Speaker 1: It's time for fun practice in your math True Crime Tuesday,
Speaker 1: the story is true true, No, it sounds made up.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Gary and Shannon present Crime. Well, we are a little
Speaker 1: bit closer to although I'm not certain we're going to
Speaker 1: get there, closer to a trial date or for the
Speaker 1: trial of Brian Coberger. This is the master's student who
Speaker 1: is now been charged with the murders of four University
Speaker 1: of Idaho students. We followed this case obviously for the
Speaker 1: last few years because it is just so incredible. There
Speaker 1: is a problem. Dateline ran an episode recently that shows
Speaker 1: some new evidence, and there is a concern that whoever
Speaker 1: leaked that evidence is going to mean that the judge
Speaker 1: disqualifies it from the trial. This is evidence about Brian
Speaker 1: Coberger's phone. Investigators said they found dozens of saved photos
Speaker 1: that featured young women from Wazoo, from Washington State University,
Speaker 1: and from the University of Idaho, many of them in
Speaker 1: their swimsuits, and several of the women that were in
Speaker 1: the pictures had some sort of close tie to the
Speaker 1: four victims in this case. Xanakernudle, Kayly Gonzalez, Madison Mogan,
Speaker 1: and Ethan chapin. That is that's what they have so far.
Speaker 1: They don't have the pictures of the four of the
Speaker 1: three women and the men the man who was killed,
Speaker 1: but that they've got he's got pictures of people connected
Speaker 1: to them. It's not clear what that necessarily means, but
Speaker 1: eyewitnesses said they saw this guy, Brian Coberger, again at
Speaker 1: a pool party in Moscow, Idaho, months before the murders.
Speaker 1: He'd made at least a dozen trips to the area
Speaker 1: surrounding the time of the crime.
Speaker 2: Now there is speculation that the judge was good exclude
Speaker 2: evidence that was shown on this dateline episode. That is
Speaker 2: not going to happen.
Speaker 1: Because the evidence, the fact that it was leak doesn't
Speaker 1: necessarily mean that the evidence is bad. Right, That is true.
Speaker 2: That is true. The judge in this case is a
Speaker 2: judge by the name of Hippler. I can't get the
Speaker 2: first name. I don't know where the first name is anyway.
Speaker 2: Judge Hippler, Stephen Stephen Hippler Hipler said in a pair
Speaker 2: of orders last week that the court's gag order was
Speaker 2: likely violated by someone who was associated with either the
Speaker 2: defense or Coburg's defense. He has ordered anyone who worked
Speaker 2: with either law enforcement prosecutors or the defense on this case,
Speaker 2: to retain all communications and data relating to the murder investigation.
Speaker 2: He went on to say in his order, the judge
Speaker 2: did such violations not only undermine the rule of law,
Speaker 2: potentially person's charge with upholding it, but also significantly impede
Speaker 2: the ability to seat an impartial jury. Now, how you
Speaker 2: would able to seat an impartial jury in this area
Speaker 2: already with all of the press media, all the time
Speaker 2: that's gone by, all the speculation, the amateur sleuths, I
Speaker 2: don't know. It's very hard in twenty twenty five to
Speaker 2: have what was once considered an impartial jury right, jury
Speaker 2: that hasn't been tainted by any information about the case. Now,
Speaker 2: he says, he is opened the judge it to appointing
Speaker 2: a special prosecutor who would investigate where the league came from,
Speaker 2: but hasn't made yet a decision.
Speaker 1: August eleventh is the as of right now, is supposed
Speaker 1: to be the first day of trial. So we'll see
Speaker 1: if this is if this throws a speed bump into
Speaker 1: all of that. One of the other aspects of this case.
Speaker 1: We talked with Howard Bloom before he's an author of
Speaker 1: a book specifically about these murders, and he has a
Speaker 1: new theory that he's working on, which is to answer
Speaker 1: the question why would he do this? Why would Brian
Speaker 1: Coburger do this? And he said, here you have a
Speaker 1: guy who had already gotten his Bachelor of Science degree
Speaker 1: in psychology, decided to continue his studies to get a
Speaker 1: master's in criminal justice, and had finally decided on forensic psychology,
Speaker 1: this science of exploring the recesses of criminal minds, and that,
Speaker 1: as luck would have it, he found an unlikely friend
Speaker 1: and champion to guide him, a professor named doctor Catherine Ramsland,
Speaker 1: a recognized authority in the psychological study of serial killers.
Speaker 1: And what Howard Bloom is suggesting is that the murders
Speaker 1: were an attempt on Brian Koeberger's behalf to impress, of course,
Speaker 1: this author, this well world renowned author and clinical forensic psychologist,
Speaker 1: to prove somehow to her that he's capable of beating
Speaker 1: the system. I'm beating the perfect crime.
Speaker 2: I can't believe we're just hearing about this because this
Speaker 2: holds water for me. This makes sense. And all of
Speaker 2: the fascinations with serial killers, all the documentaries, all the
Speaker 2: books everyone has been privy to. Serial killers absolutely have
Speaker 2: a fascination with other serial killers. It's the same thing
Speaker 2: with school shooters, same kind of mentality. And as her student,
Speaker 2: as this woman's student, during his two year course, he
Speaker 2: read the professor's seminal works including Inside the Minds of
Speaker 2: serial Killers, Why They Kill and Confessions of a serial Killer,
Speaker 2: The Untold Story of Dennis Raider, the BTK killer. So
Speaker 2: this was somebody who already had a obsessive personality, and
Speaker 2: it seems like he because there's so much that doesn't
Speaker 2: make sense about why he targeted this group of students. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you may have seen the one girl by the food truck,
Speaker 2: and there's all this thing. Was he slighted? Was he
Speaker 2: romantically slighted? Was he just upset that this was a
Speaker 2: party house he wasn't part of the party. This is
Speaker 2: what makes the most sense, based on what we know
Speaker 2: about this person's psyche, that that that's exactly what would happen,
Speaker 2: and that these students were, unfortunately for them, picked at
Speaker 2: complete random.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah,