Speaker 1: Big breaking news out of Idaho involving the death penalty
Speaker 1: and the man.
Speaker 2: Accused of murdering for University of Idaho students.
Speaker 3: Prosecutors say they will pursue the death penalty for Brian Coberger.
Speaker 2: This is the Idaho Massacre, a production of KT Studios
Speaker 2: and iHeartRadio episode nine, Life or Death. I'm Courtney Armstrong,
Speaker 2: a television producer at KT Studios, with Stephanie Leidecker, Jeff Shane,
Speaker 2: and Connor Powell. With less than three weeks before the
Speaker 2: legal deadline to decide whether or not to seek the
Speaker 2: death penalty, prosecutors announced on June twenty sixth they would
Speaker 2: recommend the maximum sentence for Brian Coberger.
Speaker 4: Calling him a continuing threat to society.
Speaker 2: Under Idaho law, prosecutors have sixty days to formally notify
Speaker 2: a defendant after they enter their plea if the state
Speaker 2: plans to pursue the death penalty. In a short to
Speaker 2: the point three page court filing, Leida County Prosecutor Bill
Speaker 2: Thompson wrote that based on the known information, there were
Speaker 2: no mitigating circumstances preventing prosecutors from pursuing the death penalty.
Speaker 2: He also cited a number of quote aggravating circumstances in
Speaker 2: the brutal slayings as reasons his office was seeking the
Speaker 2: death penalty for the former criminology student.
Speaker 1: The Leytaw County prosecutor says the murder of four University
Speaker 1: of Idaho students was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting
Speaker 1: exceptional depravity.
Speaker 2: Thompson noted that Coberger acted with reckless indifference to human
Speaker 2: life and that the November twenty twenty two murders of
Speaker 2: Keighley Gonsalvez and Mogen Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin were
Speaker 2: carried out during another crime like burglary. The decision was
Speaker 2: months in the making, but also left the families of
Speaker 2: the victims divided. Under a new Idaho law, Brian Coberger
Speaker 2: could be executed by firing squad if he is convicted.
Speaker 2: In twenty twenty three, Idaho became the fifth state to
Speaker 2: adopt execution by firing squad as an alternative to lethal injection.
Speaker 2: It was to be expected, giving what he is accused
Speaker 2: of doing. The prosecution's decision to seek the death penalty
Speaker 2: for Coburger was not a surprise, but it did raise
Speaker 2: the stakes of the upcoming trial, and the move triggered
Speaker 2: a series of many legal maneuvers by both the defense
Speaker 2: and prosecution ahead of a pivotal motions hearing on the
Speaker 2: next day. In the weeks leading up to Leeda County
Speaker 2: Prosecutor Bill Thompson's decision to pursue the death penalty for
Speaker 2: Brian Coburger, prosecutors turned over a mountain of evidence to
Speaker 2: the twenty eight year old's defense team as part of
Speaker 2: the legally required discovery period. Among the boxes of evidence
Speaker 2: were thousands of pages of reports and other written material,
Speaker 2: ten thousand, two hundred photographs, nine thousand, two hundred tips
Speaker 2: that were delivered to investigators, and fifty one terabytes of audio,
Speaker 2: visual media, and digital materials. As the state pushed their
Speaker 2: case forward against Brian Coberger, the twenty eight year old's
Speaker 2: lawyer began to lay out their defense strategy ahead of
Speaker 2: the key June twenty seventh hearing.
Speaker 1: They are not conceding anything here and will fight every
Speaker 1: piece of evidence.
Speaker 2: In recent days, Coburger added two new members to his
Speaker 2: defense team, Attorney Stephen Mercer of Maryland and Bicka Barlow
Speaker 2: of California. Both are experienced defense lawyers and experts in
Speaker 2: criminal cases involving DNA evidence, particularly the use of the
Speaker 2: new DNA field of investigative genetic genealogy. Led by Coberger's
Speaker 2: chief counsel, Anne Taylor and her deputy Jay Logston, the
Speaker 2: new team immediately began to attack that prosecution's case. These
Speaker 2: new court filings offered a preview of a brewing legal
Speaker 2: battle over DNA evidence between the defense and the prosecution.
