Speaker 1: Every bit of evidence has been gathered, what on the
Speaker 1: off chance that it has not, and that could be
Speaker 1: the one piece that seals the fate of the case.
Speaker 2: Either way, the big stunner of this case is that
Speaker 2: these weren't people that necessarily even interface, not even once.
Speaker 1: This is the Idaho Massacre, a production of KAT Studios
Speaker 1: and iHeartRadio, Season two, Episode twelve, Listener Questions. I'm Courtney Armstrong,
Speaker 1: a producer at KAT Studios with Stephanie Leidecker and Gabe Castillo,
Speaker 1: who you'll hear reading the questions. We wanted to take
Speaker 1: this opportunity to answer some of the listener questions that
Speaker 1: have come in over the course of the season, and
Speaker 1: also to have a couple of listeners who were able
Speaker 1: to make the time on the show so we can
Speaker 1: speak with them. We're starting it off.
Speaker 3: With page from Hobooken.
Speaker 1: First, Stephanie high paid.
Speaker 4: Hi. So my question is why you think the nine
Speaker 4: one one call hasn't been released yet.
Speaker 1: There can be a multitude of things at play, for example,
Speaker 1: and Stephanie and I were talking about just this very
Speaker 1: thing recently. And in another case we covered, which is
Speaker 1: another high profile mass murder, the Pike did Masaker, which
Speaker 1: is our other podcast. The nine one one call was
Speaker 1: indeed released well before trial, well before the accused were known,
Speaker 1: so that's something that can happen in this case. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the nine on one call has not been released. There
Speaker 1: have been articles people quoting that the prosecution will release
Speaker 1: it quote when it's time, which means we may need
Speaker 1: to wait until the actual trial to hear the nine
Speaker 1: on one call.
Speaker 2: Which is also interesting because I think this particular gular call,
Speaker 2: maybe unlike other calls from other cases, does speak a
Speaker 2: lot to the circumstances of how the bodies were found
Speaker 2: and discovered. You know, there's been a couple of very
Speaker 2: big questions about this timeline. One exactly who discovered the bodies.
Speaker 2: We know that the bodies were discovered hours later, and
Speaker 2: who that person was. All we know it to be
Speaker 2: is a friend of Ethan's. From my understanding, I would
Speaker 2: imagine if we hear their voice on the nine to
Speaker 2: one one call, that would no longer be anonymous. And
Speaker 2: they've been very tight lipped about releasing the information of
Speaker 2: the nine one one call and also the surrounding roommates, right,
Speaker 2: you could imagine that it must have been Mayhem when
Speaker 2: they make this grizzly discovery. We've heard nine one one calls,
Speaker 2: then there's nothing more harrowing or horrifying than hearing that
Speaker 2: guttural sound. But we don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And just to add to that, within the cloud
Speaker 1: of sort of confusion that Stephanie was speaking about, should
Speaker 1: we believe and there's no reason not to. The timeline
Speaker 1: of the murders, which places that happening between approximately four
Speaker 1: am and four twenty am. The nine to one one
Speaker 1: call was not placed until just a few moments before noon,
Speaker 1: so that's eight hours later. And as Stephanie said, it's
Speaker 1: not clear precisely who necessarily made the call, but we
Speaker 1: know the call came from one of the surviving roommate's
Speaker 1: cell phones, but it was not them who was initially
Speaker 1: making connection with nine one one. It was initially reported
Speaker 1: as an unconscious person or person's which seemed ought for
Speaker 1: what was ultimately found. And it turns out that that
Speaker 1: was actually the categorization that that nine one one call
Speaker 1: center used to let police know this is in the
Speaker 1: realm of someone unconscious versus say a fire or something else.
Speaker 3: So it was a nine one one designation.
Speaker 2: Which is such a really interesting point and page. It's
Speaker 2: such a good question because it's such an unknowable thing, right,
Speaker 2: But that particular nine to one one call would answer
Speaker 2: so many questions. It would answer the who, the how,
Speaker 2: the state of affairs at that time.
