Law&Crime Sidebar - SIDEBAR LIVE: Bryan Kohberger and The Idaho Student Murders — Murder Case Discussion

Episode Date: January 21, 2024

Join Law&Crime's Jesse Weber and other expert guests in discussing Bryan Kohberger's murder case. Kohberger faces four murder charges for allegedly stabbing four University of Idaho students to death in their off-campus home in November 2022. HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller

that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist. The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Hey there, everybody. Welcome to our live sidebar show. I'm Jesse Weber. Thanks for joining us. I'm happy to be with all of you. We have something. special for you today. So I was thinking about this new year a lot and I was thinking what is the big trial, right? What is the case that I wanted to talk to all of you about? What's the Alec Murdoch trial of this year, the Johnny Depp, Amber Heard trial of this year. You got to say it's Brian

Coburger out of Idaho, right? Because we don't have a trial date set as if yet, but prosecutor Bill Thompson is hoping for this summer to have an actual trial. And I don't need to tell you how massive of a trial that will be. I mean, you have a case about basically a stranger, a grad student accused of brutally murdering four University of Idaho students in an off-campus rental home. It's insane. It's disturbing.

And what I want to do is I want to hear your opinions on the Brian Coburger case and all the mysteries surrounding it, the deaths of Madison Mogan, Ethan Chapin, Zanakernodal, Kaylee Gonzalez. You see, I believe there are a number of factors at play here because one is the idea of the stranger. in the night, breaking in, committing a vicious killing.

It's the stuff of nightmares. It's one of those crimes that really sit with you. It's one of those crimes that we worry about the most in true crime. And the why, right? So if Koeberger did this, why did he do it? I'm hoping that we're going to get more answers from the prosecution at trial. They may reveal more about a potential motive. And yeah, I know, I know.

I say it all the time. Motive is not an element of a crime. The prosecution doesn't have to prove motive. But I will tell you, it sure helps sell a story to a jury, so I imagine we're going to hear more at trial. And with the gag order in place in this case, there's so much that we just don't know about what happened. But one of the most important questions, and I would love to hear all of your thoughts on it, and it's the most important question in my view, do you think Brian Koeberger will be found guilty? If you believe he did it, can the prosecution prove it? Do they have the evidence?

Does the defense have tricks up their sleeves? now here is how all this is going to work so you're going to share your thoughts and your comments on the coburger case in our live chat and i'm going to be taking your questions your opinions here on the air live now to make sure your question or comment doesn't get lost in the mix or in the discussion you can send a super chat our way we're going to make sure it gets addressed right here super chats are really the best way to get your message noticed so as we get that started up and i really can't wait to hear from all of you a lot to discuss today uh i want to want to bring in we're also going to bring in special guest during this hour so first up you know

her long crime reporter host of crime fix the very own anginette levy is with us hey anginette how you doing hey jessie i'm well how are you good good good so brian coburger i'm sure you've heard of the case you're a resident expert you were there when this first broke down um what's the latest i mean what is an issue that you see coming up in this case that you wanted to talk about Well, you know, there are several issues, Jesse, first of all is the trial date, but a really interesting issue that's coming up, I think, that's coming up very soon is the fact that the defense in this case suddenly wants motions regarding their request to have the case thrown out, at least to have the grand jury indictment thrown out, they want it unsealed.

They want the public to see it, and they want the hearing that is supposed to be sealed regarding their request to their renewed request to have the motion or the indictment thrown out. They want that to be open to the public. This is all very new and refreshing to a lot of us because the defense in this case has continually throughout the duration of this case said, we want a gag order, we want to file motions under seal. We don't want cameras in the courtroom, but now they're saying because this motion was denied and because it's already been discussed, they want the public to see it.

So I think this is an interesting turn of events because everything that they've filed for the most part in this case has been filed under seal up until this point. So I don't think it's going anywhere. I don't think you could disagree with me, I don't think this is going anywhere. And just to be clear, make it clear for the audience what's going on here. So the defense, right, you said they want to unseal for the public. They want the public to know the arguments they made to the judge about why he should rethink his position to not throw out the case, to not throw out the charges. want their points made public, right? And they've said that the only reason that they wanted anything sealed in the first place

is because that's what the prosecution wants. Now, I don't think the judge here, John Judge, that's his name, will necessarily agree to that. I can't think of a benefit other than, and you correct me if I'm wrong, because I've been wrapping my mind about this. It seems to me that what Koberger's defense would want to do is change the public narrative because there's been so much said about him. This would be an opportunity for the public to know.

know certain things and certain points they were making about the prosecution, about the investigation. Maybe, I don't want to say taint, but maybe affect a potential jury pool. You know, you have jurors who are knowing about this case. It's going to be impossible to find jurors that don't know about it. But there's been so much said about Brian Koeberger, there's been so much shown about Brian Koeberger. It seems to me if they could say, we want the public to know why we think this case is not legit, maybe it's the kind of influence a jury.

That's why I can't imagine the judge would allow this. You might disagree with me, Ann Jeanette. Well, I mean, the judge agreed to hold a closed hearing in the first place. He agreed to seal his decision about this. He agreed to allow them to file the motion under seal. So why would he make it public now? Maybe he will. I mean, he has said he wanted cameras in the courtroom.

He had never denied cameras being in the courtroom in the past until now, until this case. now he's taking control of the cameras. He has kicked the media cameras out. So maybe he will err on the side of transparency. But it's interesting to me that all of a sudden the defense is saying, now we want the public to see something when everything else has been filed under seal. The judge may say, you know, no dice. He may think that they're trying to pull a fast one.

