Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - STUDENTS BUTCHERED WHILE KOHBERGER "WATCHING MOON & STARS"

Episode Date: April 18, 2024

Bryan Kohberger's attorney has provided his official alibi for the early morning hours of November 13, 2022. Kohberger claims he was driving his car. In a newly-filed court document, Kohberger claims after he moved to the Pullman area he liked to go out and explore, and according to him, that is what he was doing when the four students were murdered, But Kohberger claims his cell phone data will back him up and prove that he was south of Pullman and west of Moscow at the time of the murders  Kohberger's official alibi claims, "Mr. Kohberger was out driving in the early morning hours of November 13, 2022; as he often did to hike and run and/or see the moon and stars, He drove throughout the area south of Pullman, Washington, west of Moscow, Idaho including Wawawai Park." To further solidify his alibi, Kohberger said he plans to offer testimony from a CSLI expert to show that he was south of Pullman and west of Moscow at the time of the murders and that he did not travel east on the Moscow-Pullman Highway on the early morning of November 13, 2022.  Joining Nancy Grace Today: Tara Malek – Bosie, ID, Attorney & Co-owner of Smith + Malek; Former State and Federal Prosecutor; X: @smith_malek Chris McDonough – Director at the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective; Host of YouTube channel: “The Interview Room” William Slater – Cybersecurity Expert and Chief Information Security Officer at Slater Technologies. Inc.  Joe Scott Morgan – Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University, Author, “Blood Beneath My Feet,” and Host: “Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan;” Twitter/X: @JoScottForensic Caitlin Hornick - Night News Editor at “The U.S. SUN;" @caitlinhornik on IG and X   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Breaking news tonight, PhD student turned a murder suspect, Brian Koberger, files his alibi. He claims with a straight face, he was out stargazing, quote, out driving to see the moon and the stars on the night. Four beautiful University of Idaho students butchered dead in their own beds. This as the state is forced to admit in open court there was no stalking. Repeat, Koberger did not stalk any of the four murder victims. Now, will the defense claim a la Johnny Cochran, no stalking, no motive, no murder? I say no way. Good evening. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. I want to thank you for being with us.

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 zanna were also out in the community at sigma chai and they arrived home at approximately 1 45 a.m two surviving roommates who were also out in the community arrived home at approximately 1 a.m later on the morning of november 13th at 11 58 a.m 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 mosc 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, a, 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 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. Kober allegedly stalked one of the victims. That's false. You know that'd be false. Which one? That Mr. Kober 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 have now for anybody who had never heard that before that question is now planned to end to them unqualified representation that mr coberger stopped 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. 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, 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 not true. That's actually not true. You know, 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 his, 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? And so it's going to be really critical for the prosecution to have a well-articulated motive for this, because otherwise defense is going to come in and start tearing it apart and saying absolutely what you said. No stalking, no motive, no murder here. 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 of the defense put on, he mentioned that there's no evidence of witnesses being stalked. 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 know, 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. Now, according to the defense, though, Chris, they're going to bring on cell phone experts and radio frequency experts to prove, according to

the defense, that he wasn't there. Do I believe it? No. But would a juror, just one, believe it? Maybe. 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. OK, question. I'm asking you about the surveyor, the surveyor that sent out calls to at least 400 potential Koberger jurors. And in that phone survey, the surveyor asked about Koberger stalking the victims. And you know what? Play it again, Liz. It's cut 20. Bill Thompson, the Lottie County prosecutor, grilling Dr. Edelman, who took part in this survey. Listen.

You've known it was false that Mr. Kober allegedly stalked one of the victims. That's false. You know that to be false. Which one? That Mr. Kober 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? Dr. Edelman is, 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. And I think it's really up to the jury and prosecutors to figure out what the motive was. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. To Tara Malik joining us, high profile lawyer joining us from the Idaho jurisdiction. This is a major big deal that the defense witness gets up on the stand and says, I don't care if it's a lie. I don't care. It doesn't matter to me. Yet they have poisoned the jury pool with this. This is a big deal, Tara Malik. But what's the remedy?

