Speaker 1: Moscow police are investigating a homicide on King Rhode.
Speaker 2: Cause and manner of death was homicide by stabbing.
Speaker 3: This is terrible.
Speaker 4: It's a bloodbath.
Speaker 1: This is the Idaho Massacre. A production of KT Studios
Speaker 1: and iHeartRadio, Episode eleven, A discussion with reporter Chris Bargo.
Speaker 1: I'm Courtney Armstrong, a television producer at KT Studios, with
Speaker 1: Stephanie Lydecker, Jeff Shane, and Connor Powell. In this roundtable
Speaker 1: episode recorded on Wednesday, July twenty six, the producer Stephanie
Speaker 1: Lydecker and Connor Powell are joined by Inside Edition reporter
Speaker 1: Chris Bargo to discuss Brian Coberger's alibi and his defense
Speaker 1: team's efforts to discredit the DNA evidence against him. Here
Speaker 1: they are now.
Speaker 4: So I'm here now with Chris and Connor, who have
Speaker 4: been contributing on the podcast really since the very beginning,
Speaker 4: and Chris specifically has been knee deep in this case
Speaker 4: since day one. It really was our first contact of
Speaker 4: interaction when it came to covering this case, because you
Speaker 4: were on the front lines of it from day one.
Speaker 4: And of course Connor has been not only putting to
Speaker 4: this together as a producer but also as a contributor
Speaker 4: and executive producer. So let's start with the biggest piece
Speaker 4: of information that happened just now essentially, which really does
Speaker 4: shine a very different light potentially on the entire case,
Speaker 4: which is this notion that Brian Coberger's attorney is saying
Speaker 4: that he in fact had an alibi.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's right. It was pretty big news, kind of
Speaker 5: the biggest news I've gotten so far. For the past month. Really,
Speaker 5: the defense has been slowly sort of poking holes in
Speaker 5: the prosecution's case, and we know that the problem. SCUSHA
Speaker 5: has been very eager to get this alibi, what the
Speaker 5: albi was going to be, and they've been waiting, and
Speaker 5: then kind of out of nowhere, it was filed in
Speaker 5: the middle of the day. And it's an interesting filing
Speaker 5: because it is not concrete. What it says is we
Speaker 5: potentially have an alibi, and if we did have an alibi,
Speaker 5: this is what it would be, and this is how
Speaker 5: we go about proving it. They're very heavily suggesting is
Speaker 5: the fact that Brian Coberger was not present at the
Speaker 5: scene of the murders at the time of the murders,
Speaker 5: that he was somewhere else and they are suggesting that
Speaker 5: there will be witnesses who, if called to testify, will
Speaker 5: be able to back up this claim. It's not a definitive,
Speaker 5: concrete thing, but this is not the sort of attorney
Speaker 5: who's really kind of into game playing or stuff like
Speaker 5: that would be very odd for her to sort of
Speaker 5: be pulling any sort of stunt. It seemed very unlike
Speaker 5: her nature. So this is a good chance this is
Speaker 5: going to be the alby they're going to go for,
Speaker 5: and if we remember, the good thing about this alibi
Speaker 5: is the fact that the tracking of Brian Koberger's cell
Speaker 5: phone on the night of the murders has some impulment
Speaker 5: Washington at quarter of three and then about twenty miles
Speaker 5: south of Moscow at just before five am, so he's
Speaker 5: never in Moscow the night of the murders according to
Speaker 5: a cell phone. Obviously, there's footage of a car, but
Speaker 5: they've already been disputing that the car is his, so
Speaker 5: it makes sense with the information we have so far,
Speaker 5: it's certainly something that there's not immediately a way to
Speaker 5: disregard it or say that it's not true. So it'll
Speaker 5: be interesting to see where they take it from here.
Speaker 4: Do we have any indication on who the potential witnesses
Speaker 4: could be.
Speaker 5: This is another interesting thing about this filing. There's a
Speaker 5: suggesting in there that one of the witnesses for the
Speaker 5: state for the prosecution could actually confirm this claim. Now,
Speaker 5: that would more likely maybe be someone from let's say
Speaker 5: his cell phone company or someone who would be confirming
Speaker 5: one of the facts that he wasn't in Moscow according
Speaker 5: to their records, but also it could mean that someone
Speaker 5: might actually have information about him legitimately being somewhere else.
Speaker 5: It's really open because they're not being very specific.
Speaker 4: This really does change the course of the entire case potentially,
Speaker 4: And of course when I immediately spoke to Connor about it,
Speaker 4: you had a very different reaction to the filing.
Speaker 6: I'm going to pour some cold water on this because
Speaker 6: of course Brian Coberger's defense team is going to say
Speaker 6: he's not guilty. That's the only thing they can say.
Speaker 6: They can't say anything else, so they have to say
Speaker 6: this also, and I think this is the key thing.
Speaker 6: Under Idaho law, the defense must notify the prosecution of
Speaker 6: a possibility of an alibi defense, And as I understand
Speaker 6: listening to other commentators reading about this, is that this
Speaker 6: finally merely preserves that right without committing to it. It
Speaker 6: doesn't say that they have an alibi. It says that
Speaker 6: they are possibly going to use it in trial, and
Speaker 6: that they're going to continue investigating, and that they might
Speaker 6: actually challenge through cross examination some of the prosecution's witnesses
Speaker 6: as a possible avenue to presenting this alibi. So they're
Speaker 6: not actually saying they have an alibi. They're not actually
Speaker 6: saying that they're going to use it. They're saying they're
Speaker 6: going to preserve the right to use it at trial,
Speaker 6: and that's required under Idaho law. So that's different than
Speaker 6: some states, right, so they had to provide at least this.