But I don't know. I mean, I have been surprised in the past. I could be surprised yet again. But they're asking the prosecution to join them. this request. I tell you this much. How many cases have we covered together, and Jeanette, a billion? And I will tell you, the defense in this case has presented such creative arguments that it stands out. I mean, the fact that one of the arguments they said that this whole case should be thrown out is because the grand jury was read the wrong

instructions, that they were given the wrong legal standard. I have never heard that before in my life. The judge overseeing this case said, that's a pretty creative argument. Maybe a higher court will look at that down the road. Nothing I can do about it. He denied their motion to dismiss. So I'm not surprised that we are seeing them make these kind of creative arguments saying that their literal arguments should be heard by the public. It's fascinating to say the least, but what we do know is Koeberger is going to be back in court on January 26th. And Jeanette Levy, thanks so much for coming on. Appreciate it. Thanks for having me, Jesse. Good to see you. Good seeing you. All right, here's what we're going to do. So we're going to take a

handful of your questions from the chat. Before I do, I'm going to run a poll. So the poll that I want to run right now for all of you is, do you think Brian Coburger will be found guilty of the quadruple murder? That's the main question. That's what we're talking about. Do you think he'll be found guilty of the quadruple murder? I know there are views on both sides of the coin with this, so I'm interested in hearing your opinion. We're going to come back to those results a little bit later. But right now, let's take a look at some of your questions. Again, if you have a question, you have an opinion, put it in the chat, but also throw us a super chat so your message doesn't get lost in the discussion. I already see we have a bunch coming in.

All right, let's go to Sierra Edwards. Will there be cameras in the courtroom? Great question, because that has been a point of controversy for a while now. Yes, there will be cameras in the courtroom. Not exactly the way that we thought, you know, traditionally, if you follow us here on long crime, there's a pool camera. It's operated by a media outlet, sometimes it's us, and we all get that feed. The judge here said, and there was an objection put forward about cameras being put forward in the courtroom, the media wanted cameras in the courtroom, the judge kind of split the baby. The judge is allowing a camera in the courtroom, but the way it's going to work is the court operates it.

You ask me, I'd rather have a court-operated camera than no camera. We covered the Lori Vallo-Daybill trial out in Idaho, and we didn't get cameras in the courtroom. We got audio. I think we missed out on a lot in that case, if you ask me. So I'm praying, I'm hoping that their court engineer, their court camera operator is great, maybe does multiple angles. But one of the big issues in that courtroom so far in pretrial hearings has been the camera has focused too much on Brian Koberger. There's an argument that that was prejudicial when you just focused the camera so much on him,

to zoom in shots, not the rest of what's happening in the court. So there will be a camera. It's not exactly what we were hoping for, but hopefully it'll be for the best. Sierra, thanks so much. All right, let's go to Staley Explorez. Idaho has the death penalty. Yes, that is correct. This is a death penalty eligible case.

If you ask me, and I get this question all the time, if he's convicted, will he be put to death? I don't have an easy answer. It's actually unpredictable. Why do I say that? Even in the most heinous of cases, even when you're dealing with four young people brutally murdered, you never know what the jury might think. Yes, you're supposed to, when you impanel a jury, they're going to say that they can go in favor of the death penalty.

They're open to hearing the death penalty arguments. It doesn't mean they're going to go in favor of the death penalty. You want to talk about the Parkland School shooting case, 17 counts of murder, 17 counts of attempted murder, the jury there, and that evidence was horrific. The jury in that case actually did a crime scene visit of that school. It was frozen in time. went there, and they voted for life in prison.

So you never know. It's a legal argument. It's a moral argument. They do a balancing test of aggravating factors versus mitigating factors of aggravating factors in favor of the death penalty, mitigating factors in favor of life and prison. So it's difficult to say, but yes, the death penalty will be on the table. All right. So I'll tell you what.

We're going to take more of your questions in a minute. But first, let me bring in our next guest. This guy, sidebar face. favorite. I got to tell you, no one gets more love than this man right here. Jules Epstein, Edward D. Allbound, Professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law. Professor, so good to have you back here. I don't know if you saw, but your last sidebar that you did, the love. I don't want to say I'm jealous, but I'm jealous of the love you get online and rightfully sell. We've talked about Koeburger before. Great to have you on.

Oh, I think you... Sorry, you were muted for a second, but we got you, Jules. Honored to be here and happy to talk with you and your audience or whatever questions we're going to cover. Well, real quick, I mean, we talked about the death penalty. This is something you specialize in. I actually think this was the first conversation we had. Did I say anything out of turn? I mean, what do you think if he's ultimately convicted the chances that he would be put

death. Okay. The first answer is exactly yours. Completely unpredictable. But let's dig into why. There are two main reasons. No one can be a juror on a death penalty case unless they are at least willing to vote for the death penalty. But as you pointed out, within the universe of people who are willing to vote for the death penalty. Some are much more inclined than others. The second thing, and this is a complete unknown, and you talked about Parkland, so I'll, I happen to know a fair amount about that case. The unknown right now is what mitigation evidence there is. Evidence can be anything about the background, the character, or the record of the defendant, or about how the case happened. That would give any one juror a reason to vote for a sentence less than death.

Using Parkland, one of the, if not the most horrific murder cases in recent U.S. history, that was a given. The young man who was convicted, actually pled guilty and went right to penalty, was also one of the most damaged people. I've ever heard about with a generations going back of problems in the family. And at least at that time in Florida, right, you don't have to be unanimous to vote for life. So I don't want to say the jury voted for life. My memory is three of the jurors voted for life, and that was enough. So I guess there's one more point, which is. sometimes people are sitting there watching a trial and thinking, you know what?

I'm not going to vote for death because I want this blankety blank to sit in jail and suffer. And somebody else may think, you know, I'm looking at all these lawyers here, this case is going to drag on for decades if it's death. It's sort of easier to end it with life. So the long way of answering, you are absolutely correct. unpredictable due to a whole bunch of variables. I hear you. Some people might not know, some jurors might not know, the procedure of death row and how quickly somebody might be put to death.

