Speaker 1: Ryan Coberger outstargazing and driving the night four University of
Speaker 1: Idaho students were murdered. That's part of the alibi he's
Speaker 1: offering to the.
Speaker 2: Court sometimes and then this won't shock anybody who's done
Speaker 2: defense work. Clients will lie to their attorneys.
Speaker 3: This is the Idaho Massacre. A production of KAT Studios
Speaker 3: and iHeartRadio, Season two, Episode four, A Hamster Wheel of Justice.
Speaker 3: I'm Courtney Armstrong, a producer at KAT Studios, with Stephanie
Speaker 3: Leidecker and Gabe Castillo. On December thirtieth, twenty twenty two,
Speaker 3: six weeks after the murders of Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle,
Speaker 3: Madison Mogen, and Kaylie Gonzalvez, twenty eight year old criminology
Speaker 3: PhD student Brian Coburger was arrested at his family home
Speaker 3: in Pennsylvania's Pocono Mountains. Here's Monroe County Assistant District Attorney
Speaker 3: Michael Mancuso.
Speaker 4: Mister Coburger was found awake in the kitchen area, dressed
Speaker 4: in shorts and a shirt and wearing latex medical type
Speaker 4: gloves and apparently was taking his personal trash and putting
Speaker 4: it into separate ziploc baggies.
Speaker 5: Here's Stephanie just picturing the accused Brian Coburger wearing shorts
Speaker 5: and a T shirt in surgical latex gloves. Is such
Speaker 5: a chilling detail, So let's just play this out for
Speaker 5: a second. If in fact, Brian Coburger did this, that
Speaker 5: would actually mean that he murdered four people. Then he
Speaker 5: went back to class in the days thereafter. Then his
Speaker 5: dad picks him up at his apartment in Washington, and
Speaker 5: as we know, the two of them infamously drove in
Speaker 5: Brian's white Alantra across country to go home for Thanksgiving break.
Speaker 5: You'll also remember that the police hold Brian and his
Speaker 5: dad over twice allegedly to see if he had any
Speaker 5: scratch marks on his hand, and bodycam footage shows that
Speaker 5: he did. Now he's home, he's at his parents' house
Speaker 5: for Thanksgiving break, and he realizes his car is a
Speaker 5: crime scene. So now he's wearing these latex gloves and
Speaker 5: leaning it out, making sure that things are put in
Speaker 5: their proper ziploc bags. CNN reported that he cleaned his
Speaker 5: car inside and out, not missing an inch. That's a
Speaker 5: pretty big deal. Does that mean he's just trying to
Speaker 5: make sure there isn't any evidence left behind, or, as
Speaker 5: the defense would probably say, maybe he's just a meticulous
Speaker 5: guy that doesn't like germs and just likes to forever
Speaker 5: be wearing a latex glove.
Speaker 3: On January fourth, twenty twenty three, the accused was extradited
Speaker 3: back to Idaho, where he appeared in court to wave
Speaker 3: his right to a speedy trial. Seven long months after that,
Speaker 3: on August two, twenty third Judge John Judge, who continues
Speaker 3: to preside over the case, pushed back the initial start date,
Speaker 3: which was set for October second, twenty twenty three. As
Speaker 3: of this recording, a new trial start date has still
Speaker 3: not been set. Recently, victim Kaylee Gonsalvez's family released a
Speaker 3: statement saying this case is turning into a hamster wheel
Speaker 3: of motions, hearings, and delayed decisions. Can we all just
Speaker 3: agree that this case needs to move forward and the
Speaker 3: judge needs to start setting hard deadlines in this case.
Speaker 1: Kaylee's mom says she feels like they've been in limbo
Speaker 1: now for more than a year, and while she's hopeful,
Speaker 1: mostly what they want is a trial date to be.
Speaker 3: Said, to get a better understanding of these pre trial proceedings.
Speaker 3: I spoke with Kirk Nurmi, legal analyst and former defense
Speaker 3: attorney to Jody Arius. Arius was in a widely publicized
Speaker 3: death penalty case in twenty thirteen from murdering her ex
Speaker 3: boyfriend Travis Alexander in Arizona. In the state of Idaho,
Speaker 3: three people have been executed since the mid nineteen seventies.
