Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - KOHBERGER "GETS AWAY WITH MURDER?" 2 MYSTERY MEN'S BLOOD-DNA AT MURDER SCENE

Episode Date: February 13, 2025

Bryan Kohberger’s attorneys say investigators found blood from an unknown man on a handrail in the victims' home and another person's DNA on a glove outside. Anne Taylor argues this could indicate Kohberger's lack of involvement in the crime. Although court filings acknowledged the unknown DNA samples last year, they did not disclose that at least two of the samples were from blood. During Kohberger’s last hearing, Taylor accused authorities of withholding information, saying police did not disclose the unidentified blood when obtaining a search warrant for Kohberger's arrest. She argues this omission should invalidate some evidence collected during the search because it was not properly authorized. Kohberger's attorneys also allege the FBI illegally obtained his DNA, violating the Fourth Amendment's protection against illegal searches and seizures. They argue that submitting Kohberger’s DNA to a public ancestry database was improper because law enforcement cannot legally use the site. The attorneys also claim that police did not submit two other blood samples from the scene to the FBI’s DNA database due to eligibility issues and failed to inform the magistrate judge about them. Taylor argues this omission should disqualify some of the evidence obtained Joining Nancy Grace today:  Philip Dubé  - Court-Appointed Counsel, Los Angeles County Public Defenders: Criminal & Constitutional Law; Forensics & Mental Health Advocacy Dr. Shari Schwartz  - Forensic Psychologist (specializing in Capital Mitigation and Victim Advocacy); X: https://twitter.com/TrialDoc; Author: "Criminal Behavior" and "Where Law and Psychology Intersect: Issues in Legal Psychology" Chris McDonough - Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective; Host of YouTube channel, "The Interview Room" Scott Eicher - A founding member of the FBI’s Cellular Analysis Survey Team (C.A.S.T),Currently with Precision Cellular Analysis handling Criminal, Defense and Civil Cases Dr. James Williams  -  Leading courtroom expert on firing squads; an Emergency Room Physician and a Bioidentical Hormone Therapy practitioner at Anahata Wellness Center; anahatahormones.com Dr. Thomas Coyne - Chief Medical Examiner, District 2 Medical Examiner's Office, State of Florida; Forensic Pathologist, Neuropathologist, Toxicologist; X: @DrTMCoyne Joseph Scott Morgan  - Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University; Author, "Blood Beneath My Feet"; Host: "Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan";  X @JoScottForensic Howard Blum  - Author: "When The Night Comes Falling, A Requiem for The Idaho Student Murders";  Website: Howardblum.com  INSTA: howard_blum_author ; TW/X: howardblum Sydney Sumner -  CrimeOnline Investigative Reporter See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Brian Koberger to get away with murder. This after two mystery men's blood DNA found at the murder scene. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us. At this hour, the defense attorney, a fleet of lawyers, as a matter of fact, representing Brian Koberger, charged in the quadruple slay of four beautiful University of Idaho students. The defense team arguing two mystery men's DNA found at the scene and therefore they argue nothing at the scene incriminates their client, Brian Koberger. Whoa, wait a minute. What about Koberger's DNA on the knife sheath, the murder weapon, the sheath of the murder weapon under one of the victim's dead bodies?

Ruh-roh. That said, listen to this. Brian Koberger's attorneys say blood from an unknown man was found on a handrail in the victim's home and another's DNA was found on a glove outside. Ann Taylor says this could mean Koberger is not related to the crime at all. In Koberger's last hearing, Taylor criticized authorities, saying police did not disclose the unidentified blood when obtaining a search warrant for Koberger's arrest. Taylor argues this should disqualify some evidence collected in that search as it was not properly authorized. Okay, let's just kick it off. That's a lie. Number one, that DNA was disclosed over a year ago in the state's filings. Ann Taylor, all you have to do is read the filings like we did.

That's right. Over a year ago, the unknown DNA samples were disclosed. But still, Koberger's DNA is on the murder weapon sheath under a dead body. I don't know how they're going to get away with that. You know what? Maybe Ann Taylor got a minor degree in magic so she can make the jury do this. Look here. Not there.