Speaker 3: Anything else you want to say, ask or wonder about.
Speaker 4: There was speculation that the fraternity across the street, the
Speaker 4: two roommates went there and had some of the guys
Speaker 4: go around the house to make sure that no one
Speaker 4: was there, which I think might be another thing, Like
Speaker 4: I think there was a lot of foot traffic in
Speaker 4: the house before they called the police.
Speaker 2: That's really interesting.
Speaker 1: I have seen that as well, and I think it's
Speaker 1: another thing that will come to bear. One thing that's
Speaker 1: been reported is that there will quote multiple voices on
Speaker 1: the nine one one call. So who exactly all of
Speaker 1: those voices are we don't yet know, but soon to
Speaker 1: find out.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Thank you for coming on, of course, have
Speaker 2: a good night, guys, Bye bye.
Speaker 5: In a previous episode, it was mentioned that one of
Speaker 5: the journalists had gone down to Moscow, Idaho, and noted
Speaker 5: that in and around the area they noticed a lot
Speaker 5: of ring cameras in the neighborhood and from what we
Speaker 5: know there has been footage that was released from a
Speaker 5: ring camera, So my question is, do you think police
Speaker 5: have a lot more information than what has been released?
Speaker 5: Is this why we have yet to see the first
Speaker 5: day of trial?
Speaker 1: Multilayered question, Do I think there's more we haven't seen?
Speaker 1: I would bet any amount of money in the world
Speaker 1: that there is. Do I bet that investigators on every
Speaker 1: level canvassed the neighborhood and procured every piece of evidence
Speaker 1: possible at the time. Absolutely, I do. Is that part
Speaker 1: of the delay and trial? I mean, it's interesting and
Speaker 1: I don't have this stat at the tip of my tongue,
Speaker 1: but I know we have to it before the enormity
Speaker 1: of digital and other evidence that has been gathered that
Speaker 1: has to be gone through by the prosecution, by investigators,
Speaker 1: and then when hands it over by the defense as well.
Speaker 1: So I think that's part of it. Also, of course,
Speaker 1: being a death penalty case that, as we've discussed, you know,
Speaker 1: exacerbates a timeline because there's so many things that need
Speaker 1: to be done correctly. But my knee jerk too, is
Speaker 1: there more evidence from ring cameras we don't know about?
Speaker 3: Absolutely?
Speaker 2: I would really really hope so, because so much of
Speaker 2: the evidence that we've been unpacking and has been set
Speaker 2: into the public or the media, you know, really has
Speaker 2: some circumstantial sides to it. So I would have to
Speaker 2: imagine that there is a larger footprint from a technology
Speaker 2: standpoint that frankly, we're just not aware of. It's amazing
Speaker 2: that you can get away with any crime in today's
Speaker 2: day and age, with the level of cameras and cell
Speaker 2: phones and things that are tracking us real time. It's
Speaker 2: actually pretty astounding that there was such a blind spot
Speaker 2: if in fact there was, so I would assume that
Speaker 2: we don't know this. But on the other side of that,
Speaker 2: we have interviewed defense attorneys that would say, look, if
Speaker 2: there was a ton of great information, they would be
Speaker 2: yelling that from the rooftops and that would be front
Speaker 2: page news, and we would be unpacking the fact that
Speaker 2: there's a ring camera that has footage of someone else
Speaker 2: other than the accused, Brian Coburger, walking into this murder house.
Speaker 2: If that was the case, I think we would really
Speaker 2: know about it. So, on the one hand, I completely
Speaker 2: agree with you, Courtney, and on the other no, no,
Speaker 2: some of this feels like a little bit of a
Speaker 2: house of cards.
Speaker 1: That's a fair point because now that you say that,
Speaker 1: thinking about the fact that even the identification of the
Speaker 1: car took three times for the FBI, and this is
Speaker 1: no dig on them, but it took three times to
Speaker 1: publicly get it correct what the carr was, assuming, of course,
Speaker 1: the accused is whose car that we should.