Speaker 3: For context, during that time, nearly sixteen hundred felons have
Speaker 3: been put to death in the United States. I asked
Speaker 3: Kirk about a hearing in this case that took place
Speaker 3: on January twenty sixth, twenty twenty four. At that hearing,
Speaker 3: Coberger's defense attorney, Ann Taylor, tried for the second time
Speaker 3: to get all charges dismissed. I asked Kirk if it
Speaker 3: was rare for attorneys to take a second bite at
Speaker 3: the apple.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 2: We have to understand in a death penalty context, if
Speaker 2: a defendant is sentenced to death, what the attorneys did
Speaker 2: or did not do will be examined for years down
Speaker 2: the road. I mean, if somebody is sentenced to death,
Speaker 2: usually it takes about fifteen years for that execution to
Speaker 2: actually take place, and during those fifteen years, the federal
Speaker 2: courts will take a look at it, and it will
Speaker 2: go all the way up to the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: One of the reasons about fifty percent of the death
Speaker 2: penalty verdicts get overturned, and one of the reasons for
Speaker 2: that is the council's failure to pursue certain avenues of defense.
Speaker 2: So it is reasonable and expected and really minimum practice
Speaker 2: for the defense attorneys and the death penalty case to
Speaker 2: pursue every avenue possible, even multiple times if there is
Speaker 2: reason to do that.
Speaker 6: The victim's family, you want the trial to be expedited.
Speaker 6: It sounds like the judge as well wanted to expedite
Speaker 6: the case, but defense obviously has been pushing hard to delay.
Speaker 7: Can you speak to that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it goes back to some extent about
Speaker 2: having things done right. I mean, the prosecution knows, and
Speaker 2: with all due respect to the family, understand why they
Speaker 2: want justice to be swift. But the prosecution understands that
Speaker 2: if they are investing all these resources. I mean, it
Speaker 2: always costs the state pursuing death penalty, both for the
Speaker 2: prosecution team and for the defense team. It costs a
Speaker 2: lot of money, it costs a lot of court resources, etc.
Speaker 2: They want to make sure they do it once if
Speaker 2: it is expedited in any way, and in that review
Speaker 2: process years down the road, of course, there's no wait
Speaker 2: a minute, this tra happened too fast because you did
Speaker 2: not give the defense proper notice on this particular issue
Speaker 2: or proper time to investigate the mitigating circumstances surrounding mister
Speaker 2: Colberger's life. Then then it could be redone again, and
Speaker 2: so hasty justice doesn't necessarily mean justice. It has to
Speaker 2: be justice done thoroughly and one hundred percent correctly. Or again,
Speaker 2: there's a fifty percent chance that a sentencing verdict would
Speaker 2: be overturned.
Speaker 7: Wow, that's a crazy high statistic.
Speaker 6: Is the pressure so much higher because of that extra
Speaker 6: judicial oversight?
Speaker 2: Sure? I mean there's an expression amongst defense attorneys that
Speaker 2: death is different, and that is exactly the case. It
Speaker 2: is a meticulous, high stress situation where every avenue must
Speaker 2: be pursued because of that scrutiny that is going to
Speaker 2: face years down the road. No defense attorney wants to
Speaker 2: be considered ineffective. Nobody involved wants to have to try
Speaker 2: the case again. That fifty percent rate I talk about
Speaker 2: it is always related to the sentencing. It doesn't have
Speaker 2: anything to do with guilt or innocence, but it has
Speaker 2: to do with that death sentence. And that means that
Speaker 2: the judge, the prosecution, and the defense attorney all have
Speaker 2: to do their job almost perfectly, if you will, because
Speaker 2: the penalty is one from which no redress can be
Speaker 2: made once it's imposed.
Speaker 6: Here's something I don't know about, and I don't know
Speaker 6: how much listeners do at all. What do people need
Speaker 6: to know about closed door hearings for a grand jury?
Speaker 6: And what is a grand jury?
