Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - KOHBERGER TRIAL DATE SET AUGUST 2025 

Episode Date: January 3, 2025

As Bryan Kohberger's trial date is set, his attorneys are alleging key pieces of evidence has been mishandled, including DNA.  Today on Crime Stories with Nancy Grace,  we re-examine what happened in 2024. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. On the evening of November 12th and into the early morning hours of November 13th, Kaylee and Madison arrived home at approximately 1 45 a.m. after visiting a local bar and a street food vendor. Ethan and Xana were also out in the community at Sigma Chi and they arrived home at approximately 1.45 AM. Two surviving roommates who were also out in the community arrived home at approximately 1 AM. Later, on the morning of November 13th at 1158 AM, a 911 call was placed.

The call reported an unconscious person. The call originated from inside the residence and a surviving roommate's cell phone was used. During that call, the dispatcher spoke to multiple people who were on scene. Moscow police officers responded and found two victims, two on the second floor and two on the third floor of 1122 King Road. The results of autopsies indicated that the four were stabbed multiple times and were likely asleep during the attack. Some had defensive wounds and there was no sign of sexual assault. You are hearing police captain Roger Lanier there in Moscow detailing what happened the morning the murders were reported to 911. In the last hours, abshell in the courtroom. Brian Koberger announces his formal alibi that he was, quote, out watching the moon and the stars around 3 to 4 a.m. the night of the murders. Hold that thought. Also, in the middle of all of this, let me throw this in the pot to stew.

We are now learning, contrary to many earlier reports, that there there was no stalking. Brian Koberger reportedly stalked no one. This is a torpedo to the state's case. Listen. Brian Koberger tried to message one of the female victims of the Idaho murders. That's reportedly what an unidentified police source told People magazine. The source said weeks before the murders, direct messages were repeatedly sent to one of the women over Instagram. The source said there was no reply. Reports early on from an anonymous source revealed that there were pictures of at least one of the victims in Brian Koberger's photo roll. Steve and Christy Gonsalves also shared screenshots with CBS News purportedly showing an Instagram account belonging to Brian Koberger, and it had interacted with and followed Maddie Mogan and

Kaylee Gonsalves on the social media platform. Christy Gonsalves said that Koberger had liked pictures on Maddie Mogan's account. The account that Gonsalves referred to was not authenticated as belonging to Koberger. Then who was it? Well, that's what we've been told all along, right? All wrong. There was a serious blow up in court. Listen. You acknowledge false that Mr. Koberger allegedly stalked one of the victims. That's false. You know that to be false. Which one? That Mr. Koberger allegedly stalked one of the victims. Yes, I was trying not to say that. But you knew that was false. I did?

Yes. And so you have now, for anybody who had never heard that before, that question is now planted into them, unqualified representation that Mr. Koberger stalked one of the witnesses. And that's false. That's false? Yes. Yes.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right. What in the world? You are hearing the prosecutor that is Bill Thompson, the Lottie County prosecutor, reaming technical legal term, Dr. Edelman for the defense. And the prosecutor is grilling him on claims that he made to potential jurors about stalking in this case. Joining me, an all-star panel to make sense of everything that's going on in that courtroom. And there is a lot. But first, to Caitlin Hornick joining us, editor at the U.S. Sun. Caitlin, thank you for being with us. I'm going to get to the moon and the stars. All right. I've already researched the whole thing on the Farmer's Almanac. Caitlin, what is this about no stalking? Are we losing motive for murder? You know, Nancy, I think there are a lot of things still at play that this jury ultimately will have to uncover.

