Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. When
Speaker 1: Brian Cooberger was first arrested, we had learned that over
Speaker 1: fifty digital warrants had been served against Brian Coberger. Well,
Speaker 1: now we're learning a little bit more about those warrants
Speaker 1: and what companies they were issued to in regard to
Speaker 1: Brian Coolberger and his alleged involvement in these murders, and
Speaker 1: as far as court documents, forget it, there was a
Speaker 1: gigantic dump over the weekend that I'm going to be
Speaker 1: diving into and adding to the catalog. But they released
Speaker 1: a lot of court documents, and most of it obviously
Speaker 1: had to do with these warrants that were served and
Speaker 1: some other documents that have been filed under seal. But
Speaker 1: before we do all of that, let's dive into this
Speaker 1: article from the Daily Mail and get a little bit
Speaker 1: of an idea about what we're dealing with. Headlined, Cops
Speaker 1: investigating Idaho murder suspect Brian Coolberger had issued more than
Speaker 1: sixty warrants to major firms including Amazon, Door, Dash, Reddit,
Speaker 1: and Tinder. This article was authored by Alissa Gusman and
Speaker 1: Steven Lapour. Police have issued more than sixty warrants to
Speaker 1: companies including door Dash, Verizon, Tinder, and Reddit while investigating
Speaker 1: Idaho murder suspect Brian Coohberger. But the findings remain under
Speaker 1: lock and key, and that's to be expected. Not only
Speaker 1: would the gag order, but when you have a case
Speaker 1: of this nature, you're gonna have a lot of documents
Speaker 1: that get filed under seal, or at the very least,
Speaker 1: they're going to get filed and they're going to be redacted.
Speaker 1: But even when those files are sealed or they're redacted,
Speaker 1: it gives us an idea, at least of which way
Speaker 1: the wind is blowing. Shortly after the alleged murderer twenty
Speaker 1: eight was extradited to Idaho for the November thirteenth murders
Speaker 1: of Kailee Gonsalvez, Madison Mogan, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin,
Speaker 1: a gag order was put in place, barring attorneys, law
Speaker 1: enforcement agencies, and others associated with the case from talking
Speaker 1: or writing about it. Among the seven hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: pages of documents are warrants to more than sixty companies,
Speaker 1: including door Dash, Verizon, Reddit, Amazon, Match Group which owns Tinder,
Speaker 1: and Meta. Among others. Now, remember Metta also owns Instagram,
Speaker 1: and we've heard a lot of reports about Brian Koberger
Speaker 1: following the girls at least a couple of them on
Speaker 1: Instagram and sending them direct messages. So you could see
Speaker 1: where the metal warrant comes from for sure. Early on
Speaker 1: in the case, Internet slews claimed they found a Reddit
Speaker 1: account that made accurate predictions about the case, reportedly before
Speaker 1: the information was released publicly. He also allegedly used a
Speaker 1: Reddit account to conduct a study of criminal's decision making.
Speaker 1: And when that first happened, we talked about it right
Speaker 1: away here on the podcast. I just happened to stumble
Speaker 1: on it when we first heard his name. Obviously, you
Speaker 1: dive right in and you start looking for the digital footprint.
Speaker 1: At least for me, that's what I do whenever I
Speaker 1: hear about something like this, to try and get an
Speaker 1: idea of who we're dealing with, right And I happen
Speaker 1: to stumble on that Reddit survey, and about twenty five
Speaker 1: minutes later it was already scrubbed from Reddit. So they
Speaker 1: get to scrub and stuff real quick when we're talking
Speaker 1: about a crime like this. I mean, look how quick
Speaker 1: they had Steven Paddock, the guy that was responsible allegedly
Speaker 1: for the Las Vegas shooting. Look at how quick they
Speaker 1: had his profile scrub from the internet. You can't find
Speaker 1: anything about that dude. The documents under the gag order
Speaker 1: contain highly intimate facts or statements which would be highly
Speaker 1: objectional to a reasonable person, the judge said. The documents
Speaker 1: are also sealed due to the fact that it might
Speaker 1: threaten the safety of or endanger the life or safety
Speaker 1: of individuals. And there's always an element of that when
Speaker 1: you're dealing with a high profile case. Like I always say,
Speaker 1: the bigger the tent, the bigger the circus, So you
Speaker 1: never know what sort of lunatics are following along with
Speaker 1: the case or whatever. So the safety of witnesses is
Speaker 1: certainly something that has to be very very much respected
Speaker 1: and safeguarded. Gonsalva's family attorney, Shannon Gray, filed an appeal
Speaker 1: against the gag order earlier last month, calling it fascily
Speaker 1: over broad and vague and unconstitutional, claiming it violated their
Speaker 1: right to free speech. An attorney for one of the
Speaker 1: victim's families, I am allowed to relay to the media
Speaker 1: any of the opinion's views, their statements of those family
Speaker 1: members regarding any part of the case, Gray said. Colberger's lawyer,
Speaker 1: Public defender Ann Taylor, filed an objection to the appeal,
Speaker 1: saying it doesn't violate First Amendment rights and does not
Speaker 1: fat shall be vague. And we've seen the back and
Speaker 1: forth in the court documents with these filings and how
Speaker 1: contentious this relationship remains. Shannon Gray and the Gonsalvis family
Speaker 1: have had a very contentious relationship with the investigation since
Speaker 1: the very beginning and that remains to this day. And
Speaker 1: this gag order honestly certainly isn't helping matters as far
Speaker 1: as bridging the gap, because when you listen to the
Speaker 1: Gonsalvest family, their contention is that this is a First
Speaker 1: Amendment right and that a court in Idaho has no
Speaker 1: power to step on people's First Amendment. So that's the
Speaker 1: crux of the battle back and forth inside of the
Speaker 1: courtroom right now at the Supreme Court level in Idaho.
