Serialously with Annie Elise - 118: Idaho 4 Murders: Paramount’s ‘#Cybersleuths: The Idaho Murders’ | Docuseries Breakdown

Episode Date: February 8, 2024

Paramount released a new 3 part docuseries called ‘#Cybersleuths: The Idaho Murders,’ and it has the internet buzzing with many differing opinions. If you haven’t seen it yet, don’t have paramount, don’t want to buy a subscription… I binged watched it, so you don’t have to.  Try Beam’s best-selling Dream Powder, get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to https://www.shopbeam.com/ANNIEELISE and use code ANNIEELISE at checkout. Follow the podcast on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/serialouslypod/   Shop the Merch: www.shop10tolife.com  Follow the podcast on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@serialouslypodcast    Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/annieelise   All Social Media Links: https://www.flowcode.com/page/annieelise_   SERIALously FB Page: https://www.facebook.com/SERIALouslyAnnieElise/   About Me: https://annieelise.com/   For Business Inquiries: [e-mail]  

Hey true crime besties, welcome back to an all annie your true crime bff i've got a brand new episode of seriallessly for you today and it is one that is very very interesting it is very fascinating i mean they all are right right um, this one really piqued my interest because normally, as you know, on Thursdays, we go through a lot of the headlines and what's going on right now in the true crime world, some new cases, some case updates. I usually will have one case that I focus on a little bit longer. It has a little bit longer of a segment just in general, but we're going to switch things up a little bit because what I want to talk to you about today is going to pretty much take the entire episode, and it's about the Idaho 4 murders. I haven't done

a lot of coverage on this case recently because, to be quite honest, there just has not been many new updates, and I feel like unless I feel as though I'm contributing something to the case or to spreading awareness about the case I just don't really find it useful to discuss them again unless I'm adding some sort of value to it so that's why I haven't updated much about Idaho in the last several months but now we've got a lot to talk about because Paramount released a new three-part docuseries called Cyber Sleuths, The Idaho Murders. And this new docuseries, guys, it has the internet buzzing with so many different opinions. Arguments are ensuing online. I mean, it's pretty wild. When I first heard about this release,

I kind of questioned myself if I was going to watch it, to be quite honest, because I was like, oh, okay, they're just going to talk about how this case was like a social media nightmare and how it took it by storm. But there was actually so much more involved in this docuseries. If you haven't seen it yet, or if you don't have Paramount, or you don't want to buy a subscription to watch it, that is totally fine, because I binge-watched it so that you don't have to, and I'm going to break it all down for you here. So in today's episode, I thought that we could just talk through what's in this docuseries, some new information that has been presented, and all of the different opinions about it. Because guys,

we've got a lot to talk about here. So without further ado, let's just get right into it, okay? So as a little backstory, in case you guys are unfamiliar with the Idaho case, or you just need a reminder, in the fall of what, 2022 now, I guess. Wow, I can't believe it's already been over a year. In the fall of 2022, in November, four college students, Kaylee Gonsalves, Maddie Mogan, Zanna Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin were horrifically and brutally murdered in their house right adjacent to campus on King Road. There was no suspect in custody for what felt like forever but the details of what happened in this house were honestly that of a worst nightmare they were so haunting somebody creeped into their home in the middle of the night it was four in the morning stabbed all four of these kids to death there was footage that came out of the kids at a and I say kids even though I get it they're adults but

there had been footage released of these kids hitting the food truck just hours before this brutal quadruple murder happened. They had been out at bars that evening just living life like normal college kids do. Zanna and her boyfriend Ethan were at a fraternity party earlier in the night, then they went back home. She even door dashed Jack in the Box. I mean, it was just a typical college house. These college students going out, coming back, eating a snack while they've got the munchies because they've been drinking, going to sleep, not having any clue that there was a literal predator crossing state lines that was going to enter their home in the dark shadows of the night and then brutally and callously just slay them.