Speaker 3: Be looking for.
Speaker 2: And by the way, we don't even have an actual
Speaker 2: idea of the person driving that car. So yes, he
Speaker 2: was driving a white Lantra, and yes it was in
Speaker 2: and around the area, and yes that is wildly suspicious,
Speaker 2: no question. But where's the visual of him actually behind
Speaker 2: the wheel? I have to assume that exists, or that
Speaker 2: there is some way to get around the fact that
Speaker 2: it doesn't appear that we.
Speaker 3: Have that it doesn't.
Speaker 1: I mean, it certainly hasn't been public that or any
Speaker 1: glimpse to the public's knowledge of a license plate.
Speaker 3: So I don't know. Maybe my bet all the money
Speaker 3: in the world was a little a little quick on
Speaker 3: the trigger to that end.
Speaker 2: So let's unpack a little of that, because there do
Speaker 2: seem to be these big ticket items that gets discussed
Speaker 2: in the press, and we certainly have discussed this here
Speaker 2: as well, Like these big items that make.
Speaker 6: It this no question, This is the guy, there's DNA,
Speaker 6: and there's this car, and he was acting fishy and
Speaker 6: bushy eyebrows and and and by the way, it does
Speaker 6: all sort of seem like a pretty bad day and
Speaker 6: a pretty bad morning and a pretty bad stretch frankly
Speaker 6: of a lot of terrible things that had to happen
Speaker 6: in the worst of timing for this accused Brian Coburger
Speaker 6: to ultimately be accused of this crime. And then when
Speaker 6: you take a step back, there are a lot of
Speaker 6: these touch points that are like, what are the odds
Speaker 6: of that happening?
Speaker 2: Number one? Having all of these images of this car
Speaker 2: in and around the area, but no actual idea of
Speaker 2: who's driving it or the license plate. I feel like
Speaker 2: if I roll through a red light, not that I
Speaker 2: ever have, I guarantee you that there's a ticket in
Speaker 2: my mailbox waiting for me somehow. So big brother is
Speaker 2: watching just not that morning, and then we talk about
Speaker 2: this bushy eyebrow id but like, really, is is that.
Speaker 3: The big thing?
Speaker 1: So a question we did get speaking of all the
Speaker 1: quote coincidences had to do with a shooting that happened
Speaker 1: on the morning that Brian Coberger and his father departed
Speaker 1: Washington to head on their cross country drive to Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: And the question comes from Amy from Warwick, Rhode Island.
Speaker 1: Is there a connection between the swat shooting of Brent
Speaker 1: Kopaka related to the Idaho massacre.
Speaker 2: I mean, it doesn't appear that there is, and we
Speaker 2: have gone down this rabbit hole. It is shocking to
Speaker 2: me that something that is violent, like holding somebody hostage,
Speaker 2: let alone holding your roommate hostage, happening in and around
Speaker 2: the time of these violent murders. But again, it does
Speaker 2: seem as though that may have just been a coincidence.
Speaker 1: It does, and for listeners who aren't aware, this incident
Speaker 1: happened on December fifteenth, twenty twenty two, so it was
Speaker 1: about one month after the November thirteenth murders. A man
Speaker 1: named Brent Kopaka was ultimately shot by Washington State Police
Speaker 1: in Pullman, Washington, where the accused Brian Coburger lived, and
Speaker 1: that's where people burned up the connection. Officers were alerted
Speaker 1: that Kopaka was allegedly threatening the lives of his roommates.
Speaker 1: There was a standoff, and according to reports, there were
Speaker 1: unsuccessful negotiations, there was escalating behavior that ultimately ended in
Speaker 1: the swat team killing Kopaka. This happened to happen on
Speaker 1: that same morning of the drive, and in fact, when
Speaker 1: the Coburger men were pulled over, Brian Coberger's father mentioned
Speaker 1: the incident. Can hear it on the audio to one
Speaker 1: of the officers.