Speaker 5: In new court documents, Coberger's attorney accusing the state of
Speaker 5: hiding its entire case.
Speaker 2: Defense attorney Jay Logsen tore into the prosecution's case, saying
Speaker 2: there was no evidence of connection between Brian Coberger and
Speaker 2: the four victims. He argued that there is quote no
Speaker 2: explanation for the total lack of DNA evidence from the
Speaker 2: victims in Coberger's apartment, office, home, or vehicle building. Upon
Speaker 2: that argument, the defense also demanded investigators provide information about
Speaker 2: three other male DNA samples that were discovered at the
Speaker 2: murder scene. Here's Jeff and Stephanie.
Speaker 6: According to Coberger's defense, by December seventeenth, about one month
Speaker 6: after the murders, lab technicians had isolated three other male
Speaker 6: DNA samples, two of which came from inside the house
Speaker 6: and a third pull from a black glove that was
Speaker 6: found outside the home a week after the murders. But
Speaker 6: get this, police investigators didn't originally find that glove. It
Speaker 6: was found by a podcaster and a retired homicide detective
Speaker 6: who was just sort of poking around. He saw the
Speaker 6: glove nestled among some leaves and branches on the ground
Speaker 6: behind a trash can near the home on King Road.
Speaker 6: He then told police about it, and they photographed the
Speaker 6: glove before collecting it for lab tests.
Speaker 7: How is that possible? Now, Again, no one really knows
Speaker 7: when that glove first appeared or if it had any
Speaker 7: connection to the murders.
Speaker 6: To me, the big question is what type of glove
Speaker 6: is it. It was in the thirties the night of
Speaker 6: the murder, so people very likely would have been wearing
Speaker 6: winter gloves. But if it's a latex glove, that tells
Speaker 6: a different story. And while we don't know what type
Speaker 6: of glove it was or if it was even connected
Speaker 6: to the crimes, we do know that investigators found male
Speaker 6: DNA inside of it.
Speaker 7: Now, what the defense wants to know is what type
Speaker 7: of testing was conducted on that glove, as well as
Speaker 7: the other two samples.
Speaker 6: Ran short tandem repeat or STR DNA on the three samples.
Speaker 7: But the defense is wondering if there were any other
Speaker 7: DNA tests that were run, because look, when the information
Speaker 7: from the str DNA test was actually submitted to the
Speaker 7: FBI database, no male DNA profiles were identified.
Speaker 6: So stuff to break that down. What we know is
Speaker 6: three men's DNA was connected to these samples, but we
Speaker 6: don't know who they are and if they have any
Speaker 6: connection to the crime.
Speaker 7: And it doesn't appear investigators tried to do a genetic
Speaker 7: genealogy DNA test to identify them in the same way
Speaker 7: that they did for Brian Coburger.
Speaker 2: In addition to requesting information about the three unidentified male
Speaker 2: DNA samples, the defense also challenged the prosecution's use of
Speaker 2: investigative genetic genealogy to initially identify Brian Coburger from the
Speaker 2: DNA on the knife sheath. Coburger's lawyer suggested the prosecution
Speaker 2: is purposely withholding details of the genetic genealogy research, saying
Speaker 2: in a court filing, a massive investigation came to focus
Speaker 2: on Coburger and Coburger alone. The state appears to be
Speaker 2: trying to hide its original domino, such as he cannot
Speaker 2: discover why. It is not uncommon for defense lawyers to
Speaker 2: challenge the use of new and emerging technology like investigative
Speaker 2: genetic genealogy, and Coberger's defense team has demanded access to
Speaker 2: all of the FBI genetic genealogy data used to tie
Speaker 2: Coburger to the crime against Stephanie and Jeff and Now.