Speaker 1: If mister Gray truly intends only to voice his clients'
Speaker 1: thoughts and opinions, then the court's previous exemption has already
Speaker 1: cured the supposed First Amendment infirmity. Mister Gray's clients may
Speaker 1: voice these thoughts and opinions themselves, as they have clearly
Speaker 1: been doing, wrote Jay Weston Lodgson, an attorney with Taylor's office.
Speaker 1: And that's what I get from the court rulings from
Speaker 1: Megan Marshall, Judge Marshall. When you go through those court documents,
Speaker 1: it seems like the family members, the Gonsalvist family members
Speaker 1: themselves can talk about the case, but when it comes
Speaker 1: to Shannon Gray, he obviously can't because he's a lawyer.
Speaker 1: And according to the court, the prosecution, and the defense.
Speaker 1: That's why the gag order is constitutional, because Shannon Gray
Speaker 1: is held to a different standard as an officer of
Speaker 1: the court than regular people would be. Leyta County Prosecutor
Speaker 1: Bill Thompson noted that the victims' families, particularly the Gonsalvices,
Speaker 1: could take the stand. Now, the cynic in me wonders
Speaker 1: if they're saying that just to keep them quiet. Right,
Speaker 1: Let's say that the Gonsalvist family might be witnesses, so
Speaker 1: that the gag order covers that well. Because if they
Speaker 1: weren't witnesses obviously or potential witnesses, then the gag order
Speaker 1: would mean nun gods. See, the gag order doesn't mean
Speaker 1: anything to me or you, right only to people who
Speaker 1: are participating within this trial. The members of the Gonsalvas
Speaker 1: family who are represented by Gray are potential witnesses in
Speaker 1: this case, including at trial end or sentencing, he wrote
Speaker 1: in an affid David Wednesday. Thirty news organizations have also
Speaker 1: asked the Supreme Court in Idaho to overturn the gag order.
Speaker 1: The coalition of news organizations contends that it violates the
Speaker 1: right to free speech by prohibiting it from happening in
Speaker 1: the first place. Justice cannot survive behind the walls of silence.
Speaker 1: For that reason, a responsible press has always been regarded
Speaker 1: as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the
Speaker 1: criminal field. Coalition attorney Wendy Olsen wrote in the court five,
Speaker 1: quoting historic court rulings about prior restraints on free speech.
Speaker 1: And that's what we've been talking about with those court
Speaker 1: documents for the most part over the last few days,
Speaker 1: talking about Genteel versus Nevada, the Maxwell case. You know,
Speaker 1: all of that precedent that has been brought forward here
Speaker 1: to try and bolster the case of the state. When
Speaker 1: we're talking about they're intervening or on the flip side.
Speaker 1: When Shannon Gray is talking about his narrative, then obviously
Speaker 1: he's providing all kinds of precedent that go along with
Speaker 1: what he has to say as well. Then it's up
Speaker 1: to the court to decide what precedent they're going to
Speaker 1: base their ruling upon. And honestly, I think the court
Speaker 1: is going to uphold the gag order. When all is
Speaker 1: said and done, I think the Court will uphold Judge
Speaker 1: Megan Marshall's gag order and that's just going to be
Speaker 1: the end of it. Despite the public interest in the case,
Speaker 1: there have not been any notable leaks of information and
Speaker 1: that would prejudice Coburger's right to a fair trial. Olsen
Speaker 1: said the news organizations and the coalition would have published
Speaker 1: additional information about the slayings if the gag order wasn't
Speaker 1: in place. She wrote, there's no doubt if there was
Speaker 1: no gag order, then agents of the court would certainly
Speaker 1: be talking to the media one hundred percent without a doubt.
Speaker 1: For instance, police in Pennsylvania told one reporter they can't
Speaker 1: say whether they are reviewing unsolved cases that could be
Speaker 1: linked to Coburger because of the gag order, and the
Speaker 1: mayor of Moscow told another reporter he can't talk about
Speaker 1: overall community healing. That's a bunch of bs that should
Speaker 1: not be covered by a gag order. And the people
Speaker 1: who are representing the city of Moscow, elected officials and
Speaker 1: the like, they should answer that kind of stuff. What's
Speaker 1: the community feeling right now, how much money has been spent.
Speaker 1: That's the kind of stuff that shouldn't be protected under
Speaker 1: a gag order. And that's what gets people fired up.
