Crime Weekly - S3 Ep167: Crime Weekly News: Idaho 4 House to Be Demolished

Episode Date: December 27, 2023

The King Road house in Moscow, Idaho where Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen and Ethan Chapin were murdered has been scheduled to be demolished on December 28th, leading many to question why. Change.org petition to keep the house standing linked here: https://www.change.org/p/halt-the-demolition-of-king-road-house-until-after-trial Try our coffee!! - www.CriminalCoffeeCo.com Become a Patreon member -- > https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeekly Shop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shop Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcast Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod 

History's masterpieces wouldn't be the same without their most notable accents. Neither would the Kia Sportage without its multiple drive modes. The Kia Sorento without its expansive 12.3-inch panoramic display. Or the Kia Telluride without its three rows of spacious seating. The 2025 Kia SUVs. Kia. Movement that inspires. Call 800-333-4KIA for details. Always drive safely. Limited inventory available.

This Father's Day at Lowe's. Score free gifts for the greatest dad. Right now, get a free select DeWalt, Craftsman, or Cobalt tool with purchase of a select battery kit. Plus, get a free Werner 2-foot aluminum ladder when you buy an 8-foot fiberglass ladder. We'll see you next time. hey everyone welcome back to crime weekly news i'm derek levasseur and i'm stephanie harlow and if i'm doing this right this is uh two days after christmas so for everyone who celebrated christmas happy holidays i wish we were here on crime Weekly News for good reasons to talk about what we got, what we're thankful for. I'm very thankful for you, Stephanie, as always.

Thankful to be here with you right now. I am actually thankful to be here with you right now too. Virtual hug, virtual hug. So, but like always, we have these, you know, we want to talk positively, but unfortunately Crime Weekly News is here to talk about, you know, crimes in the headlines or things that you guys care about. And we're going to be talking about, unfortunately, the Moscow, Idaho case again. So the King Road House in Moscow, Idaho, where Kayla Gunkovs, Zanna Canoodle, Madison Mogan, and Ethan Chapman were murdered, has been scheduled to be demolished on December 28th, leading many to question why. And I have to tell you, before Stephanie gets into all the details here, I am one of those people as well. I don't really get it, but Stephanie, I know you got some

things you want to go over. I can already see some of the quotes that you pulled, which is raising my eyebrows. So let's just dive right into that. Yeah, I'm wondering why, too. OK, and I really wanted to talk about this on Crime Weekly News because I want to get a gauge out there of you guys listening and watching. Are you like OK with this? You know, because this completely doesn't make any sense to me. And we're going to talk about why the University of Idaho says they're doing this. We're going to talk about the people who think they shouldn't for, I mean, I think obvious reasons. But it's a little bit like, it's a little confusing and it's frustrating. And I think there is a petition going to prevent this until at least Brian Koberger goes to trial, which, I mean, seems like common sense. So we're going to link that petition in the description box. I've signed it. I signed it last night. I urge everybody to sign it. I mean, unless you are in complete support of this house being destroyed, I'm not going to force you to sign it and tell you you should or you're a bad person. But if you are also kind of of the mindset of like,

isn't this a crime scene? And hasn't the person who's been arrested not even gone on trial yet? And wouldn't it be helpful to have this house, you know, to bring the jury through? Because that's very impactful for juries, right? We've seen it in many cases. We saw it in the, well, we've seen it in many cases, basically. The jury always feels that impact of the crime very deeply when they're actually in the place that it happened. So according to University of Idaho President Scott Green, the house is a grim reminder of the heinous act that took place there. And he said, quote, while we appreciate the emotional connection some family members of the victims may have to this house, it is time for its removal and to allow the collective healing of our community to continue, end quote.