Isn't that right, Philip Dubé? Isn't that what you do in court? You try to get the jury to look somewhere else other than at the damning DNA evidence on the sheath of the murder weapon under the victim's dead body? False. I try to get the jury to look at evidence of real guilt and not some spitball, if you will, of guilt. You have proof that two other people's blood was at the scene. And there is a stark difference between blood being present and mere presence.

And all that sheath might prove at most is that he or somebody in possession of that sheath was there. It does not prove the commission of a quadruple homicide. Joining me right now to help me combat Philip Dubé with the truth, investigative reporter Sydney Sumner. Sydney, explain to me this one question. There's a lot of explaining to do, but let's start with a very narrow question. where is the mystery DNA located at the crime scene? For instance, was it under one of the victim's dead bodies, Sydney? Absolutely not, Nancy. One DNA sample was taken from a handrail on the stairs in the home, and another was found on a random glove outside.

Investigators aren't even sure the glove was ever in the house or worn by someone who was ever in the house. Okay, hold on just a moment. We've seen the interiors of the home through windows. All the crime scene photos have not been disseminated yet. But we know the victims, the ones that were murdered, there were two girls living downstairs that were untouched, were up the stairs. Let's see a shot of the home, please. There are multiple stories to the home. And when you look at it from the backside, you can see it even better. There was a handrail going up the stairs.

There you go. Going up the stairs. Those are the top two floors. There's another floor going up the stairs from the basement or ground floor to the second story where you see those sliding glass doors to the third story where you see the sliding glass doors with the balcony. The mystery blood DNA on the handrail could, as far as I know, been all the way down in the basement, nowhere near the dead bodies of these four students murdered in their beds. Now, isn't it true to Chris McDonough joining me, founder director of the Cold Case Foundation, former homicide detective with over 300 homicide investigations under his belt, star of the interview room on YouTube, Chris McDonough. Isn't it true that when we were out at the scene, when you were there on your own, you observed a glove lying out in the parking lot. Isn't that true?

It absolutely is, Nancy. And I was standing on the street near the trash cans out front. And I looked behind that trash can, just, you know, behind the yellow barrier tape. And there it was sitting right there in the snow. And I thought to myself, wow, that's out of place. And so I called one of the officers over and, you know, pointed it out to them and they collected it. As a matter of fact, we're showing a photo of that glove right now. Now, this was after the scene had been processed to some degree. This is after law enforcement had already come there and there was a glove out in the parking lot. Okay. That's one

glove. And, um, when I went to the scene as well, guess what I was wearing? I believe we have a photo. Ah, that. Guess what I dropped in the parking lot that day? This. I still have it. So let's talk about DNA inside a completely unrelated glove found out in the parking lot. Sydney Summer, yes, no, wasn't the glove found in the parking lot of the home. That's correct, Nancy. Absolutely. Okay, let's go straight back to Chris McDonough. Chris McDonough, could you explain to me any, if any, significance of a random glove in the parking lot? What, if anything, could that mean? I'm sure the defense is having a field day with it. But realistically speaking, it wasn't on the sheath of the murder weapon under the victim's body. It's out in the parking lot.

It could have been yours or mine, for Pete's sake. Absolutely. In fact, Nancy, it could have also belonged to one of the investigators processing the scene. You know, they could have accidentally dropped it and nobody saw it. Although, you know, the defense would probably argue, hey, it's in the direction of where the car allegedly would have been parked, according to the police, that, you know, or excuse me, the prosecution is going to say, you know, this came from the suspect. My question is, is the blood on the inside or the outside of the glove? Because that could be significant. Really good point. Guys, another theory has emerged. Now, wait for it. Listen to this.

When Brian Koberger was arrested, his response to police, who else did you arrest? There is much speculation over the comment, especially now that his defense claims unidentified male blood was found on a handrail at the King Road crime scene and on a glove outside. They say this points to potential other suspects or could be part of an elaborate plan to stage the crime scene. Veteran criminal profiler John Kelly tells news agencies that the remark could have come from Kohlberger's expectation that other leads had been followed by police. Straight out to special guest joining us and you know him well. Howard Bloom is with us who has conducted extensive research and investigation over months, culminating in his new book, When the Night Comes Falling, a Requiem for the Idaho Student Murders. And you can find them at his website, Howard Bloom, spelled B-L-U-M dot com. Howard, you have recently written an article in which you state there are stunning courtroom revelations.