And, you know, that might be a consideration. It might not. Really, they're supposed to only consider the evidence and the facts that's presented to them, not any kind of outstanding factors. Just real quick, the idea, there's been a lot of talk about if Brian Koberger is put to death. How's he going to be killed? And there's been talk about a firing squad. Have you heard about that? Walk me through the potentiality of that actually happening. So I don't know the particulars of that state, but the method of execution has been a subject of litigation in courts across the country and in legislatures for a decade or more. This, to some people, may sound like a contradiction, but we're saying as a

civilized society that even though someone took somebody else's life cruelly, maliciously, we can't be cruel or malicious in how we put them to death. So, for example, we couldn't starve someone, we couldn't leave them in a prison cell with snakes that slowly, right, you can figure out all the horrible, torturous ways. Right. The problems have been that when we try and do it with different kinds of drugs, there isn't a simple, easy way to do it that guarantees the avoidance of extreme pain. on the path to death because of that some states have considered or maybe going back to the firing

squad because however old school that seems right oh god that's from you know daniel boone's era you know john wayne movies or something um it's pretty quick in terms of causing death if you don't miss. If you don't miss and you hit the target, where you're supposed, though. Okay. You're talking to someone who's not a fan of the death penalty. I got you. I know. I'm trying to answer you down the middle that presuming it's one, I hate to use the word right or effectively, but presuming you have trained sharpshooters. And we're talking about a stationary target 20 feet away, 30 feet away. I don't know enough to say what the margin of error is. I don't recall, and I'm not saying I'm right here just, I don't recall a history of mishaps with firing squad compared to electrocution mishaps and to use the word medication, but pharmaceutical executions and gas, right?

Yeah, it's disturbing. to think about we're not there yet we haven't even had a trial date set we haven't even seen if he be convicted yet and we death penalty currently on the table who knows what will end up happening professor jules Epstein my favorite I don't want I can't say that

because I know my other favorites would get insulted one of my biggest favorites but a fan favorite nonetheless thanks so much for coming on really appreciate it okay thank you take care all right let's go back now those poll results remember I said we're going to put a poll do you think Brian

Coburger will be found guilty. We got some results for you. So 70% of you, 70, believe that Brian Coburger will be found guilty. 12% say not guilty and 18% are not sure. I think that's really interesting. For those of you who think he could go free, for those of you who think will be found not guilty, I would love for you to write in our chat, maybe even a super chat, what factors you think will lead to a not guilty verdict. I'd love to hear that. I actually think the evidence is particularly strong when you couple the surveillance, the cell phone, the DNA, the potential eyewitness. I'd be interested to hear your reasoning behind that.

So send super chat questions because those are the ones we're going to read first, which actually leads me to a super chat question. This is a super chat question from TDB, will the surviving roommate testify a trial? This is referring to Dylan Mortensen. Now, if you read the probable cause affidavit, when Brian Coburg was first arrested, her initials are DM. Yes, by all accounts, she will testify. Now, this is going to be very tricky. This is tricky for a number of different reasons. In one sense, this is a goal. This is a gold mine for the prosecution. You have somebody who is in that house. And remember what was said in that

probable cause affidavit, that DM basically came face to face with the potential killer. She sees somebody in that house, wearing all black, the description of this individual that he's not entirely muscular but has an athletic build with bushy eyebrows it's consistent with what brian coberger looks like we'll show you an image of him in a second in case you forgot so she is going to be very important for the prosecution to establish that that was potentially the killer now of course she's going to face some incredibly tough cross-examination she is already being harassed online by a number of people why didn't you do something more why didn't you call 911 immediately why did you wait till the next day to call your friends over to the house and not call 9-1-1?

Because that's what happened, right? She and the other surviving roommate, they didn't immediately call 911. They called friends over. They thought that one of the victims was unresponsive. It seems that they didn't know at first that they were, it was a quadruple homicide that happened. So these are going to be tough questions. Not that DM was in any way involved in this, but what's her credibility? What exactly does she remember?

That's going to be tough for her. That's going to be very, very tough for her with a whole world. watching. But by all accounts, the prosecution will need her, and the prosecution will have her as a witness. Let's continue on with some more super chats. So this is a super chat from Jeff H. I hear a car trunk slam at 421.01 a.m. followed by 18 seconds later, a car leaving at a high rate of speed, do you think this is BK, Brian Koberger, and does the trunk sound teach us how he controlled red stuff in cars. So I'm going to try to make sense of this and I appreciate the super chat question. Here's what we do now. Authorities believe that this killing happened at a certain period of time.

Okay? They believe that the murders happen between 4 a.m. and 4.25 a.m. at that house. When you talk about the trunk, this is what I know. They say at about 417 a.m. There's a security camera, which is about less than 50 feet away from Xanacernodal's room. And it picks up the sounds of a barking dog and, quote, distorted audio of what sounded like voices or a wimper followed by a loud thought. I don't know if we're talking about the same thing, but I hope we are. Now, we do know from the surveillance footage that this white Hyundai Alantra or this car that matches that description is speeding away from that crime scene.

And that is really important. It speeds away, I believe, 16 minutes. 16, I want to get this right, 16 minutes later. So the vehicle, they know that it tracks, it's around that crime scene multiple times, it drives by twice, and then a fourth time at 404 a.m. And then it wasn't seen on tape again until 16 minutes later. So presumably after the killings. You ask me, that is really strong evidence of against Brian Coburg.

Why? We know they track that car to him. We know that they found a white Hyundai Alantra registered to Brian Coburger. And there's a piece of evidence that I don't think gets enough talk, and I want to address it real quickly. How do we know Brian Coburger was driving this car? Right. Somebody else could have been driving the White Hyundai Alantra. Later on in the day, the day of the murders, they see a white Hyundai Alantra parked outside of an Albertson store.

And who gets out of that car? Ryan Koberger That's how they identify him That's how they identify him as the driver So you couple that With the cell phone data That also is consistent with the Surveillance footage of the white Hyundai Alantra

Now you see him driving that very car Later on the same day You might not say there's a smoking gun I actually think the DNA found on the knife sheath Is probably one of the strongest pieces of evidence But all that together is incredibly powerful So you ask me I think that's where that evidence lies.

Before we go to our next guest, let me get another question. This is Leanne Mom Wow. I just want to know how the murderer got out of the house without there being blood throughout the house or in a getaway car. Fair question. We don't know a ton about the blood in this case. We know that Brian Coburger's apartment was searched.