Speaker 2: Can you imagine? I can't. Can you imagine that you're
Speaker 2: this father, You're getting pulled over and you're basically saying, wow,
Speaker 2: I feel for you. Officers. A lot going on back there.
Speaker 2: You're in a white a Landra and you're allegedly driving
Speaker 2: the accused to be. But the police just happened to
Speaker 2: pull the Coburger father son duo in this white car
Speaker 2: driving across country. What are the odds that they get
Speaker 2: pulled over two different times? That's been reported about so
Speaker 2: many different ways here included. We were under the impression
Speaker 2: because that's what we were told. We had early reported
Speaker 2: that that was a very choreographed event that Brian Coberg
Speaker 2: was being pulled over because the police were looking to
Speaker 2: see if he had slashes on his hand, And now
Speaker 2: we're hearing that that might not have been the case,
Speaker 2: that it was just a really bad day behind the wheel.
Speaker 1: It seems like it really was artis this is to
Speaker 1: swallow coincidence. It has since come to bear and hold on.
Speaker 1: I have actually from the report here. The FBI has
Speaker 1: maintained its agents were not involved in the stops, and
Speaker 1: also the Sheriff's office in Indiana, who actually did the stops,
Speaker 1: also have said publicly that this had nothing to do
Speaker 1: with the murders whatsoever. It was a separate drug interdiction check. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's been confirmed by both the agencies that the FBI
Speaker 1: did not call for those stops.
Speaker 3: They did not know what was going to happen. It
Speaker 3: was literally coincidence.
Speaker 2: And it was coincidence that on the same day that
Speaker 2: Dad and son depart on their cross country escapade of
Speaker 2: a trip, that there is also a hostage situation that
Speaker 2: a nearby neighbor is shot down by authorities because he's
Speaker 2: holding his roommate hostage, was suffering from mental illness, and
Speaker 2: has many many layers to this story.
Speaker 1: All officials have said there is no connection, and in fact,
Speaker 1: this is a really it's a good example of a
Speaker 1: horrible thing which is when people do make connections because
Speaker 1: of circumstance or because of coincidence when indeed there isn't
Speaker 1: And actually Coopaka's family has spoken out, as have his
Speaker 1: good friends, you know, saying that the speculation of his
Speaker 1: involvement with the murders has marred his name.
Speaker 3: And he was a vet, he earned a purple heart.
Speaker 1: And it's just a tragedy in and of itself, and
Speaker 1: it's a further tragedy of what can happen when people
Speaker 1: are linked, whether in the news or via social media,
Speaker 1: without factual merit.
Speaker 3: Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
Speaker 3: a moment.
Speaker 5: This is from Marcella via Instagram. Do you think if
Speaker 5: Brian had left his phone at home he would have
Speaker 5: been arrested? Could the DNA and surveillance of his vehicle
Speaker 5: have been enough?
Speaker 2: Court, you got to take this one. This is a
Speaker 2: rabbit hole that I may never get out of. It's
Speaker 2: an excellent question, and it's.
Speaker 1: A much debated question, and it's ultimately an opinion. Right,
Speaker 1: So the DNA, and this is just my opinion. The
Speaker 1: DNA is what tied Coberger to this investigation by his
Speaker 1: name through his father. Once the DNA on the knife
Speaker 1: sheath was found, and according to court documents, Coburger's DNA
Speaker 1: is at least five point three seven octillion times more
Speaker 1: likely to match DNA found at the scene than a
Speaker 1: person unrelated to Coburger's father. So those are pretty strong
Speaker 1: odds to overcome.
