Speaker 1: Body bats. But Joseph's gotten more, Dave. I've got to
Speaker 1: say with Coburger, one of the things that has come
Speaker 1: up relative to this dateline special is that the judge,
Speaker 1: to say the very least ain't happy. Ain't happy at all,
Speaker 1: you know. And there are reasons that judges do things,
Speaker 1: and they put this gag order in place because of
Speaker 1: the sensitive nature of it, because they know that the
Speaker 1: media is all over it. There is a temptation that
Speaker 1: abounds out there when you have information and money that
Speaker 1: can be injected into a circumstance that would draw some
Speaker 1: Now I'm not saying that anyone is on the take, however,
Speaker 1: I am just saying when those bright lights are shone
Speaker 1: upon you, and I'm talking about from the media, and
Speaker 1: you're in some kind of job where you otherwise wouldn't
Speaker 1: have any attention at all, and you get the really
Speaker 1: important people from New York, They're going to show you
Speaker 1: some attention and show you value. It's I tell you, man,
Speaker 1: it is a fruit of the poisonous tree. It truly is,
Speaker 1: and and it's a dangerous thing. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan
Speaker 1: and this is body bags. Do judge wants somebody's hide
Speaker 1: in this case, Dave.
Speaker 2: And I don't know if he's going to get it
Speaker 2: or not, Joe. But when I from the very beginning
Speaker 2: of this case, they've done things there that were just
Speaker 2: patently wrong. From the very first thing that we heard
Speaker 2: from the county coroner. It wasn't a medical examiner, right,
Speaker 2: it was a coroner.
Speaker 1: Yeah, an elected lawyer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's what it was. And we've got we had
Speaker 2: all those shenanigans right at the very beginning. We had
Speaker 2: a number of social media people that were making accusations
Speaker 2: and a lot of crazy stuff was going on. But
Speaker 2: you still had four college aged students who were murdered
Speaker 2: in the house, in a party house, and there are
Speaker 2: still questions that a lot of us have about what
Speaker 2: took place and why we don't have certain information. By
Speaker 2: the way, nobody owes me any information they owe the families.
Speaker 2: I think I've got a real problem with them tearing
Speaker 2: the house down. You know, they've torn down evidence, and
Speaker 2: so the judge can be as mad as he wants
Speaker 2: about things getting out, but they've set it up to
Speaker 2: be like this. I mean, they have destroyed this case
Speaker 2: to the point where I'm gonna be honest, Joe, I'm
Speaker 2: really bothered by the fact that they tore that house down.
Speaker 1: I really am, you know, at this point. Sometimes I
Speaker 1: think about this and I think about the journey that
Speaker 1: we've been on. Now we're in twenty five, coming up
Speaker 1: on the thirty year anniversary this upcoming November, and I've
Speaker 1: been covering it since immediately the day after I started
Speaker 1: appearing on air. And I got to tell you, right,
Speaker 1: Sometimes I've looked at the scene and it seems as
Speaker 1: though for the prosecution, and I guess the judge by extension,
Speaker 1: because as judge was like introduced into this, he's not
Speaker 1: who they started out with. It's almost like trying to
Speaker 1: tape together jello. Sometimes you look at it and it's
Speaker 1: just so you really wonder how this thing is going
Speaker 1: to come out. And here's the problem that you hear,
Speaker 1: and it's something I've heard for years and years, you know,
Speaker 1: I might and even when I was a practitioner. If
Speaker 1: you go to a party or something and somebody mentions
Speaker 1: a case to you that they've heard about in the news,
Speaker 1: and they say, well, if it was me that guy,
Speaker 1: would you know, we'd hang him on a sour apple tree.
Speaker 1: You know, that's what I would do. And you hear
Speaker 1: that all the time. Well, that's all find good. You
Speaker 1: can say that. But the problem with being that cock
Speaker 1: sure about something and that reactive and not being purposed
Speaker 1: in what you do just to think that you're gonna
Speaker 1: win because the guy looks creepy, or that you have
Speaker 1: some physical evidence, you have some electronic that that doesn't
Speaker 1: render a verdict. And the course don't care what you
Speaker 1: or I think or the general public. There's a set
Speaker 1: of rules that you have to play by. And wouldn't
Speaker 1: that be the ultimate insult to these families if because
Speaker 1: you know this kind of slipshod way that apparently this
Speaker 1: is being played out before us, that this actually risks
Speaker 1: the trial. I heard I was talking to somebody the
Speaker 1: other day and for the life of me, I can't remember.
Speaker 1: It was an attorney and it was in the wake
Speaker 1: of this, and one of the things that came ups is,
Speaker 1: you know, it's not necessarily going to harm the trial itself.
Speaker 1: The evidence will be presented and if it's persuasive enough
Speaker 1: for a jury, they will find him guilty as charged. Okay,
Speaker 1: but even if he is found guilty, this attorney friend
Speaker 1: of mine, they hold that. It's not that you have
Speaker 1: to worry about. You have to worry about the fact
Speaker 1: that he might have a real shot at an appeal,
Speaker 1: like a serious shot, because of everything that happened beforehand,
Speaker 1: you know, because this is a this is a this
Speaker 1: is a freight train. We're standing in the middle of
Speaker 1: the of the tracks right now that's headed towards it's
Speaker 1: not going to swerve. You have to get out of
Speaker 1: the way of it. It's coming one way or another.