Speaker 1: They get this gag order and they say it's about
Speaker 1: making sure that Brian Colberger gets a fair trial. And
Speaker 1: I'm on board with that. But when you try and
Speaker 1: use the vast scope of this gag order to make
Speaker 1: it so you don't have to talk to the media
Speaker 1: at all, that's a bunch of bs, and elected officials
Speaker 1: shouldn't be given that kind of cover. Several journalists have
Speaker 1: had public record requests rejected or left unfilled because agencies
Speaker 1: in Idaho and Washington fear they would run a foul
Speaker 1: of the order. Petitioners do not make the news. They
Speaker 1: report the news. They cannot report what they cannot gather.
Speaker 1: Olsen wrote Coburger was arrested December thirtieth by a swat
Speaker 1: team at his parents' home in Pennsylvania as they move
Speaker 1: to search his apartment at Washington State University. He is
Speaker 1: previously indicated that he believes he will be exonerated, though
Speaker 1: his family is unable to pay for him to have
Speaker 1: private representation. Coburger is yet to enter a plea for
Speaker 1: the murders of Matti Mogan, Kaylee Gonsalves, Xana Kernodle, and
Speaker 1: Ethan Chapin. Authorities released the probable cause affid David after
Speaker 1: Coburger just before his first hearing in Moscow in Idaho
Speaker 1: on January fifth. It reveals how he turned his phone
Speaker 1: off on the night of the murders in an alleged
Speaker 1: attempt to cover his tracks. He is even alleged to
Speaker 1: have returned to the scene of the crime at nine
Speaker 1: am on November thirteenth, just hours after police believe he
Speaker 1: committed the quadruple murder. The documents say the criminal justice
Speaker 1: graduate stalked the property at least twelve times. Officials have
Speaker 1: not yet revealed the exact dates they believe he canvassed
Speaker 1: the three story property, but confirmed that in August he
Speaker 1: was pulled over just two minutes after leaving the area
Speaker 1: covered by the cell phone tower closest to the home,
Speaker 1: And all of this stuff is going to be damning.
Speaker 1: And I can't wait for the trial portion to start
Speaker 1: so that all of these loud mouths out here that
Speaker 1: think Brian Coburger is innocent and that all of this
Speaker 1: evidence is circumstantial can get themselves a nice fat helping
Speaker 1: of CROTI eat, because the more I learn about this case,
Speaker 1: the more court documents I read, the more I'm convinced
Speaker 1: that Brian Coburger is guilty. A Lata County Sheriff's deputy
Speaker 1: pulled him over on August twenty first at eleven thirty
Speaker 1: seven pm as part of a traffic stop in which
Speaker 1: he provided his number during the stop, which was recorded
Speaker 1: on the officer's body cam Coberger was driving his white
Speaker 1: Hondai Alantra. The papers also included details on how Coburger's
Speaker 1: DNA was found on a knife sheath close to the
Speaker 1: bodies of Matty Mogan and Kaylee Gonsalves. Authorities are still
Speaker 1: hunting for the murder weapon. And here are a few
Speaker 1: of the companies that were listed. And obviously we're going
Speaker 1: to dive in and go through all of the warrants
Speaker 1: as far as the court documents, and we're going to
Speaker 1: start that later on today. But here are a few
Speaker 1: of those companies that got served with warrants. Amazon, American Express, Apple,
Speaker 1: AT and T, Bank of America, Banner Bank and Spokane
Speaker 1: Washington Block Incorporated formerly Square Incorporated, Blue Ridge Knives in Marion, Virginia,
Speaker 1: Charter Communications, Cloud networking Company, Extreme Networks, Cordelaine Police Department,
Speaker 1: Forensic Lab, Discover Bank, DoorDash, eBay Elon Financial Services, Google, Idaho,
Speaker 1: Central Credit Union, Idaho Department of Labor Inland, Cellular, Kbar, Knives,
Speaker 1: Match Group, LLC, Metal Platforms, Facebook's parent company, Moscow Police Department,
Speaker 1: Forensic Lab, Nu America, Credit Union, PayPal, Venmo, Potlock, Number One,
Speaker 1: Financial Credit Union, Reddit, Snapchat, Umpaqua Bank, Umpaqua Bank, UPS,
Speaker 1: Verizon Wireless, Verizon Wireless, Washington State University, well Wells Fargo, Yahoo,
Speaker 1: and Yick Yak. And it's interesting now to learn some
Speaker 1: of those companies' names after we heard about all of
Speaker 1: those digital warrants in the very beginning. So as the
Speaker 1: information continues to come out, as the story continues to evolve.
Speaker 1: We'll continue to be right here covering it all right,
Speaker 1: everybody that's going to do it for this one. All
Speaker 1: of the information that goes with the episode can be
Speaker 1: found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome
Speaker 1: back to the program. When we talk about Brian Coolberger
Speaker 1: and the case against Brian Colberger, one of the cases
Speaker 1: that I bring up is Alec Murda. And the reason
Speaker 1: I bring that case up is a the notoriety and
Speaker 1: b because of the similarities in how the investigation unfolded,
Speaker 1: especially when we're talking about the evidence. Now, remember, for
Speaker 1: Alec Murda, one of the biggest problems that he had
Speaker 1: was the phone eviden that was against them. All of
Speaker 1: that digital evidence that was collected that was circumstantial on
Speaker 1: its own, well, when all of that evidence was added
Speaker 1: up together, in its totality, it ended up being the
Speaker 1: anchor that sunk Alec Murda. And I've said from the
Speaker 1: beginning that I think the same exact fate awaits Brian Coberger.