And, you know, I can't deny this, even though I don't think the state has arrested the wrong person. Mystery DNA from two other males at the same blood DNA is going to be a hurdle for the state. Now, when it's explained slowly and carefully and calmly, I think the jury will see through it. But it's a it's a bombshell. What do you think about another expert's theory that Koberger may have even staged it? Trials tell stories. I think that's what we have to remember. The facts really don't matter that much. Here you have the defense being able to ask the question, how did that knife sheath get in that bedroom? Could someone have planted it there other than Kohlberger? Because remember, it's not blood DNA from Kohlberger on the knife sheath. It's touch DNA. They are going to argue that perhaps he touched the knife sheath at some

point and these other two unknown males planted it there. They're going to try to convince a jury. Put him up. Put him up. Okay. two unknown males planted it there. They're going to try to convince a jury of this. Put him up. Put him up. Okay, well, wait, wait. I'm sorry. Maybe my IP is not working because I think what I just heard you say is that someone got the knife sheath from Koberger after he had touched it in the snap where you unsnap it to take the knife out,

got it from Koberger and planted it under a dead body and then conveniently left behind their own blood DNA on the handrail and in a random glove out in the parking lot. Query, were little green men from Mars part of this? You can say it facetiously like that, but the evidence against Koberger, besides the DNA, really doesn't stand up. Everything is very weak. We can go through it again.

You know, there's no motive. There's no picture of him in the car. Yes, let's do. Let's actually do. Let's go through it. Hold on. His phone pings at his apartment at 2.42 a.m. the night of the murders. Five minutes later, his phone is turned off.

3.29 a.m. A white Elantra matching his sedan passes the murder scene three times at 3.30 in the morning. 4.04, it comes back and stops in front of the house. 4.20, it leaves flying down that Moscow, plowing down State Highway 95 in the dark. Okay, let's see. To Sidney Sumner joining me, CrimeOnline.com investigative reporter, Sidney, his cell phone pings alone are damning. His Elantra is spotted there at the scene. We see him destroying evidence, cleaning out his car meticulously. Blood places him at the scene.

Excuse me. DNA places him at the scene and so much more. Sydney Sumner, what evidence is the state using against Brian Koberger? There is so much evidence that the state has to use against Brian Koberger. A lot of this is circumstantial at best, but that DNA evidence is absolutely damning. There's just no explanation for why that knife sheath is in that house if it isn't the murder weapon, and no explanation for why Koberger's DNA

would be on that knife sheath if he was not the murderer. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Straight out to a special guest joining us. Dr. Sherry Schwartz, forensic psychologist specializing in capital mitigation. The idea that Bloom is advancing, that somehow two other males were part of a big murder scheme where not only did they murder four innocent University of Idaho students, but it was all part of a plan to incriminate Brian Koberger by somehow getting his DNA on the knife sheath and planting it.

I didn't even mention the searches, the Amazon searches, which the defense is trying desperately to suppress. So the jury never hears about it. The Amazon searches, many, many searches for the weapon. And he finally buys the weapon with a sheath that exactly matches the one found at the murder scene under a victim. But the knife has gone missing. So he bought the knife on Amazon like a big idiot. Now they're claiming your Amazon records are secret and private and the state shouldn't be able to access them. Really? But that said, what jury would buy the argument that two unknown mystery men planned this whole thing to frame Koberger. I think that's a tough sell because the reality is the simplest explanation is usually the one that's most correct.