Speaker 1: The only thing that could happen is I guess that
Speaker 1: they could say, we want to, you know, move the
Speaker 1: trial date for some reason, but I can't see why
Speaker 1: they would do that. But yeah, this is a this
Speaker 1: is a huge mess that has been created. And look
Speaker 1: ABC Dateline. They can say all they want to, you know,
Speaker 1: freedom of the press, that we have to protect our sources. Well,
Speaker 1: here's the problem. This is not actual reporting. Yeah, this
Speaker 1: is meddling at this point in time. Those are two
Speaker 1: separate things completely.
Speaker 2: Somebody in there gave information they weren't supposed to give.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and when you look, Dave, let me ask you this.
Speaker 1: Just let me ask you. I want to hear your
Speaker 1: reaction when you consider the data that they put out
Speaker 1: on Dateline. If you had to hazard a guess, we
Speaker 1: don't know any more than anybody else. But if you
Speaker 1: had to hazard a guess, given the nature of this information,
Speaker 1: who would be on your likely list of suspects? And
Speaker 1: you don't have to name a specific person, just what
Speaker 1: would if it is from within the law enforcement or
Speaker 1: proscatorial environment, what division within that do you think would
Speaker 1: be the most likely candidate?
Speaker 2: You know, when you're looking at what we're talking about here. Yes,
Speaker 2: you have the alleged cell phone activity of Bran Kobert
Speaker 2: that was not public knowledge, that was in the Dayline episode.
Speaker 2: You have the searches that included you the podcast Ted
Speaker 2: Bundy and other Porne the cell phone things that we.
Speaker 1: Wait, hang on, you've coupled me with Ted Bundy and porn. Now,
Speaker 1: thanks Dave. I appreciate part of the investigation.
Speaker 2: But there were gruesome details about the crime scene that
Speaker 2: also became public after the Dayline showed. For instance, Ethan
Speaker 2: was Ethan Chapin was we were led to, We were
Speaker 2: told he was, he was already asleep, and when he
Speaker 2: was killed he was asleep. But then we find out
Speaker 2: that he's had his leg carved something in his leg.
Speaker 2: And the way they've made it sound is that he
Speaker 2: was alive when that happened, but it didn't wake him up.
Speaker 2: That's you know, I don't know how that's possible, but
Speaker 2: I don't either.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So, but again, this is information that was not available
Speaker 2: outside of a very small group of people. And I'm
Speaker 2: thinking somebody in the Sheriff's department, the police department, somebody
Speaker 2: in there and underling. Probably it's not going to be
Speaker 2: anybody that's had a career up to this point. It's
Speaker 2: going to be somebody that probably has a friend.
Speaker 1: Yeah there, and you know, one of these things with
Speaker 1: hey let me let me show you this, yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: and that sort of thing, and then they just continue
Speaker 1: to feed them. I don't have anything to back that up. Now.
Speaker 1: All of this stuff is you know, look, I know
Speaker 1: because there was an other thing that came out. I
Speaker 1: was reflecting on this, and I don't know if we
Speaker 1: have mentioned this, but I think that they had mentioned
Speaker 1: that someone had sat, perhaps the perpetrator had sat in
Speaker 1: the chair in the room with the girls upstairs, and
Speaker 1: that implies that some kind of trace element was left
Speaker 1: behind and may have been on that individual. But a
Speaker 1: lot of the stuff, particularly images, Yeah, movement that, Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, that video, that new video that has popped up,
Speaker 1: you know with the vehicle. We've never seen that before.
Speaker 1: I mean, that was something that was like really held
Speaker 1: close to the vest I don't know. The smacks of
Speaker 1: digital to me, Dave. It really does like somebody that
Speaker 1: would have access to that specific data.
Speaker 2: You're right, everything you're talking about from Yeah, you're right. Okay,
Speaker 2: yeah file it's a file on somebody's laptop, somebody's desk
Speaker 2: that they shouldn't have had.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and how does it how does it make it
Speaker 1: into the hands of a dateline producer? You know, I
Speaker 1: don't I don't understand that. And you know, look, you
Speaker 1: see the people on the screen that appear you know
Speaker 1: for Dateline. That's That's not who's driving the ship on
Speaker 1: those things. I hate to you know, I hate to
Speaker 1: burst everybody's bubble. Like if you sit at home you
Speaker 1: scream at the screen because you see some talking head
Speaker 1: that's giving you information. They're not driving the ship. It's
Speaker 1: the producers that drive the ship. Uh, you know, from
Speaker 1: beginning to end. That's how this works. Trust me. I've
Speaker 1: been involved with media now for a long time. But
Speaker 1: the idea that you would take a case that has
Speaker 1: that's not even near being adjudicated at this point in time,
Speaker 1: and you would populate airways with this and and it
Speaker 1: will still be bad, but it's not like it was.
Speaker 1: It was done on the local public public television channel
Speaker 1: at eleven o'clock at night. You're talking about Dateline, and
Speaker 1: everybody in true crime, I mean has watched Dateline at
Speaker 1: one point in time. They all have their favorite person
Speaker 1: that's on Dateline.
Speaker 2: You know, we you know it's interesting you. It's so funny, Joe,
Speaker 2: because something you just said is something that doesn't happen anymore.
Speaker 2: It's not something that just popped up for thirty seconds
Speaker 2: on a local television station at eleven o'clock at night.