And I say that not to be salacious, but that is what happened. This person used a K-bar knife and just brutally stabbed these kids to death. And some of the reports that have come out since this case broke make it even more devastating and gruesome, such as Zanna having defensive wounds on her body, so much so that her fingers were mangled, and I believe that one report said that some of them were almost detached. We recently heard an update from Kaylee's father and her mother that she was huddled in the corner on the bed between the wall, crouched down because she couldn't get away, and she was trapped. It's the worst

nightmare for any parent, for any human being, and it is just so, so sad. So it's no secret that the Idaho case was inundated with rumors, with speculation, with media attention, social media, and I mean and everything else that comes with that. It became a true circus. And this case was almost the perfect storm for the media too because you here you have these four all-American college kids. These beautiful college kids who were heinously murdered in their home, a very, very gruesome crime scene, blood, so much blood in a bloodbath where it's literally seeping out of the exterior walls, and at first, there was no suspect at all. So everybody was just reeling, trying to get information, answers, learn the details,

and everybody in the true crime world and media alike was just truly spinning. So in the docuseries it kind of takes you back from the very beginning to the now present time of when everything happened until now. So I decided that that's the order that I'm going to go in for this episode as well from the first episode of the docuseries to now the third and if you can believe it it kind of gets crazier as it continues on. I mean, it really does, and I'm sure they did that strategically, right? So like I said, in the beginning, it focuses on the impact that the murders had on the community and the impact that social media had in the beginning of the investigation. Now, if you remember, right after

the murders, the Moscow Police Department asked the public for help with any information. They also said that this was targeted, which made everybody's mind just immediately go into hyper overdrive, because as soon as they dropped that word, targeted, everybody's like, okay, this person must have known them. They must have known the attacker. They must have had a relationship with one of the roommates. There must be somebody who knows something. There's got to be a missing link. So then that's when the footage from the food truck came out.

People thought the food truck guy, who I'll refer to him as instead of calling him by name here, that he must have been involved somehow, that this had to have happened for a reason. Even more than that, then as more information came out, the Moscow Police Department asked for even more help from the public, like now how they had a vehicle of interest, the white Kia. So now everybody was searching for a white Kia. They would say, if you see something or know something, say something, that kind of thing. And everybody

was playing detective, trying to piece things together. Where is there a white Kia? Does anybody at the local fraternities own one? Who was on this food truck footage? Who's following who on Instagram? All the things. However, in the docuseries, it talks about how instead of actual tips coming in, credible tips, people on social media that were interested and following every single aspect of this case started calling in with their own theories. They weren't calling in with tips as they were requesting. They were just calling in with what they thought happened, who they thought was responsible. And the problem with this is that law enforcement had

to actually take time to vet each and every one of these tips, no matter how outlandish they were, no matter how bizarre it seemed, how crazy it seemed, or how honestly just kind of like batshit crazy non-credible it was. Because if the police were to skip over any tips and they ended up missing a big clue, it obviously was going to look very, very bad for them. So the docuseries was pointing this out to show that all of this was just a colossal waste of time, waste of energy from everybody involved because if you remember, when Brian Koberger was in fact arrested, everybody asked the exact same question. Who the hell is Brian Koberger? Not one single tip that had been called in, or theory, I should say, that had been called in,

had any information linked to Brian Koberger. None whatsoever. And again, this also surprised people, because remember, everybody thought this was targeted. That this had to have been somebody that knew or had a direct connection with one of the victims but in walks Brian Koberger or I should say in comes his mugshot into the chat and everybody's like who the hell is this guy he's tall he's like over six feet tall I believe he's skinny he's like got this long slender kind of face these hollow looking eyes in, in my opinion, short brown hair. And all we knew about him was that he had been a criminology student and that he went to WSU. So nobody was understanding what the connection could have been.

