. I have had judges, well, one of the times I was held in contempt, the judge was completely ruling against all the black and white letter of the law. And I said, and his name was Judge Presley. May he rest in peace. So Judge Presley, just turn around and right behind you is a bookshelf.

And on that bookshelf is the OCGA, the official code of Georgia annotated. Not just the code, but the annotations, all the case law supporting the law and the interpretation law. If you would just swivel your chair around and grab OCGA 30 dash blah dash blah, and look on page 356, you will see that you're really, it's completely contradictory to the law. I was held in contempt, but I was right. It didn't feel very good saying, I'm right, when I was getting fingerprinted. But you never know what a judge is going to do. This judge did the right thing. What were the claims?

The defense was mounting, and they had a lot of claims. Listen. Hours of arguments between Koberger's lawyers, the prosecution, and the judge have occurred in private, behind closed doors, without cameras. But in court papers, Brian Koberger's defense team claims the grand jury was biased, there was insufficient evidence to charge Koberger in the first place, and that prosecutors withheld evidence that would exonerate Koberger. While the defense has made these serious allegations,

they have yet to show any of the evidence to back up their claims. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Joining me right now, an expert who has been at the scene of the crime along with me. In fact, he showed me, he directed me to a lot of points of interest. And I don't mean like, I'm looking at Niagara Falls, that kind of point of interest. I mean, look at this. This proves X. Look at that. That proves Y. Drive this route, not that route. Look over here, not over there. That's what I'm talking about. Chris McDonough is with me, director of the Cold Case Foundation, former homicide detective, at least 300 homicides under his belt,

host of a YouTube channel where I found him, The Interview Room. Chris McDonough, how upsetting. You know, it never failed to upset me when the defense would claim, oh, she's withholding evidence. But I had handed over my whole file except for my own work product, my notes, my questions, my own theories. But yet that argument would still be made. And it's a black eye for you, the homicide investigator and the prosecutor, because it looks like you're playing dirty pool that you're going to win through nefarious means. And that's no win at all because it'll be reversed on appeal. We really take the punches

in the gut, don't we? 100 percent, Nancy. And one of the worst things that could ever happen, to your point, is a rogue judge taking all of these points of the law into consideration and even giving them a valued weight. I mean, it's every family's nightmare. It's every prosecutor's nightmare, the investigator, public safety's nightmare that the defense is able to say, Hey, they still are not giving us evidence when in fact, you know, they've turned over all the evidence under Brady to the defense,

and they know what they have. It's right in front of them. And, you know, I think this is the big push that's taking place right now, and we're just going to, you know, like always, just see how this kind of plays out here. Well, bottom line, you don't sign up to be a homicide investigator or a prosecutor to win Miss Congeniality, Chris McDonough. Nobody's going to go home, crown me sweet potato. That's not happening. We are going to take the hits and keep on going.

I mean, listen, if I paid attention to everything that said about me or our program on Twitter and Facebook and Insta and wherever, I'd be hiding under the bed right now. Just, if you don't have a thick skin, you better develop one and quickly. Guys, not only in the last days has the judge denied the defense motion to throw out the charges, the FBI has been back at the murder scene. Some call it the murder house. It's the crime scene. The FBI has been back sniffing around and tearing apart sections of the home, including yanking up carpet and more. Take a listen to our friends at Crime Online. FBI agents have entered the King Road home in Moscow, Idaho, hoping to gain more

information as the prosecution prepares for trial. According to NBC News, the University of Idaho says investigators asked to go back into the home and gather documentation as they construct visual and audio exhibits, as well as a physical model of the home. Experts say this will help as the prosecution explains where evidence was found and why the placement of said evidence is important. Families of the victims have worked hard to prevent the King Road structure from being torn down as was originally planned. The family of Kayla Gonzalez and the father of Zanna Cronodal said they were grateful the university is waiting until after the trial to demolish the home because it remains the biggest piece of evidence.

I want to circle back to Dr. Angela Arnold, a renowned psychiatrist, joining us about why the victim's families may not want this home torn down. But first, I want to talk about something that I understand, and that is the probative value of this home. Do we still need the home? Why do we need the home? What if anything can it prove? It's been combed over with a fine tooth comb. So why do I care that it's not torn down? Well, for one reason, correct me if I'm wrong, joining me, Dave Mack, CrimeOnline.com investigative reporter.