The thing that's really sticking out to me is the, you know, the back and forth with the stalking. I don't know how you can go from saying that there were these messages exchanged on Instagram and that the photos on the camera roll to saying, oh, no, wait, that's that's not true. That's actually not true. I think there are a lot of things that the prosecutors need to be honest about and that they need to lay out in plain terms facts about what actually went on. Personally, I think the fact that Koberger's prosecutors doubled down on his alibi is equal parts shocking and, you know, just kind of crazy when you think about it. Yeah, I'm thinking about that whole

watching the moon and stars aspect of this. Let me go to high profile lawyer joining us from this jurisdiction, Tara Malik, partner at Smith and Malik and former state and federal prosecutor. Tara, thank you for being with us. Do you remember, of course you do, the famous, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit? Well, I feel like I'm getting bit in the neck with this thing, but all along we have heard police stating we don't have evidence of stalking. We've heard that from the get-go, but yet we've seen screens and heard evidence that there was stalking by Koberger on at least one of the victims, if not more. So are we going to have a Johnny Cochran-esque defense? No stalking, no murder, no motive.

Yeah, I mean, it certainly doesn't help the state's case. Motive is not something that they have to prove. It's not like, you know, an element of the charges. But what it does is explain the why behind the crimes. And jurors always want to know why. Why did this happen? Guys, as a matter of fact, it goes way back. Take a listen to police captain Roger Lanier. We have heard mention that Kaylee stated she may have had a stalker. Detectives have been looking into that and to this point have been unable to corroborate the statement,

although we continue to seek information and tips regarding that report. No suspects have been named or arrested, and we continue looking for what we believe to be a fixed blade knife used in the murders. That knife never found and neither has there been found evidence of stalking again. I can hear it ringing in my ears right now. No motive, no murder. Joining me, as I said, an all-star panel to Chris McDonough joining us, Director Cold Case Foundation, former homicide detective on the interview room on YouTube. Chris McDonough. Of course, the state, as you know, from handling so many homicides never has to prove motive. But in many people's minds,

there should be a motive presented to a jury because how could a jury believe that someone that doesn't know these four victims would just randomly choose them and murder them to, quote, see what it feels like. That's going to be a tough sell, especially now that we find out the state has also learned the defense is bringing on cell phone and radio frequency data to refute claims. Koberger was in the area of the murders at the time of the murders. The state is getting torpedoed left and right. Now we've lost motive. The stalking. Yeah, Nancy, I mean, one of the most interesting things, and it may just be semantics,

is when Thompson was arguing with the expert witness that the defense put on, he mentioned that there's no evidence of witnesses being stopped. I thought that was a very interesting choice of words versus victims. This may be a cover play as well by the state because you've got to now think about we've got some amateur astronomer, i.e. Koberger, you know, exercising in the middle of the night, yet his cell phone shows up 12 separate times around the crime scene. This, as we are learning, and correct me if I'm wrong, Caitlin Hornick joining us from

the U.S. Sun, but the pollster, the surveyor that was hired by the defense to call at least 400 prospective jurors, asked the jurors about stalking. And we heard prosecutor Bill Thompson say, you knew that wasn't true. And you asked people, you put it out there in the ether that there was stalking. And the guy responds, I don't care if it's true or false. He actually said that in a court of law. Did that happen, Caitlin? You know, I think one of the biggest things at play here that the whole, the prosecution, that Koberger, that everyone involved is struggling with is misinformation. You know, we've seen that from the beginning with the stalker, not stalker bit. You know, there are so many

inconsistencies that I think are still being investigated. Okay, question. I'm asking you about the surveyor. The surveyor that sent out calls to atyor asked about Koberger stalking the victims. And you know what? Play it again, Liz. It's cut 20. Bill Thompson, the Lata County prosecutor, grilling Dr. Edelman, who took part in this survey. Listen. You acknowledge false that Mr. Koberger allegedly stalked one

of the victims. That's false. You know that to be false. Which one? That Mr. Koberger allegedly stalked one of the victims. Yes. I was trying not to say that. But you knew that was false. I did? Yes. And so you have now, for anybody who had never heard that before, that question is now planned to them, unqualified representation that Mr. Koberger stopped one of the witnesses. And that's false. That's false? Yes. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right. So, Caitlin Hornick, explain who is Dr. Edelman? You know, he's a pollster. We, why he was making these phone calls and kind of, you know, planting this information remains to be seen.