Speaker 7: Remember when Idaho investigators first found the DNA on the
Speaker 7: knife sheath, they ran it through the Combined DNA Index
Speaker 7: System database.
Speaker 6: However, this person's DNA was not actually in the CODIS
Speaker 6: database and investigators were unable to identify the individual, but
Speaker 6: they didn't give up. The FBI jumped in to help
Speaker 6: and use a rare, controversial DNA technique called investigative genetic
Speaker 6: genealogy we talked about Traditionally, it's really only used in
Speaker 6: cold cases. Most famously, it was used to capture the
Speaker 6: Golden State killer Joseph DiAngelo in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 7: It's actually rarely used in active investigations because some states
Speaker 7: have laws discouraging it, and many public genealogy companies, for example,
Speaker 7: like ancestry dot com, they prohibit law enforcement from using
Speaker 7: their databases for investigations, but in this case, the FBI
Speaker 7: took the DNA sequence data from that knife sheath sample
Speaker 7: to a private testing facility in Texas called authorm, who
Speaker 7: then utilized public genealogy websites to identify Coburger's family tree.
Speaker 6: However, despite the defense's request, the prosecution is saying that
Speaker 6: Coburger and his defense team have no right to the
Speaker 6: FBI data and the paperwork from this process.
Speaker 8: Is who become a DNA case. That's what it's going
Speaker 8: to be all about. The spushy eyebrow identifications going nowhere.
Speaker 8: But it's a battle of experts. So usually the government
Speaker 8: has a lot of money, much more than a public
Speaker 8: defender's office. So one of the problems for the defense
Speaker 8: is going to be to get enough money to hire
Speaker 8: the appropriate experts to deal with this issue of DNA,
Speaker 8: because that's really what it's going to come down to.
Speaker 8: And I also believe that there are some serious problems
Speaker 8: in terms of the way this thing was handled, in
Speaker 8: terms of sending it out. I mean, I was shocked,
Speaker 8: truthfully to see that.
Speaker 2: Stephen Greenberg is a legal expert and former federal US attorney.
Speaker 2: He spoke with Stephanie and Jeff Colberger's defense team believes
Speaker 2: the FBI's handling of the investigative genetic genealogy data is
Speaker 2: crucial evidence and could be exculpatory.
Speaker 8: Exculpatory evidence means exactly what it sounds like. It's exculpatory
Speaker 8: to the defendant. The Supreme Court a number of years
Speaker 8: ago decided a case called the United States versus Brady
Speaker 8: A long time ago. So this besides lawyers call it
Speaker 8: Brady material, And what it means is prosecution that has
Speaker 8: and its possession anything that in any way is helpful
Speaker 8: of defense. It must be turned over, and if they
Speaker 8: don't turn it over, it could be the end of
Speaker 8: the case for them. Many times there's been a guilty
Speaker 8: verdict and then an appeal it turned out that there
Speaker 8: was Brady information or exculpatory information that wasn't turned over
Speaker 8: and the guilty verdict was vacated.
Speaker 6: Is there a time when that window closes or is
Speaker 6: it every moment up until the verdict is read.
Speaker 8: In terms of when they have to turn it over, Yeah,
Speaker 8: never ceases. Even if during the trial, let's say something
Speaker 8: came up that all of a sudden landed in the
Speaker 8: lap of the prosecution and it was helpful of defense.
Speaker 8: It has to turn it over. It's a constant obligation
Speaker 8: that the prosecution has.
Speaker 2: Using genetic genealogy to identify a suspect is a painstaking
Speaker 2: process and requires skilled researchers and analysts to put the
Speaker 2: complicated puzzle together. During the process, it can also identify
Speaker 2: a huge number of people connected to a potential suspect.
Speaker 2: Stephanie and Jeff.