The house was to be demolished, but that's been delayed, especially since Koberger waived his right to a speedy trial. Now this delay, I believe, has allowed prosecutors and investigators to create a very detailed 3D model of the home and that could potentially spare jurors a visit to the crime scene that was left literally, quote, dripping in blood. You know what? I would want them at the crime scene, but that's just me. I would want them to see the real thing. But I would also like, Dave Mack, that 3D visual in court for me to use as demonstrative purposes. That's in the law. You've got demonstrative evidence and you've got, as I call

it, real evidence. Real evidence is like fingerprints, DNA, things taken from the scene. Demonstrative evidence is evidence you create to demonstrate something to the jury. Dave Mack, tell me about why is the FBI sniffing around the King Road address? Well, Nancy, they're building, as you mentioned, the models, okay, the 3D model. And the real issue here is it's a three-story house on King Road. And for some people, including Vanna Granato's mom, they just don't see how one person can accomplish all that happens, stabbing to death four people in that building in a very brief period of time. What the FBI is doing by building this model, they're going to be able to walk,

the prosecution will be able to walk the jurors through it one by one and show them how it could be done and was done by one person they believe, Brian Koberger. They'll be able to show them with that model exactly where he came in, where he went, the timetable they built inside the house, and how he exited. They'll be able to do all that with this 3D model. That's why they're there. That's going to be some 3D model because you know what the defense is probably going to do?

The defense is probably going to turn around and ask to take the jurors to the crime scene. And so help me, I would not be trumped by the defense. If anybody was going to demand a visit to the crime scene, it would be me, the prosecutor. And you know why? Because I would want the defense to be able to argue in closing arguments. They didn't want you to see the crime scene. We did. What were they hiding?

No, no, no, and no. Who's that jumping in? It was Gene. Gene Fisher. Yeah. Jump in. Well, you have to remember, too, I don't I really don't believe that this case is going to take place in Latah County in the small community in Moscow, Idaho. Boise is 300 miles south and six hours on a mountain road. Idaho Falls, which is maybe the next biggest, is 10 hours. North of Moscow's Coeur d'Alene, Kootenai County, it's quite small. So, I mean, there are some of those issues as well, quite frankly, as well, as far as the crime scene and getting back up there and what that actually would entail. Okay, let me ask you a lightning round.

Has the venue been changed yet, Jean Fisher? No, because they still haven't set the case for trial. Is there a motion to change venue? There won't be one until the case gets set for trial. So, no. No. So, let's burn that bridge when we get there. But you're right. If the trial is moved, say, five hours away, it would not be

expedient to take the jury five hours away to see the crime scene. That is why I predict if they do get a motion to change venue, it will be moved maybe three hours or less away so the jury can go see it in one day and return. Now, of course, we learned that visiting a crime scene is fraught with danger and reversible error because when you see the crime scene, it's not the same as it was the day of the crimes. Number one, that can be argued on appeal. You don't know if somebody will be standing outside. How easy would it be for some jackass to yell out, Koeberger did it, or Koeberger's innocent, or something, and that could ruin the whole case and be grounds for a motion to dismiss the case and get a whole new jury. So when you take people to a crime scene, you never know what's going to happen.

And dare I remind everybody on the panel when my colleague, Johnny Cochran, may he rest in peace, took the O.J. Simpson jury to the O.J. Simpson home and they had completely done it over. No more pictures of OJ with busty models around. There were pictures instead of a Norman Rockwell painting and him with his mother, and I think a giant cross was put up on the wall. You don't know how that scene is going to be altered by the time the jury gets there. So Dr. Angela Arnold joining me, as I mentioned earlier, a renowned psychiatrist. You can find her at AngelaArnoldMD.com. Dr. Angie, there may be more at play with the victim's families not wanting the home to be torn down.

Now, as I've told you before, I have never once sought out the spot where my fiance was murdered. I don't want to go there. Whenever I think about it, sometimes it still gives me a horrible, horrible, like a migraine headache. And I don't want to go there. I don't want that in my head with everything else. But the significance of this home, I don't know what it means to the four victims' families. Well, Nancy, right now it stands as a sort of a shrine to what happened. And this isn't over. I mean, the trial hasn't even started yet.

And I imagine what it signifies to the family is this. If the house is torn down and demolished, it's over. Where this happened is over. Like it never happened. Exactly. And the man hasn't even been brought to trial. I mean, I find it very disturbing that they want to tear the house down. But there also doesn't need to be a jump that goes from let's not tear the house down to, oh, we're going to bring the jury there. But I think the house needs to stand as the place where this happened.