This was a college house where the kids had parties. When I was in college, cleaning up after a party wasn't one of my priorities. And so that blood could have come from two different male people who were in the house. Maybe they were at a party and cut themselves. You know, who knows how long that it was there. I think there's a number of explanations, but that's a pretty complicated explanation to say that he was framed and that all of these steps had to happen to do that. I don't like him looking like he did a white collar crime. This isn't a wall 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 ready. Can we treat this guy like he just, like, traded insider trading with his own company stocks? It's not white collar. With every twist and turn in this case, the victim's family suffer more. At this hour, a bombshell. The defense claiming two mystery males' DNA found at the murder scene were four Idaho University students slaughtered in their own beds. You were just seeing the parents of Kelly Gonsalves speaking out. Take a listen to what we are learning about the defense argument. Koberger's attorneys claim the FBI illegally

obtained Brian Koberger's DNA, breaking the Fourth Amendment on illegal search and seizure. They say submitting Koberger's DNA to a public ancestry database was out of bounds when law enforcement is not legally permitted to use the site. The attorneys are also saying the fact that police did not only not submit two other blood samples from the scene to the FBI's DNA database due to not fitting eligibility requirements, agents did not tell the magistrate judge about them. Taylor claims the omission should disqualify some evidence obtained.

Joining us, Dr. Thomas Coyne, chief medical examiner, District 2 medical examiner's office in Florida. Pathologist, neuropathologist, toxicologist. Dr. Coyne, thank you for being with us. Much is being made about the mystery men's two DNA, two of them, unidentified males. We understand they're not the same two. They're not the same person, donor, not just one mystery man, but two mystery men's blood DNA found at the murder scene. One blood on a handrail. I'm curious, was it dried? Where in the home was it? There are three stories. The other on a glove discarded in the parking lot. Dr. Coyne, there are many ways to transfer blood such as what?

Well, I mean, first of all, we're making the assumption that this is blood. And I don't think that it may very well not be blood. And the reason being is that DNA obtained from a nucleated blood cell or a nucleated cell from your mouth or from anywhere in your body is going to be the same. So the only way that you're able to identify

that this is blood is either do an mRNA profile, which they didn't do here, or to apply another chemical reagent that will try to identify this substance as blood. And that generally occurs by reacting with iron that's present in hemoglobin in blood. And you make the assumption, yes, this is blood. But iron is present in a lot of things. Copper, iron are all transition chemicals or metals, excuse me, that can make this reaction look positive. So you're making the assumption that you're applying a reagent to an area in the house, you're getting a positive hit, you're swabbing it, you're getting a positive DNA hit, and now you're saying, yes, this is blood DNA. But there's DNA all over that house.

We shed DNA everywhere constantly, especially a home that you have tenants that are all in college. I guarantee you there are multiple male and females coming in and out of that house on a regular basis, shedding their DNA everywhere. To Justice Scott Morgan and joining us, Professor of Forensics at Jacksonville State University, author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon and star of Body Bags. Joe Scott, you have investigated over 1,000, 1,000 death scenes. You have collected blood at scenes. You have observed transfer, spatter, pooling, droplets, you name it. You have found the tiniest, tiniest amount of DNA at scenes and collected it. Now the defense is stating that this is male DNA, at least one of them being blood.

I'm curious, Joe Scott Morgan, how is it that they know it's male DNA? Well, it's because of the markers that are contained within our DNA molecule that differentiate between male and female. So that's relatively easily narrowed down. And do they still have it? Is it something they can go back and do further testing on it?

Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Back to Howard Bloom joining us, author of When the Night Comes Falling, A Requiem for the Idaho Student Murders. You state in your recent article that you fear that Brian Koberger has, let me quote, committed the nearly perfect crime. Why do you say that? Because the evidence against him is largely circumstantial except for the DNA. The only really condemning evidence against him is after he's arrested, they do a cheek swab. The DNA from that cheek swab matches the DNA on the knife sheath.