Speaker 2: Sure? Well, a grand jury, you know, you think about
Speaker 2: it just like any other former jury. Duty might be
Speaker 2: the way that people can relate to it most. But
Speaker 2: when you're in a grand jury, it's secretive. It's just
Speaker 2: the prosecution presenting evidence, and the question is there probable
Speaker 2: cars to charge a defendant with a certain crime. The
Speaker 2: defense is not there. They do not provide evidence. It's
Speaker 2: not a trial. But ultimately it's that secret proceeding to
Speaker 2: decide whether or not a charge is made. So the
Speaker 2: difference really is the secrecy of it and the charging decision.
Speaker 2: It's a lower standard versus you know, guilty or not guilty.
Speaker 2: What a normal jury does in a public setting.
Speaker 6: And are these just regular jury like I was on
Speaker 6: jury duty yesterday as a matter of fact, Is this
Speaker 6: just the normal population? Yes, I don't know why it
Speaker 6: seems very mysterious to me.
Speaker 2: Well, I think it sounds mysterious because it's someone is
Speaker 2: I mean, it happens behind closed doors. Nobody knows, you know,
Speaker 2: about the preceding. The future defendant doesn't know that this
Speaker 2: is going on. The testimony doesn't take place in open court,
Speaker 2: there's no cross examination. All is that has really seen,
Speaker 2: at least in my experience in Arizona. When it's done,
Speaker 2: is the transcript of the proceedings?
Speaker 8: That's it is?
Speaker 7: The transcript? Does that go on the official record?
Speaker 6: And is that something that can be looked at by
Speaker 6: the defense or anyone else at a later time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, certainly. And we see this in a lot of
Speaker 2: death penalty cases, but also other cases where they might
Speaker 2: challenge the sufficiency of the indictment, and those challenges are
Speaker 2: all based on the grand jury. If the prosecution failed
Speaker 2: to present exculpatory evidence that they knew they had, etc.
Speaker 2: If a witness lied during the grand jury in order
Speaker 2: to precipitate an indictment being filed, those sort of things
Speaker 2: can be something that they looked at because you again,
Speaker 2: you're not subject to cross examination. So if a police
Speaker 2: officer goes in there and says something that is not
Speaker 2: true or is later contradicted, they contradict themselves on the stand,
Speaker 2: that testimony can be used to attack their credibility and
Speaker 2: or attack the credibility of the indictment.
Speaker 7: One more follow up with that.
Speaker 6: Let's say that scenario just happened a police officer or
Speaker 6: any witness is then you know their testimony is found
Speaker 6: to be contradictory. Could that mean midstream that the charges
Speaker 6: are then changed, that those are then dropped or is
Speaker 6: that not the case?
Speaker 2: No, that's unlikely because when you that is a challenge
Speaker 2: that would maybe take place at the grand jury challenging
Speaker 2: the grand jury transcript. So let's say Officer X goes
Speaker 2: in and testifies to something and his police report is
Speaker 2: completely different. You could maybe challenge the grand jury proceedings
Speaker 2: on that basis. If it gets to the trial portion
Speaker 2: of the proceedings, you could go back and impeach his
Speaker 2: credibility with that prior testimony. Like in Arizona, there's limits
Speaker 2: and I forget the exact amount of days, but you
Speaker 2: have to challenge the grand jury finding within a certain
Speaker 2: amount of days that precedes trial. So once that window
Speaker 2: is closed and or things are ruled upon, that becomes
Speaker 2: an issue for the appellate record, not trial per se,
Speaker 2: other than to impeach the witness with their prior testimony.
Speaker 6: So the second hearing I wanted to talk about this
Speaker 6: happened February twenty eighth of this year, and this hearing
Speaker 6: was open to the public. So in this instance, a
Speaker 6: lot was made on the fact that the defendant, Brian Kolberger,
Speaker 6: was wearing a suit. Can you give your thoughts on that,
Speaker 6: the judge's decision, the family's reaction.
Speaker 2: Sure, and I understand seeing some of the family's comments
Speaker 2: how they don't appreciate seeing that what have you. But
Speaker 2: we have to remember, going back to what I said
Speaker 2: earlier about the propriety that everything is done right. In
Speaker 2: a death penalty case, a defendant is presumed innocent, and
Speaker 2: we tend to forget that, I think in the court
Speaker 2: of public opinion, and if they are seen especially when
Speaker 2: we talk about a high profile case like this, if
Speaker 2: they are seen in jail garb or shackled with a
Speaker 2: stun belt and chains, and what have you. Then people
Speaker 2: begin to inform an impression not only of his guilt,
Speaker 2: his violent nature. They begin forming those oppressions off those visuals.