You know, why he went so far and, you know, to say that there was stalking and, you know, but these false claims, it doesn't make sense. Details matter. Now, we are learning about the weather conditions the night four University of Idaho students murdered. As prime suspect Brian Koberger claims, he was out alone watching the moon and stars at 4 a.m. To Joe Scott Morgan, how difficult is it to pull that up? Because I found it pretty quickly. The night sky at 1150 PM, November 12, throughout the morning was basically very low visibility. And Joe Scott, before you answer that, I'm looking throughout the night, 317 AM overcast3 a.m. That's the time of the murders.

Ice and fog, 453 overcast, 553 overcast, 653 overcast. So what's he looking at? Nothing. I mean, how can he see? You know, unless he has some kind of special ability, how are you going to be able to go out and appreciate this? And you're talking about a layer of fog, Nancy, as well, because that's going to settle between your view of the sky and yourself, your position relative to the sky. All right. So it's not just simply that it's

overcast. It's like you begin to think about fog that's perhaps over there. It's kind of, you know, how they use the term, Nancy, a blanket of fog? You begin to think about that. So that's even going to further obscure your view. So I'm looking at this, the cloud cover on Saturday, November 12, 2022 in Moscow, Idaho. Cloud coverage, the height of dominant cloud layer, very, very thick and overcast that night. There is not only overcast, but ice and fog. And you know what I think would be a fantastic courtroom demonstration? And of course, Tara Malik, high profile lawyer joining us out of this jurisdiction. Tara, wouldn't it be a great demonstration to turn off all the lights in the courtroom and try to recreate the conditions, maybe with possibly an overhead projector of some sort of the stars and the moon.

How little you could see that night, that would be tough to do. Maybe there's some sort of a satellite picture from that night. I bet there is that could be achieved by the state to show the jury, maybe from the U.S. Weather Service, how overcast it really was that night. And for him to be out at 4 a.m. stargazing, what a sack of, let me just say, BS, technical legal term. I mean, is this really happening, Tara? Yeah, I mean, again, this is a weak alibi that's being put forward. And I agree, if there's a way to demonstrate or show a picture about what this guy looked like that night, I would certainly think that would help the prosecution's case in poking holes in this alibi defense. I'm wondering if they're going to use cell phone data

to suggest Koberger was elsewhere at the time of the murders looking at the stars because that elsewhere is out in the middle of nowhere. Yeah, it seems like that they're going to rely on cell phone data to say he was out at a park stargazing. But, you know, again, where is this park and is the park within the route of, you know, the circuitous kind of route that we've already know and talked about that he took to get over to the victims' homes. So there's a lot to be seen here.

And it seems like the defense is also saying, we still don't have the discovery that we need to get all this information out and to support our alibi. I believe you testified that you don't care if the information that you put in your specific questions to other people being surveyed is correct. You said that, didn't you? Right. I don't know what you mean by correct.

True or false? I care about whether or not it's proliferated by the media. You don't care if it's true? No, I don't. No. Everybody said prejudicial. So it's okay to taint people who had never heard that information before for the end result of identifying others who have and might have bias. Is that a fair statement?

I'm going to object to the questions. He's badgering. So why is it that the only corroboration, Mark Tate, that Kuhlberger is bringing on is a set of cell phone pings? But there's nothing wrong with that. The prosecution has indicated they're going to rely on cell phone pings. And the rule, the law about alibi in Idaho is anytime after arraignment, you're allowed to tell the defendants, tell the prosecutors rather,

that you're going to rely on alibi and you have to disclose your witnesses. However, here, the witnesses are cell phone pings, Just like the prosecution's relying on cell phone pings, so is the defendant allowed to rely as well. Now, of course, that's going to be put in front of a jury, just like issues about whether he wore gloves and how strange that is. All of that will be admitted by witnesses, all of whom are subject to a sifting cross-examination. And so now the prosecution knows there's going to be an alibi defense, and when there is, it has to be supported by admissible evidence. And so with each witness comes the chance to demonstrate reasonable doubt. Oh, you're just reading the criminal code on evidence to me.