Speaker 6: I think the other thing that's really important is this
Speaker 6: defense team is very quiet, very tight lip They provided nothing.
Speaker 6: They haven't pushed back on anything. The only thing we've
Speaker 6: ever heard is from his original defense lawyer in Pennsylvania
Speaker 6: who said, Brian's excited to, you know, be exonerated, right,
Speaker 6: Like that's the closest we've heard from anything. So they've
Speaker 6: basically taken a hands off approach and said we're not
Speaker 6: going to provide anything. We're gonna do what's required, but
Speaker 6: we're not going to provide anything. I think if they
Speaker 6: had an air tight, one hundred percent, locked down, concrete alibi,
Speaker 6: they would be presenting that right now, not only because
Speaker 6: it would be good for their case in the court
Speaker 6: of public opinion. If he's one hundred percent innocent, defense
Speaker 6: attorneys like to get that information out there. Why would
Speaker 6: you wait anywhere from three months to six months to
Speaker 6: nine months to twelve months to go to trial with
Speaker 6: somebody that you have concrete proof evidence he was in
Speaker 6: Florida during the time of this. Here's no way he
Speaker 6: could have done it right like, So whatever alibi they
Speaker 6: might have, I think the suggestion is probably it's not
Speaker 6: air tight. And it's not to say it's not an alibi.
Speaker 6: It's not to say that it won't work at trial.
Speaker 6: It's not to say that the prosecution has sewn up.
Speaker 6: But I do think that if they had an air tight,
Speaker 6: one hundred percent definitive twelve people saw him in Florida
Speaker 6: at the time of the murders, they would be waving
Speaker 6: that out right now. And they're not doing that. It's
Speaker 6: not to say that they won't produce that at some point,
Speaker 6: but they're not doing it today. And I think that's
Speaker 6: a tells you a lot about this alibi filing.
Speaker 4: But that doesn't change the fact that his DNA was
Speaker 4: in fact found on the sheath, right, So even if
Speaker 4: he did have an alibi, they would still have to
Speaker 4: explain away why the DNA testing points to him to
Speaker 4: such a degree. Have you heard anything Chris about that?
Speaker 4: Those are two very big things, right. They're being DNA
Speaker 4: at the crime scene of Brian, his own personal DNA,
Speaker 4: not just the DNA of his father's, versus him literally
Speaker 4: not being there.
Speaker 5: I mean, I think that the DNA is the weakest
Speaker 5: part of this case because remember, it's just reasonable doubt
Speaker 5: to get off. You have DNA of three other people
Speaker 5: at the scene we know now, and the chain of
Speaker 5: command of the DNA is very very confusing. We have
Speaker 5: it going to the local lab, then we have the
Speaker 5: Idaho State Police sending it to a national lab, the
Speaker 5: Udo State Police suddenly deciding they're not going to follow
Speaker 5: through a but halfway through the testing process and handing
Speaker 5: it over to the FBI. The FBI taking it from
Speaker 5: that point over. And then the interesting thing is that
Speaker 5: the prosecutors are now hesitant to hand over that evidence
Speaker 5: and they're claiming it's because it's federal FBI evidence and
Speaker 5: the FBI only gave them a name know everything else
Speaker 5: with it, so they don't have to hand over everything
Speaker 5: else because they're saying all they got from the FBI
Speaker 5: was a name, not the sort of whole genealogy of
Speaker 5: it all, which is very interesting. And if a jury
Speaker 5: hears this along with the fact that there's the DNA
Speaker 5: of other people, it's not going to be that hard.
Speaker 5: I mean, I think the classic example is the OJ case,
Speaker 5: where they thought DNA was a slam dunk, and then
Speaker 5: as they're explaining it to people, it's really it's a
Speaker 5: very scientific, difficult thing to understand, and it's easy to
Speaker 5: explain away at times because it's just, you know, it's
Speaker 5: a very small sample on a knife a knife sheet,
Speaker 5: rather that a lot of people probably handled potentially. I'm
Speaker 5: sure that the crime scene is going to be talked
Speaker 5: about a lot because these are local officers who've never
Speaker 5: really been on a murder scene and how it was treated,
Speaker 5: So there's going to be a lot of ways are
Speaker 5: going to poke holes in this. I think it's really
Speaker 5: one of the weakest parts of the prosecution's sort of case,
Speaker 5: and I think they're aware of that too, which is
Speaker 5: why they're so hesitant to really turn over any of
Speaker 5: the sort of DNA information that they have.
Speaker 6: We've talked about this little bit offline in the past.
Speaker 6: Is like they're going to make the prosecution prove every
Speaker 6: single piece of evidence right, and they're going to try
Speaker 6: to muddle that and make it as confusing as possible
Speaker 6: because they only need one person. I don't think the
Speaker 6: DNA in terms of what was swiped from his mouth
Speaker 6: with the bucal swab and the knife evidence, DNA is
Speaker 6: difficult for a jury to understand. It's not nineteen ninety
Speaker 6: four anymore or way past oj Simpson in terms of
Speaker 6: the understanding of DNA, but that whole bridge between there.
Speaker 6: They're clearly going to make this really difficult for everybody understand,
Speaker 6: and they're going to try to even get that DNA
Speaker 6: thrown out because of the way they arrive to it.
Speaker 6: And I think if we see anything that is a
Speaker 6: strategy that's appearing right now, it's to reserve the right
Speaker 6: to challenge everything right and to push back on everything.
Speaker 6: And I think Chris is right like that DNA becomes
Speaker 6: really problematic for them if the judge or something gets
Speaker 6: thrown out in terms of that process.