Now another thing that was highlighted in this docuseries was the difference between mainstream media and social media. Since there is so much mistrust, especially at the moment, between the public and mainstream media, independent media really has taken off the past several years. People feel as though they're finally getting this uncensored, unfiltered information. Now, one thing the docuseries pointed out is that not only are people more trusting now of independent media in general, but by relying on information from independent media sources, whether that means you're following

somebody on TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, you're basically relying on them to have already vetted the information before they give it to you. And in many cases, most cases, they have not vetted any information. And sometimes it's because they literally aren't able to. Because it's either a theory, it's a rumor, it has no merit, no credibility. Now I want to be clear, personally I don't think anything is wrong at all with discussing true crime on any of those social media platforms. Whether it's a panel of eight people on YouTube or just one person on TikTok who has an opinion, I think that that is just human nature. People are interested in true crime and they want to have open discussions about it. They want to theorize with like-minded individuals. They want to

play detective in a non-threatening way, if that makes sense. I get it. I totally get it. But this docuseries was showing how self-proclaimed cyber sleuths would then get, and I say this loosely, their tips and their leads from Reddit, from TikTok comments, from live stream panels, from people who call into live shows, etc. Then what they would do is they would run to social media and present what they just heard as truth, which not only caused an enormous amount of misinformation that the Moscow police had to battle every single day and in every single press conference,

but they literally ended up having to make an entire website dedicated strictly to debunking things. Now I want to just kind of paint the picture for a second here. Imagine the craziest comment you've ever seen on any one of your photos online, whether it's on TikTok, Instagram, whatever it is. Maybe somebody says, I don't know, to me I get crazy comments all the time. But imagine the craziest comment you've ever seen or read and automatically then taking that and broadcasting it as truth. For example, I posted a video on my Instagram the other day with the Mean Girls voiceover where it's the burn book and whatever. And I did a video of my toddler, my baby girl Emmy,

drawing and scribbling as if she were the one creating the burn book. You know that part if you've seen the movie where it's like this nasty skank oh obviously meaning it as though she's the one creating the burn book about me like a play on toddlers having complete control over their parents life a lot of people picked up on the joke thought it was funny it's a trend that's all over tiktok but then there was one comment where somebody said how could you even say this about your daughter? I should call CPS on you or something to that effect. Okay. So imagine somebody else seeing that comment, going live on YouTube, going live on a podcast, going live on TikTok,

and being like, CPS is on their way to Annie's house right now. I just got a tip. I just got a lead. You guys aren't going to even believe this. I'm breaking the case right now. That, as crazy as that sounds, guys, that's what was happening with this Idaho case. They would take a comment. They would take a tiny piece of information, a theory, a rumor, and just take it as truth and then broadcast it. And again, the problem was so much of the public now is believing and entrusting independent media sources, so they're watching this thinking to themselves, oh, certainly this person wouldn't go live with information they haven't vetted or that they don't believe in, but that's what was happening, and it just bogged down the investigation so much.

The docuseries also highlighted that some social media users who do this can actually be extremely dangerous. Dangerous because of the impact that cyber sleuths had on innocent people, who were deemed suspicious or creepy, and then people assumed that maybe they were involved in the crime. It talks about how after the murders, a neighbor named Jeremy did an interview with a news station, and then soon after, social media went wild, thinking his behavior wasn't right, and that he must have had something to do with the crime. And you know, if you follow the true crime world at all, almost every single case when there's an interview done, mainly with a spouse, everybody's like,

he's giving me Chris Watts vibes. That guy's giving me Chris Watts vibes. It reminds me of the Chris Watts interview. So that's exactly what happened here. He does this interview, a neighbor, and people are like, nope, he had to have done something. He had to be involved in this somehow. Something's not right with that behavior and his interview. So then, Jeremy was on the receiving end of death threats. People called his grandmother, his aunts, uncles, and his entire family. He was scared for his own safety and the safety of others from what he described as a very angry mob of TikTokers that thought that he was somehow like a mass murderer. Now, some people think that this is just part of true crime and that nobody is off limits

because in true crime you should question everything and everyone and by extension that also includes the surviving roommates who remember are actually victims in this case. And I bring that up because there are certain people out there that I have seen and they are posting video after video, episode after episode, trying to link the roommates to having some sort of involvement in this quadruple murder. All because, guys, this is the only reason, because they survived. That is why they are linking them to them. Not because there's any evidence proving that. Sure, they didn't call the police until hours into the morning.