I got it. That's right. So that's what the defense lawyer has to do. That's what they have to do. Let's give Mark Tate a little bit of his own medicine. Well, what is it? You're going to make me wear gloves? I've got a pair here for you, but maybe you could borrow Kohlbergers. Oh, wait, no, they're in evidence. Joining me, Chris McDonough, you were talking about the pings and you didn't get to say it on air, but Tate is all about, oh, the pings are going to help exonerate him. Wait a minute. Okay. He's at home 242. He's back at home at 527. He's at home at 932 AM. But wait a minute, 450 phone50, phone ping, 4.48, phone turned back on, wait, 2.47 a.m., right before the murders, in the middle of the night while he's out stargazing, he decides to turn his phone off

from 2.47 to 4.48. Wow. Chris McDonough, isn't that exactly when the time the murders occurred? Yeah, absolutely, Nancy. And what's interesting about that, and you pointed it out, was, you know, the one thing we learned about this alibi as well is all four of the victims are sound asleep. And, you know, the 12 other times that he was seen around that neighborhood, they were also asleep. But in this particular case, you have the phone pings that get up to the point where they turn off. And then all of a sudden, the video picks it back up in the neighborhood, i.e. the car. Whenever you hear a defense attorney say, you know, the public has a right to know and there's a gag order, that's usually a clue that there's something coming.

Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Chief suspect Brian Koberger says he's out alone driving in the late night and early morning hours, November 12 and 13. But the trial judge doubles down on Koberger's defense team, insisting you've got to hand over a witness other than the moon and the stars. The defense likely to rely on cell phone data to try and place Brian Koberger somewhere, anywhere other than the King Road address. The judge says he was out driving during the late night and early morning hours, November 12 to 13, 2022. That's his alibi. The judge doubled down on Koberger in court in the last hour saying, you've got to give us a witness or the evidence you're bringing on to corroborate this. What do I think it is? No witness at all. It's going to be cell phone data.

The defense claims places Koberger somewhere entirely different than the King wrote address. Let's see the timeline. Isn't it true, Caitlin Hornick, that Koberger, we can prove, turned his phone off and on the night of the murders? Just a yes, no. Yes, absolutely. 242, his phone is on at his apartment in Pullman. I went there. It's about an eight minute drive from the murder scene, eight to 12 minutes to 47. He turns his phone off. Who on this panel turns your phone off when you're going driving in the middle of the night?

I would keep mine on just in case I had a 911. Anyway, he turns his off. We know that. And that is irrefutable. I'm going to circle back in a moment to Bill Slater, who says you got to take your battery out of your phone to be untraceable. Just turning it off. Hey, we know you're doing that. 247.

This guy is up and about turning his phone off. 329. Not cell phone, but video surveillance from a nearby home, a residence, shows a white sedan passing the King Road address that looks, oops, just like his white Elantra. 4-0-4, the sedan returns and stops in front of the King Road address. 4-20, 16 minutes later, the white sedan scratches off, taking off like a bat out of hell at a high speed, leaving the King Road address. And then 28 minutes later, and for me, it was about an hour drive, 4.48 a.m., 28 minutes later, that phone is turned back on and it's pinging south of Moscow, Idaho, State Highway 95. I took that drive to Professor Forensics, Jacksonville State University, author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon, star of a hit series Body Bags,

and most important for me right now, forensic expert and death investigator, Joe Scott. He's between a rock and a hard spot. I want you to analyze everything Slater has told us, but also we are poking a little bit of fun at the moon and the stargazing alibi. But think about it. What else is Ann Taylor, the defense lawyer, going to say? He was a party with all of his friends. That ain't happening. They got to come up with something to make sense to a jury.