Speaker 4: Chris, have you heard any more rumblings from the family.
Speaker 4: Obviously there's a gag order in the family has been
Speaker 4: asked not to speak out, and we of course are
Speaker 4: being very respectful of that. But in your circles as
Speaker 4: a journalist, have you heard anything regarding the family the Coburgers.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 5: I had heard rumblings that the sisters were really just
Speaker 5: praying he was going to do a plea deal because
Speaker 5: they were just like, our parents can't go through this.
Speaker 5: Our parents can't like this is just not something that
Speaker 5: they're ready for. By all accounts, these are the two
Speaker 5: nicest people, you know, Like the mother's lovely nice, was
Speaker 5: a substitute teacher. The father's is a great guy who
Speaker 5: was like really just trying to go to bat for
Speaker 5: ast son all the time and get him to make
Speaker 5: friends and do things social and get them out there.
Speaker 5: And they just feel like it's just such a devastating
Speaker 5: thing for them. And you know, I think you will
Speaker 5: say that really in the way that the media is
Speaker 5: not really hounding them, they're kind of leaving them alone.
Speaker 5: It's just it's a really, it's a really sad story
Speaker 5: for these two parents who by all accounts did everything
Speaker 5: for their son. I mean, we were going through financial
Speaker 5: records recently, and every time Brian entered a new stage
Speaker 5: of his education, looks like they were taking up mortgages
Speaker 5: on their home for amount of whey that would seem
Speaker 5: to suggest they're basically funding his education, doing everything they
Speaker 5: can for this kid, and it's just devastating.
Speaker 4: Then it's so well said, and obviously for the victims' families,
Speaker 4: so devastating, but yeah, to your point, even in the
Speaker 4: spirit of making this podcast, since the first day, we
Speaker 4: really wanted to sort of take a step back and
Speaker 4: look at his upbringing to see what were the triggers,
Speaker 4: what were the warning signs. And despite anything we've discussed,
Speaker 4: nobody has a bad thing to say about the parents
Speaker 4: and his sisters, and you know what an annihilating moment
Speaker 4: for them and a weight to carry. It's really unimaginable
Speaker 4: and it's every parent's nightmare, and our hearts genuinely go
Speaker 4: out to them.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, in many ways, they're also losing a child,
Speaker 5: you know, obviously not as horrible as the victims families,
Speaker 5: but I mean their son is probably going to be
Speaker 5: away for the rest of his life. So that's it.
Speaker 4: We've seen this a little bit with the BTK killer
Speaker 4: and his family, and again the weight that has to
Speaker 4: be carried moving forward must be unbearable. We've just again
Speaker 4: really tried to keep it very respectful in terms of
Speaker 4: their privacy during this difficult time, as well as with
Speaker 4: the family members the victims. Again, everyone's gearing up for
Speaker 4: what could be a trial. So far nothing is pointing
Speaker 4: to the idea of a plea deal, but who knows
Speaker 4: what's to come. This is a bit a little bit
Speaker 4: of a change of conversation though at the bare minimum,
Speaker 4: I understand the DNA genealogy, etc. That being air quotes
Speaker 4: potentially junk science and that can be explained away. But
Speaker 4: an alibi to me seems like a pretty big bomb
Speaker 4: that they would have to be able to back up.
Speaker 4: But Connor, to your point, they're just making a suggestion
Speaker 4: that they may want to go that route.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, and they have to. I mean again,
Speaker 6: the defense is setting up to challenge everything, and they
Speaker 6: have to. I mean that legally they're required to provide
Speaker 6: the best defense, you know that they can to Brian Coberger, and.
Speaker 5: They did file at the eleventh hour. Two right, they
Speaker 5: filed that, like literally at the eleventh hour.
Speaker 6: And also I had seen something and I'm not one
Speaker 6: hundred percent sure and clear on this, but I had
Speaker 6: seen something. That their best chance of getting the DNA
Speaker 6: thrown out is if they can prove that he was
Speaker 6: somewhere else, right, because all of a sudden, the sample
Speaker 6: size of the DNA, which is really small on the
Speaker 6: nice sheaf, If he's somewhere else and there's people who
Speaker 6: can say it, well, the judge can be like, well, obviously,
Speaker 6: if twelve people saw him somewhere else at this period
Speaker 6: of time, he probably wasn't holding that knife and oh
Speaker 6: and oh he bought a similar knife and returned it
Speaker 6: on Amazon or something. They have to be able to
Speaker 6: explain that away in the pre trial hearings. So they're
Speaker 6: setting up that possibility, but they've not committed to anything.
Speaker 6: And part of it is is that there's still very
Speaker 6: early stages in terms of building the defense. But until
Speaker 6: they get that DNA evidence in the paperwork from the
Speaker 6: prosecution and the FBI and the orthroom labs, you know,
Speaker 6: they don't really know what they're working with. And I
Speaker 6: think that's really it's a crucial part of this entire process.
Speaker 6: Until they get access to all of that information, they
Speaker 6: don't know what their defense is going to be. I
Speaker 6: wouldn't think.
Speaker 5: I mean, there's also the fact that I think that
Speaker 5: the one thing that we all kind of keep forgetting
Speaker 5: is the fact that the number of people who shoot
Speaker 5: a stranger is low. The number people who shoot multiple
Speaker 5: strangers is low. The number of people who stab a
Speaker 5: stranger is so low. The number of people who stab four
Speaker 5: strangers in their home. I don't think there's another case
Speaker 5: of or seen where someone stabbed for strangers to death
Speaker 5: in a home and we stilln't have any link between
Speaker 5: him and the victims. And that is going to be
Speaker 5: a I mean, it just doesn't happen. It just really
Speaker 5: does not happen if there has to be some level of,
Speaker 5: you know, knowing the person, and we haven't seen any
Speaker 5: sort of relationship really that they've brought out or proven
Speaker 5: the prosecution at all. So that's going to be a
Speaker 5: really hard thing for people to sort of comprehend.