They looked at a number of different items that had red brownish stains. They appeared to be negative for blood. There is a lot that we don't know at this point. in terms of the blood evidence. Remember, there's a gag order in place. I believe, I believe that the prosecution has more against Brian Koberger than what we currently know today.

There is going to be a question of what was found in that house. Now, remember, we hope that crime scene was fully vetted before they ended up demolishing it, okay? That's going to be something that's very important. Hopefully they found some evidence there, but it's a great question. There are parts of this case where you say he seemed like a criminal, mastermind. We don't have the murder weapon. You know, you mentioned some of this blood evidence, but also, you know, he's a criminology student. Maybe he was figuring out how to

commit a crime like this. He's innocent until proven guilty, but I'm just trying to spitball here. But on the other hand, how incredibly sloppy could he be? He leaves the knife sheath next to the bodies. His DNA, basically a statistical match to the DNA material on the knife Sheet turns his phone off before the killings, although it's the phone data suggests he's headed towards the area of this house. And at all times for the phone to turn back on, it turns back on after the killings. So there's parts of this case where he's either the best criminal or the worst criminal, and it's confusing.

I want to go to another super chat form from Doritos conchilla y-keso. Delicious. Pretending nothing happened seven weeks ago. Not sure what this question means, but if you're referring to the defense and their arguments, I hope that's what you're referring to. The defense, as I said, has made very creative arguments right now about why this case should be thrown out. I mentioned before saying that the grand jury was instructed the wrong way that the wrong

standard of proof was given to them. I've never heard that before. It was such a novel argument. As we talked about with Angenet earlier on, the fact that now they're saying that their arguments about why the judge should reconsider his decision not to throw out the case needs to be made public. I find that fascinating. I don't know what their game is, but we will say.

We will see. All right. So send more of your questions. More of your super chats right now. We got another special guest. I talked about a fan favorite with Jules Epstein. How about the Taylor Swift of CrimeCon out in Orlando? Right now we have the host of Pretty Lies and Alibis and the Correspondent for the Long Crime Network.

Gigi McElvey, Gigi, good to see you. Hey, Jesse, how are you? I'm good. So what's on your mind with Brian Coburger? What's not on my mind? There's so much that's unknown about this case. But my thing is this, what if we find out that the methods they use to trace this DNA back to Coburger was, using websites that don't consent to law enforcement,

using websites like that to do this kind of investigation, if this gets tossed out just hypothetically, is that going to be just a huge deal for this case? No, no, I don't think so. Look, defense, in my opinion, will do anything to strike at the evidence in this case. They have to. The DNA evidence, right,

which I have said before, I think is the strongest piece of evidence in this case, even if they were to get rid of that, even if they were to strike it out. Now, why do I say that? Because right now this week we had a major development. What was the development? The judge is allowing the defense to have all of these DNA records. The prosecution turned them over about how the FBI attained investigative genetic genealogy.

And by the way, just let me back up real quick about this. So remember, they found DNA material on the knife sheath, putting it through a database. They were able to make a familial match to Brian Koberger's dad. They were able to do that after picking up trash from outside of Brian Koberger's parents' house. That was one of the ways that they led to Brian Koberger as a suspect. But you have the cell phone evidence. You have the potential eyewitness. You have the surveillance footage.

And they end up arresting him. They do a cheek swab. His DNA is almost a statistical match to the DNA on the knife. Now, again, on the knife sheath. Now, I say to you how amazing, incredible evidence. If the defense can find a way to make sure that's not admissible in court, maybe authorities did something improper, maybe they could strike at it, maybe it's admitted in court, maybe it's admitted to trial, but they say it's not accurate. Even if you put that to a side, I still think they can convict him on the cell phone data and the surveillance footage. I've seen convictions with less.

So I hear you, Gigi, and you know, we talk about online searches all the time. They definitely help. I always see them almost, though, like, as the cherry on top of the case. You know, you could say this guy had a fascinating. How about this? G.G., I'll throw this back to you. Boy, that Brian Coburger had a fascination with this case. He had a fascination with crime in general.

He had a fascination with his neighborhood. There's a number of reasons why people might search for something. It doesn't necessarily make them a killer. But you add that on to everything else. I don't know. What do you think, Gigi? Yeah, I agree. And, you know, one thing that sticks out to me is something that Kaylee's

dad said at one point during an interview is that his daughter fought back. And we know that prosecutors don't show everything they have up their sleeve until trial. I'm curious to see, you know, do you think it is possible that there's additional DNA evidence or would we have heard of that by now? But, you know, he made that statement she fought. And it's not like they have to tell the public everything they have that absolutely points to Brian Coburger. I'm interested in that. What other DNA was their animal hair found in his apartment that came from Kaylee's dog. There's so many unknowns. It's just this trial can't get her fast enough for me. I agree. I think there's more than what the prosecution is giving forward or authorities are

giving for it. I have to believe they have more about him or against him potentially. And, you know, you talk about when you're dealing with a brutal crime scene like that, if you don't have time to clean up, which doesn't seem like that was the case, otherwise that knife sheath would have been taken away. By the way, I got to tell everybody. There was once a theory. that, oh, you know what he did. He brought a K-bar-style knife sheet to the crime scene to throw authorities off to look for military people. That is the worst argument I have ever heard. He's going to take the risk of authorities thinking it might have been a military guy while his DNA is basically on it.

I mean, that one never made sense to me. So I agree. I think there could be something more on the victim's bodies, maybe in that room. There is a gag order in place. there's a lot we don't know, Gigi, but hopefully we'll get an answer about that when we do have a trial. And Gigi, you're probably going to be covering it for us, right? I hope so.