Speaker 6: How exactly does DNA work. Each person's DNA comes from
Speaker 6: roughly fifty percent of their parents and twenty five percent
Speaker 6: of their grandparents, and with each generation you go back,
Speaker 6: the genetic similarities are reduced a quarter, meaning you share
Speaker 6: about twelve point five percent of your DNA with your
Speaker 6: first cousins and three point one two five percent with
Speaker 6: your second cousins, and actually less than one percent with
Speaker 6: your third cousins. In most public genealogy databases, it's pretty
Speaker 6: easy to find third or second cousin matches because the
Speaker 6: bar is so low. That's why you see headlines where
Speaker 6: celebrities say they're related to famous dead presidents.
Speaker 7: But in this case, to narrow it down to a
Speaker 7: specific person, genetic genealogists at Authorm that's the testing company
Speaker 7: we were talking about, and the FBI had to do
Speaker 7: a lot of digging through birth certificates and other genealogy
Speaker 7: information to build the tree. And this is the important
Speaker 7: part for the defense because they want to know the
Speaker 7: process from start to finish.
Speaker 6: Yeah, Steph. What they're saying is that if all this
Speaker 6: painstaking work was done, there should be a long paper
Speaker 6: trail of how this research was executed, and you would
Speaker 6: think AUTHRAM or the FBI would have logged it somewhere, But.
Speaker 2: The prosecution has so far refused to provide the data
Speaker 2: to Coburger's defense team, with the prosecution insisting they don't
Speaker 2: have it. The prosecution also says they won't use this
Speaker 2: information at Coburger's trial because they want to protect the
Speaker 2: names and personal information of hundreds of innocent relatives on
Speaker 2: Coburger's family tree and the names of the publicly available
Speaker 2: genetic genealogy services used. The question is does the FBI
Speaker 2: and AUTHROM have the records the defense wants, were any
Speaker 2: of the records kept or has all of it been destroyed? Regardless,
Speaker 2: this is a potential issue for law enforcement and the
Speaker 2: prosecution's case because of the Supreme Court mandated obligation to
Speaker 2: provide all Brady evidence to a defendant, especially a defendant
Speaker 2: and a death penalty case. Here again, former federal prosecutor
Speaker 2: Stephen Greenberg.
Speaker 8: The only thing that popped out to me so far is,
Speaker 8: for some reason, when the Bureau went through all the
Speaker 8: different phases it went through in trying to match the
Speaker 8: DNA with this defendant, and they failed, and then they
Speaker 8: tried to build a tree and they sent it all over.
Speaker 8: They didn't keep records. There's no way to attack the
Speaker 8: indictment that I have seen yet other than this issue.
Speaker 8: We're talking about about exculpatory or brainy material or very
Speaker 8: simply put information that's helpful of the defense that the
Speaker 8: prosecutor has. Why they didn't download all of these things
Speaker 8: that bureau did makes no sense. If it's helpful of
Speaker 8: the defense, it has to be turned over. It will
Speaker 8: be a pre trial hearing on this issue of chain
Speaker 8: of custody and the use of DNA, and that will
Speaker 8: you know, that will be determined because if that hearing
Speaker 8: goes the way I think it might. I don't know
Speaker 8: who the judge is, I don't know what his or
Speaker 8: her particular ratings are. But if the prosecution gets whacked
Speaker 8: on this issue, then there'll be either be a play
Speaker 8: to a much lesser charge, be a dismissal. But that
Speaker 8: issue will be decided long before try.
Speaker 2: Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
Speaker 2: a moment. The prosecution is likely to counter the defense's
Speaker 2: demand for the AUTH room and FBI's research at the
Speaker 2: June twenty seventh hearing by insisting the only relevant DNA
Speaker 2: information for a trial is the buckle swab taken from
Speaker 2: Coburger's mouth when he was arrested at his parents' home
Speaker 2: and the paternal DNA sample taken from the Coburger's trash.
Speaker 2: Both of these DNA tests show an indisputable statistical match
Speaker 2: between Brian Coburger and the DNA on the knife.
Speaker 5: Sheath, the likelihood that this is Brian Coberger's DNA, and
Speaker 5: it is five point three seven octillion times more likely
Speaker 5: than not that this is a match.