Speaker 6: I thing too.
Speaker 1: Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
Speaker 1: a moment.
Speaker 4: I was just speaking to a criminologist this morning. Actually
Speaker 4: talking about this case, and he said, just echoing what
Speaker 4: you said, Chris, it is so rare for a person
Speaker 4: to go from a regular civilian to.
Speaker 3: A mass murderer.
Speaker 4: Like there's usually a tipping point, there is typically something
Speaker 4: that happens prior. There's typically some sort of an event
Speaker 4: that's the test run of it all. And we really
Speaker 4: have looked at this very close to see has there
Speaker 4: been a history here outside of being bullied or you know,
Speaker 4: we've talked about his childhood and his high school and
Speaker 4: you know, his education, et cetera. But we haven't been
Speaker 4: able to find the one thing that would suggest, oh,
Speaker 4: maybe he struck prior, there's some sort of link between
Speaker 4: a previous event that led to maybe this big event,
Speaker 4: because likely, just looking at his profile, according to this criminologist,
Speaker 4: he may have become a serial killer had he gotten
Speaker 4: away with this, had he not been apprehended. Again, assuming
Speaker 4: he is guilty, he is saying he is innocent and
Speaker 4: we are not looking to convict him here on this podcast.
Speaker 4: But all that to be said, we haven't actually found
Speaker 4: that pre smoking gun. Chris, have you heard anything new
Speaker 4: about any other situations that would maybe point to a
Speaker 4: history or something as a pre event.
Speaker 5: We know that some law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania are
Speaker 5: looking into things other than murders. We know that there's
Speaker 5: other illegal activities that they are looking into and seeing
Speaker 5: if maybe there's a pattern of that prior. They won't
Speaker 5: be specific, but I mean, there are other crimes that
Speaker 5: men sometimes commit, like it could be robbery, it could
Speaker 5: be burglary, it could be sexual assault. We don't really
Speaker 5: know for sure. We just know that a few of
Speaker 5: those local departments had been looking into that and they've
Speaker 5: not said anything since. So it could be maybe he
Speaker 5: was in you know, committing some other crime and got
Speaker 5: caught or who knows, but that's certainly something that they've
Speaker 5: been looking into, because you're right, it is incredibly weird too.
Speaker 5: Suddenly not only murder for people, if he is the
Speaker 5: actual killer, but to do it in roughly ten minutes
Speaker 5: and make an exit is that doesn't seem like sort
Speaker 5: of a first time thing. It's and he's when he
Speaker 5: seen exiting the home by the eyewitness. The killer. They
Speaker 5: don't know any blood or anything on them. They just say,
Speaker 5: you know, they're average build whatever, And obviously they didn't
Speaker 5: look in such a state that the person immediately called police.
Speaker 5: So you would think that if he looked like he'd
Speaker 5: just murdered for people, whoever the person was, the roommate
Speaker 5: would call the police. But she just thought it looked
Speaker 5: like a regular person. So someone who did it quickly
Speaker 5: and looked like nothing had just happened, that's very bizarre
Speaker 5: for a first time killer.
Speaker 6: I do think one of the things that about this
Speaker 6: case it's really interesting, is he obviously is accused of
Speaker 6: killing four people. If he is the killer, we don't
Speaker 6: know if his intent was to kill four people, right,
Speaker 6: So was he tiptoeing in thinking he was going to
Speaker 6: kill one person? Did he end up finding two people
Speaker 6: in bed? Did he end up finding two people downstairs?
Speaker 6: Did he didn't imagine? Did he get scared and not
Speaker 6: kill other people in the house because we know there
Speaker 6: are other two roommates, Like, that's all the sort of
Speaker 6: question about did he go from zero to one hundred
Speaker 6: in terms of killing people in one night or did
Speaker 6: he think he was tiptoeing in If he is in
Speaker 6: fact guilty, that's just one of the many things we
Speaker 6: don't know. And I think one of the things that's
Speaker 6: so frustrating about this case is there's a lot of
Speaker 6: holes in what the prosecution is saying, and maybe some
Speaker 6: of it will be able to you know, we'll understand
Speaker 6: a trial, But as of right now, the basic information
Speaker 6: of the case hasn't moved significantly in months.
Speaker 4: And is it possible that maybe he had an emotional
Speaker 4: connection in his mind, perhaps only with one of the victims,
Speaker 4: had a knife allegedly snuck in the house, Maybe was
Speaker 4: going to sexually assault one of them or have a
Speaker 4: visit with one of them, and that escalated and that
Speaker 4: turned to mass murder, when maybe that wasn't the initial intent.
Speaker 4: But again, it feels as though it would have been messier.
Speaker 3: The walls were literally bleeding of blood.
Speaker 4: How could that not be bigger in terms of the
Speaker 4: information that we have right now. And it's a little
Speaker 4: scary in a way because if Brian Coburger isn't the
Speaker 4: one who did it, then who did and that means
Speaker 4: that person is still at large.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 4: One of the comparisons or non comparisons to the piked
Speaker 4: In massacre in the loss of the Rodent family is
Speaker 4: it didn't really feel at least when we started on
Speaker 4: that case and we went there in person, it didn't
Speaker 4: feel as though, oh my goodness, the Wagners were probably
Speaker 4: killing everybody in the town, or that they had previously
Speaker 4: been murdering people, or that it wasn't very specific to
Speaker 4: one particular family, and that the Wagners at the time
Speaker 4: when we started were claiming their innocence. Still they're the
Speaker 4: accused who have Now three of the four of them
Speaker 4: have either played or have been found guilty.