Speaker 2: So you want to prevent that at every stage of
Speaker 2: the proceeding before guilt has been established, if you will.
Speaker 2: So that is very important. Again, if you have an
Speaker 2: appellat attorney looks down years down the road and says, well, look,
Speaker 2: this guy was put in shackles and paraded in front
Speaker 2: of the entire jury panel of Leta County, and therefore
Speaker 2: his trial wasn't fair. That could be a viable argument
Speaker 2: that could have a disc sentence reversed.
Speaker 6: So really it sounds like for the greater good of
Speaker 6: the sanctity of not having the case overturned.
Speaker 2: Almost well, yeah, I mean, that's one less issue of pursuit,
Speaker 2: if you will, on the appellate level at the federal.
Speaker 6: Level, with your court room experience, I don't know if
Speaker 6: you've had the experience of where a defendant is both
Speaker 6: dressed in civilian closed and dressed in shackles, and is
Speaker 6: there a different feel sort of in the room or
Speaker 6: from the jury.
Speaker 2: Well, the jury is only going to see a defendant
Speaker 2: in street clothes. Quote unquote. If they are a danger,
Speaker 2: every effort is made to mask any restraints that they
Speaker 2: have on them. They're not going to be sitting there
Speaker 2: with handcuffs on unless there's some particular reason for it.
Speaker 2: The jury would probably be instructed not to make any
Speaker 2: inferences from that. So anytime somebody's in front of a jury,
Speaker 2: they are going to be in quote unquote street clothes,
Speaker 2: and any restraints will be masked.
Speaker 6: That's a really interesting point because I must have conflated
Speaker 6: seeing pre trial hearings because I'm like, oh, well, I
Speaker 6: can picture plenty of defendants and clothes, but not in
Speaker 6: front of the jury.
Speaker 2: That's true. So if there is a pre trial where
Speaker 2: it's only the judge, if you will, and not televised,
Speaker 2: then the judge has knowledge obviously of the defendant's custodial
Speaker 2: status because in many cases they've set that status. They
Speaker 2: don't need to be protected from it if it doesn't
Speaker 2: interfere with the sixth Amendment right of the defendant. Because ultimately,
Speaker 2: in a courtroom, it is the jury that makes the decision.
Speaker 2: They are the final arbiter of guilt or innocence.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that makes perfect sense, perfect sense, Thank you.
Speaker 3: Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
Speaker 3: a moment. There have been well more than a dozen
Speaker 3: pre trial hearings in this case, but the most significant
Speaker 3: revelation is the alibi of the accused.
Speaker 9: So here.
Speaker 2: Their alibi defense apparently is that he likes to drive
Speaker 2: around and see the moon and the stars.
Speaker 8: The new alibi. I have like a little theory about that.
Speaker 2: Do I buy it? No?
Speaker 3: The prosecution is currently taking great issue with what they
Speaker 3: claim is the defense's lack of progress in furthering the
Speaker 3: details of the defendant's alibi, and in April twenty fourth,
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four, filing from prosecutor Bill Thompson, he writes,
Speaker 3: it has now been approximately eleven months since the state
Speaker 3: filed its request for discovery disclosure alibi demand on May
Speaker 3: twenty third, twenty twenty three, and almost a year and
Speaker 3: a half since the homicides occurred. The defendant has been
Speaker 3: given more time than he is legally entitled in order
Speaker 3: to provide his alibi. The state is substantially prejudiced and
Speaker 3: compromised in its ability to investigate and respond to new
Speaker 3: or additional alibi related disclosures.
Speaker 1: Ryan Coburger outstargazing and driving the night four University of
Speaker 1: Idaho students were murdered. That's part of the alibi he's
Speaker 1: offering to the court.
Speaker 3: That's crime reporter Antoinette Levy, who's been following this case
Speaker 3: from the beginning. She continues describing the alibi details on
Speaker 3: a recent an episode of Law and Crime Network's Crime
Speaker 3: Fix with Antoinette Levy.