Speaker 2: Because now everything's viral. Everything is everything, no matter where
Speaker 2: you are, if it's on the line, if it's on somewhere,
Speaker 2: everybody has it. My neighbors across the street when this
Speaker 2: story first broke, having a daughter in that age group,
Speaker 2: they became an just all about the story and they
Speaker 2: were telling me about things that were going on with it,
Speaker 2: and I was like, where are you getting this? They
Speaker 2: would tell me. I'm like I don't think that's accurate,
Speaker 2: you know. And I would go back and check my
Speaker 2: notes to see what we had, and I do know
Speaker 2: how you get information from a local source. I've chosen
Speaker 2: not to go down that path in my life because
Speaker 2: it only hurts people. It doesn't help you along the way.
Speaker 2: You don't when you're not, you're gonna brown nose your
Speaker 2: career like that. It's not a way to live. I
Speaker 2: will tell you I learned I watched when the Natalie
Speaker 2: Holloway case broke because it happened. I was on the
Speaker 2: air in Birmingham, Alabama at the time when that story broke,
Speaker 2: and was very involved in a lot of that early
Speaker 2: coverage in terms of national media coming in and using
Speaker 2: local people, local media people. And I didn't tell them Jack,
Speaker 2: because they wanted information. They wanted private personal information about people.
Speaker 2: And you're talking about this is somebody's daughter, man, this
Speaker 2: is somebody, This is a person. This is not a story.
Speaker 2: Same thing is true here. It's why you dealt with
Speaker 2: such kick glove at this story when you were covering
Speaker 2: it and talking about the students that were involved. So
Speaker 2: for somebody, whether it's Dateline, NBC or Primetime or whatever,
Speaker 2: to go after this story, knowing what's at stake, and
Speaker 2: to get stuff and put it on the air knowing
Speaker 2: it's wrong. Everybody knows there's a gag order. You're not
Speaker 2: supposed to have this information. No, if you truly care
Speaker 2: about the law, you don't do this.
Speaker 1: No, you don't. And listen the investigators that worked this case,
Speaker 1: and it's a multi agency event that took place. You've
Speaker 1: even got the FEDS involved in it. Yeah. I have
Speaker 1: made my comments about the house, it being gone, some
Speaker 1: of the things I saw procedurally with the evidence, you know,
Speaker 1: I think the thing stands out in my mind is
Speaker 1: that mattress being driven down the road in the back
Speaker 1: of a pickup truck. Uncovered.
Speaker 2: Go back, go back to that, Joe, explain what you
Speaker 2: just said for those who didn't catch that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was. It was the image of they had
Speaker 1: a pickup truck that was backed up to the door
Speaker 1: and the police had loaded in a bear mattress into
Speaker 1: the back of that truck. And I had to, you know,
Speaker 1: shake the cob webs out of my head and try
Speaker 1: to take the measure of what I was seeing, because
Speaker 1: it didn't it didn't compute. You know, I'm thinking wait,
Speaker 1: it's snowing up there, debris is blowing about, and you've
Speaker 1: got a mattress that's going and I'm assuming that, since
Speaker 1: so much of this case involves bedrooms, that that mattress
Speaker 1: held a certain level of evidentiary value. And we got
Speaker 1: it in the back of a pickup truck and you're
Speaker 1: hauling away. I mean, I've worked around. I've worked around
Speaker 1: several police agencies that were very poor, but they had vans.
Speaker 1: You know, at least in a van, You've got this
Speaker 1: thing shut up in the back and it's protected, and
Speaker 1: there's there's a way, Yes, there's even a way to
Speaker 1: package a mattress in our world. You know. I even
Speaker 1: looked back to you talk about a big misstep with this.
Speaker 1: You know, I think I don't think Coburger had been
Speaker 1: extradited back to Idaho at this point, but he had
Speaker 1: retained counsel, and I think that the council he had
Speaker 1: retained was in Pennsylvania. And do you remember this brother,
Speaker 1: where they said they they were going to release the
Speaker 1: scene and have it cleaned, And the Coburger's council at
Speaker 1: that time was like no, no, no, no, no, no, no
Speaker 1: no no. Remember they had the people were in the
Speaker 1: Tavik suits outside of the house, and they had put
Speaker 1: the plastic up over the door so the guys that
Speaker 1: do the crime scene cleaning could go in and clean,
Speaker 1: right and his team his team at that time, and
Speaker 1: I think he was if I remember correctly, I think
Speaker 1: he was still in Pennsylvania the time. They said, whoa,
Speaker 1: hold your horses. We've got our own investigators that we
Speaker 1: want to send there that want to appreciate it. All
Speaker 1: those sorts of things. And they still had they still
Speaker 1: had like the plastic they create, like this plastic tunnel
Speaker 1: on the outside of the door that you kind of
Speaker 1: walk in. You're wearing the respirator and all that stuff,
Speaker 1: and you're going to go and clean. It's just the
Speaker 1: way they do things. And they had to put the
Speaker 1: kibosh on that and step away from it so that
Speaker 1: their people could go and do their own observations and listen.