Speaker 2: Those numbers are shocking, of course, and we read that
Speaker 2: for the first time it was like, Oh, I guess
Speaker 2: this guy did it. However, listen, some of this stuff
Speaker 2: can be explained away. I know we covered this at
Speaker 2: some point this season, But imagine that you're a knife
Speaker 2: enthusiast when you go to these like a convention for
Speaker 2: people who are fishermen and hunters, and there's a lot
Speaker 2: of knives for sale there, and they're on display, and
Speaker 2: you might be looking at the various knives for purchase,
Speaker 2: and yeah, you want to pick it up, maybe handle
Speaker 2: it a little bit, and in doing so, hey, guess what,
Speaker 2: It's possible that a droplet of your DNA is now
Speaker 2: under the sheath of that knife. And now you put
Speaker 2: it back down, and this person goes about their merry way,
Speaker 2: and that knife eventually gets sold to someone and it
Speaker 2: winds up at a murder scene. That could be the connection.
Speaker 2: It's such a small amount on the other side of it.
Speaker 2: That is no question that the DNA that is found
Speaker 2: on that she is connected to the accused Brian Coburger.
Speaker 2: That's pretty damning.
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, I think these are all points that
Speaker 1: will be brought up by the defense if I had
Speaker 1: to guess, because you.
Speaker 3: Know they are valid.
Speaker 1: But yeah, just to simply answer your question, Marcella, yeah,
Speaker 1: I do. I do think that and the surveillance of
Speaker 1: his vehicle would have been enough. Because the last thing
Speaker 1: I will say on this, because you said, you know
Speaker 1: what if we took the cell phone pings out of it,
Speaker 1: keep in mind that during the time of the murders,
Speaker 1: as we understand it, there was no reporting to the
Speaker 1: network from Coburger's phone. His phone was turned off or
Speaker 1: was somehow unavailable, whether it was under a rock or somehow.
Speaker 1: It stopped pinging off of any cell phone towers at
Speaker 1: two forty seven am, and then it did not go
Speaker 1: back to being received by cell phone towers until four
Speaker 1: forty eight. So in a way, there are no pings
Speaker 1: at that time.
Speaker 2: What a coincidence, right, That would be hard to throw
Speaker 2: under the coincidence box. I mean, I guess that's what
Speaker 2: is so interesting about this case. Yes, while some of
Speaker 2: these pieces of the puzzle do in fact seem circumstantial
Speaker 2: when when looked at individually, I guess that's the whole point,
Speaker 2: right You dump them all in a bag and you're like,
Speaker 2: that's a lot of circumstantial evidence in one bag.
Speaker 5: We do have a follow up question from Marcella. She
Speaker 5: unfortunately couldn't join us today, but her follow up question is,
Speaker 5: I believe the killer was watching the house before he entered.
Speaker 5: Do you think he entered the house after the food
Speaker 5: was delivered in hopes that they would pin it on
Speaker 5: the food delivery driver.
Speaker 2: Great question, by the way, I mean we have discussed this,
Speaker 2: we really have. The difference is though here you would
Speaker 2: have to be predicting that food would be ordered and
Speaker 2: therefore delivered at a certain time to ping it on
Speaker 2: the guy, unless they always received food at the same time,
Speaker 2: which is not untotally unheard of. I would imagine in
Speaker 2: a college party house when you're out kind of late,
Speaker 2: but it's sort of a leap. That would be a
Speaker 2: lot of premeditation. Or maybe the person who committed this
Speaker 2: crime just went forward after they saw there was somebody
Speaker 2: exiting and entering the house.
Speaker 5: And next up is another listener question. Here's Maya from Colorado.
Speaker 7: So my question is, like, let's say they ordered it
Speaker 7: from Uber Eats. If he is an Uber Eats driver,
Speaker 7: which I don't know what if he is, he would
Speaker 7: get a notification that at that address they ordered food,
Speaker 7: so he could be aware that they ordered food and
Speaker 7: that it was going to be arriving at so and
Speaker 7: so time.
Speaker 1: It seems like for that to be the case, then
Speaker 1: the murderer is would then have to themselves be a driver.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 1: I love that question, but I think that actually goes
Speaker 1: back to the fact that there was in Coberger's case,
Speaker 1: his phone was unresponsive to any cell phone towers. So
Speaker 1: actually I think that because of that reason that that
Speaker 1: couldn't be the case.