Speaker 3: There's still one more trial to go.
Speaker 4: But this is a little different in that number one,
Speaker 4: if he didn't do it, this guy is getting tried
Speaker 4: in the press time and time again. How could he
Speaker 4: possibly have a fair trial? And moreover, then that means
Speaker 4: there's somebody at large that's a danger to society.
Speaker 3: And if he did do it, why.
Speaker 4: Are they not throwing some of this information out or
Speaker 4: at least showing a little bit of the smoking gun,
Speaker 4: Because I know, again, I know the answer to this.
Speaker 4: There's a trial coming and they want to keep their
Speaker 4: cards close.
Speaker 5: But I mean, I think the biggest problem with what
Speaker 5: we're all saying right now to is the fact that
Speaker 5: he left the fifth rough made alive like in order
Speaker 5: to pass by Dylan in that doorway, he is literally
Speaker 5: within inches of her so if you're going to murder
Speaker 5: four people, I mean, it's a horrible thing to think about.
Speaker 5: Whoever this murder is. He murders four people, who leaves
Speaker 5: the one person who actually witnesses, the eyewitness out of it.
Speaker 5: That's a bizarre move. And this is the one thing
Speaker 5: I think that is helpful for the prosecution, is you
Speaker 5: think if he saw Dylan, that explains why he turns
Speaker 5: his phone on before he's back in Pullman ten miles
Speaker 5: down the road. He's like, I got to check and
Speaker 5: make sure no one's on my tail, let me see,
Speaker 5: let me get online, let me get back on my
Speaker 5: phone so I have my network again. But I mean,
Speaker 5: the fact that he's so close to Dylan and doesn't
Speaker 5: do anything is very Whoever the killer is, that's a
Speaker 5: very difficult thing that they're going to have to sort
Speaker 5: of explain. And I almost wonder if they're not going
Speaker 5: to introduce out the case at all. And it is
Speaker 5: kind of the point now, I mean that the defense
Speaker 5: rather has filed a brief that really put a hole
Speaker 5: in a lot of the things and really kind of
Speaker 5: I mean, the biggest thing to Nisee that they put
Speaker 5: out on one of their briefs is the fact that
Speaker 5: they requested the notes from the idem State Police, Moscow Police,
Speaker 5: and FBI agents who were present at the autopsy, and
Speaker 5: the prosecution said none of those three departments took any
Speaker 5: notes at the autopsy. If you're at the autopsy of
Speaker 5: these four victims and there's no suspect, you don't know
Speaker 5: what's going on, how do you not take any notes
Speaker 5: at all? That's a very and that sort of sows
Speaker 5: some seeds of mistrust I think in the law enforcement
Speaker 5: when that's presented at trial. I think that's that's, you know,
Speaker 5: sort of one of those things you've got to put
Speaker 5: a shink in the armor with.
Speaker 6: It's definite. I want to ask you something about in
Speaker 6: the connection to piked In, because the Wagoners were running
Speaker 6: around for like the better part of two years right
Speaker 6: claiming that alibis, claiming they were innocent. I mean, when
Speaker 6: you guys first started looking at piked In, do you
Speaker 6: remember all the different alibis and it claims of innocence
Speaker 6: that the Wageners had in terms of not being connected
Speaker 6: to murdering the road and family.
Speaker 3: One hundred percent.
Speaker 4: It was that's basically when we started really digging in.
Speaker 4: Is when they were in the throes of a claiming
Speaker 4: their innocence and they had.
Speaker 3: Moved to Alaska.
Speaker 4: They felt as though the town was being to gossipy
Speaker 4: and that they were the center of gossip, and it
Speaker 4: was a very hard place to live because of that,
Speaker 4: and as you know, there were pillars of the town
Speaker 4: and suddenly there's been this murder, and the boys wanted
Speaker 4: to move on. As fathers and as a family, they
Speaker 4: all collectively moved to Alaska. And we're making the documentary
Speaker 4: right now for NBC, and very recently. When I was
Speaker 4: there last we were going through old family photos of
Speaker 4: theirs of the Wagner family and while they were in Alaska,
Speaker 4: and it's chilling in retrospect, but while they were in Alaska,
Speaker 4: they picked up their lives. They started working again, and
Speaker 4: they went to church, and there's photographs of them as
Speaker 4: a family in matching Christmas pajamas and family photos on
Speaker 4: a boat in there out fishing as a group, smiling
Speaker 4: ear to ear. Life really did appear to move on
Speaker 4: for them very easily, and they really did present as
Speaker 4: though they were not only innocent, but very innocent in fact,
Speaker 4: that they were almost being targeted as an excuse to
Speaker 4: not do better investigating so much so that they had
Speaker 4: to actually move out of town, and that they were
Speaker 4: just an example.
Speaker 3: Of faulty police work.
Speaker 4: And life goes on, and they picked up the pieces
Speaker 4: and they really did chilling to think.
Speaker 3: You know, wow, what we know now.
Speaker 4: Is that they at least three of the four have
Speaker 4: said that they were at least a part of murdering
Speaker 4: these beautiful people, all.
Speaker 3: Eight of them.
Speaker 4: You would think you would not be able to eat, drink, drive,
Speaker 4: do anything that's air quotes normal again in life, because
Speaker 4: you're forever changed and now you've been soaked in other's blood.