Speaker 1: I understand that people are frustrated with this, and they'll say, well,
Speaker 1: they you know tough, you know they didn't. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: you have to make it an even playing field. You
Speaker 1: have to look at their sports analogies are rife in
Speaker 1: this thing. You have to have an equal playing field
Speaker 1: in this and you know, the judge is acting as
Speaker 1: a referee in an umpire and they call the shots
Speaker 1: along the way, and it has to remain balanced because
Speaker 1: in the end, and I don't necessarily think that true
Speaker 1: justice in this world actually exists, but if you want
Speaker 1: some semblance of justice and certainly scientific truth from my perspective,
Speaker 1: everybody has to have Everybody has to have a clean swing,
Speaker 1: if you will, they have to have their own shot
Speaker 1: at it, because that's the way our courts are set up.
Speaker 1: I know it's frustrating, but that's the way it works.
Speaker 2: Does it bother you that Ann Taylor, the public defender
Speaker 2: who became Brian Coberger's public defender only after she unloaded
Speaker 2: Xander Canodle's biological mother, who she had represented multiple times.
Speaker 2: How is that possible that a victim's mother is your
Speaker 2: client that you have represented on drug charges and other Yeah,
Speaker 2: and you, because you know what this case means, are
Speaker 2: able to finagle the so you can be named public
Speaker 2: defender for Brian Coberger.
Speaker 1: It doesn't necessarily yeah, look, hey, it doesn't necessarily make
Speaker 1: me happy. But look this is kind of hand handed.
Speaker 1: But I got to tell you that's between her and
Speaker 1: the Bar of Idaho and her relationship with God. You know,
Speaker 1: you know, like, how do you feel about it? Well,
Speaker 1: I have no there I have no moral compunction overdoing
Speaker 1: this whatsoever. And yeah, it's smarmy. I mean, there's there's
Speaker 1: a certain level to that that's distasteful. But she's a
Speaker 1: practicing attorney and if if the bar says it's okay
Speaker 1: for her to do it, go ahead and do it.
Speaker 1: Knock yourself out. But you know, and she's going to
Speaker 1: get us and she has gotten a certain amount of
Speaker 1: recognition for this. Yeah, And I know everybody wants to
Speaker 1: think that. You know that you're crusading for justice, and
Speaker 1: this can apply to both prosecution and defense. You're crusading
Speaker 1: for justice. You're there to help people and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: At the end of the day, you know, it's like
Speaker 1: driving down the road and you see, you know, in
Speaker 1: our in our state, it's well I won't say the name.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to give them free advertisement, but you
Speaker 1: drive down the road and it says you've been in
Speaker 1: a car accident. Call us. You know that's what we're
Speaker 1: in your corner, you know, that sort of thing. It's
Speaker 1: the same thing you're advertising at that point in time.
Speaker 1: That's why in these really big cases there are attorneys
Speaker 1: that will take pro bono cases because whatever you would make,
Speaker 1: whatever you would make, say, for instance, off of the
Speaker 1: dime of the state is slipping you to do this
Speaker 1: pro bono and there is a base base salary or
Speaker 1: moneys that they receive, it's going to be far exceeded
Speaker 1: by what you're going to have with clients that are
Speaker 1: going to walk through your door. Oh yeah, yeah, you
Speaker 1: represented them, now I want you Okay, So that's the
Speaker 1: payout in the end. Don't don't come to me talking
Speaker 1: about justice and all of that sort of thing. But
Speaker 1: that's again, that's what they do, that's how they roll
Speaker 1: with it. This is I just hope, I hope that
Speaker 1: what the judge is asked for is going to happen
Speaker 1: because there needs to be I think Jave in this
Speaker 1: particular case, there has to be a message sent, like
Speaker 1: a strong message. The judge, from my understanding, looked at
Speaker 1: the DA and said a special prosecutor must be appointed
Speaker 1: in this case to look into this specific matter. It
Speaker 1: caught the judge's eye, and you don't want to be
Speaker 1: caught by the judge's eye at any point in time,
Speaker 1: I think about what was the I don't know if
Speaker 1: you've ever seen these movies The Lord of the Rings,
Speaker 1: it's that big eye. That's something in the air that
Speaker 1: kind of seeks out, you know, And you never want
Speaker 1: to fall in the gaze of the judge, certainly for
Speaker 1: nothing negative. I don't want to fall in any judge's
Speaker 1: gaze anyway. I tried to be as obedient as I
Speaker 1: possibly can. I try to play by the rules at
Speaker 1: all times. Anytime I had to go into some judges court,
Speaker 1: you know, for me, you know, when you look at this,
Speaker 1: you're already going to be on the radar. Anyway. The
Speaker 1: judge has got a very difficult job in this case. Now. Now,
Speaker 1: how happy do you think the judge is that this
Speaker 1: has been added on to their plate, because it's an
Speaker 1: absolute train wreck. I don't know really how they're going
Speaker 1: to solve this. I'm going to be very interested to
Speaker 1: see how this plays out, if and when, and I'm
Speaker 1: hoping sooner than later. The special prosecutor will be appointed.
Speaker 1: And we're talking about Moscow, Idaho. Your pool of potential
Speaker 1: people there is tiny. This is not going to take
Speaker 1: any amount of time to wittle this now. As a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, I would imagine that there are fannies
Speaker 1: that are tightening all over the place right now, or
Speaker 1: specifically those individuals that know that they were the ones
Speaker 1: that did it, or maybe a supervisor out there that
Speaker 1: is thinking, this might be my person that did this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and they're wondering, you know, what's going to happen? Is
Speaker 1: there going to be hell to pay for? Dave?