Why he may have been out driving around. The only thing they can do is refute the cell phone data because that video surveillance, I don't think it's got its car tag. No, it doesn't. But that's all they can do, Nancy, isn't it? You know, when you begin to think about it, they're muddy in the waters with all of this digital back and forth. Here's the one thing that they cannot overcome. Get this number in your mind, 5.37 octillion. That goes to his DNA profile. That means that the chances that it was somebody else are at that range. It's amazing, isn't it? Look what I have here. See?

It came off the snap, Nancy. It came off of the snap. Do that again. Absolutely. Because that's exactly where the DNA was found. Yeah, and I don't think that he was necessarily, you know, planning on this. But listen, I don't know if you could hear that, but this has got, and I'm fascinated by this. I have been since the case. This little ring right here where the snap

actually actuates, it's a ridge. And so if you're actuating it with your thumb and you drag your thumb across it, anything can be collected in here. We think about touch DNA. If he's got sweat, you know, that's coming off of his hand, it could be deposited there. Both are sources for DNA. One's richer than the other. But, you know, when you begin to think about these numbers, Nancy, and just to put it in perspective, I'm not a real fine math guy,

but that's 20, 27 zeros, Nancy. That's an amazing number. And so the reason I'm saying this is that I don't think they have anything else. And they can parade all of the experts up there that they want to. But the one thing you can't get away from at the end of the day, yeah, they don't have the knife, but they've got the sheath. And his DNA is on it. And that's a heck of a mountain for them to have to climb. This was not murder. This was pure-on butchery using this combat knife. This is a K-bar. This is something that our troopers have

used since just prior to World War II. Marines are famous for it. It's a combat knife. It's a fighting knife. When all of that is said and done, and we see the interior of that house, and we see what kind of butchery was perpetrated on these poor kids, they better damn well have something else. Because that dog ain't going to hunt because the jury is going to be put into position to observe all this. And then you're going to get somebody with a PhD in DNA sciences, and they're going to put them up on the stand. And I don't know,

I don't know what the defense can put up there that can thwart that particular attack on the part of the defense. Hey, Joe Scott, you've testified in so many cases. And when I would prepare cases for trial, I would get my own case ready, rock solid. Then I would think about what they were going to do and how I could fight it. Do you remember under Reagan, he came up with the Star Wars defense. We were going to shoot down missiles before they ever hit our homeland, the U.S.? Right, right. Yeah.

That's what I try to do. So I'm thinking, what are they going to do and how can I destroy it? They are going to attack the DNA, the science itself, which, you know, 5.37 octillion, I think is more people that have ever in history that we know of lived on Earth. Okay. So it's him. But what they could do is attack DNA science in general, but they could attack chain of custody of the DNA.

They are likely to pull an OJ claiming that, O. Simpson claiming that the cops wanted a defendant so badly they decided to pin it on Koberger. But also the placement of the knife and the genesis of the knife. Joe Scott, they could claim, hey, yeah, I went to a gun and knife show and I picked up a knife like that. And I tested it and I put it back. And some other dude, I always use put it back and some other dude, I always use the sod defense, some other dude did it, must have used that knife. That's where they're going to go, I think. Yeah, I agree with you. And I've thought, I've put a lot of thought into that relative to gun and knife shows, you know, and the idea that he would randomly,

and you know, you guys in law use this term reasonableness. Is that reasonable? Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. While Brian Koberger's defense team tries their best to alibi him, to place him anywhere other than the crime scene, damning video emerges of a white Elantra identical to Koberger's near the King Road address. That's the crime scene. Part of the hearing on the 14th is to talk about the different parts of that video that we've received and how we need the whole context. This is the video that they say places this car near