For what reason? We don't know yet. Could have very well been in shock, asleep. They were hungover, so they slept in till late because the call, I believe, then went out at 11 a.m. We haven't heard the 911 call yet, which I'm going to get into. But in any event, the only thing that people really have to go on who are pushing this narrative of the surviving roommates being involved is just simply that that they survived there's no consideration for the fact that they most likely more than likely I

will say are struggling with survivor's guilt that they most likely have a severe amount of PTSD one of the roommates who claims to have seen Brian Koberger leaving and not really, didn't really know what was going on and what she saw, I can't imagine the guilt and the burden that that is weighing on her. So then to see all of these things continuing to be just published, saying you must be responsible, you must have been in cahoots with Brianrian you why didn't he kill you were you guys dating did you set it all up did you unlock the door it is so devastating and just reckless that's the best word to describe it reckless and again i'm not trying to get up on

my high horse guys i definitely have theorized i have put my theories out there before i just think it is and i've learned a huge lesson myself, it is very crucial to identify when you are inserting opinion or theory versus fact and adding fuel to the already horrible fire that is brewing. Now that's not to say that some of these cyber sleuths all have ill intentions, not by any means. But the docuseries was more pointing to the fact that if you have a platform, you're responsible for everything that takes place, whether it's on a live stream, whether you're reporting something as a fact, when it's not, I mean, things like that.

So this next part is actually pretty crazy, and I haven't really gone into this on any of my past Idaho videos or podcasts, but if you've been following this case personally, you may have heard about a woman who was dubbed WSU Kim. WSU Kim called into a few YouTube shows saying that her daughter told her that there were college kids at the University of Idaho and that they were at a house and knew about the murders before the roommates called 911. And apparently, she knew all of this because people got Snapchats earlier that morning. A lot of people didn't know if WSU Kim was real, if she was fake, if her daughter was getting wrong information, if maybe she was confused. I mean, nobody knew. Well, Kim was actually in this

docuseries, and she stuck to her story, saying that she believes people in Moscow know more than they do, and that that is why the 911 call has not been released. I want to be very clear. I don't know if any of that is true whatsoever, so please take that with a grain of salt. There was also a college student who met with a creator and tried to show proof that these Snapchats that WSU Kim talked about from that morning were real. He wanted to be anonymous, so you couldn't hear his voice or anything like that, but he did log into his Snapchat account on his computer, and he tried to look through the metadata, but when he went to look, all of his history for that Sunday was gone.

So this guy was confused. He said he didn't know how that would even happen, and thought that it was weird because it was all gone, like somebody had just completely erased it. Well then, in the next scene of the episode, it cuts to Jennifer Coffendaffer, an ex-FBI agent, and she said that law enforcement and the FBI is able to contact social media platforms and ask them to remove metadata like this from being accessible to the public and or even the user, especially if it's pertinent to an ongoing investigation. So again, is that what happened here? Maybe, but we really don't know either way because there is no proof. So with how much social media attention was on this case, it didn't take long for people to then take it even a step further and start traveling to Moscow. And the docuseries called this crime tourism, which is basically people traveling to

scenes where crimes took place, all so that they could make content for their followers. Some people feel like this is crossing a major ethical boundary, because it's using a tragedy as entertainment, and others think that there's nothing wrong with going to report on a crime to followers, because that's what the followers are there for, and that's what they want to see. Kind of just saying, like, how people watch true crime documentaries about cases, that this is the same thing, but now it's just happening in real time. Which, yes, I do understand that to a point.

However, there were some people who I won't name and it wasn't related to this case but I'll go back to Chris Watts for a moment where there were live streams happening out front of the house and people were taking souvenirs from the property as though they wanted some sort of murder house memorabilia again everybody's entitled to their own opinions and feelings. To me personally, that does feel unethical, and that's just my personal gripe, so I could very well be wrong and tell me what you think. I would never do, I wouldn't do that just because something doesn't feel right about that. It does feel a little gross. I don't know. Now, one part that I thought was pretty interesting is how recently and more frequently

mainstream media warns people about cyber sleuths and also how content creators are doing things for clickbait. And one of the people in the documentary then asked, well aren't you doing clickbait too? Which truthfully is a pretty fair point. However there's a real problem with people actually making stuff up, posting fake audio, and things like that, which is a completely different story. Any media outlet that covers true crime has the ability to be monetized, right? Whether it is News Nation, Dateline, 2020, 60 Minutes, YouTube, podcasting, whatever it may be. So the argument really is, okay, well, Keith Morrison, how come you can monetize on murder and true crime, but, you know, Joe Schmo over here on YouTube can't? And it's not that