Speaker 2: See if anybody that you know in that area has
Speaker 2: hired an attorney or has met with an attorney recently,
Speaker 2: and that's your guy, That's all I'm saying. You know,
Speaker 2: we talk about attorneys and mint too, talk about An
Speaker 2: Taylor and getting publicity. There's Mark garri Goes is one
Speaker 2: of these attorneys who has a big profile. You know,
Speaker 2: Scott Peterson's lawyer, he's mine did it?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: And but one thing people don't know about garrigs And
Speaker 2: this is why I'm always cautious of saying anything about
Speaker 2: what lawyers do, because we don't know everything they do.
Speaker 2: Like Ann Taylor. I'm bothered by the fact that Ann
Speaker 2: Taylor was Xanderkno's mother attorney and then she wrangled herself
Speaker 2: to be in this position with Coburger. That bothers me.
Speaker 2: I don't know why, and it probably shouldn't, but it does.
Speaker 2: But I mentioned Gara goes because he and Nancy go
Speaker 2: head to head over ditty all the time. Oh yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, Mark Garrigos does something that a lot of
Speaker 2: people don't know. He has close times to Alabama.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: Every year, every year Mark Garrigos does a pro bono
Speaker 2: case in Alabama, and usually it's a death penality case
Speaker 2: for free.
Speaker 1: I did not know that.
Speaker 2: I had no idea, and that's kind of the measure
Speaker 2: of the individual of it to me. So whether the
Speaker 2: Ann Taylor thing bothers anybody but me, it's just like
Speaker 2: I said to me, I'm thinking, if this was my
Speaker 2: daughter and you're representing me in a court filing right now,
Speaker 2: and you then leave to go and to get the
Speaker 2: guy that killed my daughter allegedly killed my daughter off.
Speaker 2: Yeah again, maybe they're all fine with it. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't Yeah, I mean I would have. I would
Speaker 1: imagine again, you know, as it applause as as it
Speaker 1: applause to as it appliues to two groups of people, well,
Speaker 1: a group of people and a person yeah, the state bar.
Speaker 1: Are they cool with it? Is it within the rules?
Speaker 1: And in the judge are they cool with it? Because
Speaker 1: I can tell you the judge would have they would
Speaker 1: be fully aware of this. Oh yeah, and you know,
Speaker 1: and I don't really know that there would necessarily be
Speaker 1: a conflict of interest. I can't imagine. It's just like
Speaker 1: it has a distaste to it, I think.
Speaker 2: But you mentioned the judge has ordered a probe into
Speaker 2: this thing. And that's why I wonder how many other
Speaker 2: things have gone under the radar. This is a big
Speaker 2: one because it was dayline. It was a big one
Speaker 2: because information that was not readily available and not known
Speaker 2: became known. That's a big deal. You know, a lot
Speaker 2: of us have information that we kind of might have heard,
Speaker 2: might have thought we heard, you know, something along the line,
Speaker 2: somebody said something out of turn before there was you know,
Speaker 2: things like that happen all the time. Information comes out
Speaker 2: really early. This is not part of that. This is
Speaker 2: information that was developed, studied created. Finding that new video
Speaker 2: or new to us of a car that looks like
Speaker 2: Coburger's car ads and around, I mean it actually looks.
Speaker 1: Like it's the image that they showed is actually clearer
Speaker 1: than the other ones that I've seen. To me, it is,
Speaker 1: and maybe it's I don't know, maybe that's after enhancement
Speaker 1: or whatever. Hey, can I return to something real quick please?
Speaker 1: I'm thinking that this is happening in the wake of
Speaker 1: arguably one of the most high profile cases in Idaho history,
Speaker 1: the Coburger case. Is it's not like people are not
Speaker 1: aware of what the media are capable of, because when
Speaker 1: you think about the day Bell case and just the
Speaker 1: round and round and round with that whole thing, you
Speaker 1: would have thought that perhaps lessons had been learned. And again,
Speaker 1: it's a small population wise, it's a small state. News
Speaker 1: travels and there's a central conduit for it if you're
Speaker 1: trying to disseminate information down to other layers of law
Speaker 1: enforcement's the state state police have been they were involved
Speaker 1: with the day Bill case, they're involved with this case.
Speaker 1: And you would think that, you know, somebody and the
Speaker 1: state Attorney General, Hey, look, these are steps you need
Speaker 1: to avoid because we've gone through a lot of stuff
Speaker 1: with the press already. But no, that wasn't good enough
Speaker 1: for them. Now they're staring down the barrel of what
Speaker 1: has just happened relative to Day line, and I'm you know,
Speaker 1: I'm very curious about that. You know, you begin to
Speaker 1: think about it and think, wow, is it going to
Speaker 1: be something that is going to be so catastrophic that
Speaker 1: perhaps not everything, but maybe some of those things that
Speaker 1: have been revealed, I don't know, are they What's the
Speaker 1: level or lack thereof of admissibility you know, of that
Speaker 1: evidence that's been it's been displayed. I don't know. I
Speaker 1: have no idea.
Speaker 2: Something interesting did happen this week in light of the dayline,
Speaker 2: gag order whatever. Apparently Brian Coberger has fingered somebody else
Speaker 2: that did the crime. Oh he yeah, gotcha, And the
Speaker 2: judge has given certain rules to everybody. Now they want
Speaker 2: to bring up this other suspect. He's not named publicly
Speaker 2: yet the judge has it. And the judge said, okay,
Speaker 2: you've got till May twenty third, give me all the
Speaker 2: info you have on why this person is a suspect
Speaker 2: and what information, what evidence you're going to bring to
Speaker 2: trial that you think can go in at trial. And
Speaker 2: then we're going to give the prosecution till June sixth
Speaker 2: to straighten it out. And then I'll make a call.