Speaker 1: I think that the totality of the evidence against him
Speaker 1: is so strong that there's no way for his team
Speaker 1: to get him off the hook. The only chance that
Speaker 1: they have is some kind of prosecutorial misconduct where the
Speaker 1: prosecutors screw up and they make some kind of mistake,
Speaker 1: then maybe, just maybe Brian Colberger will get off. But
Speaker 1: the evidence that they've compiled so far, when you look
Speaker 1: at it in its totality, it's really difficult for me
Speaker 1: to see how Brian Colberger has a path to victory.
Speaker 1: And today in an article from the Sun, they're talking
Speaker 1: about the same thing. So let's dive into this article
Speaker 1: and let's get caught up. Headline Disturbing evidence crucial clue
Speaker 1: in both Brian Kolberger and killer Dad Alec Murdau cases
Speaker 1: may determine verdict in Idaho murder's trial. This article was
Speaker 1: authored by Caitlin Hornick. Cell Phone records that were a
Speaker 1: key clue in convicting disgrace lawyer Alec Murda could also
Speaker 1: determine the verdict and Brian Kolberger's trial. A lawyer has said, now, look,
Speaker 1: I'm certainly not a lawyer. In fact, I'm a barely
Speaker 1: functioning human being. But it's rather obvious that there's a
Speaker 1: big comparison here, and when you look at the president
Speaker 1: that's been set time and time again with digital evidence.
Speaker 1: I don't know how anyone can look at what's been
Speaker 1: compiled against Brian Colberger and say, ah, you know what,
Speaker 1: this is weak. All of this is gonna get tossed out,
Speaker 1: because from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look like any
Speaker 1: of that's gonna happen. And the comparison to Alec Murda
Speaker 1: and the avalanche of evidence that came falling on his face,
Speaker 1: I think the similarity are very obvious. And then you
Speaker 1: look at how the lawyers are going about the defense,
Speaker 1: and it's the same playbook. Attack the process, go after
Speaker 1: the process, because when you don't have the evidence on
Speaker 1: your side. Once again, this is the only way that
Speaker 1: you can attempt to defend yourself. And take a look
Speaker 1: at Richard Allen down there in Delphi. We can go
Speaker 1: on and on and on and on. Glean Maxwell, same thing.
Speaker 1: And when you're somebody who's innocent, well you're gonna go
Speaker 1: after the evidence and you're gonna provide your own evidence
Speaker 1: and alibi people that knew where you were, something that
Speaker 1: backs up what you're saying. Alec Murda didn't do that.
Speaker 1: Brian Coleberger so far has not done that. Glainne Maxwell,
Speaker 1: she didn't do it either. Alec Murda was found guilty
Speaker 1: of the murders of his wife, Maggie and youngest son
Speaker 1: Paul earlier in twenty twenty three. Coburger meanwhile, is awaiting
Speaker 1: trial after being accused of the murders of four University
Speaker 1: of Idaho students. And I remember during the Alec Murda trial,
Speaker 1: the same kind of contrarian people out there talking the
Speaker 1: same kind of yip yap about Murda. Oh yeah, he's
Speaker 1: gonna get off. It's all circumstantial. They can't really slam
Speaker 1: it together, all of those cell phone pings that means nothing. Well,
Speaker 1: how'd that all work out for you? And the same
Speaker 1: people who are doing the same thing once again here
Speaker 1: with Coburger. And it's ridiculous because it's obvious that the
Speaker 1: evidence that's been compiled is very very strong, especially when
Speaker 1: you take into account the totality of that evidence. Madison
Speaker 1: Mogan twenty one, Kaylee Gonsalvis twenty one, Zana Kernodle twenty
Speaker 1: and Ethan Chapin twenty were found slain at an off
Speaker 1: campus apartment in Moscow, Idaho, nearly one year ago. But
Speaker 1: an expert said that cell phone activity a key piece
Speaker 1: of evidence in the Murda case could also be used
Speaker 1: to determine a verdict in Coburger's case. Emily D. Baker,
Speaker 1: a lawyer and former Los Angeles Deputy District attorney, spoke
Speaker 1: to the US on about the Coburger case and what
Speaker 1: fake could await them. There is so much that we
Speaker 1: don't know about this case yet, Baker shared, Well, that's true.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of stuff that we just don't know,
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff filed under seal, a lot of
Speaker 1: stuff going on in the courtroom and inside of the
Speaker 1: judge's chambers that we're just not privy to. And if
Speaker 1: you don't have all the context, obviously you don't have
Speaker 1: all the story. But what we have seen so far
Speaker 1: is not looking good for mister Coburger. Baker said that
Speaker 1: it will be important to hear what witnesses said to
Speaker 1: the Grand Jerry and what other roommates who were in
Speaker 1: the home knew. I feel that that's going to be
Speaker 1: some of the most important evidence for the case, She said, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know about that. Considering the DNA evidence that
Speaker 1: was found on the sheath, then you have all of
Speaker 1: the digital evidence and we don't even know yet if
Speaker 1: his WiFi has connected to somebody else's router in the area,
Speaker 1: you know, if he was there previously, maybe he forgot
Speaker 1: to turn his way I Fi off and it tried to
Speaker 1: connect to the modem or the router inside of the
Speaker 1: house out eleven twenty two King Road. See, we just
Speaker 1: don't know. And where you have the cell phone tower
Speaker 1: pings that are very challengeable when you have GPS coordinates,
Speaker 1: that's a different story. So if his WiFi did try
Speaker 1: to connect to one of the houses near King Road,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be all bad for Brian Colberger. But just
Speaker 1: to be clear, we don't have that evidence in front
Speaker 1: of us. Do the prosecutors have that, I don't know,
Speaker 1: But that's the kind of evidence that is a home run,
Speaker 1: CeAl your fake kind of deal. But she also acknowledged
Speaker 1: some of the evidence that has been made public through
Speaker 1: court documents, including Coburger's DNA being found at the crime
Speaker 1: scene and his cell phone being off during the time
Speaker 1: the murders took place. We've seen that kind of evidence
Speaker 1: come up and be very impactful to the jury. Baker
Speaker 1: said that's because the jury is looking at it in
Speaker 1: the totality, they don't look at the evidence as piecemeal.