Speaker 1: So he says he certainly wasn't at that house. Instead,
Speaker 1: his lawyer's right mister Coburger was out driving in the
Speaker 1: early morning hours of November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, as
Speaker 1: he often did to hike and run and or see
Speaker 1: the moon and stars. He drove throughout the area south
Speaker 1: of Pullman, Washington, west of Moscow, Idaho, including Wawaii Park
Speaker 1: in Idaho. If a defendant is going to claim they
Speaker 1: have an alibi, they have to tell the prosecutor about
Speaker 1: a specific place or place is where they were when
Speaker 1: a crime took place, and they have to identify a
Speaker 1: witness or witnesses who can vouch for them.
Speaker 3: In the state's motion filed after the alibi was revealed,
Speaker 3: Prosecutor Bill Thompson writes, the state respectfully submits that the
Speaker 3: defendant's supplemental alibi response continues to lack the specificity required
Speaker 3: by Idaho Code nineteen Dash five, Pine nine, which provides
Speaker 3: that the defense shall state the specific place or places
Speaker 3: at which the defendant claims to have been at the
Speaker 3: time of the alleged defense, and the names and addresses
Speaker 3: of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to
Speaker 3: establish such alibi. In an effort to better understand the
Speaker 3: legalities of these motions, I continued my conversation with Kirknermi.
Speaker 3: I asked him to explain why the prosecution had such
Speaker 3: a strongly worded filing after the alibi was revealed.
Speaker 2: It's interesting because idahol must be a little different. An alibi,
Speaker 2: in my experience in Arizona, is nothing that has to
Speaker 2: be supported or enunciated. I mean, you might call witnesses
Speaker 2: to support it, but you wouldn't have to enunciate it
Speaker 2: if you will.
Speaker 7: I'd love clarification of the fact that in this case,
Speaker 7: the prosecution said the lack of a finalized version of
Speaker 7: Coberger's alibi was concerning and argue that a deadline was
Speaker 7: necessary to ensure the alibi was not affected by evidence
Speaker 7: unveiled during discovery I guess first, what is discovery because
Speaker 7: my understanding was that was the finding out of information.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean there is a bit of mystery surrounding
Speaker 2: that because we don't have all the information. My understanding
Speaker 2: is that what the Coburger team is saying with this
Speaker 2: stargazing alibi, if you will, is that they will be
Speaker 2: able to support this alibi, not by persons or you know,
Speaker 2: video evidence, but strictly by cell phone evidence that contradicts
Speaker 2: the cell phone evidence brought in by the state. And
Speaker 2: they are also making the assertion, as I understand it,
Speaker 2: that the state has not fully disclosed all the cell
Speaker 2: phone evidence that would be supportive of the alibi. Thus,
Speaker 2: they are simply putting out there that he was stargazing
Speaker 2: and their cell phone expert will support that.
Speaker 6: I have to ask, what's your knee jerk reaction to
Speaker 6: the alibi?
Speaker 7: If you want to share, do I buy it? No?
Speaker 2: But if that's what you're asking, do I buy it no?
Speaker 2: But it remains to be seen what the cell phone
Speaker 2: evidence is going to demonstrate. A lot of people send
Speaker 2: to think that a defense attorney or a group of
Speaker 2: defensive attorneys sit down and concoct a defense or that
Speaker 2: they sit down with their client and they make up
Speaker 2: a defense. But sometimes this won't shock anybody who's done
Speaker 2: defense work. Clients will lie to their attorneys, right, and
Speaker 2: a lot of times sometimes you know you can lie
Speaker 2: in a way that there's no affirmative proof to the contrary.
Speaker 2: So he says, I'm out stargazing. He very well could
Speaker 2: have been stargazing before or after he committed this crime.
Speaker 2: There's no proof to the contrary. So my guess is
Speaker 2: mister Kolberger believes he's very smart and says, hey, this
Speaker 2: is my alibi. You can't disprove it.
Speaker 3: Stephanie joins the conversation.
Speaker 5: That does sound like it's right out of a movie.
Speaker 8: Is that what actually happens.