What? You're going to throw off the defense attorney and start all over with somebody new? That's not going to happen. So the defense is getting away with this with impunity. Now, now the result is those 400 jurors are out. They have been poisoned. So if any of them, which is highly likely in a small jurisdiction, are called to jury duty, they're out. They can't be on the jury. bolster and the specific questions that were being asked, you know, both parties have done, have gone to great lengths. And to also protect from having false information out in this community, which is a really small community. And yet, here we go, defense hires a consultant to go out there and pose questions under the guise of trying to figure out, you know, whether there's prejudicial

ideas or biases out in this community to support their, you know, request for a venue change. And they're just spreading this information that they know is untrue. So it's a really big deal. And the judge was understandably upset by it. Now, the defense is trying to say, you know, that this is normal and that they're just trying to gather information to support their motion for change of venue. But either way, you don't have to go that far. We are learning about the weather conditions the night of the murders. To Joe Sky Morgan, how difficult is it to pull that up? Because I found it pretty quickly. The night sky at 1150 p.m. November 12th throughout the morning was basically very low visibility. And Joe Scott, before you answer that, I'm looking throughout the night, 317 a.m. Overcast, 353 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. Yeah, I guess, I don't know, maybe he has special powers that we don't possess. I just don't see the validity in this assertion. 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. Guys, take a listen to what the judge and the prosecutor had to say about the stargazing alibi. The way I understand this is, and this is in the so-called alibi, not really an alibi, but quote, he was out driving during the late night and early morning hours of November 12th to 15th, 2022. Mr. Koeppler has at least now stated that his alibi is he was out driving around that night. We knew that already. And if that's his alibi, so be it.

What the defendant has still failed to do is to comply with item 19-519 and item report rule 1221 that specifically requires a defendant to provide identified names of witnesses who will be called to support the outright along with their addresses. OK, it's hard to make out what Judge Judge is saying. I'm not stuttering. His name is judge John judge. It's hard to make out what he's saying. You know, he's kind of tilted down. I'm just grateful that they let a camera be in the courtroom so we could hear and see a little bit of what's going on. He says, the way I understand this is, and this is the, this is the judge talking, the so-called alibi. The judge says the so-called alibi. Don't say that in front of the jury, judge, judge, don't. He goes on to say, the way I understand this is, and this is the so-called alibi, not really an alibi.

The judge said that, not me, his words, not mine, not really an alibi, but quote, he was out driving during the late night and early morning hours of November 12, 2013, 2022. The judge is commenting on the alibi. He is calling it a so-called alibi. And he's also stating it as quote, not really an alibi because it's not, it's not. That said, the prosecutor comes right back in after that and states that even though he's claiming he was out driving, the defense has not complied with the law. Tara Malik, the law is that if you are presenting an alibi, you are specifically required to identify witnesses or corroboration to support your alibi along with their addresses. And the state has to do this too with all of their

witnesses so that the state can test the alibi. In other words, speak to the witnesses, test the scientific evidence. Let me pose you a question, Tara, since there's not going to be a witness to state, they saw Koberger out driving around that night, let's just cut the chase. There's not a witness. 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 victim's 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. Not a great position to be in. And again, it seems like a weak alibi to me. The other part of it, too, that the prosecutor said when they said, you know, he was out was that we already knew Koberger was out. Listen, Koberger's official alibi claims, quote, Mr. Koberger was out driving in the early morning hours of November 13, 2022, as he often did to hike and run and or see the moon and stars. He drove throughout the area south of Pullman, Washington, west of Moscow, Idaho, including Waiwi Park. To further solidify his alibi, Coburger said he plans to offer testimony from a CSLI expert to show that he was south of Pullman and west of Moscow at the time of the murders and that he did not travel east on the Moscow-Pullman Highway in the early morning hours of November 13, 2022.

So what does that mean? That means that Brian Koberger intends to call an expert to the stand to testify that his Brian Koberger cell phone was outside Moscow on the night the students were murdered. Joining me right now is a veteran in cybersecurity, Bill Slater, cybersecurity expert at IT Security Consultant. Bill, thank you for being with us. What does this mean? What are they saying? What do you expect to happen?

Sure. Well, one of the things that occurs when you have your cell phone, even if it's turned off, it will ping towers that's on the cell phone grid. So they're going to try to prove that his cell phone was pinging towers that were vehicle in the last six or seven years. So that there's a hard drive in there that indicates what the car has been doing. And a lot of people view that as a breach of privacy, but that has been used to investigate crimes. So I would try to relate both of those. But the other thing I'll mention real quick is anytime you have digital data, that data itself can be altered. And you need to show a chain of custody that the data has not been altered. So that's another consideration. From what I am gleaning from what was said in court in the last hours, Bill Slater, guys, Bill Slater, cybersecurity expert, is that the defense is going to call, one, a cell phone expert to offer information regarding cell phone tower pings as you just described and a radio

frequency expert to corroborate the cell phone expert so what does that mean a radio frequency expert well all of our cell phones operate on radio frequencies and so they would be looking for that expert to say that not only did the cell phone ping these towers, but it pinged it on the frequency that the cell phone was rated to ping on. So it's like a signature. Okay. I'm just a JD. I'm not a cybersecurity expert. What are you saying?