Speaker 1: But I have to ask you something real quick. I'm
Speaker 1: going to be a major smart ass here and ask
Speaker 1: a question real quick. I want to know, Dave. Is
Speaker 1: he doing this because he's such an Is his team
Speaker 1: doing this because there's a there's such an altruist that
Speaker 1: care about their fellow man so much that now they're
Speaker 1: going to reveal the identity of a person that butchered
Speaker 1: butchered these college students. Or is this information they've just
Speaker 1: come into it's hot off the press. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, it's so hot we can't even hold it,
Speaker 1: you know, is that or have they known about this
Speaker 1: suspect all along? Please riddle me this, Brian Coberger's team,
Speaker 1: Is this information that you've had for a protracted period
Speaker 1: of time and this person's been running the streets or
Speaker 1: is this something that, just like manner from Heaven, that
Speaker 1: just happened to drop into your lap? I mean, inquiring
Speaker 1: minds want to know. I think there were comments that
Speaker 1: were made early on. I remember the God, it's been
Speaker 1: so long now, do you remember they had it was
Speaker 1: either a cat or a dog that had been skinned.
Speaker 1: Do you remember that people were trying to give the
Speaker 1: impression that it was some kind of ritualistic thing that
Speaker 1: was going on, and that that of course turned out
Speaker 1: to be a big fat zero you know along the way.
Speaker 1: I don't know, hey, And by the way, you know
Speaker 1: I never got a call from Dateline to give them
Speaker 1: permission to use my image on the air. Do you
Speaker 1: think I got a case? I don't know. I'll have
Speaker 1: to see. Maybe I can call one of the guys
Speaker 1: on the billboards going down the highway. Maybe they'll they'll
Speaker 1: look into it for me. What do you think, brother?
Speaker 2: I think somebody there could help you. But you know,
Speaker 2: there are a number of things with this case with
Speaker 2: Coburger that you know. I have a question for you
Speaker 2: based on what you know took place, the injuries done
Speaker 2: to thevictims. We've got four people dead in a very
Speaker 2: short window of time. According to what we've heard from
Speaker 2: the prosecution. We know Xana Cronodle was getting food delivered
Speaker 2: at four ten in the morning. We know she was
Speaker 2: on her phone at four a weight. We know that
Speaker 2: Coburger was in and out of there allegedly. If it's Coburger,
Speaker 2: that you've got a window that starts after four to
Speaker 2: ten and ends at four twenty five. If she's awake
Speaker 2: and she's not the first one killed. First one is
Speaker 2: Madison Mogan up top yep right, that timetable doesn't work
Speaker 2: for me. That's too close. So you've got at least
Speaker 2: three people awake, Xana who's getting food, and you've got
Speaker 2: the two Dylan and Bethany. Dylan Mortenson and Bethany Funk.
Speaker 2: They're both there because they're texting one another. So you've
Speaker 2: got three people awake in that building at the time
Speaker 2: when the murders are supposed to begin. You're gonna tell
Speaker 2: me nobody screamed, nobody heard anything. See, we can't go
Speaker 2: into that building to find out what that was like
Speaker 2: because they tore it down, right.
Speaker 1: The acoustics are gone.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but that's something I have a lot of trouble with.
Speaker 2: I'm just wondering now that just does not You're talking
Speaker 2: about going up and downstairs, killing four people and only
Speaker 2: leaving minimal evidence behind.
Speaker 1: Well, I think you know, I was talking about how
Speaker 1: everything in this case is about Tomline and you know,
Speaker 1: what was happening before and after and if that, if
Speaker 1: those that videography that we have from you know, the
Speaker 1: previously unseen how does that how does that Tom stamp
Speaker 1: match up with the story that we've been told thus far,
Speaker 1: because you know what I know, and what you know
Speaker 1: is information that has to this point been released, been
Speaker 1: released by law enforcement. A lot of the other stuff
Speaker 1: is merely speculation. It's conclude usions that have been drawn
Speaker 1: based upon these numbers. But if those numbers are screwed
Speaker 1: up in the least in the least, okay, then that's
Speaker 1: going to create a real problem. But we obviously have
Speaker 1: tom stamps on activity, and I think TikTok was involved
Speaker 1: relative to Xana. She had met on TikTok at some
Speaker 1: point in time. That's going to be tom stamped the
Speaker 1: information relative to food delivery. And that also draws in
Speaker 1: another thing because people have asked me, is it plausible
Speaker 1: that one individual and again maybe this is what his
Speaker 1: defense team is going for here, is it plausible that
Speaker 1: one individual could have come in here and perpetrated this
Speaker 1: crime in this short amount of time with a sharp instrument.