Speaker 5: David from Massachusetts asks via email, do you think the
Speaker 5: accused committed the murders that night knowing that he was
Speaker 5: going home for Thanksgiving and had a reason to make
Speaker 5: a cross country road trip, thinking that might be enough
Speaker 5: to make the police look a different direction.
Speaker 1: This goes to knowing what's in someone's mind, which I
Speaker 1: do not, but the thought of knowing that fairly soon
Speaker 1: after a crime is committed, you will have three thousand
Speaker 1: miles worth of distance between yourself and the crime scene.
Speaker 1: That certainly could be something that comes into play, especially
Speaker 1: the alleged is a criminology student.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm going out on a limb here, so to
Speaker 2: take this with a grain of nothingness, But yes, of
Speaker 2: course he was going home for the holidays, and that
Speaker 2: there would be a break, and that that was a
Speaker 2: kind of a nice way to exit the worst situation ever.
Speaker 2: I always thought it was slightly interesting that his birthday
Speaker 2: is a week later than the murders, so he would
Speaker 2: be turning twenty nine in one week. So you commit
Speaker 2: a murder of four, hop in a car with your dad,
Speaker 2: drive across country, get pulled over twice, and then go
Speaker 2: home to your mom, who's cooking for you and maybe
Speaker 2: preparing for your birthday celebration as you're oddly unpacking any
Speaker 2: evidence from your car allegedly and putting things into baggies
Speaker 2: because you're wearing plastic gloves. I don't know. It's just
Speaker 2: so wild it seems impossible, but or does it.
Speaker 5: It's a follow up question, why did he coburger let
Speaker 5: one roommate live after she had seen him? And the
Speaker 5: murders were so violent and seemed so personal that the
Speaker 5: accused doesn't really have any connection to the victims. Why
Speaker 5: do you think that he made them look so violent?
Speaker 2: Well, I think I'm going to jump in real quickly
Speaker 2: here because I think this is the cross section of
Speaker 2: this entire case, and what is so compelling and maddening
Speaker 2: about it is, yes, it feels so intimate, but yes,
Speaker 2: there's no connection. And I guess that's the real look
Speaker 2: at where we live today with social media is making
Speaker 2: us feel so connected, not just social media. That's not
Speaker 2: an attack on all things media obviously, but just we're
Speaker 2: all really connected to people that we actually don't really
Speaker 2: have access to. And you know, we can look at
Speaker 2: that till we're blue in the face. But I think
Speaker 2: that's probably what's the big stunner of this case is that, yeah,
Speaker 2: these weren't people that necessarily even interface, not even once necessarily,
Speaker 2: but probably had some cross section on their phones.
Speaker 1: It's staggering, And I think you're right, Stephanie, so David
Speaker 1: from a situate, you have your finger on the pulse
Speaker 1: of what is so compelled at the center of this case.
Speaker 1: And it's so hard to imagine why whomever committed these
Speaker 1: murders allowed an eyewitness and an ear witness to remain.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Thank god they did right, Thank god they did underscore
Speaker 2: exclamation point in bold letters, shout it from the rooftop.
Speaker 2: Thank goodness, the remaining roommates were spared. It's a stunner,
Speaker 2: right to.
Speaker 1: Your point, David, that the lack of connection that both
Speaker 1: the prosecution and the defense have stipulated for the court
Speaker 1: record that previously it had been thought that there was
Speaker 1: some stalking personally of the victims, and they have both
Speaker 1: agreed that that was not the case. So yeah, we
Speaker 1: will see this all come to bear. Let's stop here
Speaker 1: for another break. We'll be back in a moment.
Speaker 3: We have waded from Baltimore calling in, Hello, Wade. I
Speaker 3: was wondering if you all feel that the house demolition
Speaker 3: may alter the verdict.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if I'm guilty, I want that house demolished.
Speaker 1: But if you're not guilty, wouldn't you also potentially want
Speaker 1: it there for any shred of evidence that could be
Speaker 1: found to exonerate you and to then implicate the person
Speaker 1: who actually did it.