Speaker 5: Somebody seems so tricky that they're going to create this
Speaker 5: entire fabric of a story to their defense attorney. As
Speaker 5: a defense attorney, are you able to call bs or
Speaker 5: do you have to play along?
Speaker 2: Well, as a defense attorney, unless you can disprove it,
Speaker 2: you have to allow the client to tell their story.
Speaker 2: You are not judging jury. You are there to help
Speaker 2: them tell their story, whether you believe it or not.
Speaker 2: So if a client comes up and we continue with
Speaker 2: the alibi example, how can you disprove that? Is there
Speaker 2: some way to disprove that? No, if there's not, that's
Speaker 2: the point. Unless the attorney can prove the alibi to
Speaker 2: be false. Let's say he says I was with my
Speaker 2: mother or I was buying gas, and there's no evidence
Speaker 2: to support the alibi. Then he or she can confront
Speaker 2: their client with this evidence. There's no gotcha moment, right,
Speaker 2: There's no one more thing ask you this because you
Speaker 2: can't disprove it. And that's why a lot of criminal
Speaker 2: defense think, hey, this is a great story because it
Speaker 2: cannot be disproven. They've got time to sit in jail
Speaker 2: and vet their lie, if you will. And this cannot
Speaker 2: be disproven, can't be able to be proven, but it
Speaker 2: certainly can't be disproven.
Speaker 5: Is it as simple as somebody checking the weather to
Speaker 5: say that that particular night there were no stars to
Speaker 5: be seen in the sky.
Speaker 2: No, not at all. I mean it's you could still stargaze,
Speaker 2: you can still gaze at the clouds, you could do anything, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's you could say it's less probable, but
Speaker 2: you can't definitively prove it to be a lie.
Speaker 5: Can you, as a defense attorney. You hear this story,
Speaker 5: you're not buying it. Are you able to excuse yourself
Speaker 5: as the defense attorney?
Speaker 2: No, just because you don't believe a story doesn't mean
Speaker 2: that you are not the right attorney for the car.
Speaker 2: I mean clients all the time in my so, I
Speaker 2: want an attorney that believes in me. I want an
Speaker 2: attorney that believes in me. And the response is fine,
Speaker 2: if you want one, stupid enough, go find one. But
Speaker 2: I'm not going to buy this story, and I don't
Speaker 2: think a jury will. But if that doesn't knock the
Speaker 2: client off the story, then they they the client can
Speaker 2: get up on the stand and tell that story. Brian
Speaker 2: Colberger can get up on the stand and tell the
Speaker 2: story that he was stargazing that night. That does not
Speaker 2: violate the ethics of the attorney, and as a matter
Speaker 2: of fact, it is their ethical obligation. Particularly in a
Speaker 2: death penalty case. An attorney can't say, well, you know what,
Speaker 2: I had this defense or I had this bit of mitigation,
Speaker 2: but I didn't believe it, so I didn't present it
Speaker 2: to the jury because it's not what the attorney believes,
Speaker 2: it's what the jury believes.
Speaker 3: After this conversation, we checked the weather and saw that
Speaker 3: when Coberger is alleged to be stargazing, it was overcast
Speaker 3: with intimate and isis fog. Having spoken with defense attorney
Speaker 3: Kirk Nurmi, Stephanie and I wanted to balance the equation.
Speaker 3: Here's a turn me and former prosecutors Steven Greenberg's take
Speaker 3: on the suspect's alibi and how he thinks it might
Speaker 3: play in court.
Speaker 9: It underscores the lack of sophistication of the sense team.
Speaker 9: It really does. I mean, are you going to open
Speaker 9: through a jury and say that the jury that we
Speaker 9: have a moon in the stars defense that's our alibi.
Speaker 9: Come on, they're going to look at you and say,
Speaker 9: my goodness, where did you come from?
Speaker 6: Is there anything to the fact that you kind of
Speaker 6: can't poke holes in it versus saying, you know, I
Speaker 6: went to the gas station at twelve thirty three am.
Speaker 6: So is that perhaps the rationale that there's nothing specific
Speaker 6: about it, that it is so vague.