Speaker 1: They look at the evidence as it's presented, but in
Speaker 1: the totality of that presentation, and when you look at
Speaker 1: the evidence that they have so far, when it comes
Speaker 1: to Coburger, I just don't know what his team's going
Speaker 1: to do here as far as challenging the evidence, like
Speaker 1: the Murdock case, where you know, mysteriously, if someone who
Speaker 1: uses their phone all the time it's all just off
Speaker 1: during this discreete period of time, the lack of activity
Speaker 1: can be very telling. Baker maintained that the existed public
Speaker 1: evidence is important, but there is still so much not
Speaker 1: yet known due to the non dissemination order and the
Speaker 1: sealed court filings. One thousand percent, there's so much going
Speaker 1: on behind the scenes that we just have a small
Speaker 1: clue about what's really cracking off. And that's exactly how
Speaker 1: the court intended it. They wanted to make sure that
Speaker 1: there was a lid on this bad boy this trial
Speaker 1: from the beginning because they understood the publicity and they
Speaker 1: want wanted to make sure that Brian Koberger couldn't claim
Speaker 1: that he didn't get a fair shake. Phone records in
Speaker 1: both the Murda and Coburger cases. Cell phones had played
Speaker 1: a large role for Murda. He denied being at the
Speaker 1: scene of the crime until cell phone footage proved otherwise.
Speaker 1: Imagine trying to get off on the bullshit Alec. Murda
Speaker 1: was trying to get off on Oh yeah, it wasn't me.
Speaker 1: There were five shooters. One of them was from the
Speaker 1: planet Neptar, the other was Bigfoot. The other guy was
Speaker 1: at Chupacabra. You see where I'm going with all of this.
Speaker 1: Very unbelievable, right, same goes for Coburger, the silly ass alibi,
Speaker 1: the rest of the nonsense. Fine, that might be great,
Speaker 1: that might be some good cannon fodder to the knuckleheads
Speaker 1: that are being contrariant, But to the rest of us
Speaker 1: who are serious people, we understand the stakes here and
Speaker 1: we understand that Brian Kohburger is up against it. The
Speaker 1: video was filmed by Paul twenty two, shortly before he
Speaker 1: was killed, and showed Murda at the family's dog kennels. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: the video was the convincing factor for some jurors. One
Speaker 1: jur Craig Moyer, told ABC News that the cell phone
Speaker 1: video helped convict the disgraced attorney, saying that he was
Speaker 1: certain it was Murda's voice in the clip, and he
Speaker 1: had a bunch of people testify that said it was
Speaker 1: his voice, people that knew him for years and years
Speaker 1: and years. So what's the jury supposed to think? And
Speaker 1: if you think anything different is coming in this Brian
Speaker 1: Coburger case, boy, oh boy, you're going to be in
Speaker 1: for a big old surprise. In the Coburger case, cell
Speaker 1: phone activity helped investigators place him near the scene of
Speaker 1: the crime. Coburger's phone was pinged near the crime scene
Speaker 1: twelve times in the months leading up to the November
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two murders. The phone was also pinged in
Speaker 1: the area once in the hours after the killings. Core
Speaker 1: documents show further review indicated that the eight four five
Speaker 1: eight phone utilized cellular resources on November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: that are consistent with the eight four or five eight
Speaker 1: phone leaving the area of the Coburger residence at approximately
Speaker 1: nine am and traveling to Moscow, Idaho. Court documents stated, now,
Speaker 1: imagine he shows up at this house and there's still
Speaker 1: no police there. He must have been freaking out. He
Speaker 1: goes back to see his work and there's no crime scene,
Speaker 1: there's no corner, there's no nothing. Can you imagine the
Speaker 1: panic that this numbnuts was feeling. Specifically, the eight four
Speaker 1: or five eight phone utilized cellular resources that would provide
Speaker 1: coverage to the King Road residence between nine to twelve
Speaker 1: am and nine twenty one am. Police identified is eight
Speaker 1: four or five eight number after Coburger identified the phone
Speaker 1: as his own in an August twenty first, twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two police stop in Moscow, Idaho. And we've talked about
Speaker 1: that too. How that stop and that conversation with the
Speaker 1: police in Idaho directly led to them linking Brian Colberger
Speaker 1: to what's going going on here Coberger's alibi. While there
Speaker 1: is some clear evidence in Coburger's case, Baker pointed out
Speaker 1: that anything could happen once the trial begins. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess, I mean, I guess I could have a
Speaker 1: rich uncle that I don't know show up and say, hey,
Speaker 1: here's a couple million dollars. Is it likely to happen? No,
Speaker 1: it's not. And I don't think it's likely that there
Speaker 1: is going to be some kind of big bombshell from
Speaker 1: the defense, unless, of course, it has to do with
Speaker 1: prosecutorial misconduct, then okay, I could totally see that, but
Speaker 1: as far as evidence based, I don't buy it. Coburger's
Speaker 1: defense is fighting hard over the DNA found at the
Speaker 1: crime scene. She said. If for some reason the DNA
Speaker 1: gets kept out because of how it was collected or
Speaker 1: how it was tested, and those things haven't been ruled
Speaker 1: on yet, that could be huge because while we saw
Speaker 1: it in the probable cause aff of David, if that
Speaker 1: doesn't come in at trial, you have a much more tenuous,
Speaker 1: circumstantial case. Baker explained, Look, if they throw the evidence
Speaker 1: out as far as DNA, it's a whole new ballgame.