Yeah, I would love to. You know, the other thing, too, is you have to wonder what went through his mind the moment he realized I left the knife sheath. I mean, that had to have been a moment for him, total panic. Well, look, you know, first of all, assuming he did it, assuming he did it, when did he realize it at what point i i always look back to certain videos of brian coburg the videos where he is stopped by indiana police with his father on that cross-country road trip if he killed those four people he knew that anytime police approach him he could be in trouble the fact that he is stopped

two times in the course of 10 minutes for minor traffic violations one i think was speeding One was because he was too close to the vehicle in front of him. I try to watch that video and look at his eyes and see the terror. Does he think the jig is up right now? He wasn't arrested because I should be clear that Indiana police didn't know. They weren't alerted to him as a suspect. They didn't have any reason to stop, and they didn't think that he was a part of this of crime.

They were doing routine drug trafficking stops. They picked him up. I mean, they stopped them two times. But I looked to that video at his eyes to see if it gives us anything. I didn't see anything, Gigi. Did you see anything when you look at that video? I thought he was a little wide-eyed. Of course, it was a still that I see over and over, and we can always pause something and make it look like it's something that it's not. But no, I mean, you know, I think that in his mind, he thought he committed the perfect crime.

But in the course of the crime, you have adrenaline pumping. We don't know what transpired with the victims in in those rooms. Ethan was, you know, pretty much his same size. Was there a struggle? But I have to say that leaving that knife sheath, man, that just had to have been that moment for him where he's like, I thought of everything except making sure I had that knife sheath. But yeah, he's very hard to read for me.

He's a little creepy at times if you've seen videos of him. But I think, you know, with that stop for me, I kind of sensed a little bit of just the officer could not get out quick enough why he was being pulled over. He had that neck stretch out as far as it could go. So you see it knowing what we know now. But yeah, I mean, it's just insane how this case is unfolded. And there's so much we don't know that we'll be answered at trial. I'm just so interested to see the whole story that the prosecution is going to lay out for us. He's got a poker face. I'll tell you that much. It's very hard to get a read on him about what's going on there. And I know people have been studying his movements. And it was one of the

reasons why the court, there was an issue about the camera constantly being on him in court and seeing his movements, it could have been prejudicial. But listen, Gigi McElvey, thanks so much. Appreciate you coming on. Always great seeing you. Always a pleasure, Jesse. Thank you. All right. We're going to get to more of your questions again. Throw in those super chats. That's a way for your questions to make it to the top. We will answer them here on the air. But continuing on with questions, we got Morgan Tremaine. How significant is lack of a murder weapon in his defense. Okay. Well, or I should say how significant is it the fact that the prosecution doesn't have it. Let's put it this way. I have seen cases before where you have a conviction

and you don't even have the body. Okay. I've seen that before. You can prove someone was killed. You can prove someone was murdered even without a body. Now, how do I know that someone could be convicted without the murder weapon? Do we all remember the Alec Murdoch trial that just happened last year? Where are the guns? Where are the guns? We had speculation that they were family guns and what might have been used. Those murder weapons were never recovered and he was convicted right there. Now, does it help the prosecution to have that piece of evidence? Absolutely. Absolutely. Because one of the things they're going to have to establish is not only that these four victims were killed, but how they were killed, that they were killed with a knife. And it has to be the K-Barr-style knife from

that knife sheath, right? That's how they have to determine. If the defense could argue that, well, we don't know exactly what weapon killed these individuals. Is it possible it wasn't a knife, then that takes the significance of that knife sheet away. If the defense could say it was from, I don't know, a meat cleaver, if they could say it was from another kind of knife, if they could say it was from the edge of a hammer,

I don't know. But if they can suggest that, that is really. reasonable doubt. And that's what the game is. Reasonable doubt. So I think that they could still get a conviction, even without the murder weapon. The knife has not been recovered, but the presumed, presumed murder weapon has not been recovered, but we will see. Morgan Tremaine, thanks so much.

Real with Robo. Question. What about the food driver that was requested by one of the victims? He slash she may have been there at the same time. Okay, let's talk about the food driver. And by the way, these are great questions. That's why I love doing this. Hopefully we'll have an opportunity.

even get people on camera to ask their questions, too. We would love that more engagement, but this is great. And please keep the questions coming. What we know is that, and again, about between 4 and 425 AM on the night of the killings is when those killings happen, that's what the prosecution is alleged. At at about 140 AM, so hours before, Kaylee and Madison were seen on a video at Grub Truck. This is a local food vendor. and they used a private individual to get a ride home.

They got back home at 1.45 a.m. I got to imagine that that truck driver is going to be called to testify, right? That is an eyewitness to watching these two individuals, these two victims, hours before they were killed. That helps the prosecution establish a timeline of events and observing anything. You know, one of the questions we have, and I would imagine, is that this isn't the first time that they visited that truck. Maybe this driver knows something more about the victims.

Maybe he saw Brian Kohlberger at a certain point of time. So I would imagine that this witness would be maybe in the first day, maybe the second day of testimony. You would see that some of these kind of preliminary witnesses to talk about what they observed, to give the timeline of events, because prosecution is going to have to establish each element of this. They're going to have to establish the timeline. And I think that truck driver will be very important, not necessarily a witness to the crime,

but a witness to what these two individuals were up to beforehand. We got a super chat. Remember, super chat is the way to get your message up there, have an answer. Super chat from Bill Haney, will the defense push that two people were involved? If they can, let me remember. The defense in any criminal trial doesn't have to prove who committed the crime. That is not their job. is the job of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who committed this crime?

All the defense has to do is raise reasonable doubt. Now, who is the defense going to put the blame on? I don't know. At one point, they were going to put on an alibi defense. You know, where was Brian Koberger at the moment? If you recall, they don't have a specific location in time of where Brian Koberger was at the time of the killings. What they did say is that he was driving around that night. They haven't indicated that they have alternative suspects.

What they have indicated is that through this DNA evidence, right, through this food, what's it called this DNA evidence, right? That, remember I said the judge has ordered the prosecution to turn over all this evidence about DNA. They might suggest that there were other suspects that were overlooked, that there was other material that was overlooked. And if the defense can do something with that, it will help. Going back to the Murdoch case, you remember they suggested that they can't tell you definitively who killed Paul and Maggie, but what they could tell you is that it couldn't be Alec Murdoch because he was too tall, that the shooter had to be much shorter. They did that through ballistics evidence and trajectory evidence.