Speaker 4: And then you look at these photographs and you know what,
Speaker 4: if we worked next to them at CVS, you wouldn't notice,
Speaker 4: Or if you yes shared a cubicle or were on
Speaker 4: an airplane with them, they would just seem like a
Speaker 4: lovely family of somebody you would not be afraid. And
Speaker 4: I think Brian sort of falls into that category a
Speaker 4: little bit too, where.
Speaker 3: He's not the obvious scary person.
Speaker 4: You know, he might be sitting next to you on
Speaker 4: the train and yeah, maybe he seems a little bit
Speaker 4: odd or a little off, but if anything, you kind
Speaker 4: of feel like just an awkward guy and not a
Speaker 4: big deal. You don't think in a million years, this
Speaker 4: is a person that's going to be murdering, potentially or allegedly,
Speaker 4: you know, for beautiful humans. How do you go on
Speaker 4: the next day and go back to school? And that's
Speaker 4: been one of the triggers I think, even while we've
Speaker 4: kind of got involved in this case, is yet listen, hey,
Speaker 4: how can we help? But also the idea of the
Speaker 4: air quote bad guy or the killers, the idea that
Speaker 4: you could commit such a hideous crime. And then the
Speaker 4: day after in the Wagner's case, in the Python murders,
Speaker 4: they went to the funerals and they picked up the pieces,
Speaker 4: and they started a gofund me page, and they took support,
Speaker 4: and they took tears and they cried on other people's
Speaker 4: shoulders in the town. Meanwhile they were the killers the
Speaker 4: whole time, Like how do you keep a straight face
Speaker 4: and how do you not crack?
Speaker 3: Times four? And in Brian's case allegedly same thing.
Speaker 4: You go back to school the next day, you start,
Speaker 4: you roll into the real world, You hop in a
Speaker 4: car with your dad and do a road trip. It
Speaker 4: just seems impossible that there wouldn't be more tells. And
Speaker 4: I think that's the creepiest part about the pike In
Speaker 4: case is even when I was in the courtroom listening
Speaker 4: to Angela Wagner, accused killer Mom's testimony, she still presents
Speaker 4: pretty meek and frankly air quotes likable. You know, they
Speaker 4: have the stick to be able to kind of live
Speaker 4: amongst us, And I think that's the scariest part well.
Speaker 6: And also like two parallels in terms of talking about
Speaker 6: Brian Cobergers, Like I don't think the Wagoners have been
Speaker 6: accused of murder before, right, so somehow they went from
Speaker 6: zero to killing eight people.
Speaker 5: And that's even more so because how many crime scenes
Speaker 5: were there in that case. There's only one crime scene
Speaker 5: in Coburg where there's right, right, that's insane.
Speaker 6: And with the Wagoners, like they didn't start out trying
Speaker 6: to kill a people, but there were a couple of
Speaker 6: people who ended up being there that weren't supposed to
Speaker 6: be there, and then they sort of said, well, if
Speaker 6: you're going to kill this person, you got to kill
Speaker 6: this person because that person's going to come after you.
Speaker 6: And so you can also see where this can just
Speaker 6: spiral out of control when you kill your first person,
Speaker 6: and the next thing you know, you've got to kill
Speaker 6: multiple people. That's what makes both of these cases so
Speaker 6: fascinating because I think for the average person listening, sitting
Speaker 6: here talking, you can't contemplate killing one person, let alone
Speaker 6: multiple people. But there obviously are people who can, and
Speaker 6: when it happens, they end up killing more than one person.
Speaker 5: I think the fact that even people who have done
Speaker 5: it before don't have a one hundred percent rate. And
Speaker 5: both of these murders, whoever committed them, every person they
Speaker 5: tried to kill, they killed. They did not leave anyone,
Speaker 5: you know, wounded or they shot it people. Eight people died.
Speaker 5: This person stabbed four people. Four people died. That was
Speaker 5: that was it. There wasn't any sort of like someone
Speaker 5: you know, recovered or someone wasn't fully That's kind of
Speaker 5: the most amazing. Even with serial killers, I mean, there's
Speaker 5: always one or two who get away. No one got
Speaker 5: away from these killers.
Speaker 3: It's so true.
Speaker 4: And you think about the families too, that we spoke
Speaker 4: about earlier in the piked in case, the family of
Speaker 4: the victims and the family of the accused. They've been
Speaker 4: ripped apart emotionally, no matter what side of the equation.
Speaker 4: On it you are, it's devastating beyond words, and in
Speaker 4: Brian's case as well, to your point, he had nice parents,
Speaker 4: he has nice sisters, he had a decent education. He
Speaker 4: seemed to have a lot of opportunity.
Speaker 3: What a mess?
Speaker 4: What a mess? What a mess? You know, not to
Speaker 4: jump around to, you know, one hideous case to the next.
Speaker 4: But I'm obviously a Long Islander. The recent capture of
Speaker 4: the Long Island serial killer again, who is this scary
Speaker 4: guy that's commuting on the Long Island railroad to work
Speaker 4: every day, sitting next to somebody who might say, God,
Speaker 4: the guy's large and slightly creepy, but I don't know.
Speaker 3: He works with people every single day. And this guy's
Speaker 3: going home and just dumping girls and burlap bags. How
Speaker 3: does that happen?
Speaker 5: And the fact that the eyewitness who police say led
Speaker 5: to the arrest told him about it in twenty eleven.
Speaker 5: In twenty eleven, this guy said that's this is who
Speaker 5: the person is. He'd seen him with one of the girls.
Speaker 5: And it's twelve years later that it's finally like, okay.