Speaker 1: If that were the case and the DNA evidence was excluded,
Speaker 1: then yeah, it's a whole different ballgame and everything becomes
Speaker 1: a whole lot more circumstantial. As far as the cell
Speaker 1: phone activity is concerned, Baker said, there are many factors
Speaker 1: at play. We're not talking about a densely populated city
Speaker 1: like New York. We're talking about a much more sparsely
Speaker 1: populated area. Baker said, So those cell phone towers might
Speaker 1: ping from miles away. These are the type of points
Speaker 1: that could come into play at a trial. According to Baker.
Speaker 1: The lawyer also noted that Coberger's alibi will also be
Speaker 1: called into question. We know from court filings that his
Speaker 1: alibi seems to be that he was out driving alone
Speaker 1: at night. Baker said, this is not an alibi that's
Speaker 1: gonna help him at all. Yeah, that is the understatement
Speaker 1: of the year. The whole alibi that they can up with.
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess you have to have something, But
Speaker 1: I don't know how they think it's gonna be a
Speaker 1: successful move. I don't know how they think that using
Speaker 1: this alibi that they came up with is gonna have
Speaker 1: the juror saying to themselves, you know what, I think
Speaker 1: what the defense is pitching here is legit. Brian Colberger
Speaker 1: is just that kind of guy. He's out here having
Speaker 1: himself a nice drive, listening to his audio book and
Speaker 1: enjoying the night time er. I mean, I guess if
Speaker 1: you weren't accused of murdering four people, I might buy that,
Speaker 1: and not only accused, but all of the evidence that
Speaker 1: we've seen here, I might be much more inclined to
Speaker 1: listen to what you have to say. But as of now,
Speaker 1: that alibi does more harm for him than good in
Speaker 1: my opinion. So we'll see what the defense can come
Speaker 1: up with. We'll see if they can poke some holes
Speaker 1: in this. But so far, it's not looking good for
Speaker 1: the defense. It's not looking good for Brian Cohberger, just
Speaker 1: like it wasn't looking good for Big Red Alec Murda.
Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode, including
Speaker 1: my contact information, can be found in the description box.
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
Speaker 1: this episode, we're spinning back up Idaho and we're gonna
Speaker 1: talk a little bit more about Brian Colberger and the
Speaker 1: alibi and the alibi expert that his team has brought on. Now,
Speaker 1: as you all know, I don't think this alibi is
Speaker 1: gonna stick and I think it's a shot in the dark.
Speaker 1: But what else is this team going to say? Or
Speaker 1: do they have nobody to corroborate what Brian Coolberger was
Speaker 1: up to? They never did. If they had a strong alibi,
Speaker 1: we would have known about it a long time ago,
Speaker 1: but instead all we got was muddy water from Brian
Speaker 1: Colberger's legal team talking about this alibi or that alibi
Speaker 1: and how they're gonna provide it later on down the
Speaker 1: road only to come in with an underwhelming performance like this,
Speaker 1: not exactly the bombshell that they were hoping for. So
Speaker 1: let's dive into this article from NBC News and let's
Speaker 1: see what they have for US. Headline University of Idaho
Speaker 1: murder suspects alibi defense puts spotlight on cell phone data analyst.