So perhaps they will suggest that this crime could not have been committed by just one person. It had to be committed by two people, and it would make sense for Brian Koberger to do this. They've said continually that a complete stranger just out of nowhere murdering four individuals makes absolutely no sense, and I'm sure they will continue on with that. argument. So thanks so much for the question. And just going back, by the way, to the DoorDash delivery driver. That's important, too. So forgive me, the question we had before about the vendor, it might have been actually about the DoorDash driver. So let's talk about that for a second. So the DoorDash driver, Zaner-Kernodal got a door-dash order at the house at about 4 a.m. You ask me, that driver is going to be key as well, because we have to imagine that the

murderer was there at that time. Did the DoorDash driver observe a white Hyundai Alantra? Did he observe or did she observe this figure that has been described by Dylan Mortensen, the surviving roommate? Did the DoorDash driver observe Brian Coburger? So somebody who was at the crime scene at that time, huge, huge piece of evidence. So, yes, I think that will be a massive witness for the prosecution. We have another super chat from.

Zach Bohar, how are they going to find a jury that's impartial? That is a great question. One of my favorite questions in high-profile cases. It is going to be impossible to find a jury that doesn't know about this case, particularly in that area. It is going to be very difficult to find a jury that doesn't have an opinion about this case. The question that you ask a jury is not if they don't know about it, not if they can have

an opinion about it, not if they've read about it. You ask them that. But the real question is, can they put all of that to the side? Can they look at the facts and the evidence of this case and be impartial? Now, it's going to be up to both sides, both the prosecution and the defense, during voir dire, the jury selection process, to weed out people that have a bias, to weed out people that have a conflict of interest. And it can be tough. You're looking at these jurors, you're hoping that they're being truthful, but you also want to make sure you don't have stealth jurors, people who deliberately want to get on that jury with an agenda.

And that's why you ask them pointed questions. And that's why each side is given a certain amount of strikes that they can use. There's also things called preemptory strikes. There's ways that both sides can actually strike a person from the jury for whatever reason that they want. It can't be based on race or gender, but it really can be for whatever reason that they want. I don't quite believe that guy.

I don't believe, I quite believe that woman. You can get them off. Jury selection, I think in this case, will be tough. I really do. I think it's going to be very challenging. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes maybe two weeks to find an impartial jury. I mean, we are talking about such a massive case, such a high-profile case. So that's my take on it.

Hopefully they can, and we will be there for the jury selection process. All right, we have another super chat from LeCour de Crimes. Did you like the way that I said that? I thought I did a pretty good job. Recorded the crimes. Just wanted to say thanks for the great work, Jesse. Oh, thank you so much. Really appreciate that.

Wow, that's very kind of the super chatter. So again, I didn't just read that question because I like to hear compliments. I answered that question because it was a super chat. We got another super chat from Oopsie Daisy. Hope everything's okay. But what do you think about the first item? The first item being listed is just knife. When the other knives listed were described, do you think it's the knife?

Hmm, interesting. To be completely honest with you, not entirely sure what we're talking about in terms of a list. But again, I go back to that question about the knife. The prosecution is going to have to establish that it was a knife that was used to kill these four individuals and not some other object. Because that is what makes the knife sheet so important, right? Now, you could say, okay, maybe if they could still prove that Brian Koberger did it, maybe he used another weapon that's never been found. It's still a piece of his, it's still an item of his that was found at the crime scene. You know, it was still a K-bar-style knife sheath found at the crime scene.

Yes, I think it's important. But to say that that was the murder weapon, that's just going to hit so much more. And I've talked about this before with DNA evidence, right? the DNA as of right now we're not talking about DNA found on a doorknob we're not talking about DNA found on a carpet we're not talking about DNA found on a window cell out of all places all places for DNA to be found out of all places his DNA to potentially be found at the crime scene in the room right next to the two bodies on the sheath of a knife a potential murder weapon. That is so incredibly suspicious. That is so incredibly strong. So again, I go back. I've

had debates about this on sidebar. I hope everybody checks out our podcast, but sidebar. I had a debate with somebody about this where I think you could convict them pretty much on the DNA itself. It's so strong. How do I know that? Have you heard about the Jerry Burns case? We covered it here on Longcrime. Jerry Burns, let me actually make sure I get the date here because I want to make I want to I want to the data is important so the jerry burns case out in Iowa it was a cold case he was accused of convicting he was can excuse me accused of murdering Michelle martinco back in the 1970s there was no uh DNA there was no excuse me there was no surveillance there was no eyewitnesses there was no text messages there was no GPS data what they

had was DNA in that case a cold case from the 1970s happened 2018 they had this trial of this arrest and they took crime scene data uh They took crime scene DNA, blood. Blood that was found on the victim's dress. They put it into a genetic genealogy database. They got a pool of people, including Jerry Burns. They ended up collecting a straw that he discarded at a restaurant, and the DNA on the straw was consistent with the blood that was found on the dress.

They convicted him. No eyewitnesses, no GPS, no text messages, no surveillance, no cell phone data. They convicted him, purely, my opinion. purely on that DNA evidence. So that is why I still think that is the most important piece of evidence in this case, the DNA, and prove me wrong. If you disagree, let me know. We got a super chat from Patrick McCurnum, admitted he was up that late, driving around.

Yeah, I hear you, suspicious that that was what he was doing. But let's remember, this guy seemed to be potentially they could say a loner. He went to school nearby. I. It was a party town. Maybe he liked to take late night drives. Got to say, it's a little suspicious that of all times take a late night drive and potentially turn your phone off and then have it turn back on after the killings. It's weird. It's suspicious that does it prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it? Prosecution will say so. Defense will probably not. You know, they just need to raise reasonable doubt.