the residence. We've received little tiny pieces of that and we think Brian's right to a fair trial means the public needs to know that they've withheld the audio from a great portion of that and that it starts a long time before the little clip that we've received. Man, is she burying the lead. She's complaining about the audio not being attached to the video. Here's the bombshell. There you're hearing the defense attorney for Brian Koberger, Ann Taylor, talking about the existence of video that places Koberger's car, the white Elantra, near the crime scene. Yeah, that's a big deal. We believe that there is going to be two different video clips shown to the jury, one near the home and one near the gas station there at the corner. And I'm going to let Chris McDonough

describe the gas station video, what he believes it will portray and what the video at the home we believe is going to portray. Guys, with me, an all-star panel makes sense of what we know right now. Oh, you know what? I was just having my tea and I didn't want to leave fingerprints on the cup. So I just thought I would use these. Okay. But that said, go ahead, Chris McDonough.

Everybody take off your gloves. I promise not to collect your DNA. Well, not during the show anyway. Go ahead. Yep. So Nancy take off your gloves. I promise not to collect your DNA. Well, not during the show anyway. Go ahead. Yep. So Nancy, love the gloves. Right next to the murder scene, there's a house right on the corner there. And outside in the light socket for the front porch was an active surveillance camera. I believe that the evidence will show that that car comes up that street multiple times. And those are the clips that they're holding back, as well as the additional piece of evidence that they're going to show is away from the scene.

They're going to show that that vehicle was either A, coming into the crime scene area and or B, leaving. And I don't know if they're going to be able to correlate that in relationship to some of the phone pings, because remember, he turned his phone off. So, you know, that in and of itself is going to be interesting. Guys, I want to hear exactly what the defense attorney, Ann Taylor, said. And in her whining about the video, what are we learning? Listen. Part of the hearing on the 14th is to talk about the different parts of that video that we've received and how we need the whole context. This is the video that they say places this car near the residence. We've received little tiny pieces of that. And we think Brian's

right to a fair trial means the public needs to know that they've withheld the audio from a great portion of that and that it starts a long time before the little clip that we've received. To Justice Scott Morgan, forensic expert and professor at Jacksonville State University. I was listening to every word she says. Ann Taylor is complaining about little tiny pieces of the video placed in the car near the residence, according to police. And she doesn't like that. And she thinks that's not fair. But what it is, is different video cameras picking him up along the way. Did you decipher that? Or am I feeding you? Spoon feeding you?

No, here's the thing. You know, these ring cams and CCTV, obviously, they're more prevalent today than at any other point in time in history. And so we don't necessarily know about where all of these clips are coming from. We do know the area that he was in, allegedly, this car moving back and forth, is going to be the most densely populated area in this geographic location. You know, you get out in these areas that are far-flung. Remember the loop that they talk about that where they collected, they were trying to collect images

off of these gas station cams and wherever else the car may have passed. This is going to be the target rich area, though, around that residence at that point in time. Did they shake the bushes enough to collect enough of this data out there to piece this thing completely together? Apparently, she thinks they may have. Idaho murder suspect Brian Koberger gets pulled over by law enforcement two times, not just in one day, but actually within minutes of each other on his way for Thanksgiving break to his parents' home near the Poconos. I've just got to say two times within minutes. That's no coincidence. How y'all doing today? Good, good. Take a look at your driver's license real quick if I could.

See, he's right up on that van, man. He was right up on the back end of that van. Hold you over for tailgating. Is this your car? Okay, cool. Where are you headed? Well, we're coming from WSU. Where are you headed? He later says we're going for Thai food. And the dad's like, what? You were seeing body cam video when a Hancock County, Indiana Sheriff's Department body cam, when they pull them over and asked to see Koberger's driver's license. Now it was argued back and forth. And I claimed vehemently that

this was no coincidence because there were two pullovers by local LE law enforcement in one trip home. When does that happen? How often do you get pulled over? I rarely get pulled over. So you get pulled over twice and you never even get a ticket. Oh no, that's stuck to high heaven. With me right now, Howard Bloom, author of a brand new book, When the Night Comes Falling, A Requiem for the Idaho Student Murders, which is amazing. And in his book, he outlines how these two pullovers nearly cost the FBI their investigation or so they thought.