Speaker 2: Yes, if I'm guilty, I want it gone because there's
Speaker 2: no evidence to be had. But if I'm not guilty,
Speaker 2: of course, yes, You're absolutely right. You want to be
Speaker 2: able to make sure that there could be some proof
Speaker 2: and some new evidence discovered.
Speaker 3: To specifically answer this.
Speaker 1: Wead I felt different after speaking with a bunch of
Speaker 1: art different experts and hearing their points of view, because
Speaker 1: my knee jerk goes that, Okay, this has been gone over.
Speaker 1: It has been gone over thoroughly, and there are three
Speaker 1: D pictures and every bit of evidence has been gathered.
Speaker 1: What on the off chance that it has not, and
Speaker 1: that could be the one piece that seals the fate
Speaker 1: of the case either way. So yeah, I think it
Speaker 1: could be affected by the demolition. Over the course of
Speaker 1: the season, we've gotten a lot of listener questions and
Speaker 1: we appreciate all of them. And I will say one
Speaker 1: of the most commented on episodes was about Howard Bloom's
Speaker 1: book When the Night Comes Falling, and the questions are
Speaker 1: all valid, all of them are, and it was a
Speaker 1: little bit controversial. People had different perspectives they walked away
Speaker 1: from the episode with.
Speaker 3: And I think our answer is, of course, we.
Speaker 1: Were going to interview the person who comes out with
Speaker 1: the book that's on the topic of what we're discussing.
Speaker 1: It would have been odd for us, honestly, not to
Speaker 1: is it. You know, it's a big moment in time
Speaker 1: for the case, and we want to glean from all
Speaker 1: perspectives and let all different avenues of information flow into
Speaker 1: us and out to you. So that's the main thing
Speaker 1: I would say about it is it was a It
Speaker 1: was a touch point in this timeline, and we thought
Speaker 1: it was important to note it.
Speaker 5: Sheila, via email has asked, I wonder if Brian Koberger
Speaker 5: is listening to you. It ennerves me a bit. Have
Speaker 5: you ever thought about that?
Speaker 1: Well, now that unnerves me a bit too, because until
Speaker 1: this moment I have not what a question.
Speaker 2: I mean, think about it.
Speaker 4: Though.
Speaker 2: This guy is by himself in a cell in the
Speaker 2: basement of the courthouse with probably not too too much
Speaker 2: going on. It's been reported that he watches the news
Speaker 2: through the bars of his cell and that he is
Speaker 2: interested in the coverage. No, I don't like it, but
Speaker 2: I will say this if they accused Brian Coburger, if
Speaker 2: he has a burning listener question, we would like to
Speaker 2: hear it.
Speaker 5: Last question, since it's the end of the season, is
Speaker 5: there anything else you guys want to say? Any last
Speaker 5: thoughts for the listeners?
Speaker 2: I would say, sometimes our contributors become a part of
Speaker 2: the headlines themselves because what they're reporting on catches wind
Speaker 2: in the media. And it's worth noting that we get
Speaker 2: every single thing legally vetted by First Amendment right lawyers,
Speaker 2: So we have to take a lot of stuff out.
Speaker 2: You'd be shocked about all the things that we can air,
Speaker 2: because look, we don't want to accuse anybody of murder.
Speaker 2: We don't want to interrupt a police investigation, and we
Speaker 2: don't want to get it wrong. So the spirit of
Speaker 2: this has been to curate information because there's been so
Speaker 2: much misinformation. The big ticket items, not only this season,
Speaker 2: but just seemingly in the case in general, is the
Speaker 2: vehicle and then the fact that he's not IDD in
Speaker 2: the vehicle DNA evidence. Hard to explain that away, except
Speaker 2: it's so little DNA evidence. Does that make that hard
Speaker 2: to stick? And then there's odd, creepy, weird behavior. We've
Speaker 2: heard all of those words. Those are not our words.