Speaker 9: Jeff and Stephanie, we know the DNA profile found on
Speaker 9: the knife sheath is at least five point three seven
Speaker 9: octillion times more likely to be Brian Coburger's than someone else's.
Speaker 7: And that's a very big number.
Speaker 6: Correct. It's kind of impossibly big to wrap your head around.
Speaker 6: We're going to do our best to kind of explain
Speaker 6: it in terms that we felt was helpful. Five point
Speaker 6: three seven octilian is five point three seven followed by
Speaker 6: twenty seven zeros. And to put this number into more perspective,
Speaker 6: there are currently about eight billion people living on planet
Speaker 6: Earth right now, or eight followed by nine zeros. It's
Speaker 6: estimated that about one hundred and nine billion people have
Speaker 6: ever lived on planet Earth. And that's one hundred and
Speaker 6: nine again followed by nine zeros. A reminder, five point
Speaker 6: three seven octillions is five point three seven fall by
Speaker 6: twenty seven zeros.
Speaker 7: So that's a tremendous number, and it seems impossible that
Speaker 7: it wouldn't be Coburger. Even the defense doesn't seem to
Speaker 7: be arguing that the DNA found on the sheath was Coburgers,
Speaker 7: at least they're not doing that yet. But what they
Speaker 7: are challenging is how investigators utilize DNA to conclude that
Speaker 7: it was Coburger's DNA on the nine sheath.
Speaker 8: So in this case, the only fact so far that
Speaker 8: we know of that the prosecution has to link this
Speaker 8: particular defendant this awful crime is DNA evidence, that's it,
Speaker 8: and from what I've seen so far, that's not that solid.
Speaker 8: So you know, they'll show pictures of the gruesome slaying
Speaker 8: of these poor college kids. Defense will try to keep
Speaker 8: it out because they'll say it's too damaging, and it's
Speaker 8: and the judge will say, no, it's okay because it's relevant.
Speaker 8: That will all happen, but when push comes to CHEF,
Speaker 8: so far, we're talking about a case that hinges on
Speaker 8: d and we've all seen what preceded the taking of
Speaker 8: the final swab and the match, and I just think
Speaker 8: it's too early.
Speaker 6: You mentioned like the DNA is the big thing, because
Speaker 6: we don't have any motive. I mean, there's no connection
Speaker 6: that we know. The defense is arguing there is no connection.
Speaker 6: That's the whole point. So does that matter.
Speaker 8: The prosecution does not have to prove any motive at all.
Speaker 8: They have a motive, it will be helpful. The lack
Speaker 8: of a motive will be helpful of the defense because
Speaker 8: they will argue that there was no reason for this
Speaker 8: particular individual. He didn't know them. There's no motive, there
Speaker 8: was no fight, there was no money issue, there was
Speaker 8: no girlfriend, no boyfriend. Whatever it is, there's a doctrine
Speaker 8: called men's rea in the law, and men's rea is
Speaker 8: very important here because they had The prosecution has to
Speaker 8: prove beyond a reasonable doubt that not only did this
Speaker 8: guy take it and slash them and stab them and
Speaker 8: all this stuff, but he had an intent to do it,
Speaker 8: He had a specific intent, specific content or what they
Speaker 8: say in Latin is men's rea, and then he's guilty
Speaker 8: of murder one. But they have to prove intent. They
Speaker 8: do not have to prove motive, and then the as
Speaker 8: I said, the defense will argue, well, you know, there
Speaker 8: was no reason for him to do it, Then the
Speaker 8: motive goes on that side.
Speaker 2: One potential defense that Coberger's attorneys have yet to try
Speaker 2: to raise is a not guilty by reason of insanity defense.