Chris, Chris McDonough, you're saying you agree. And Dr. Angie, I can't explain to you why I don't want the house torn down yet. Maybe something along the lines of make it as if it never happened. Or plus, I mean, to you, Chris McDonough, director of Cold Case Foundation. I'm going to circle back to Dr. Monty Miller and Dr. Michelle Dupree joining us. Chris, it ain't over until it's over. And I don't want any destruction of evidence until this thing is over. Yes. And what I think what's happening right now, Nancy, there is why the FBI went back. Let's just talk about a couple of things real

fast is one, you know, they're doing a laser recreation, right, to create these 3D model. That's called a FARO, F-A-R-O. That's the device that they use. Whoa, you just like, explain that, please. Don't just throw something out and drop it on us like a bomb and not explain it. Sorry about that. Well, what this device does is it spins in a room, and it can literally go down to an exact dimension within an eighth of an inch. And so it'll basically mirror everything with inside of that room. But the other test that they're running in there, I would assume, is an acoustics test.

And they're going to correlate that back to any video that may have been in the neighborhood if there was sound on that video. And they're going to correlate that to the exact spot of where that sound would have originated inside of that house. So to tear that house down right now to the doctor's point, and I know you talked about this early on, I think that would be a very huge mistake ultimately until the trial is completed. And at that point, let it be what it needs to be. I know the state thinks they've gotten everything that they need and the defense has had the same opportunity as the state to inspect the home, but I would rather

them wait till it's all over. Dr. Monty Miller joining me, Director, Forensic DNA Expert. You can find Dr. Monty at ForensicDNAExperts.com. Dr. Monti Miller, I believe they've gotten all the DNA evidence that they're going to get. Once you let a lot of people in the home, evidence is ruined. They've gone through the home with a fine-tooth comb. But what is your take on whether they should demolish the home? Well, I mean, just from a crime scene DNA perspective, you wouldn't want to destroy it because you don't know if you're going to need that house again. You know, the defense could raise issues. The prosecution could raise issues. And at this point, you can always go back and look at it. Once you demolish it, you know,

you can't. And there's no real benefit to having it destroyed at this point. So why not just keep it till the trial's over? Guys, a lot happening in the case right now, but I want you to hear more. We've had the motion to dismiss by the defense has been denied. We have the FBI swarming the crime scene again. Now, listen to this. Yeah, no, I don't want them to. Not until after the trial.

I mean, for obvious reasons. I mean, obviously, the jurors would maybe want to do a walkthrough or, you know, maybe there's something they missed. I mean, obviously, yeah, I definitely do not want them to tear it down. Not yet. Eventually, yes, but not until this is all blown over. You're hearing Zanna Cronoval's mother, Karen Northington, agreeing with us. Don't tear that house down. Now, her feelings, I don't know if they're based in the evidence or if they're based in emotions, but she wants the house standing. Let's move forward. Listen. Brian Koberger's defense team now wants to know exactly how DNA was collected at the crime scene that prosecutors say places Koberger at the scene of the crime. The term IgG stands for investigative genetic genealogy.

And it was this process that was used to collect DNA from another source and then match it to the DNA found on the knife sheath that was found on the bed next to the bodies of Kaylee Gonzalez and Madison Mogan. The sheath was found face down, partially under Madison Mogan's body and partially under a comforter on the bed. The DNA found on the sheath was initially compared to DNA from trash recovered outside the Koberger family home in Pennsylvania last year. Using IgG allowed investigators to build a family tree of potential relatives of the suspect. Once a cheek swab from Brian Kober was obtained, investigators used a more direct DNA comparison using technology similar to that employed by services like Ancestry.com or 23andMe. Okay, Dr. Monty Miller with us, famed DNA expert. Dr. Monty, explain. And also, if you could give us, dummy down for me, I'm just a trial

lawyer, you're the scientist, explain IgG and what are they talking about? So what happens is in criminal investigations and with criminal DNA that's typically used in court, they use one kind of technology to read the DNA. A completely different kind of technology is used for the ancestry, the IgG type DNA. And so what they did was they took the DNA and they ran it for ancestry in order to develop the suspects. And they used that to identify Koberger as one of the suspects. Then they collected trash from the house to connect it to Koberger's father. And they could tell from that that the DNA at that point, when they identified that it was probably a son of the father, they were able to get DNA from Koberger himself,