I think that this quote, in my opinion, and this is just me, I think it's very condescending. The emotional connection some family members have to – nobody has an emotional connection to it. It's not like nostalgic, like, no, don't tear down my childhood home. It's just literally the whole point of this is it's a crime scene. A crime happened there and the crime hasn't been adjudicated yet. Like it's not it's not gone through the justice system yet. Not only do you maybe want to take a jury through there, but there could potentially be evidence that hasn't been collected yet. You know, like there could be things there that could still have some use for the defense or the prosecution for either side. So it just doesn't make a lot of sense. And

I think it's condescending to say we know some family members have an emotional connection. No family, no family member would like to see that house standing there forever, knowing it was where their child was murdered. I'm sure every single family member would like to see that house standing there forever, knowing it was where their child was murdered. I'm sure every single family member would be completely happy to watch that house burn and be the one to set the match to do it after the trial. Okay. That's what we're talking about here. The university has also said that Brian Koberger's defense team will be visiting the house to take photographs, measurements, and possibly gather drone footage. And they sent the FBI in, and the FBI has created a visual aid by scanning the house. I think they like 3D scanned the house. And then they can use this as evidence in a trial, which is going to be like lame. Why would you do that when you actually have the house right there? The families of the

victims, most of them, I would say 98% of them, are not happy about this, with the Goncalves family attorney, Shannon Gray, stating that the house could hold evidence critical to the case. Gray also claimed that the University of Idaho had asked the family members of the victims for their opinions beforehand on whether or not they should demolish the house, but then they proceeded to ignore those opinions and continue on in their own self-interests. And obviously, these family members want this house to remain standing until the murder trial, but they feel that they've been ignored and they've compared their pleas with the university to keep the house up. They've compared it to screaming into a void. Zanna Kernodle's mother, Karen Northington, has also spoken out demanding the house

remain until a trial so that a jury can visit the scene of the crime. She said, quote, my daughter was murdered in that house and there is no way they should be destroying

any evidence, end quote. But it's not just the people who have an emotional connection to the house. It's legal and criminal justice experts who've also spoken out. Defense attorney Edwina Alcox, who actually

represented Lori Vallow, if you want to know, she said, quote, being able to visit the crime scene in certain cases is extremely important. Video and pictures can help, but may not accurately depict the scene in a way an in-person visit can do. The house should remain preserved until the trial concludes or Koberger pleads guilty, end quote. We also have retired NYPD Sergeant Joseph Giacalone. He said, quote, I don't see why the house needs to be demolished before the trial. I understand the school wants to move on,

but walking the jury through the crime scene where you have it is important to give them a perspective that photos just can't do, end quote. And like, yes, we agree with all of this. And I guess the whole problem is Brian Kohlberger's trial was scheduled and then it got postponed indefinitely. So they don't have a new schedule for it. It could be a long time before it happens.

But then it's a long time before it happens. OK, so the people who owned this house when these four students were murdered there, they after the murders, they like gave the house to the university. And now the university gets to decide what happens to it. And I just don't, I think that from the beginning, these murders caused issues for this university. I talked about it in the first ever video I did on these Idaho murders, that the university seemed very concerned with like what things looked like, you know, like the perspective and was it going to possibly affect negatively their enrollment numbers? Like were parents going to be less likely to send their children to a school where these terrible murders happened? You know, so I think in general, that's the university's main perspective right now,

because they want to move on. They want to continue the community healing. What they want is they want people to forget that it happened. So they're trying to remove all of this stuff so that they don't have an issue with enrollment, which I'm sure they've already seen, by the way. Because if they haven't already seen a drop in their enrollment numbers, they may not be so gung-ho to do this, but they are. So they're trying to erase it as if it didn't happen because their main priority and concern is like we don't want to be perceived as this college town where kids can't be safe because then nobody will come here. People won't come here as much. But for everyone else, which I think includes us and the people listening, we're more concerned with is Brian Koberger, who's innocent until proven guilty. I have to say that, unfortunately. Until Brian Koberger is behind bars where he

belongs and he faces the repercussions for these terrible crimes he committed, we don't really want to be messing with anything. We want everything to stay exactly as is so that both sides, the defense and the prosecution, have at their disposal everything that they need to put on their best argument in court. Yeah, I agree with everything you said. And I'm going to go back and forth on a couple of things. So first off, based on what I know, not that this matters to them, it shouldn't matter that it happened at Idaho, the University of Idaho. It could have happened anywhere. It doesn't appear on the surface that this was the result of negligence or something on the part of the university that