That's it. Everything else, the car, they never have him behind the wheel. They never get the license plate of the car. The cell phone triangulation, well, that's just 10 miles. The eyewitness allegedly, another possibility to the jury, it could be effective. In fact, in court, it was Judge Hippler himself who said after hearing the defense make the statement about the DNA, are you saying that Kohlberger had people helping him, that he had accomplices? He raised this issue. And if he is able to articulate it, it will, I think, land very clearly in the minds of the jurors. Bloom, wait a minute. He only said that, obviously,

because Ann Taylor's argument isn't making any sense. She is saying, I guess, jumping on your train, that two unknown mystery men either helped or framed Brian Koberger. He's saying it just like I said it. Is that what you're saying? Just like when I said, what's next? Little green men from Mars beamed down and helped out. He is trying to get his mind around the defense claim. Are you saying that two men

helped Koberger, that this is a big murder conspiracy, either helped him commit the murder or tried to frame him? He's saying it just like I'm saying it right now. Is that really what you're saying? I don't read anything into that except incredulity. Because he also raised the question of a Franks hearing. He did not rule it out. He had to give it more thought. And I think I'm not saying it's what happened. I'm saying this is an effective story. Ann Taylor is a storyteller. Okay, hold on. Bloom. You know what a Franks hearing is, right? What do you think a Frank's hearing is? It's to impugn the evidence that the police gathered to get a search warrant.

For probable cause. Okay. And he responded with incredulity at that very claim that the search warrant and the arrest warrant were not supported by constitutional PC probable cause. Listen to what Hippler says. Judge Steve Hippler and a co-worker's lead defense attorney, Ann Taylor, seem to be at odds over DNA found at the crime scene. The defense wants investigative genetic genealogy evidence used to identify her client suppressed. The question being, is there an expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene? Judge Stephen Hippler says he struggles with the idea

that there's any expectation of privacy. Hippler added that the DNA found on the knife sheath is probable cause every day and twice on Sunday. And Taylor disagreed. There you have it. I mean, boom, you can sit back in your easy chair and write books and articles as interesting and as informative as they are and try to interpret what the judge is saying. But his words are DNA on that knife sheath is probable cause every day and twice on Sunday. Bam.

And what did he say after that? He said, hold your calendars free because we might want to have a Franks hearing. So he hadn't resolved it as clearly as he said. You know why? Oh, wait a minute. Hold on. Philip Dubay. Can you just, Dubay, can you just debate?

Can you just take off your defense hat really quickly? OK. And just tell me the truth. If this if the defense wants a Frank's hearing before the judge, they're going to get a Frank's hearing. Why? This is a death penalty case. And if they want the judge to hear their argument and then rule, of course, Hitler's going to do it. A judge, especially in a death penalty case, is not going to say, I don't even want to hear what you've got to say, Ann Jeller.

Uh-uh. That right there could be reversible error. So, of course, he's going to have a Frank's hearing. A Frank's hearing is when the judge looks at the probable cause that supported a search or an arrest warrant and determines really, was there enough PC? PC can be based on hearsay. It can be based on third party information, but it has to be enough to support a search or an arrest. Do you really think in any way, in any world debate that Hitler is not going to allow a Frank's hearing for him to say, yes, you can have a Frank's hearing. That means nothing. Of course he's going to allow it. And he should, because remember, the test is whether or not the affidavit of probable cause is supported by truthful, accurate facts that were relayed in the affidavit of probable cause under oath.

If for whatever reason there were factual omissions, misstatements and frankly lies, that is grounds to traverse the warrant and suppress everything recovered as a result of it. Or alternatively, the court can find that despite the inaccuracies and the omissions, even if you sever that, there's still ample probable cause to a warrant to survive. I understand your position, which frankly is not well supported in the law that if hypothetically here, he went to this crime scene, committed these murders and left DNA on a piece of evidence that he now has the ability to object to that evidence being searched for identification purposes. There's no case that suggests that, that concludes that. And it seems to me to be an extreme position to take in light of the case law. And I'm trying to understand how you get there. Okay. My notes when the judge was saying that, when Hitler was saying that is,

Hitler knows defendant's attorney is crazy. Okay. Now, what does that mean? The defense in this case is arguing that once the DNA was found on the knife sheath, that the state illegally had it tested at the crime lab. Okay. That's like you find a bullet at the scene and you send it to the crime lab for ballistics tests. That's the equivalent. They're actually claiming that that was unconstitutional. And the judge is saying, like, let me understand again what you're saying here. And he comes out and says there's no case to suggest or support what you're saying. You understand that, right? Anyway, there is another issue.