Speaker 2: That's what we've been told. Does having an odd personality
Speaker 2: make you a killer? Of course not. We really just
Speaker 2: do not know. And I think the roommates, the first responders,
Speaker 2: the friends that had to call nine to one one.
Speaker 2: Those are big pieces of the puzzle, and we just
Speaker 2: don't have the answers, and we respect their privacy, and
Speaker 2: we know quite obviously why authorities are keeping that information
Speaker 2: very close to the vest they have to. There's been
Speaker 2: so much back and forth about sharing of evidence in
Speaker 2: the defense saying that the prosecution is holding back evidence,
Speaker 2: and you know, look, we just saw that not too
Speaker 2: too long ago with the Alec Baldwin trial. Suddenly it
Speaker 2: appeared that the prosecution was holding onto something that was
Speaker 2: really relevant. Again, different cases. I'm not making any comparison
Speaker 2: and just simply this evidence piece of it, right, It's
Speaker 2: kind of an interesting nuance to this whole thing. And
Speaker 2: I think that's what's also really both scary and really
Speaker 2: interesting about this case. We've talked to so many people.
Speaker 2: When you're in front of one person, you're like, that
Speaker 2: totally makes sense, and then the next person's like, well,
Speaker 2: Devil's advocate, and I'm like, good point, that makes sense,
Speaker 2: Like there's a three sixty about good points. So I
Speaker 2: guess it depends where you really want to throw your
Speaker 2: heart into it. But our hearts are not the thing
Speaker 2: that are supposed to keep the justice wheel moving it's
Speaker 2: supposed to be facts, and in this case it's it's
Speaker 2: pretty plentiful on both sides. I'm more confused than ever.
Speaker 1: I think part of our collective goal in this season
Speaker 1: of the podcast was, it's a very specific moment time.
Speaker 1: The arrest has been made of the one suspect in
Speaker 1: the case that happened a while ago. The trial has
Speaker 1: not yet begun, However, there has been so much, so
Speaker 1: many facts, so many feelings, and we wanted to kind
Speaker 1: of give that three p sixty view of what are
Speaker 1: the touchstones of what's going on now, what is the
Speaker 1: importance of these pre trial motions, and so it was really,
Speaker 1: I think for us, a really specific look at a
Speaker 1: specific moment in time and to try and responsibly gather
Speaker 1: and present to you the information that exists to the
Speaker 1: best of our ability. The trial is slated to happen
Speaker 1: next summer, that summer twenty twenty five, and we will
Speaker 1: be keeping very close tabs on everything going on in
Speaker 1: the meantime. As new information arises, we will be back
Speaker 1: with new episodes and greatly look forward to the time.
Speaker 2: And also to listeners who have reached out with information
Speaker 2: and tips so interesting and helpful and we really do
Speaker 2: try to address all of them, so please keep it coming.
Speaker 2: And I want to make sure that we touch on
Speaker 2: the point that because oftentimes we're always talking about the
Speaker 2: case and the forensics and unpacking the legal process and
Speaker 2: looking at jurisdictions, and our goal is to unpack and
Speaker 2: offer all sides, and sometimes we could lose the reality
Speaker 2: of the four victims that we're talking about and Xanna, Madison,
Speaker 2: Ethan and Kayley. We just really want to make sure
Speaker 2: that anybody listening ourselves included, that we're all taking a
Speaker 2: moment to send healing thoughts to their families and to
Speaker 2: know that we are fighting with them alongside in our hearts,
Speaker 2: and that the goal to find justice is one that
Speaker 2: we all share. To make sure that everyone knows that collectively,
Speaker 2: we're all interested in them and want them to feel supported.
Speaker 1: For more information on the case and relevant photos, follow
Speaker 1: us on Instagram at Kat Underscore Studios. The Idaho Masker
Speaker 1: is produced by Stephanie Leideger, Gabriel Castillo, and me Courtney Armstrong.
Speaker 1: Editing and sound design by Jeff Trois, music by Jared Aston.
Speaker 1: The Idaho Masker is a production of Kat's Studios and iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts like this, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.