Speaker 2: In many states, a defendant can claim insanity when charged
Speaker 2: with felony crimes if they show a lack of mental capacity,
Speaker 2: but Coberger's team can't make this argument. Idaho is one
Speaker 2: of only four states, along with Kansas, Montana, and Utah,
Speaker 2: that does not permit insanity as a defense. The Idaho
Speaker 2: state legislature removed it from the state's criminal code in
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty two, and passed a law saying that mental
Speaker 2: conditions shall not be a defense to any charge of
Speaker 2: criminal conduct. Stephen Greenberg says even if Idaho did provide
Speaker 2: a legal path to raise insanity as a defense, it
Speaker 2: likely wouldn't work. For Brian Coberger, this.
Speaker 8: Guy was getting a PhD in criminology. He went back
Speaker 8: to school after all this happened, right he went to class.
Speaker 8: So in order to succeed with an insanity defense, you
Speaker 8: basically have to show that the guy couldn't have had
Speaker 8: the men's rey I mentioned earlier, or the intent because
Speaker 8: he was incapable of discerning right from wrong. Okay, in
Speaker 8: some jurisdictions they call it an irresistible impulse. But the
Speaker 8: longest short of this, in Layman's terms is if charged
Speaker 8: individual was so incapable of discerning right from wrong and
Speaker 8: didn't realize in any way what he was doing because
Speaker 8: of that particular status of his mental capability, then you
Speaker 8: don't have murder one because you don't have intent. Okay,
Speaker 8: so all this kind of but I don't unless there's
Speaker 8: something I've missed, I don't see this based on the
Speaker 8: behavior of this particular defendant as an insanity defense.
Speaker 2: The mental illness may be used Idaho as a factor
Speaker 2: in sentencing. Even if the jury finds Coburger guilty and
Speaker 2: sentenced him to death, his lawyers can challenge a death
Speaker 2: penalty sentence by presenting mitigating evidence as to why Coburger
Speaker 2: should be spared execution, Meaning, if Coburger is convicted of
Speaker 2: murdering Killy Gonsalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin,
Speaker 2: then he could be spared the death penalty if he
Speaker 2: has proven to have a mental illness. Coburger's own words
Speaker 2: as a teenager about suicide, depression, and his rare eye
Speaker 2: condition visual snow may come into play in the future. However,
Speaker 2: Leida County Prosecutor Bill Thompson said in the court filing
Speaker 2: announcing his decision to seek the death penalty that the
Speaker 2: state had not seen any evidence of mitigating factors such
Speaker 2: as mental illness in Coburger or his family. Still, Coburger's
Speaker 2: lawyers could produce evidence of past mental health issues during
Speaker 2: the penalty phase if Coburger is convicted of the brutal slayings.
Speaker 4: If you're not going to pursue the death penalty on
Speaker 4: a quadruple murder, What type of case are you going
Speaker 4: to pursue the death penalty on?
Speaker 2: Before Laida County Prosecutor Bill Thompson announced his decision to
Speaker 2: pursue the death penalty for Brian Coberger, he met with
Speaker 2: the families of the four victims. While not every member
Speaker 2: of the victim's immediate family have spoken publicly, there is
Speaker 2: a divide over Thompson's decision to pursue the death penalty.
Speaker 2: Xena Kernodle's mother, Kara, has said she doesn't support the
Speaker 2: capital punishment for Brian Cobroger.
Speaker 1: I'm not interested in a death penalty. That's not that's
Speaker 1: not who I am.
Speaker 8: I don't believe in that, but I do think that
Speaker 8: he should he should spend the rest of his days
Speaker 8: in prison.
Speaker 2: In contrast, Xena Kernodle's father Jeff, said he supports the
Speaker 2: death penalty for Coburger so he.
Speaker 4: Can never replace the loved ones that are lost, but
Speaker 4: having some sort of justice case that's what the Gonzava's
Speaker 4: family wants.
Speaker 2: While Madison Mogan and Kihi Gonsalvez's parents also support the
Speaker 2: decision to pursue the death penalty for Brian Coberger. Steve
Speaker 2: Gonsalvez has been particularly vocal about his support for the
Speaker 2: death penalty, saying it is one of the reasons he
Speaker 2: moved to the state of Idaho.