Joe Schmo can't. I think the argument that people are trying to say is that you certainly can, but as long as you're not falsifying what you're reporting, as long as there's integrity behind it, and you're not pushing out things just for clicks, just for views, just for money, and that you are reporting from an ethical stance, really. Next, the docuseries went more heavily into Brian Koberger and also the gag order in this case, meaning that neither the state, the defense, police, or any other law enforcement that assisted in the case is able to discuss anything with the public. Some people think that the judge was totally right in doing this because the case was already a circus, and how crazy would it be if anybody who was accused with a quadruple homicide was let off of the hook because of a technicality at trial, and how that would just be an enormous miscarriage of justice.

On the other hand, some people think that the fact that there is a gag order in place has only continued to generate more misinformation, more speculation, and more conspiracies, which honestly, I see both sides here. I think in general, most people want to find the truth, whatever that may be. But the docuseries focused on cyber sleuths who aren't really interested in the truth because the truth doesn't make them money. Which, let's talk about the monetization part a little bit more here. One point that was heavily debated on is if it's right for people to be able to monetize themselves and peddle misinformation along the way. The series showed how there are actually people who know that if their content doesn't have something new, something viral,

something sensational, something salacious, then people aren't gonna watch. And in this case, there are a lot of people doing that in regards to Brian being innocent, also suggesting that he was framed, that there were more people involved, such as the roommates, I mean, whatever it may be, just so that they can get more money. They have this need to create new videos every day, every week, whatever it is, a new spin, a new take, a new theory, a new idea, kind of off the wall and outlandish, and that's what they were trying to say the big problem here is. Now, I just want to be clear that the docuseries wasn't saying, like, nobody can ask questions, nobody can discuss

anything. They were specifically talking about cyber sleuths who knowingly mislead their audiences with false information, or, for example, how some creators and audiences will believe random people who will pop up on a YouTube panel with no picture, no name, then claim a bunch of crazy things and bring in a lot of viewers. Then, later, that random anonymous person is busted out as a known troll who just goes into these true crime communities doing things like this on purpose, trying to get a rise out of people, trying to stir things up, and also to point out how stupid the true crime community is. And what's crazy is that some of these cyber sleuths will even call the FBI, call Ann Taylor, Brian's attorney, and they'll call to tell them about quote leads that they get because they

believe they are genuinely being helpful to the case. The series also discussed the fact that yes, this is the true crime community, and there are a lot of criminals themselves that are drawn into this community, and that the public should be careful who they are getting their information from in the first place. The series also speculated that the defense could end up closely aligning with one or more of the popular Brian Koberger is innocent or framed theories that are out there, which has gotten a lot of traction online. And that would be pretty interesting if that happens, so I guess we're going to have to just wait and see. Now towards the end of the docuseries, Steve Gonsalves,

Kaylee's father, calls one of the creators that he's close with and says that he received a phone call from somebody named Jeff, who is an informant. Jeff says that he has a friend that was with Brian Koberger when the murders happened, and that it was supposed to just be a robbery. Then, this friend gives Jeff two backpacks and asks him to get rid of them for him, and he does. However, before getting rid of them, he says he looked inside the backpack, and he saw a black knife with blood on it, as well as bloody clothing. Which when I first heard this, I was kind of like, oh my gosh, what if this is true? That would be crazy. But then I quickly was like, okay, who's going to a college house at four in the morning to rob college kids? What valuables would they have? That makes absolutely no sense.