And to be clear about reasonable doubt, and this helps me bring in my next guess. Talk about reasonable doubt. One of the most strongest closing arguments I ever heard about reasonable doubt, it was in the Skylar Richardson case. And that was a case about a young cheerleader who was accused of killing her newborn baby. She was pregnant, gave birth to her baby, didn't tell anybody. She said she had a stillbirth. The prosecution said she murdered the baby.

I'll never forget in that closing argument, and I wonder if we'll hear the same thing in a Brian Coburger case when we talk about beyond a reasonable doubt our highest standard under the law we're not talking about I'll just say here Brian Coburger maybe did it

we're not talking about if Brian Coburger probably did it we're not talking about if Brian Coburger more than likely than did it it's did Brian Coburger commit these crimes beyond a reasonable doubt that is a high standard

and that will be emphasized by the defense a lot. We're going to take more of your super chat questions in a minute, but right now we got our next guest. Former FBI agent and attorney Bobby Chaconne, who I actually saw on News Nation last night, did a great job, my sister station. I worked there as well.

Bobby, good to see you. How you doing? Good to see you, Jesse. Thanks. Doing well. Thank you. I'm made of questions. You know what?

I'll ask you my question. So I talked about this at the beginning of the show with Anne Jeanette. The fact that Brian Koberger's defense team wants the public to know what their arguments are for why the judge, well, excuse me, let me phrase. They want the public to know their arguments for why the judge should reconsider not throwing out these charges. Why would they want the public to know that? I'm of the opinion. They may be trying to get a jury to know that, right?

They might be trying to get potential jurors who've been inundated with so much negative information about Brian Kohlberger. Now they need to know our arguments that may be the prosecution. was tainty, maybe the investigation was tainty, maybe the grand jury was instructed the wrong way. Whatever additional arguments they have, I think they want the public to know it, A, for the Court of Public Opinion for Brian Coburger, but B, maybe to, I don't want to say taint, but affect a potential jury pool? Can you think of why they would want this? Yeah, I think you're right. I think that they do want to try to get, you know, his story out there for a number of reasons, not the least of which is, you're right, to affect potential jurors

and then just they represent him as a criminal defendant person and they want a story told they don't universal hatred of this guy if it's their client again you have to kind of cut out your biases about you know this horrific thing that you think he may have done and see him as a client as a person who has a right to a defense and and you know and has the presumption of innocence and all of that that goes along with in our system and I think that you know they're trying to get that out there and represent this guy and say, look, he's our client. He didn't do this. He's not an animal.

And they want to get some of that out just to kind of rehabilitate his reputation in a way. You know, if you look at 90% of the coverage of this case and, you know, I go right along with it, whether it's a podcast or news reports or anything else, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's a monster for doing it. And, you know, that's just 90% of you don't see a lot of people out there, you know, trying to poke holes in the government's case and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and. defending Brian Kohlberger because that's not a very popular, you know, in to take these days, you know, and I get it. And I'm, you know, I'm one of them. I believe the government did a good job investigating this case and, you know, he's guilty. But I think that he deserves, you know, his right.

Look, I was just a juror on a five and a half month murder trial. I was a juror. I sat in the juror box. I know. We tried to get you as a guest. You were so busy. It was annoying, to say the least. It was a murder with special circumstances in California.

That's the highest you can get. And so five months, five and a year. months sat in a jury box and quite frankly you know people were shocked that a person like me made it to a juror to a jury and i was the juror jury foreman and um i sat there the first day in opening statements and i was not convinced of the defendant's guilt if we voted on day one i not i would have not voted for guilty um but ultimately we convicted on all counts but and there was a lot of what we're going to have in the coburger case there was a lot of cell phone data the movements of the the defendant during the crime, during and after the crime. We had a lot of testimony about

from cell phone experts and tower experts and how the towers work and, you know, and they educated us on that. And then at the end, and really it was right up until the prosecution's closing argument where they tied everything together. They showed on this graphic, you know, here's the defendant and here's where his cell phone is and here's what's happening in the case. And you know, and you get all that and you're like, well, I mean, what else, you know, what you're, you're left almost with the DNA. So if we look at DNA evidence, right? DNA evidence is never 100%. We know that, right? It's up until 7 billion people, this person can't be excluded, right? That it's very astronomically, statistically probable that that DNA belongs to that person. You know, that's what a case comes down to. It's never, if you don't have a confession or a video of the actual crime, you never have 100% evidence against a person, right? Never a, like a, well, where you're you, where you, you're, you there's always some doubt, you know, it may be an unreasonable doubt. Like if you say that DNA tests to that person and that person can't be excluded and

seven billion other people can be excluded, you know, that's a doubt. There could be a doubt there, but it's an unreasonable doubt, right? So I think that that's what happens in some of these cases that you get to the point where all of the evidence kind of, it's a weight of the evidence. It's not a smoking gun. And I really, you know, as an attorney and that having been criminal trials. I really don't like the term circumstantial evidence because too many people believe that means it's not really good evidence. It's not solid evidence. It's not, you know,

but circumstantial evidence can be some of the best evidence you have in a case. And it's the weight of the evidence over the course of a trial that kind of, you know, moves the jury from the presumption of day one innocence to, you know, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at the end. And it's a fascinating thing. It's what makes our system the best in the world. And, you know, we're seeing it play out here. Yeah, well, look, I put a challenge to our viewers, and I'm going to read you one of them. I'm going to read you something, okay?

Because I put the challenge out there. I think the evidence against him is so strong. Now, I will wait for a trial. I can be impartial. I'll wait to hear what the defense puts forward. Absolutely. Absolutely. Just got the DNA records this week.

But here's the thing, right? I couple the cell phone data, a couple of the DNA data. I put in the surveillance footage. I mean, so much of it adds up to looking like he's the one who did this, right? But we have with us. Real with Robo. Real with Robo, one of our super chatter, one of our chatters, I should say. Bobby, Real with Robo said, challenge accepted, because I put it out.

Prove me wrong. The killer new Brian stole his Kbar off his dresser. and when he came over and killed the people leaving the sheath with Brian's DNA on it. Wow. It feels like the fugitive all over again. Where's the man with the missing arm or the missing leg? I think was the missing arm, right? Yeah.