Speaker 9: If you come after Mike Child, I'm going to do
Speaker 9: everything in my power to make sure that you know
Speaker 9: we come after you.
Speaker 2: Ethan Chapin's parents have not waited on the decision, even
Speaker 2: when asked. Stacy Chapin, Ethan's mother, has said she will
Speaker 2: not attend the trial and her focus is on her
Speaker 2: family and keeping Ethan's memory alive.
Speaker 3: It doesn't change the outcome, even looking at ahead at
Speaker 3: the trial coming up in October. Now, it does not
Speaker 3: change the outcome of our family. And it's energy that
Speaker 3: we need to put into healing our kids and getting
Speaker 3: back to a new family dynamic and work in on that.
Speaker 3: And so we let the prosecutors do their job and
Speaker 3: we do our job in our family.
Speaker 2: Let's stop here for another break. The split over whether
Speaker 2: or not to pursue the death penalty is not the
Speaker 2: only issue dividing the parents of Kaylee, Madison, Xana, and Ethan.
Speaker 8: Meanwhile, work crews started preparing the house where the murders
Speaker 8: happened for demolition.
Speaker 2: In February, after Coburger was arrested, the University of Idaho
Speaker 2: announced it would demolish the blood soaked house at eleven
Speaker 2: twenty two King Road. University president Scott Green called it
Speaker 2: a healing step in the wake of a crime that
Speaker 2: shook the community. The owner of the home donated it
Speaker 2: to the school, and plans were made to turn the
Speaker 2: lot into a park with a separate memorial to be
Speaker 2: built on the University of Idaho campus. But now with
Speaker 2: the trial of Brian Coburger is set to begin on
Speaker 2: October second, some of the families of the four murdered
Speaker 2: students are pressing the University of Idaho to halt its
Speaker 2: plans to demolish the three story structure. Here is the
Speaker 2: Consolvates family attorney Shannon Gray, talking to the Law and
Speaker 2: Crime Network.
Speaker 4: A big piece of evidence that potentially a jury might
Speaker 4: want to see it. I mean, there's sights and sounds
Speaker 4: and viewpoints and angles. It's an odd shaped house where
Speaker 4: witnesses were standing, where the potentially the defendant was standing.
Speaker 2: The off campus two thousand, one hundred and seventy five
Speaker 2: square foot home has sat empty ever since the brutal murders.
Speaker 2: On November thirteenth, twenty twenty two. Today it is protected
Speaker 2: by a high metal fence and its lawn is covered
Speaker 2: in weeds and tall grass. Forensic investigators finished combing through
Speaker 2: the house long ago. Both the defense and the prosecution
Speaker 2: have said they are finished with the house, which has
Speaker 2: been flooded by a surge of true crime tourists who
Speaker 2: regularly come to visit. The university and the neighbors want
Speaker 2: the house torn down before students return to school in
Speaker 2: August of twenty twenty three, but the family of Kili
Speaker 2: Gonsalvez is urging the university to wait and say that
Speaker 2: the school is ignoring their request.
Speaker 4: And we've just stressed just hold on, you know, wait
Speaker 4: till the trial is over and then then do whatever
Speaker 4: you want with the property. But they just they will
Speaker 4: not listen, and it's frustrating. But if they think that
Speaker 4: they're doing it on behalf of the community or the
Speaker 4: victim's families, it's not true.
Speaker 7: Stephanie and Jeff And in the same week that there
Speaker 7: were these legal fights over DNA evidence and the announcement
Speaker 7: from the prosecution that they were in fact going to
Speaker 7: pursue the death penalty, workmen began preparing the three story
Speaker 7: house for demolition. They removed the remaining furniture and any
Speaker 7: other personal items that were left behind after the murders,
Speaker 7: and that's the end of it. It seems so strange
Speaker 7: that they wouldn't wait until after the trial.