compare it to the DNA by traditional genetic forensic means, and they were able to identify him that way. So the genetic genealogy, the IgG stuff, was used to find him. That's not what was used to identify him as the person in the house. But the same DNA was used, but it was used first for genetic genealogy to find him. And then it was run a separate way, a different time, by different technology to identify him as the source of that DNA. At this juncture, the state is claiming they're not going to use IgG, that type of DNA process at trial. But the reality is if the questions are asked on cross, it will come into play. To Dr. Michelle Dupree joining us, a forensic pathologist, medical examiner, former detective in Lexington County, author of Money,

Mischief and Murder, the Murdoch Saga, the rest of the story, and she literally wrote the book, Homicide Investigation Field Guide. Dr. Dupree, weigh in. Nancy, you know, I think I understand it sort of from both sides, but keeping the house, especially right now, is so important because things could have been missed. And I think that they need to go back and be able to, I would want the jury there. I'm totally with you. I would want the jury to see this. But if you're the defense attorney, I guess you wouldn't. I don't know. I think the defense may be able to argue all sorts of things once the jury gets in that hump. Big question. Is the jury going

to see the home? A lot of rulings that are going to impact this case are happening right now. The DNA matching Brian Koberger to the knife sheath could be the prosecution's strongest piece of evidence tying Koberger to the murders. KTVB reports Koberger's lawyers claim they need the information about the DNA collection to help prepare their defense. But the prosecution says they did not use IGG to obtain any warrants, and they're concerned about innocent relatives' identities being made public. Judge John Judge said he will consider the interests of the defense and the prosecution as he reviews all of the IGG information the state and the FBI have, and then he will decide what can be disclosed.

This is what's happening. The state has used IgG science to narrow down potential suspects. A well-established buccal or buccal swab was used to positively identify Brian Koberger. Koberger was already identified by his car. Isn't that correct, Dave Mack? So the state could have gone forward without the IgG test at all, based on the car being a probable cause, right? They were able to track, yes, Ben, you're absolutely right, Nancy. They had other means of going about this which is what they're pointing out now they're saying that this igg stuff is irrelevant it's not part of our case it was just a tool but they had other ways of identifying him as you mentioned the car it is the perfect you know it actually puts him where he needed to be in terms of what

prosecution is looking at so you're dead on right. They had other ways of going after Koberger besides the IGG. They're just using all the tools in the toolbox. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Guys, the case is culminating. The case is rapidly moving toward trial. When will the trial date be? We all know that once the death penalty is announced, then the delay will be even longer. Take a listen to our friends

at Crime Online. The parents of Kaylee González recently spoke out about the death penalty for the murder of their daughter and three others. Steve González said they wanted the death penalty rather than a life sentence. And he mentioned how BTK, Dennis Rader, gets special treatment in prison because he's smart. He writes papers for other inmates. But a death penalty sentence would put the killer in a cell 23 hours a day, waiting, regardless of how long it takes before there is an execution. In the midst of all of this, one of the victim's mother has been forced into the position of defending her daughter's reputation. How is a beautiful young girl who was murdered half asleep or fully asleep

somehow become the target of derision and false rumors? Listen to Kara Northington defending her daughter. I think there's a lot of rumors going around that she was a drug dealer or this was somehow like a cartel hit because she owed the cartel money. That's just not true. She wasn't a drug dealer.

She was going to school. She had a job. She was working. She was doing all the right things. You know, she wasn't on drugs or dealing drugs. She did like to party. She was in college. She drank with her friends and partied. But it wasn't anything like drug dealing or anything like that. So I think those rumors just really, those have been, those are what I would say have wronged her. I don't understand it, why crime victims, as young and innocent as these four are, are being dragged through the mud. Dr. Angela Arnold, to top it all off, here you hear the parents

of these victims having to defend the reputations of their children. Who are these trolls attacking the victims? I believe that people start rumors for a lot of different reasons. And one of the reasons is so that they can feel like, well, if I have never done that, if I have never participated in that kind of activity or if my children don't do that, then they're less likely to be murdered. So there's a reason why she was murdered. It's just it's the most hideous thing in the world to all of a sudden create a story about a victim as if this teen girl is being was murdered because she's part of the cartel of course Deanna had just turned 20 and she's what connected to a Colombian drug lord it's insane and so what if she parties kids are supposed to party when they're in college and you're supposed to have a

good time and so this girl gets ordereded, and now people are going to say ugly things about her? Why weren't they saying ugly things about her previous to this if she was such a hideous person? I mean, Chris McDonough, you have investigated so many homicide cases. This is straight out of the defense playbook. Attack the victim. Don't look at my client. Look at the victim. They're horrible.