Speaker 1: This article was authored by Eric or Tees, And when
Speaker 1: we first talked about the alibi, I gave you a
Speaker 1: profile of mister Ray and what his background was, and
Speaker 1: there's no doubt that it's pretty impressive. But you can
Speaker 1: guarantee that the state's going to have somebody that's equally
Speaker 1: impressive throwing cold water all over everything that mister Ray
Speaker 1: has to say. When Brian Coberger's lawyers filed an updated
Speaker 1: alibi defense last week suggesting cell phone towered data will
Speaker 1: show the man suspected in the slayings of four University
Speaker 1: of Idaho students was not in the area of the
Speaker 1: crime when they were killed, they said they planned to
Speaker 1: turn to an Arizona based sell data analyst for key testimony. Now, remember,
Speaker 1: leading up to this, the shoe was on the other
Speaker 1: foot and the prosecution had a ton of digital cell
Speaker 1: phone data. That doesn't look good for Brian Cohberger. All
Speaker 1: you heard from the defense and people that were, you know,
Speaker 1: championing Brian Coberger if you will, that the data is
Speaker 1: not really that reliable. Now, all of a sudden, the
Speaker 1: data is reliable, and we should rely upon that data
Speaker 1: for Brian Colberger's alibi, but not for putting them at
Speaker 1: the scene of the crime. Is that really what you're
Speaker 1: pitching to me? Now? With that said, I am more
Speaker 1: than willing to look at this evidence. I have no
Speaker 1: vendetta against Brian Coberger one way or the other, and
Speaker 1: my opinions about what happened here based solely on the
Speaker 1: evidence that we have seen. Now. Of course, we have
Speaker 1: a long way to go, and there might be something
Speaker 1: that gets presented that changes everything. But as of now,
Speaker 1: nothing that I have seen from Coburger's defense team makes
Speaker 1: me pause and say to myself, well, maybe they're onto
Speaker 1: something here. In fact, it's the other way around, and
Speaker 1: until they can explain the DNA on that sheath, as
Speaker 1: I've said time and time again, all this other stuff
Speaker 1: is spinning your wheels in neutral. It wouldn't be the
Speaker 1: first time that Siree has been asked to be an
Speaker 1: expert witness in a high profile murder trial, although he
Speaker 1: said Friday that out of the more than one hundred
Speaker 1: times he's testified in state and federal cases, it has
Speaker 1: typically been for the prosecution. Now, Rai's involvement in the
Speaker 1: case of the four college students fatally stabbed and they're
Speaker 1: off campus apartment house in November twenty twenty two, which
Speaker 1: continues to stir speculation over why someone would commit the
Speaker 1: gruesome act, is putting a spotlight on his expertise after
Speaker 1: pass scrutiny over his credentials. So I had never heard
Speaker 1: of this gentleman previously, but according to this article, there
Speaker 1: has been some scrutiny over his work. Ray declined to
Speaker 1: address the Coburger case as a judge issued a gag
Speaker 1: order last year, preventing many involved from speaking publicly, but
Speaker 1: he said in general that it takes competent experts with
Speaker 1: adequate experience to interpret call detail records, and this is
Speaker 1: a big chance that they're taking here of folks talking
Speaker 1: about these cell phone records the way they are considering
Speaker 1: how much digital evidence has been collected against Coburger, leads
Speaker 1: me to believe that this is nothing more than a
Speaker 1: hell Mary. Where the challenges come in is when there's
Speaker 1: a different level of experience, he added, and some of
Speaker 1: these records can be extremely complicated. Ray, a former Gilbert,
Speaker 1: Arizona police detective, founded ZX Corp, a company specializing in
Speaker 1: cellular geolocation mapping, in twenty fourteen. In the courtroom, Ray
Speaker 1: has found himself and is mapping software tracks under questions
Speaker 1: about reliability before. So this is going to be an issue.
Speaker 1: There's no doubt. If you don't think Thompson and company
Speaker 1: are going to bring this up, you're crazy. And what
Speaker 1: they're going to do is they're going to bring in
Speaker 1: their own experts and those experts are going to challenge
Speaker 1: the narrative that's being put forth by the defense. And
Speaker 1: like I always say, it's gonna come down to the
Speaker 1: jury and their interpretation of the evidence for what it is.
Speaker 1: And remember the DNA that was sent out in Moscow,
Speaker 1: they sent it to Authram and Authoram is the premier
Speaker 1: destination for stuff like this to go down. They are
Speaker 1: the best in the business when it comes to genealogy,
Speaker 1: when it comes to old cold cases, Authroam is where
Speaker 1: it's at and that's who they used here for the DNA,
Speaker 1: and you notice that they're not talking about the DNA
Speaker 1: or bringing a expert on to challenge that. What they're
Speaker 1: doing is trying to go for the technicalities, right, and
Speaker 1: they know that the digital evidence that's been compiled against
Speaker 1: Colberger strong, So they're gonna have to bring their own
Speaker 1: expert on to try and muddy those waters. And that's
Speaker 1: exactly what they're trying to do here. I've seen in
Speaker 1: previous cases whereas credibility has been brought into question, said
Speaker 1: Mark Foff, a cellular technology expert and former sheriff's detective
Speaker 1: in al Paso County, Colorado. Faff testified for the defense
Speaker 1: in a tw twenty two hearing related to the case
Speaker 1: of a man accused of stalking an ex girlfriend, but
Speaker 1: the judge barred prosecutors from using Ray's software data. So
Speaker 1: you know that the prosecution in Idaho knows about that.
Speaker 1: They're going to bring that up. They're going to challenge
Speaker 1: having this man and the software that he uses, if
Speaker 1: they've already challenged him or he's been challenged in another case.