Could you say it in a different way? Sure. All of our cell phones are radio transmitters because they're wireless, and that's how they talk in the network. The way that it talks is, I won't get into the physics of it, but basically it sends out radio frequencies. It sends and receives signals on radio frequencies. So the person that they want to corroborate that would say, yes, the pinging on the cell phone towers matches the radio frequency of his phone. Okay, that made better sense to me. So the radio frequency used at the towers equals or is compatible, simpatico, with the radio frequency his phone would have been using. Okay. So is it correct to state, Bill Slater, that a radio frequency expert

could corroborate a cell phone data expert, or are they one in the same? They're not one in the same. And the radio frequency expert would be supporting the data expert who would be reporting the timing of the receipt of the signals. In this area, and anybody on the panel jump in, we've all been to the area, we've seen the area, the defense is arguing that Koberger was driving south of Pullman, where he goes to school at Washington State University, and west of Moscow. Defense claiming Koeberger driving south of Pullman, and that's Pullman, Washington, and west of Moscow, Idaho, quote, as he often did to hike and run or see the moon and stars. Okay, the two towns are only 10 miles apart.

Now, Bill Slater, put that in your mind. The two towns, Pullman and Moscow, are only 10 miles apart. It's a really quick drive compared to his long circuitous route he took home when he turned his cell phone back on. Um, another curious thing about the stalking and everybody, I want you to jump in. According to data we've heard about, cell phone data is placing him in and around the murder scene multiple times before the murders. So that could constitute a stalking claim. The defense will have a perfectly innocent sounding excuse for that, but it is curious, is it not, if not probative, prove something that he was going back and forth by their home and then suddenly they're dead and he's out looking at the stars.

So what about that route that they are claiming to Bill Slater? If there's only 10 miles between the two spots where he was allegedly looking at the stars and the murder scene. Can a cell phone tower differentiate between the two locations? Yes, absolutely. It can. And it's come to light since the whole Edward Snowden thing of 2014 that the only time your cell phone is not tracking you is when you take the battery out. And a lot of people are unaware of that, Nancy. They think if they turn their cell phone off that they're not trackable, and that's not true. The only way that a device cannot track you on towers is to remove the battery so they can't talk to the towers. 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. 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. 247. 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. 404, the sedan returns and stops in front of the King Road address. 4.20, 16 minutes later, the white sedan scratches off, 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. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.

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 can, 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? It came off the snap, Nancy. 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 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, you know, relative to this. And one more thing, and I'll shut my mouth. The brutality of this, you know, you used the term he murdered four people a little while ago, Nancy. 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. All right.

It's made for that purpose. And 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 Ph.D. in DNA sciences and they're going to put them up on the stand. And 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 and rock solid. Right. 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 US? 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 have lived on earth. Right. 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 O.J. claiming that O.J. 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 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, Nancy? To Bill Slater, cybersecurity expert. Jump in, Bill. Yes, I've studied this case a great deal, and it's occurred to me from the very beginning that not only was he a Ph.D. candidate in criminology, I think the mindset of the young man was that he was going to commit the perfect crime and get away with it.

So I think people are – this is not a normal person. This is a person that had studied crime extensively and knew what succeeded and what didn't succeed so we're not talking about a normal individual here he knows how criminals think you know joe scott uh jumping off what bill slater said i want to talk about very quickly the nav system the 2015 elantra Koberger was driving had an optional, repeat, optional nav system, navigation system. And we just saw what a nav system can do in court with Alex Murdoch, right? It destroyed the defense, placing him at the crime scene at the time of the murders. So what do you do with that? What can we improve

with the nav system, Joe Scott? Well, when they do the data dump on this thing, and again, you know, parse out all of that information that the car is recording, there's no way to really shut this thing off. It's going to be, I think that it's going to be damning information. It's interesting that that did not come up in this alibi issue. You know, we're talking about phones and all these sorts of things. So I think that that's going to be a big piece of this to validate, to validate their suppositions. So we're waiting to find out if that Elantra did have a nav system. We're understanding that the 2015's nav system optional, but you know what? I think I'll go out tonight and gaze at the moon and the stars and try to figure it out. Let's stop and remember American hero Lance Corporal Donovan Davis, just 21.

Lance Corporal Donovan Davis died in a helicopter crash with four other Marines, Feb 7, 24. He leaves behind a loving family, Father Greg, Sister Madison, American hero, Lance Corporal Donovan Davis. I want to thank all of our guests for being with us tonight, but especially to you for being with us tonight, but especially to you for being with us tonight and every night. Nancy Grace signing off. I'll see you tomorrow night, six and nine o'clock sharp Eastern. And until then, good night, friend. This is an iHeart Podcast.