resulted in this. This was an off-campus house. It happens. It happens and it could have happened anywhere. But to your point, now these murders are directly associated with the University of Idaho. And I think there's a couple issues that the university is running into. They probably have a lot of looky-loos. There's people who are stopping by there. We know that unfortunately in the true crime community, there are people who like this stuff and will travel or take road trips just to go see this house, which is unfortunate. So they probably have people who are visiting the property that they really don't want there that aren't part of the university. And then, like you said, the obvious reason this building- But you just said it's an off-campus house. It has nothing to do with the university. So like,

why do people have to have anything to do with the university to be not on university property? Like it should have, the University of Idaho should have nothing to say and shouldn't care about that at all. It's none of their business. But they own it now. They own it now. And it's close enough. Unfortunately. It's close enough where it does still connect back to them and they want to separate themselves from it because at the core of it, let's make no mistake about it. Obviously it's an educational institution, but just like every college and university in the country, it's also a business, right? They have to make ends meet. They have to have a certain level of enrollment to offset the costs of running a school like that. So they obviously want to move

on with it. And there's no doubt in my mind that they asked the parents their opinions on it for the optics of it, right? They couldn't knock this building down without at least being able to say, well, we consulted with the parents. They were probably hoping that the parents would be more on board with it. But when they weren't, they just disregarded their feelings. And like you said, it's not necessarily an emotional connection. I don't think as a father, I would want that building burned to the ground after the trial, a hundred percent. I would never want to be able to see it again. Think about it.

I would want it erased from the internet if possible, which obviously isn't, but that's not their problem here. Their problem here is exactly what you're saying. And as, as much as it kills me to say it as well for a fair trial for Brian Koberger and to ensure the best possible outcome as far as getting justice for the victims, there is no disadvantage to having that house still there, right? And I'll even give just one angle here because they are doing 3D renderings. You would assume based on how many times they visited the property, there probably isn't much left inside that could be evidence. But here's one angle where it could become important for a potential jury to go and visit, right? So we have this surviving witness, right? And part of

the case against Brian Koberger is this witnesses and everyone knows her name. I'm not going to say it, but everyone knows that part of their case that they built against Brian is that this surviving witness was able to see from her room out into the well-lit like common area where she saw allegedly Brian Koberger walk by with a mask and she could tell by his stature and his bushy eyebrows, right? So do you think that the defense unfortunately is going to attack her and her credibility and her ability to see? Of course they are. Of course they are. So would it be advantageous for a jury to go sit or stand inside that room, maybe have the lights off, maybe go there at night and see how well- Recreate it for them.

Have a guy in a mask walk up. Yeah, with the exact same outfit on. This might not happen. This might not happen. And I was talking to Nancy Grace about it. We covered this topic as well. And as a former prosecutor, she said more that this usually doesn't happen.

But on the off chance that it does, and this witness is brought into question as far as what she saw, the jury could potentially say, okay, let's go back there and do it ourself and see how well we can see someone walking down the stairs. So that's just one example of where having the actual house could play a huge factor in deciding whether or not Brian Koberger is guilty. So, yeah, I agree. Brian's defense team has pulled out every dumbass trick in the book at this point. Like, what's exactly they're going to do and try everything that they can.

They can even say because, you know, there was the boot print found in the house, right? The boot print. Yeah. So there was that boot print or shoe print found in the house, right? The boot print. Yeah. So there was that boot print or shoe print found inside the house. You know, just now the defense team could be like, oh, well, it's just a picture of it. And that's not like accurate. And so it just would behoove people to preserve the original evidence. That way, when Brian's legal team tries to come after the photographic evidence of the physical evidence, they can be like, well, it's still there.