What are they going to do? Like rob their jack-in-the-box door dash? Like, and you're crossing state lines to do this? I've heard crazier things, but like, really? And turns out, not so fast. When this guy was interviewed later on, he did not come off as credible. He was a career criminal, and he was actually in jail at the time. His story was changing, and he was also saying that he would only give the information about his quote friend if people were willing to write letters for him to the parole board or give him some money, and he even said that he was hoping that Nancy Grace could help him too. So in the end, the docuseries, it really poses the question of,

do the pros of social media and the interest in true crime outweigh the cons? For the pros, you can get information out to people as fast as possible, and to many people, like helping to find a missing person. And think about the Gabby Petito case with this, where the family that has a YouTube channel actually had video of Gabby's van, and it was a huge break in the case. It can also be a great tool to keep stories alive, help solve cold cases, generate awareness, things like that. But with that, it's a double-edged sword. Some of the heaviest true crime critics that were interviewed in this particular series said that true crime is a human instinct that has been

around for centuries. So I think more than anything, this docuseries to me was more so to highlight the difference between cyber sleuths who are actually trying to be helpful and some who are just doing this because they see dollar signs and they're only perpetuating more rumors and misinformation. And in doing so, they can cause a lot of harm and chaos. So I'm curious to know if you have watched this docuseries, what your thoughts are on it. If you haven't, what do you think now that I've broken it down for you? My personal belief with true crime, and I've said this before, not in any specific episode, but I do remember saying this, I do think just as human beings, we have this innate interest in human behavior and in the

unthinkable and in crimes. For me personally, what fascinates me so much about true crime and different cases and things like that is trying to get inside the perpetrator's head. What were they thinking? What drove them to do this? What kind of person is capable of this? And then of course on the other side of the coin, honoring the victims, making sure they still have a voice, generating awareness so people know what patterns to look for. I think that's why so many people are interested in true crime and I say that meaning most people. I know there are some sickos out there who are interested in it in a more morbid kind of disgusting way which get off my channel if that's you but um

I do think that people are fascinated with human behavior and it's something most of us hopefully will never experience in our lives directly and I mean that in terms of us being a serial killer so it's almost like you're trying to understand what's going through that person's mind what would drive them to commit these crimes what were they thinking what was their planning almost like solving a puzzle a little bit if if that makes sense. So I think there's always going to be this fascination around true crime. It's just what are the boundaries? Are there any boundaries?

What are the ethical boundaries? Or should it just be a free-for-all? And as viewers and as the public, we have to interpret that information in a responsible way, take take it with a grain of salt don't bog down tip lines with theories and just know what you're hearing has maybe a couple nuggets of truth but is mainly opinion based and not to hinder the investigation in any way by contacting the police although now that i say that out loud i feel like that's probably way easier said than done because I do think a lot of the people who call in these you know quote-unquote leads do believe that they're helping and do believe that there's credibility behind whatever they saw in the

comment section so I don't know what the answer is I would just hope that myself included as creators we can just make sure to be a little bit more responsible with what information we are putting out to the public I will be the first to admit I don't get it right all the time and I certainly got it wrong more times than not in the beginning of my podcasting YouTube career but I also will say that I have learned tremendously from those past mistakes not making it right but I'm constantly learning so I think if we can all just have a little bit of a self-awareness and be self-critical to just try to better ourselves because these are real people these are real lives these are real victims these

are real families who have been affected and in some of these cases these are real people who have been arrested who are innocent many are guilty but some are innocent and then the slander just goes on and on and on and anyways I'm going off on a tangent guys so I need to just shut up now anyways thank you for listening to another episode of serial with me I will be back on the mic with you very soon don't forget let me know your thoughts about the Idaho case about all of this about the doc docuseries. Let me know over on the Spotify Q&A section or on Apple. Let me know in the review section. I wish that they had a feature where you could just chat with me, kind of like Spotify does, where you can leave feedback.

But the only option they have is through leaving a review. So if you want to take the 30 seconds to let me know your feedback via the review, I would greatly appreciate it so I can see what your thoughts are. All right, guys, thanks again for tuning in. Sorry for the long tangent, and I will be talking with you again very, very soon. All right, bye.