Speaker 1: You're talking about killing four people, and it's in the
Speaker 1: twinkling of an eye in and out, you know. And
Speaker 1: if Taylor can at least with that plant that seed
Speaker 1: of reasonable doubt into the mind of the jury. And
Speaker 1: she's got a client that I don't know how to
Speaker 1: describe it. If she's got a client that someone might
Speaker 1: sympathize with, then maybe that's doable. I have no idea,
Speaker 1: but the timeline is going to be very, very important
Speaker 1: and to a broad broader issue too with me is
Speaker 1: the timeline from the time of death is also going
Speaker 1: to be in question because because of the delay in
Speaker 1: getting contact with the police, these kids have been dead
Speaker 1: for hours. And if I've got a corner that saying, well,
Speaker 1: it looks like they were asleep, Well, if that was
Speaker 1: your assessment, that was your assessment at the scene, I
Speaker 1: want to know did you actually do post mortem interval
Speaker 1: assessment of the bodies at the scene. Well, you're saying
Speaker 1: they're sleeping. Turns out that they may have been in
Speaker 1: bed at some point in time, but doesn't sound like
Speaker 1: they were all in bed, and so therefore stands the
Speaker 1: reason they're not all asleep. So you know that information
Speaker 1: relative to timeline, the tom stamps on the CCTV tom stamps,
Speaker 1: relative to phone, the travel of the car, and also
Speaker 1: the PMI postmartum interval, and how was that assessed and
Speaker 1: was there any was there any meat on the bone
Speaker 1: with that scientifically? Anything that you could take back to
Speaker 1: the people in in Boise, which is many people. Those
Speaker 1: autopsies were not done in Moscow. They were taken to
Speaker 1: Ada County, which is actually where the day Bell case
Speaker 1: was handled as well, because that's where they have. A
Speaker 1: forensic pathologist in Idaho is in Boise, and so they
Speaker 1: contract with these smaller counties and they actually do the
Speaker 1: autopsies for them. So when that data is relaid from
Speaker 1: the scene, and hopefully it was done quickly, that one
Speaker 1: of the questions of friendsic pathologists is going to ask,
Speaker 1: because they're not coming down there from Boise to observe
Speaker 1: these bodies. It's their eyes and ears. Is this corner, Well,
Speaker 1: how third of a job did you do there? Because
Speaker 1: I can't wait to read the coroner's report, and there
Speaker 1: should be one that is generated. Every corner generates report,
Speaker 1: and it should be very detailed. With four bodies, Dave,
Speaker 1: let's see, let me do the calculation of my mind.
Speaker 1: With four bodies, those are four individual cases. I'm thinking
Speaker 1: at least a minimum a minimum if I was a
Speaker 1: supervisor in a medical examiner's office, I would want to
Speaker 1: see at least a five page report on each and
Speaker 1: every one of these victims, and that's including a lot
Speaker 1: of detail in from chief among that information is going
Speaker 1: to be your assessment of rigidity, the body fixation, of
Speaker 1: postmordal lividity, algor mortis, which is the temperature of the body,
Speaker 1: and then not to mention the observable injuries that you
Speaker 1: see in there, the clothing, environmental status. What's the environmental temperature?
Speaker 1: Light it's the lighting like positionality of the body, triangulation
Speaker 1: of the body unseen. I mean, all of this data
Speaker 1: and then the history behind it. I would have to
Speaker 1: see that in the case. It would have to be
Speaker 1: that robust. So you're talking about at minimum eighteen to
Speaker 1: twenty pages in total of reports that should have been
Speaker 1: generated on a case like this per the coroner if
Speaker 1: they're doing their job. And that just kind of marries
Speaker 1: up in my mind with somebody that helped design the
Speaker 1: national standards for medical legal death investigator. That's right, that's
Speaker 1: right in the sweet spot. That's right in the sweet spot.
Speaker 1: I think at least we'll see what's in that report.
Speaker 2: Will we will will will that information be brought out
Speaker 2: in court, because by the way they are going to
Speaker 2: stream the trial, they're not going to stream jury selection,
Speaker 2: but they are going to stream the trial. There are
Speaker 2: going to be a couple of times where we're not
Speaker 2: going to be able to They're not going to stream
Speaker 2: certain testimony or at least the judge will decide later.
Speaker 2: But the prosecution was asking about some of the detective
Speaker 2: some people not being streamed, and I'm against that. If
Speaker 2: you use the streamer or you're not, either everybody gets
Speaker 2: to see everything or they don't. Now they have beth
Speaker 2: Andy Funk and Dylan Mortenson are going to give them
Speaker 2: the opportunity to be blurred on the stream the streamed image.
Speaker 1: To get their type, their identity or identity.
Speaker 2: And I mean, that's fine, it's just I get, I get.
Speaker 2: I can't imagine what they're going through.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't understand it either, because even with uh
Speaker 1: and I know you've heard well, I know you have
Speaker 1: because you've worked worked on it with me. But for
Speaker 1: those that did not that are not familiar with the pipe,
Speaker 1: piked and masker, those trials there were one, two, three, four,
Speaker 1: and we're still waiting on the fourth trial at this
Speaker 1: point in that case, can you believe that all the
Speaker 1: way from twenty sixteen, still waiting on the Dad's trial.
Speaker 1: In the previous trials, they would cut the feed when
Speaker 1: certain individuals testified, and police officers, you know, they weren't
Speaker 1: the sun that was directly responsible for shooting the most
Speaker 1: of the victims. He asked that he not that his
Speaker 1: testimony not be shown. I think it's a bunch of crap.