You know, like the boot print is still there if you want to look at things like that. I don't know. I don't know if they clean the crime scene after once again. I think that would be done. No, they wouldn't. Yeah. Just in general, like it does. You you have like a source for for the evidence and that that house is the source for the evidence. So anything you bring from it, like samples, DNA, blood samples, whatever, anything you bring out is just like an extension of that evidence. But the original source evidence is there. So maybe you'd want to keep it there just so you can validate, verify, double check, go back, counter any defense claims that it's not where it was. It's not where they said it was.

That's not where the boot print was, et cetera, et cetera. It just doesn't make any sense. Like I know it makes people uncomfortable, but they could be uncomfortable for a couple months or a year or so. Like stay uncomfortable for a little bit, okay? Because what you're definitely not going to be comfortable with

is if Brian Koberger is released and is walking the streets. Tell me how well the- On a technicality. Yeah, and tell me how well the University of Idaho is going to be getting their enrollment up when they have Brian Koberger just hanging around the area, waiting to pounce again, allegedly. He's innocent, no proven guilty, though.

Yeah. We'll see how it goes. Like I said, I agree with what you said. Obviously, the 3D renderings can give a pretty good perspective, but there's no substitute for the real thing. And I understand there are some logistical elements for the university because, again, you may have people who want to visit the site. You may have people who try to break in because obviously we know it was a very horrific crime scene and there's a lot of probably blood evidence in there. And as I said a couple of minutes ago, they're not going in there with a team to clean it all out because of the evidentiary value it actually brings. But overall, even with those headaches for the university, this case and getting it right supersedes those problems and should take precedent over. And by the way, as a parent myself, whether the building is there or not, it's going to be a long time before anybody forgets what happened on that property and the

building isn't going to do it. Maybe 10, 20 years from now, it won't be as much of a thing. But the point being- I don't think it's going to do anything, to be honest. Whether you knock it down now or a year from now, the damage is done, unfortunately. It's not their fault, but it could happen anywhere. There's not much you can do about it. I hope the building stays, like Stephanie said at the top of the episode. We're going to put a link in the description box below. You've signed it.

I will be signing it. We would appreciate it if you out there sign it as well. And will it make a difference? Who knows? But if you have enough people that sign it and God forbid this case goes to trial and something happens that could have been prevented if they had the house still, they're going to have a bigger marketing nightmare on their hands because not only are they going to be connected to this crime, but now they'll be connected with someone potentially getting off because of their rush to get this building destroyed as soon as they could. So University of Idaho, if anybody out there is listening to this, administrators, be careful what you wish for because you don't want to be held accountable

for someone getting off for four murders. So just be careful. Yeah. good luck having the community heal from that my friends but and that's kind of the thing it's like a cost benefit analysis right like if it if it stays up for another six eight twelve months 24 months even is there any harm done no right not anymore that's already been done right exactly but if it but if it gets destroyed now and then you come to find that they needed something from it, then there is harm done. So there's no harm to let it stand. There could be potentially harm by demolishing it before the trial. So when you run that cost

benefit analysis, it just doesn't make any logical sense of why they would be in such a rush to take it down. And they have been, by the way. They've been talking about this for months and trying to set it up for months. This is not like, oh, just a new December thing. They've been trying to do this for a while. What's the rush, guys? What's the rush? Don't do it.

Let us know. Let us know what you feel in the comments. I'm very interested to know what the temperature of this conversation is and where people are standing. Because I just don't see any normal person who's not affiliated with this university being like, I don't see a problem with it.

I don't see a problem with it at all. And it may not be. The trial may go off fine. They may not need to go back there. But again, it's one of those things where why risk it? Why risk it? So definitely wait on the comments below. We want to hear your thoughts on this.

Again, we hope everyone had a great holiday. We will be back this Friday with a new episode. We're not going to tell you what it is. Stephanie hates when I do that. A new series. What's that? It's a new series. It's a completely new series. New case, new series. We will see you guys very soon. Everyone stay safe out there. Happy holidays. Have a good night. Bye. Thank you.