Cell phone data. Listen. Koberger's defense team has hired cell phone expert Cy Ray to testify in support of Koberger's alibi. The former police officer and founder of ZX bases his analysis on the pings that a cell phone sends to a nearby tower using the software Trax. But many have questioned the reliability of Ray's data. Many other experts say Trax's methodology is not based in science. And a Colorado judge has even banned prosecutors from using the software in their cases. What cell phone data? Number one, we know where his phone pinged. Let's see that graphic one more time.

And we know that at the time of the murders, he conveniently turned his cell phone off and then turned it on again when he was fleeing the scene, according to the state. Scott Eicher is joining me, founding member of the FBI cellular analysis survey team. Let that just sink in. Founding member of the FBI cell analysis team. That says it all. You can find him now at PCAexperts.com, Precision Cellular Analysis. This is what he does all day, every day, and as Hipler said, twice on Sundays. Scott Eicher, thank you for being with us. What are they talking about? They have a cell phone expert that's going to say what? I can tell you, Nancy, I've dealt with this cell phone expert, Mr. Cy Ray, and we have for years and years dealt with him and how he brings stuff into court. The best way to explain it is that judge in Colorado who basically said

that his software is based on a sea of unreliability. He found that Mr. Ray was not credible, claiming that he was boasting his credentials, inaccurately claiming he was an engineer. And they basically said, you can't use his stuff or use him as an expert in Colorado here because it's baseless. And the reason they're doing that, and, you know, I don't know Mr. Ray personally, but, you know, we've dealt with his estimates and misleading information in what he says about cell phone stuff numerous times. And it's very important to make sure you're accurate

because it can be very problematic and misleading if you don't just state the facts. You can't expound on those and guess. Scott Eicher, I want to tell you a very quick story. I had a medical examiner and no offense to you, Dr. Coyne, or to you, Joe Scott Morgan, but this medical examiner, I had seen transcripts where he was totally discredited under oath. And I waited for him to take the stand for the defense. And then I remember the look on his face when I started pulling out all those depositions. At least here, the defense is getting an idea ahead of time that their expert may have a credibility problem.

Are you telling me he claimed to be an engineer and he's not an engineer? That is correct. He is not an engineer. He was actually a police officer or sheriff in, I think it was Texas or Arizona. And he started working cases around cell phone stuff. And, you know, he has basic knowledge. He's never had any training from engineers like I have what we did in the FBI. So he doesn't have the knowledge or the expertise. And then he's taking leaps where there's really no facts to support what he's saying sometimes. Philip Dubé, that is a major misstep to put up an expert that's going to be destroyed on cross-examination on credibility alone if that happens in this case. Yes, of course.

But remember, he's putting on an alibi defense. He is saying that he was stargazing and chanting at Ashram sitting in a lotus position with the phone off. And if he's at one with the universe praying and saying namaste, that's his defense. Now, will it fly? Remains to be seen. Finally, there was a trash pull in Pennsylvania and there was no warrant for that trash pull either. Article 1, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution, we are looking to see if somebody has a privacy interest that society is ready to support. In this case, if society is not ready to support suppression of every bit of our DNA when the government does not have a warrant and searches it, there is no privacy right left. Okay, I had to really focus on what Ann Taylor is saying to Defense Attorney Philip Dubé.

She is arguing that when the trash was taken from Koberger's parents' home in the Poconos, and they got the dad's DNA and matched it back to the knife sheath. When the trash was taken, that was illegal. I guess she never heard about the abandonment theory. If I throw out the trash or I throw out gum on the street, which I would never do, and the cop comes along and gets my DNA off of it, that's abandonment. Anybody can have it because I threw it away. I don't need a warrant. She's claiming that the trash pool was wrong. And she's arguing that Koberger's great, great, great grandma has a privacy interest. When they put Koberger's DNA from the knife sheath into the genetic genealogy, whose rights are they violating? Great, great granny? What? That's what she's arguing. You know that's BS. Disagree. Come on. Listen, they just took the DNA profile, his genetic material, as opposed to just taking