Speaker 1: I think that if you get up on the stand,
Speaker 1: I don't have a problem with them blurring images. It
Speaker 1: should be streamed. It should be streamed, and you should
Speaker 1: be able to see this. If you're going to have
Speaker 1: don't do it halfway. You know, you got one foot
Speaker 1: in the boat and one foot in the water. Go
Speaker 1: all the way in on it and show it. Okay,
Speaker 1: you didn't sign up to be a police officer to
Speaker 1: be hidden, all right, and this is not like I
Speaker 1: don't know. I guess they could say, well, these police
Speaker 1: officers might be involved in future undercover operations. They don't
Speaker 1: want their identities revealed and whatever, but you're going to
Speaker 1: know their names. Yeah, you know. And like you said,
Speaker 1: we're wired in world now any you know, just because
Speaker 1: you're a police officer doesn't mean that you know you
Speaker 1: have anonymity. Far from it.
Speaker 2: Nowadays, I do think that with Dylan Mortenson and Bethany
Speaker 2: Funk because I've had my own questions about the two
Speaker 2: of them and what they did or did.
Speaker 1: Not do everybody else.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's but I'm made to feel like I'm
Speaker 2: a horrible evil person for even asking, you know, but
Speaker 2: I am curious if those are my kids, one of
Speaker 2: my children that had died in that. Yeah, and there
Speaker 2: were two people that were awake texting one another and
Speaker 2: didn't bother to call police for seven eight hours. I
Speaker 2: got a problem with that. I still have a problem
Speaker 2: with that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the whole indwelling fear thing, you know kind of it.
Speaker 1: It becomes unpalatable after a while. You know, you have
Speaker 1: to have something more than that. And and listen, it's
Speaker 1: not for us to necessarily explain they're going to be
Speaker 1: asked us questions when they're on the stand now whether
Speaker 1: or not people will be satisfied with the answers that here,
Speaker 1: you know, I can't make any prediction about that.
Speaker 2: You know, Joe, in all of this, where you know,
Speaker 2: you have the one who is Dylan Mortenson with the
Speaker 2: bushy eyebrows testimony, which is going to be in there
Speaker 2: now because those are some of the things that were
Speaker 2: ruled on that Coberger has. They've been trying to keep
Speaker 2: certain testimony out and it seems like each time they've tried,
Speaker 2: it's gone the other way. Which is really odd to
Speaker 2: me that we never heard of a possible other suspect
Speaker 2: until after they were denied all these other things that
Speaker 2: they were trying to use to get the death endally tossed.
Speaker 1: Psych autism. Yeah, it's the same thing.
Speaker 2: Gosh, come on, man, this guy can be in he's
Speaker 2: in college to get his master's degree in criminal justice,
Speaker 2: and yet he's not smart. He can't help with his
Speaker 2: own defense.
Speaker 1: But I don't, Yeah, don't. I don't understand that. I
Speaker 1: really don't. And again it's it's it's a ploy of desperation,
Speaker 1: and listen, it irks me. I think on one level
Speaker 1: that there are truly people that struggle with autism in
Speaker 1: their life and it's being used as a prop Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's kind of what you know, the
Speaker 1: way it seems to me.
Speaker 2: My grandson is on the spectrum. Joe, I've seen it.
Speaker 2: I've seen that used, and I've talked to you and
Speaker 2: Kim about it because I was surprised at a number
Speaker 2: of different things. I'm very proud of what he has
Speaker 2: accomplished because.
Speaker 1: He's a wonderful man, wonderful young man.
Speaker 2: Great kid with the proxy of reading beyond grade level
Speaker 2: is a big deal he has. He's originally hard at it.
Speaker 2: But the thing is that I've had to study all
Speaker 2: of this stuff to figure it out because I didn't
Speaker 2: know when they said on the spectrum, like, what does
Speaker 2: that even mean? I hear it, but and then I
Speaker 2: hear them applying it to this guy who has gone
Speaker 2: through all these years of college and he's gone cross
Speaker 2: country to study in what I mean? None of this
Speaker 2: adds up to me.
Speaker 1: Well, it's again again, it comes down to now defense
Speaker 1: hasn't said this. This is people in the media and
Speaker 1: as people in general public that you know, we've just
Speaker 1: talked about this earlier that use the term in cell.
Speaker 1: In cell is one of the most disingenuous, intellectually lazy
Speaker 1: terms in the world because it lacks specificity. Uh, particularly
Speaker 1: when you're talking about a a group of college kids
Speaker 1: that have been butchered. So that's your answer is going
Speaker 1: to be in cell and then we're just going to
Speaker 1: kind of leave it at that, and then you know
Speaker 1: you're gonna, you know, and somebody is going to offer
Speaker 1: up some kind of some kind of half assed explanation
Speaker 1: for what in cell actually means. And that's and again
Speaker 1: it's not in the D s M. It's not you know,
Speaker 1: because they're trying to paint paint, you know, incell itis
Speaker 1: I guess as an actual medical condition, and it's not.
Speaker 1: It's somebody's it's an Uh. It's a point of observation
Speaker 1: of people that are intellectually lazy most of the time
Speaker 1: that they don't want to dig any deeper relative to this,
Speaker 1: and it's easy. I think it makes them, it makes
Speaker 1: it easy to explain, you know, why somebody would do
Speaker 1: something like this or gives them some kind of comfort.
Speaker 1: What it comes down to is that I don't know
Speaker 1: if it was Brian Coburger or not, but I do
Speaker 1: know this that whoever did this was a monster because
Speaker 1: they had no compassion. Uh, they were absent heart, and
Speaker 1: they ended the lives of four promising young adults. I'm
Speaker 1: Joseph Scott Morgan and this is bodybacks