Speaker 6: Yeah, despite the prosecution and the defense saying they were
Speaker 6: done with the home, Kaylee's family was worried that the
Speaker 6: jury may want to see it at some point. They
Speaker 6: said publicly they wanted it left in tax so the
Speaker 6: jurors could walk around the property to better understand the
Speaker 6: events of the morning of November thirteenth. The family wants
Speaker 6: the house demolished eventually, but they're afraid that if it
Speaker 6: happens before the trial, it may hurt the prosecution of Brankoberger.
Speaker 7: However, despite their concerns, the community apparently wants it gone
Speaker 7: sooner than later. According to Shannon Gray, Kaylee's family lawyer,
Speaker 7: the university basically said that we hear you, we get
Speaker 7: your concerns, but we are in fact going to move
Speaker 7: forward with the demolition because it's good for the community.
Speaker 6: I understand the feeling of wanting the site of such
Speaker 6: a tragedy gone as soon as possible, but if even
Speaker 6: just one juror is suayed in either direction by seeing
Speaker 6: this house, then they need to leave it up. Justice
Speaker 6: is the number one goal here, and it seems shortsighted
Speaker 6: to potentially get rid of this huge part of the
Speaker 6: case forever.
Speaker 7: We've seen this happen before. In fact, in our other podcast,
Speaker 7: The piked In Massacre, we saw that the homes where
Speaker 7: those murders happened were also infamously moved into a warehouse,
Speaker 7: which caused lots of controversy. Can you imagine if they
Speaker 7: had just torn them down. It seems like they would
Speaker 7: be destroying an active crime scene. And also in that case,
Speaker 7: the jurors all went to the location of the crimes.
Speaker 7: That was a big part of the pregame to the trial.
Speaker 6: Yeah, Steh, that's a good point because as Coburger's movements
Speaker 6: on the night in question are very relevant, it stands
Speaker 6: to reason that the same sort of thing might happen
Speaker 6: for this case.
Speaker 2: The next hearing in the case of Idaho versus Brian
Speaker 2: Coburger is set for Tuesday, June twenty seventh. Many of
Speaker 2: these issues could be settled after this important hearing, but
Speaker 2: the trial could also be pushed back to provide more
Speaker 2: time to decide these issues and because Brian Coberger's life
Speaker 2: is now at stake. More on that next time. For
Speaker 2: more information on the case and relevant photos, follow us
Speaker 2: on Instagram at kat Underscore Studios. The Idaho Masacre is
Speaker 2: produced by Stephanie Leidecker, Jeff Shane, Connor Powell, Chris Bargo,
Speaker 2: Gabriel Castillo and me Courtney Armstrong. Editing and sound designed
Speaker 2: by Jeff Toi. Music by Jared Aston. The Idaho Massacre
Speaker 2: is a production of iHeart Radio and Kat's Studios. For
Speaker 2: more podcasts like this, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 2: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Speaker 10: I'm Diana, you may know as Body Movin, My Friend
Speaker 10: and I. John Green were featured in the Netflix documentary
Speaker 10: Don't f with Cats. On our new podcast, True Crimes
Speaker 10: of John and Deiana were turning our online investigative skills
Speaker 10: to some of the most unexplained, unsolved, and most ignored cases.
Speaker 2: Please say.
Speaker 6: Thirty three year old bride Again was shot dead.
Speaker 5: Gunned down in front of his two year old daughter.
Speaker 7: Detectives confirmed that it was at targeted attack.
Speaker 9: It appears to be an execution style assassination.
Speaker 2: This is very active, so we have to be careful.
Speaker 7: I've heard that there's a house that has some bodies
Speaker 7: in the basement.
Speaker 1: I knew.
Speaker 10: I just knew something was wrong.
Speaker 6: Maybe there's something more sinister at play than just one
Speaker 6: young girl going missing. If you know something, heard something,
Speaker 6: please it's never too late.
Speaker 4: To do the right thing.
Speaker 10: This is true crimes with John and Deianna, the.
Speaker 6: Production of KT Studios and iHeartRadio.
Speaker 9: Justice is something that takes different shapes or formed