Take a listen to more of the pullover. What's WSU? to more of the pullover. and you're going where? Oh, okay. To Howard Bloom, I'm going to circle back to the fact that unasked, he starts talking about SWAT's team, SWAT team swarming the area. Meink thou doth protest too much in the immortal words of William Shakespeare. Nobody asked. Nobody asked about the Idaho murders. Yet he's just regurgitating, vomiting the information when nobody asked. But I want to circle back to the so-called hatbox operation that you describe so well in your book, When the Night Comes Falling. Explain, and why did the FBI, who absolutely was following Koberger, as he and his dad across the

country, thought that their entire operation may go up in flames? Well, as you point out, the FBI decided that Koberger was a person of interest. They decided this earlier before they even told the Moscow task force. They kept this to themselves for either one of two reasons. The first reason was that it was the identification was based on a genealogy, genetics, investigated genetic genealogyogy and they thought that wouldn't hold up in court or a much more cynical explanation would be that the FBI didn't want to share the credit that for Coburg's arrest with anyone else so

they go off and follow him and they have cars they have a plane in the air that's following his route and suddenly they they see Koberger being stopped. And they don't know what's going on. And they don't know what to do. They think a local cop, a local sheriff had seen the, be on the lookout for notice and swooped in on this Hyundai Elantra. Or they're also wondering, how is Koberger going to react? He is a suspect in a quadruple homicide. Is he going to put his foot on the accelerator and tear out, or perhaps he's going to shoot anything is possible of the officer who's coming in to give him this traffic ticket.

Then nine minutes later. And it's almost laughable, Howard, because the FBI actually has a bird in the air watching. And they see one pullover by the Hancock County sheriffs and Koberger goes on his way. And then there's another pullover. Don't you know, they're like, what is happening down there? Why are they pulling over our quadruple murder suspect? I'm sure they were just, and they couldn't say anything. And they're watching from a bird, right? Yes. They have assessed and they're flying overhead.

You know, it's a hawk waiting to swoop down in case anything happens in effect. And they've been building this case for six weeks and they're finally getting closer. And they think the whole case is going to be blown apart before they've connected all the dots. And they are filled with a sense of panic. But discipline. You know what, Howard? They were right. And this is no offense to Indiana at all.

But I understand where the FBI is coming from and you know how much I hate the feds. But that said, Chris McDonough joining me, director of Cold Case Foundation, former homicide detective and star of The Interview Room on YouTube. Chris, if they had stopped Koberger and he nutted up and they arrested him or sped off. Anything could have happened because we can't, we can't predict what Koberger is going to do. Just like his father, he had no idea what his son might do. We would never have gotten the evidence that we got when they finally got home to the Pocono area. Remember they were surveilled. They went in finally or in the early morning hours, they catch

him, I think in his shorts or underwear, wearing plastic gloves and separating his trash from everybody else's trash. And they see him go throwing trash in the neighbor's receptacle. None of that would have happened if local authorities had arrested Koberger for a traffic violation or if Koberger spun out and brought about his own arrest. So I understand why they were worried. Yeah, and absolutely. And not only that, if you remember this officer is leaning in. So if he would have seen anything in plain view, you know, what Doc Morgan was talking about, you know, any blood transfer or anything like that. Well, the clock starts ticking right then and there.

If this officer starts diving into this traffic stop, that you may have this fugitive task force surveillance team, you know, overhead and behind them going, hey, what the heck is going on here? So, and quite frankly, I hate to say it, but I've seen this as well as many others numerous times where, you know, this thing could have gone south really fast, but fortunately they cut them loose and they were able to connect those dots. We wait as justice unfolds. Nancy Grace signing off.

Goodbye, friend. This is an iHeart Podcast.