Speaker 9: I think it's like throwing a whole bunch of stuff
Speaker 9: against the wall helps something sticks or something will come
Speaker 9: out later on. They should have got the prostitutions trying
Speaker 9: to avoid that will boaster it. They just want to
Speaker 9: have it out there. They're obligating it to disclose their albi.
Speaker 3: Stephanie speaks with Inside Edition reporter Chris Bargo, who followed
Speaker 3: the case from the beginning, to get his thoughts on
Speaker 3: the alibi revelation.
Speaker 10: Right now, when people ask you about his guilt or
Speaker 10: innocence based on what we know concretely, I mean, it's
Speaker 10: hard to really say one way or the other. I mean,
Speaker 10: we don't really know much about the prosecution's case, but
Speaker 10: we know the defense is entire alibi, so that you know,
Speaker 10: at this point when you think about it, the defense
Speaker 10: has a much better case just because we know so little.
Speaker 10: We know the proba will cause affidavor that says he
Speaker 10: is in the cell phone area. They don't have math
Speaker 10: house in that Affidavid. We don't know. There could be
Speaker 10: fingerprints in the house we don't know about. There could
Speaker 10: be a million things we don't know about. What we
Speaker 10: know for a fact. They know we have his car
Speaker 10: leaving Washington State University. We know his car arriving back
Speaker 10: at Washington State University. We know foods a few sightings
Speaker 10: of it along the way heading towards Moscow, leaving and
Speaker 10: we have some photos of the car. No, we have
Speaker 10: photos of the car. We don't have photos of Brian Coberger.
Speaker 10: None of those things say that they have photos of Brian.
Speaker 10: But they could prove that Brian is there. They could
Speaker 10: say they have a car that looks like Brian's driving.
Speaker 10: It's certainly reasonable. Doubt wise, it's not awful. They don't
Speaker 10: have his car park there. For what we know, they
Speaker 10: don't have him getting out of the car. They don't
Speaker 10: have him inside the house of the information we have
Speaker 10: so far, So based on that alone, it's hard to
Speaker 10: convict someone with that alibi at this stage given what
Speaker 10: we know, because we don't really have any other evidence
Speaker 10: of definitively places in there.
Speaker 5: And by the way, most of this information is really circumstantial.
Speaker 7: Is it very.
Speaker 5: Likely that all these small things all happened to lead
Speaker 5: to the same guy?
Speaker 8: Who the hell knows?
Speaker 5: That's just the reality of it. We don't know, And
Speaker 5: the sum of small things I'm not convinced should equal
Speaker 5: death in my humble opinion. And of course, you know,
Speaker 5: we're still at the phase of gathering information.
Speaker 10: The burdens right now are aligning with the prosecution the defense.
Speaker 10: Like I said, the defense. Alibi is not much in
Speaker 10: the way of a It's not like he was with
Speaker 10: a friend who was driving alone. If you have to
Speaker 10: pick an alibi and you couldn't think of one that
Speaker 10: you know, I was alone doing something. But with this
Speaker 10: case and what we know, it's again reasonable doubt. So
Speaker 10: could you say, knowing what we know, could you one
Speaker 10: hundred percent say that he's guilty of deserves that I
Speaker 10: would not want to put someone to death based on
Speaker 10: that nolgulum. There's something there that's going to be mind
Speaker 10: boggling when it's presented.
Speaker 3: I reached out to data analysts Body Movin, host of
Speaker 3: another KTI Studios podcast, Drew Crimes. Her incredible soothing skills
Speaker 3: came to be known in the public with Netflix documentary
Speaker 3: Don't f with Cats. After dissecting the alibi, motion Body
Speaker 3: had her own particular thoughts to share.
Speaker 8: I think what's interesting maybe to talk about is the
Speaker 8: alibi the new alibi, because I have like a little
Speaker 8: theory about that.
Speaker 3: Body reads to the amended alibi.
Speaker 8: Brian Coberger's amended alibi says that he was busy with
Speaker 8: classes at work and at Washington State University, and he
Speaker 8: was running and hiking and those activities decreased but did
Speaker 8: not stop. Instead, his nighttime drives increased, and it says
Speaker 8: this is supported by data from mister Coberger's phone showing
Speaker 8: him in the countryside late at night or early in
Speaker 8: the morning on several occasions. The phone data includes numerous
Speaker 8: photographs taken on several different late evenings and early mornings,
Speaker 8: including in November, depicting the night sky. And then it
Speaker 8: goes on to say mister Coburger was out driving in
Speaker 8: the early morning hours of November thirteenth, as he often did,
Speaker 8: to hike and or run see the moon and stars.