Speaker 6: Chris, you said something about Brian Cowberger's family, and immediately
Speaker 6: I went to the Long Island killer because his wife
Speaker 6: immediately filed for divorce, right, you know, unlike in movies
Speaker 6: where you know the partners serve always seems to know
Speaker 6: or whatever. Like it's very clear she's divorced him. She's
Speaker 6: saying she didn't know. There's also some reports that he
Speaker 6: always killed when they were out of town and stuff
Speaker 6: like that. But like Brian Coworker's family can't divorce them, right,
Speaker 6: the parents can't. They're still the parents. The sisters are
Speaker 6: still the sisters. And not that it's good to be
Speaker 6: married and have the option to divorce the serial killer.
Speaker 6: But like she gets to say, I knew nothing. I
Speaker 6: want nothing to.
Speaker 3: Do with this guy.
Speaker 6: Brian Coworker's family, they're stuck with them. They's stuck with
Speaker 6: the same last name. They're stuck with being the parents.
Speaker 6: And these murders are also interesting by themselves, but when
Speaker 6: you sort of start to think about how they're connected,
Speaker 6: in the ways they're connected, there's just some really interesting
Speaker 6: sort of links between these killers.
Speaker 1: Let's stop here for another break.
Speaker 5: I think that the defense filing that sort of was
Speaker 5: poking holes is there's some good stuff.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 5: They point out that the only video they claim to
Speaker 5: have of the cards going the wrong way at the
Speaker 5: wrong time. There's based on discovering what they're saying, there's
Speaker 5: no clear image of the person driving the car so
Speaker 5: far that they've received. At least the defense says that
Speaker 5: they've still not provided any link that says that Brian
Speaker 5: Copert knew any of the victims. I mean, again, this
Speaker 5: is you know, it's all sort of it's playing out,
Speaker 5: you know, and they're because of the gagguader, we can't
Speaker 5: call prosecutors or the defense or anyone in the case
Speaker 5: and ask if things are true or not, or get clarification,
Speaker 5: which is why this case is still sort of theoretical
Speaker 5: in many ways. But I think that the defense has
Speaker 5: certainly put the case in a position I didn't think
Speaker 5: it was going to be. If you ask me two
Speaker 5: months Agoard if they could be a slamed on case,
Speaker 5: I wouldn't think there'd be any chance of. You know,
Speaker 5: it just all seems so perfect. And then prosecution's obviously
Speaker 5: not saying is if anythings in their filings is the defense,
Speaker 5: But the defense is saying a lot of things that
Speaker 5: are sort of and to Conna's point earlier about the DNA.
Speaker 5: You know, it's right if it was just a bugal swab.
Speaker 5: People understand that we took a swab of his mouth,
Speaker 5: we compared it to the night they matched. That's it.
Speaker 5: It's all going to be very, very interesting to see
Speaker 5: how this plays out. And it could just be the
Speaker 5: prosecution is staying quiet on purpose and just you know,
Speaker 5: sort of holding their cards tight to their chest. But
Speaker 5: we will see in a few months.
Speaker 6: I think we're unlikely to see in October trial. I mean,
Speaker 6: talking to everyone we've talked to the fact that matters
Speaker 6: is August is are a dead month in any courtroom
Speaker 6: in any place in America, So nothing's going to Probably
Speaker 6: they might have one hearing in the middle of August,
Speaker 6: but then like until after Labor Day, courts generally shut down.
Speaker 6: So then all of a sudden, you know, you're five
Speaker 6: weeks from the start of a trial after Labor Day,
Speaker 6: so a lot has to happen for a trial to
Speaker 6: start on October second, and it just doesn't seem.
Speaker 4: Likely, which also is a layer that we have to
Speaker 4: be mindful of too. The idea that they're going for
Speaker 4: death penalty sipulations will also make this a little bit
Speaker 4: harder for a jury to convict, you know, that is
Speaker 4: a big cross to bear, and if any of this
Speaker 4: can be confusing or the filing says very little and
Speaker 4: is very vague and it does, though, just take one
Speaker 4: person to feel a tinge unclear. Maybe the death sentence
Speaker 4: provisions is too much or is that a way of
Speaker 4: the prosecution saying we have the goods and we are
Speaker 4: going full blown to make sure that this person is
Speaker 4: convicted and that justice is done and that death is
Speaker 4: the elt.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 6: I mean, Idaho is one of about three or four
Speaker 6: states that's uniquely positioned for prosecutors to chase death penalty
Speaker 6: without much fear that the overall population is going to
Speaker 6: be squeamish, you know, using it. I mean, obviously there
Speaker 6: are people in Idaho, but like Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Idaho
Speaker 6: are probably four out of the I don't know five
Speaker 6: states that if you're a prosecutor wanting to use the
Speaker 6: death penalty as a punishment, you probably want to be in.
Speaker 6: And I would put Idaho is probably one or two
Speaker 6: in those in that list. I would venture to say
Speaker 6: that the prosecution isn't worried about the jury if he
Speaker 6: gets a conviction about you know, the application of the
Speaker 6: death penalty in the state like Idaho.
Speaker 4: Like And have you heard anything, Chris, from the victims'
Speaker 4: families at all.
Speaker 5: I've spoken to the families. I've spoken in all four families, yes,
Speaker 5: at some point, and it's very interesting to see how
Speaker 5: they are each handling it in a very uniquely different way.
Speaker 5: There are some people like Cayley's family, the Consolvants, who
Speaker 5: are very very involved in the trial, and then there's
Speaker 5: people like the Chapins, who are have a very sort
Speaker 5: of i mean, their approach to this is just very
Speaker 5: sort of you know, it's it's incredible in the sense
Speaker 5: they're just really not choosing to get weighed down by
Speaker 5: any of the actual the murder is not something they
Speaker 5: think about. They don't they think about losing their son,
Speaker 5: but they don't think about how they lost their son.