And you could not find any more beautiful and precious college students than these four so what if she had a couple of drinks nobody cares she was slaughtered in her sleep where is this coming from and isn't it true you see it in practically every homicide case yeah the but i think we're at a a different point here Nancy I mean and it the civility of what's taking place here in in our society this is just an example of it this poor mother when we hear her heartfelt pleas about defending the reputation of you know her daughter what's her crime her crime is she went to bed that night, and she was in her bedroom. And yet, this poor mother, and I know that feeling. I know the depth

of that feeling. And it's just horrible. Gene Fisher, a veteran trial lawyer, that always happens. Is it right? No, it's horribly wrong. And it always happens. Blaming the victim somehow. Yeah. I mean, it happens all the time, but I think in this case, it has really, I mean, it's really bad. I mean, some of the things that have been written and said, um, about the victims in this case, um, you know, idea, even the surviving victims, I mean, it's not, it's one thing that they're, they're, they're attacking the victims, but they're also really attacking the surviving victims and coming up with these wild, wild stories. And I think that comment about the lack of civility really does show a sad, really sad state of where we are right now in our nation, quite frankly. I think there's a real lack of civility. As long as I can remember,

as far back as I can recall trying cases, the victims were always attacked. I don't think it's anything new. It's always happened and it's always been horrible. Listen to more of Zanna's mother now in the position of having to defend her murdered daughter. Listen. Well, Zanna was an amazing girl. She was just, she was really funny. She was fun to be around. She always made sure everybody around her was having fun. She was just very happy, very happy-go-lucky person. She loved her friends, loved her family very much. She's very dedicated to everything she did. She was just an amazing person. She was full of life. I hate that the mother is in this position where she feels like she has to defend her murdered daughter's reputation. Some world-class a-hole is spreading false rumors about Zanna and the other victims and the survivors. But Zanna's mother has come up with a very unique theory. Listen. To me, it seems like

more than one person did this in such a short amount of time. The time frame that they're giving, there's just no way that one person could have done it. So I think that if he is responsible, if he is, that he had help. So trying to figure out who would that other person be. To Dr. Monty Miller, this is why the DNA is so important. No other identifiable person's DNA is at the scene other than co-brokers. Well, I did find some DNA from some other people, but they weren't able to identify it. That was a house that other people were in. It wasn't isolated with just the residents in there. So it's natural that you would find DNA from other people that were in that house, but they weren't able to identify it.

So they wouldn't be able to know whether or not some of the other DNA was attached to the crime or whether it was just attached to somebody visiting. That's different with the knife sheath, where that was clearly something that was probably a part of the crime and had the DNA from whoever brought that knife there. The other thing is that I wanted to bring up about the DNA is, you know, with the defense wanting the, you know, DNA from the ancestry testing. Part of what they may be looking for, too, is did they develop any other suspects other than Brian Koberger? So they want to know, you know, do we have any value in that information for us to find somebody else rather than our client? So there's a lot going on with the DNA here, more than you would think. And they certainly are going to try to identify any of the DNA that they

found in that house, but they don't necessarily have a connection to the crime with any of the other DNA. Exactly. Where the other DNA was found, I believe, is nowhere near the dead bodies, but we'll see. And Dr. Michelle Dupree, forensic pathologist and expert, isn't it true that the wounds on the victim's bodies indicate one type of weapon? Yes, Nancy, that is true. And we can often tell that of course, by the wounds themselves.

How do you do that with knife wounds? This is very critical because it's right to question the evidence zanna's mother's correct you've got to test every piece of evidence see what it proves or disproves and she should wonder was there more than one person as far as i can evaluate the evidence and analyze it it seems like there's one person yeah but you have to test the evidence so what do the wounds prove if anything well we measure them we measure the wounds and then we we can actually make a cast or a mold of the wounds many times and then we can compare that to a cast made from the actual weapon itself and they're very similar or similar enough that we can say that it is the same weapon. Justice moves forward as we wait for the trial of Brian Koberger.

Goodbye, friend. This is an iHeart Podcast.