Speaker 8: He drove throughout the area of south of Pullman, Washington,
Speaker 8: west of Moscow, Idaho, including Wahwawee Park. So it's basically
Speaker 8: saying he always goes driving late at night, and there's
Speaker 8: evidence of pictures taken on his phone, including pictures that
Speaker 8: were taking in November. Now, it doesn't say that he
Speaker 8: has pictures from that night or that morning. It just
Speaker 8: says including in November. So we need to make that
Speaker 8: clear right now because a lot of people are running
Speaker 8: with well he has pictures from his phone that night.
Speaker 8: No he doesn't, No, he doesn't. So that's number one,
Speaker 8: because that's a big thing online right now. People are like, well,
Speaker 8: it's done, he's got a picture, it's got metadata. No, no, no,
Speaker 8: I very much doubt that. And number two, the PCA
Speaker 8: says Brian Coburger either turned off his phone, turned it
Speaker 8: onto airplane mode, or was out of service and then
Speaker 8: picked back up after the murders. Here's what I kind
Speaker 8: of think and something I kind of want to talk
Speaker 8: to you about. In the alibi, it states that there's
Speaker 8: going to be this Sirae who's the CSLI expert, the
Speaker 8: cell phone tower, cell phone and other radio frequency expert
Speaker 8: to corroborate that Brian Coburger's phone was south of Pullman
Speaker 8: and west of Moscow. Well, we've got a map of
Speaker 8: Idaho or in Washington, where is Waweb Park. It's south
Speaker 8: of Pullman and west of Moscow. Okay. So here's what
Speaker 8: I kind of think. And it's a bad service area.
Speaker 8: By the way, it's important to note that it's a
Speaker 8: bad service area.
Speaker 3: Let's stop here for another break. We'll be back in
Speaker 3: a moment. Body goes on to say this herself, but
Speaker 3: it's important to note that the following is her own opinion.
Speaker 3: Based on extrapolations made from reviewing legal documents.
Speaker 8: I think what happened is, is it possible that Brian
Speaker 8: Coberger actually did go to Wawei Be Park just outside
Speaker 8: the gate or along that area and left his phone
Speaker 8: like in a bush or something, drove to Moscow because
Speaker 8: it took him like an hour, did his murders, and
Speaker 8: then drove back to Wawi Bee Park and got the phone.
Speaker 8: Because it puts his phone at a location where he's
Speaker 8: been previously many times, but it's got terrible service, so
Speaker 8: it gives him credibility to this alibi. And if that's true,
Speaker 8: is that an area that police now and whatnot need
Speaker 8: to be looking at for a k bar dicky coveralls?
Speaker 8: Do you know what I mean? Like evidence of a
Speaker 8: dumping of some kind?
Speaker 7: Like that's a really really interesting thought.
Speaker 8: If what I said about, you know, leaving the phone
Speaker 8: at what we We park is true, then that shows intention.
Speaker 8: I mean, obviously there was intention, clearly, but what I
Speaker 8: mean is like premeditation in ways that I hadn't really
Speaker 8: considered all that much. It just shows a lot more
Speaker 8: purpose because it's very sheet. But again it's just a theory.
Speaker 3: More on that next time for more information on the
Speaker 3: case and relevant photos. Follow us on Instagram at kat
Speaker 3: Underscore Studios. The Idaho Masker is produced by Stephanie Leideger,
Speaker 3: Gabriel Castillo and me Courtney Armstrong. Editing and sound design
Speaker 3: by Jeff Trois, Music by Jared Aston. The Idaho Masker
Speaker 3: is a production of Kat's Studios and iHeartRadio. For more
Speaker 3: podcasts like this, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
Speaker 3: wherever you listen to your favorite shows. You can follow
Speaker 3: Kirknermi on Instagram and x at Nermi Unchained, and find
Speaker 3: his books on Amazon.