Well, anyway, what do you think about that? I'll throw that question to you, Bobby. Look, we live in a world of possibilities, light. So it is possible that happens, you know? And so if the, you know, if the defense does raise that as some kind of defense argument, that the prosecution will be obligated to, you know, dispute that and poke holes in it. We've seen that before. We've seen it in the OJ case.

We've seen, you know, these kind of come out of nowhere a little bit. And remember, if the defense puts forth an argument like that, they are in no way under the same as the prosecution. Beyond any. Yeah, Bobby, sorry, you're breaking up a little bit here. You've wanted to just pick up that last line. I feel bad we got cut off. So, yeah, again, what were you saying? So if the defense puts something,

they have no obligation similar to the prosecution. They don't have to prove it. They don't have to put evidence in. They can just float a argument out there, like it may have been somebody else that broke Brian's out. They don't have to prove. You know, Bobby, sorry about it. I think you're breaking up a little bit.

Maybe we could get a call back in. No worries. Bobby Chaconne, everybody. He's great. We'll have to have him back on sidebar. maybe connection works a little bit better but bobby thanks so much appreciate it all right so we'll get bobby on a little bit but yeah look i i mean real with robo sure maybe i mean we got to see that seems a little far-fetched who would

have it out for brian coberger to do that but hey listen you know let's wait and see uh let's go to andrew okay we're going to take more of your chat questions more of your super chats uh andrew manning do you think he could have established a pattern of turning his phone off during the late night rides. We know he's intelligent in the field. That is, if he's guilty. Who turns their phone off when driving? Especially, like, I mean, so again, the idea here is,

and to be clear about what we're talking about, which is such a weird thing, is that the phone, and I'll get the exact times here. So let me just tell everybody. So on the night of the murders at 2.42 a.m. The phone, his phone, is connected to a tower that covers his apartment in Pullman, Washington. Five minutes later, the data shows he leaves his house. He travels south through Pullman, Washington.

That is consistent with the movements of the white Hyundai Alantra that's caught on surveillance tapes. The phone stops responding to the network. Prosecutors say he shut off the phone purposely to avoid detection. It doesn't come back on the network until 4.48 a.m. We believe the killings. The prosecution says the killings happen. Between 4 and 4.25 a.m. So like, what, 15, 20 minutes later, the phone miraculously comes back on

out of all times right after the murders. And then it hits the towers covering the area to a highway south of Moscow, Idaho. Then between 4.50 a.m. and 5.25 a.m., the phone hits a tower, showing the phone is traveling towards Uniontown, Idaho, and back to Pullman, Washington. Is it possible that he just turns his phone off when, he drives sure on the night of the murders the time it turns off the time it turns back on or I should say the time it doesn't connect to the network time it does connect to the network that is so suspicious that is just such we talk about a criminology student we talk about him

being a mastermind there are those who say well he knew how to be detected right he knew he could be tracked in his cell phone turning your phone on and off at those key points be worse evidence. It could be worse evidence than if he just had it on and was like, oh, I was just, you know, I had my phone on. I was traveling in that area. There's a lot of bars nearby. It's a college town. Maybe that would have been less, maybe that wouldn't have been as incriminating as the phone turning on and off. Maybe. Maybe. And look, the defense will say, and I've had this conversation before, that when you are dealing with a rural area like Moscow, Idaho, indifference than a metropolitan city like New York, the accuracy of cell phone tower

data is not the same. You can't definitively pinpoint someone. I mean, look at Gilgo Beach, right? They were able to track his phone, or presumably his phone to Manhattan, and a key area near that office. So I think it's a little bit different. You could argue that even though you have data about his phone, it's not inclusive about where he was.

It is not definitive. It is not accurate. but just putting all this together, you can convict on a purely circumstantial evidence case. You don't need a direct eyewitness. You don't need surveillance footage of him committing the crime. And this could be one of those pieces of evidence that will be highlighted by the prosecution a lot, in my opinion.

All right, we got another question from Sarah Keach. Move the trial to Boise. Moscow is too small. Okay, look, my understanding is there was a discussion about change of venue. But I believe in the summer of 2023, that was rule that's not going to happen. I think the judge said this is just going to happen in Latow County. There hasn't been more of a discussion about as far as I can see. Look, Boise is what?

300 miles away? Sure. Great idea. But sometimes change of venue and granting a change of venue motion can be an uphill battle. You really need to show extenuating circumstances. This was a crime that was committed in that area. This was a crime that affected a community. Having a jury of your peers is important.

And I will also suggest that perhaps it's not even the worst thing for Brian Koberger to have a jury in Moscow. Why? These are people that understand that area. These are people that would appreciate that area. Maybe know the ins and outs of driving late at night. Maybe know the ins and outs of where he said he was and where he wasn't. So I would suggest that maybe even trying to get, and it'll be tough getting an impartial jury and definitely tough getting an impartial jury in Moscow, but even having it there may not be the worst thing that happens. All right, everybody, I'll tell you what, this has been great.

This has been really great. I love having the opportunity to answer your questions about and discussing such a pivotal case like the Brian Koberger case. I know we're all waiting to see his trial, if it ever goes to trial, but here's what we're going to do. We want to go live on YouTube more often. We want to make this happen. And we want to talk about some of the most trending cases in true crime regularly. So whatever you're interested in, please let us know. Whatever you value, please let us know.

We really appreciate and value our viewers' voices, and we want to hear from you. Next time, we might even have you, the viewer, call in, share your opinion on the live stream, not just a chat. Come on, talk to us. So if you want to come on stream and discuss anything with me, drop a comment in the chat. And if there are any cases that you want to chat about, let us know. We'll talk about it next time. We'd love to do this again. There's nothing more fun, really, than getting to hear from you and learning your

opinions about the case. But look, that's all we have for you right now. I'm Jesse Weber. Thanks so much for tuning in and I hope to see you all next time. Take care. series, ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.