the genetic material and putting it in a government database where you have a bunch of arrestees and suspects already on file without actual or apparent consent. It violates the Fourth Amendment. And the remedy is you throw out consent from who? Consent from who? None of those people have standing to complain, to, to argue in court. This is about the defendant's right to privacy and taking the DNA off that knife sheath and putting it into genetic genealogy does not violate his rights. And as far as the trash pool, the father, Koberger's father threw out trash. It

was abandoned under the law, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, unless you're claiming they're wrong, that property was abandoned and the police have full access to that. But hold on. I'm just being joined by a very special guest joining us regarding the Idaho death penalty and execution methods. Dr. James Williams, leading courtroom expert on firing squads. Dr. Williams, thank you for being with us. The happy to be here. Thank you. The Idaho Assembly has now determined that the firing squad, again, of course, this has already occurred in Idaho, will be allowed as the number one choice for execution. or are there actual people firing the gun? How does the firing squad work in Idaho? Well, that's a good question, Nancy. Nobody really knows at this point.

The state has stated that they're still working on their procedures and protocols. But we do know from background information that they have drawn heavily on the experience of the state of Utah, which, of course, has been using firing squad as a method of execution since the experience of the state of Utah, which, of course, has been using firing squad as a method of execution since the middle of the 19th century. But there has been speculation that they may use some form of automated system. Automated would be, I think, stretching it. But having rifles mounted in fixtures that would be aimed presumably by human beings prior to the actual execution. And then they would be fired by some remote mechanism electronically.

A robot? Well, not really a robot. It would actually be, as I understand it, well, it could be. Actually, I should back off on that. Sure, if they've got a robot that says sophisticated, they may well use it. But I don't know of anything like that in existence technologically. Okay, let me just try to drink in and ingest what you just said. Guys, Dr. James Williams is a leading expert on the firing squad.

So you're saying that it's actually being advocated that a robotic system or a digital system be set up to take perfect aim at Koberger and shoot him dead as opposed to five people standing there. One of them has a blank and they all fire and they can all go home thinking, oh, I was the one with the blank. Why? I'm not sure what the reasoning behind it is. I think there's there's a lot of arguments. And at this point, really, it's all speculation. We know that they have been discussing this in numbers of jurisdictions and Idaho is one of them. But the actual motives behind doing it that way are unclear to me. Joining me again, star of Body Bags is Joe Scott Morgan.

Joe Scott, have we all lost our minds? An automated or digital system so no human actually has to pull the trigger? Because I've got a pretty good idea of somebody that would like to pull the trigger. And that would be Kelly Gonsalves, his mom and dad. I bet people are lined up to pull the trigger. Yeah, there would be. There's any number. And how many times have I heard people say that since since this butchery went down? You know, just give me an opportunity to do it.

But it's one thing to say that it's another thing to step in and facilitate this. But we have to keep in mind, even with the capital punishment that they decide upon, it's just like anything else. If you're talking about lethal injection or as we we've recently used here in Alabama, this exposure to gas, you know, and we're talking about nitrogen gas that they're now using. There is a human element. Somebody has to press something. Somebody has to flip something. Somebody has to initiate the sequence. And, you know, the military has had firing systems for years and years where they can target a weapon at a specific point.

Now, I think the curious question here is, are we talking about multiple weapons that are being used in a traditional sense? Are we talking about a single weapon that is targeted, say, for instance, center mass over the individual to be executed over their heart, that's quite something when you begin to think about it. You know what, Joe Scott, I love it when you start talking this way, but are you, just to put it in a nutshell, they're considering an automated system where, quote, nobody has to pull the trigger. OK, can we just see a shot of these victims, these four victims with their lives in front of them falling asleep in their own beds? They were slaughtered like animals getting rendered in a in a butcher shop. If evidence supports Koberger is guilty of these murders

in some bizarre experiment to see what it felt like to kill people, he may very well be subjected to the Idaho death penalty. If convicted, I guarantee you there would be a line wrapped around the building to pull the trigger. At this juncture, he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nancy Grace signing off. Goodbye, friend. You're listening to an iHeart Podcast.