Speaker 5: They really focus on their two children they still have.
Speaker 5: They really just want to remember happy things and happy memories,
Speaker 5: and that's how they want to sort of It's just
Speaker 5: a really sort of beautiful thing that must be incredibly
Speaker 5: hard to do, but what they've adopted and they just
Speaker 5: really just want to, you know, only carry good, wonderful
Speaker 5: things about their son or them. They don't want to really,
Speaker 5: they don't seem much interested in the trial or any
Speaker 5: of that because they just don't want to revisit that,
Speaker 5: which is also an interesting thing about this debate about
Speaker 5: the house. You know, these people keep talking about leaving
Speaker 5: the house up or desmolishing it, and you have to
Speaker 5: remember the two people who can still see the house
Speaker 5: are Ethan's sister and brother every day, and they probably
Speaker 5: don't want to see it. Ethan's brother can see it
Speaker 5: from his frat house. You know, that's probably the worst
Speaker 5: thing in the world that I might be to look
Speaker 5: at the house every day. So I imagine, like you know,
Speaker 5: it's eventually gonna get demolished, but it to be nice
Speaker 5: if if the prosecution defense say they're done with it.
Speaker 5: Even think it'd be nice for those two kids at
Speaker 5: least and might have to look at that house every
Speaker 5: time they're at school, because it's just going to be
Speaker 5: devastating to see that and think about your brother.
Speaker 6: Yeah, this whole debate over the house, you can see
Speaker 6: it from both sides or mini soides right where the families.
Speaker 6: They want to ensure that there's a conviction. They don't
Speaker 6: want anything to be a possibility that it hinders a conviction.
Speaker 6: You can see it from the university's point of view,
Speaker 6: where they're like, can we get this down. I think
Speaker 6: the other thing that's really interesting is is that sort
Speaker 6: of criminal tourism that people coming by to see the house.
Speaker 6: If you're a neighbor on that street, I mean, God
Speaker 6: only knows how many cars or people buses, you can
Speaker 6: understand that that's happening. So this debate has been really
Speaker 6: interesting to watch it unplay or play out the last
Speaker 6: couple of months, because you can understand it from everybody's
Speaker 6: point of view. It's one of those things like I
Speaker 6: don't know from my point of view, I don't think
Speaker 6: there is a right or wrong answer. There's just at
Speaker 6: some point there's going to be a decision.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean it is interesting. I mean both the
Speaker 5: defense and prosecution have said there's nothing there. I mean,
Speaker 5: I think a house tour would probably be beneficial for
Speaker 5: the jurors. I can. I can understand it from that aspect,
Speaker 5: but I'm surprised at both sides of the defense and
Speaker 5: the prosecution are both like, no, we don't need it,
Speaker 5: which kind of surprise me because usually you'd think they'ld
Speaker 5: be a house visit at some point during the trial,
Speaker 5: but maybe not.
Speaker 6: That happened with OJ, but it doesn't actually happen in
Speaker 6: most murder cases where they go to see it, and
Speaker 6: that would be a media circus.
Speaker 5: I mean nothing, the prosecutions they plans to do it
Speaker 5: at all, So that's why I think that nothing.
Speaker 4: And for our listeners too, if anybody listening has any
Speaker 4: information or any tips or details that they want to share,
Speaker 4: please do you know, reach out to us directly. And
Speaker 4: needless to say, this is a case that we will
Speaker 4: continue to cover and if this trial does in fact
Speaker 4: happen in October or somewhere you know, close by, it
Speaker 4: will be one of the biggest trials that this country
Speaker 4: has seen in a long time, and we will one
Speaker 4: hundred percent be there every step of the way. I'm
Speaker 4: sure there's more hiccups and surprises to come. So Chris
Speaker 4: Connor for your reporting this entire season, so well done.
Speaker 5: Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: More on that next time. For more information on the
Speaker 1: case and relevant photos, follow us on Instagram at kt
Speaker 1: Underscore Studios. The Idaho Mascer is produced by Stefan la Decker,
Speaker 1: Jeff Shane Connor Powell, Chris Bargo, Gabriel Castillo, and me
Speaker 1: Courtney Armstrong. Editing and sound designed by Jeff Toi. Music
Speaker 1: by Jared Aston. The Idaho Massacre is a production of
Speaker 1: iHeart Radio in Katie's Studios. For more podcasts like this,
Speaker 1: visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows. I'm Diana.
Speaker 2: You may know as Body Moving, My Friend and I.
Speaker 2: John Green were featured in the Netflix documentary Don't f
Speaker 2: with Cats. On our new podcast, True Crimes of John
Speaker 2: and Deiana were turning our online investigative skills to some
Speaker 2: of the most unexplained, unsolved, and most ignored cases.
Speaker 6: Police say thirty three year old Bride Again was shot dead.
Speaker 4: Gunned down in front of his two year old daughter.
Speaker 5: Detectives confirmed that it was a targeted attack.
Speaker 2: It appears to be an execution style assassination. This is
Speaker 2: very active, so we have to be careful.
Speaker 4: I heard that there's a house that has some bodies
Speaker 4: in the basement.
Speaker 6: I knew.
Speaker 5: I just knew the move was wrong.
Speaker 1: Maybe there's something more sinister at play than just one
Speaker 1: young girl going missing.
Speaker 5: If you know something, heard something, please it's never too
Speaker 5: late to do the right thing.
Speaker 2: This is true crimes with John and Deianna, the.
Speaker 3: Production of KT Studios and iHeartRadio. Justice is something that
Speaker 3: takes different shapes or formed