Speaker 1: You know how much prosecutors love precedent. District Court Judge
Speaker 1: Juan Villasinore ruled that ZX tracks mapping was inadmissible and
Speaker 1: based on a sea of unreliability after other experts found
Speaker 1: the technology to be problematic. For one, the court doesn't
Speaker 1: find Ray credible, Villa Signior wrote, adding he inflated his
Speaker 1: credentials and accurately claiming to be an engineer. He went
Speaker 1: on to say that Ray has no qualifications, licenses, or
Speaker 1: credentials to support calling himself an engineer, and that there's
Speaker 1: no evidence that Ray's taken any engineering classes. All damning
Speaker 1: and the prosecution going to bring on an expert that
Speaker 1: has done all of that via Signor. Also took exception
Speaker 1: with how the tracks algorithm wasn't open to scientific scrutiny.
Speaker 1: While Ray stands by his formula, it hasn't gained traction
Speaker 1: in the scientific community, the judge wrote. The methodology and
Speaker 1: algorithm aren't published or subject to pure review, and they've
Speaker 1: been routinely labeled as junk science by the relevant scientific community.
Speaker 1: So this is the guy that they're bringing on to
Speaker 1: defend Brian Coberger. And when I have my doubts, this
Speaker 1: is why you're going to bring on a guy with
Speaker 1: credibility issues. That's really the way you want to go
Speaker 1: about this, Okay, I guess. Don't complain though, when the
Speaker 1: jury absolutely laughs him out of the courtroom. Ray said
Speaker 1: on Friday that he agreed with the defense and that
Speaker 1: there was inaccuracy with the data, but the case was
Speaker 1: an anomaly. NBC News found other cases, including in Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: and Michigan, in which Ray's credibility and data were questioned
Speaker 1: in hearings, but judges ultimately them admissible. I absolutely stand
Speaker 1: by the product, Ray said. He added that the Colorado
Speaker 1: judge denigrated his background unfairly and that he was misquoted
Speaker 1: and misinterpreted about discussing how he and engineer's interpret call records.
Speaker 1: He said he's gone into the field to research how
Speaker 1: cell phones will connect to certain cell towers, which an
Speaker 1: engineer would not need to do. In a way, I'm
Speaker 1: doing something the engineers don't do to figure out how
Speaker 1: to do this better, he said Friday, adding that TRACK
Speaker 1: software as testable by others. It's unclear how many law
Speaker 1: enforcement agencies currently use tracks, but Ray in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two said he provided training to more than eight thousand
Speaker 1: law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and defense experts. Lexis Nexus purchased
Speaker 1: ZX in twenty twenty one. The data analytics company said
Speaker 1: in a statement that it is proud to support a
Speaker 1: broad range of law enforcement agencies, but does not disclose
Speaker 1: customer information. According to a background of Rays ex experience
Speaker 1: filed in court documents by Coburger's defense team, he ended
Speaker 1: his role as director for Lexus Nexus Special Services last year.
Speaker 1: He also has appeared on various true crime television shows,
Speaker 1: including NBC's Dateline, and hosts a true crime podcast with
Speaker 1: his wife, Socialite Crime Club, in which they discussed their
Speaker 1: involvement in criminal cases from around the world and what
Speaker 1: it takes to solve complex investigations. The Idaho alibi. In
Speaker 1: a ten page filing Wednesday, signed by Anne Taylor, Coburger's
Speaker 1: lead public defender, his lawyers said they would call on
Speaker 1: Ray to help corroborate their client's alibi. At the time
Speaker 1: of the slayings, Coberger was a doctoral student at Washington
Speaker 1: State University and living in Pullman, Washington, about ten miles
Speaker 1: west of Moscow, Idaho, where the University of Idaho is located.
Speaker 1: In an affid David. Following Coberger's arrest weeks after the killings,
Speaker 1: prosecutors said he was linked to the scene through the
Speaker 1: DNA discovered on a knife sheath left at the victim
Speaker 1: apartment house, and good luck with that. That is the
Speaker 1: key piece of evidence here, the evidence that, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: is going to see Brian Colberger convicted. In addition, investigators
Speaker 1: said they tracked Colburger in the area of the home
Speaker 1: through his cell phone use and surveillance that picked up
Speaker 1: a Hondai a Lantra that they believed he was driving.
Speaker 1: Colberger's alibi defense said he would go for nighttime drives
Speaker 1: and that those only increased during the school year. This
Speaker 1: is supported by data from mister Coburger's phone showing him
Speaker 1: in the countryside late at night and or in the
Speaker 1: early morning on several occasions. They wrote, yeas he's planning
Speaker 1: out these murders, finding the new route that he's going
Speaker 1: to take home. I mean, there's a million different things
Speaker 1: you can say about this. And if you think the
Speaker 1: prosecution is just going to sit back and let them
Speaker 1: run rough shot over them, you're crazy. The phone data
Speaker 1: includes numerous photographs taken on several different late evenings and
Speaker 1: early mornings, including in November, depicting the night sky in
Speaker 1: the early morning hours of November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: when Kayley Gon Savice twenty one, Madison Mogan twenty one,
Speaker 1: Xana Kernodle twenty and Kernodle's boyfriend Ethan chap In twenty
Speaker 1: were killed. Coburger was out driving in an area south
Speaker 1: of Pullman and west of Moscow. Yeah, might as well
Speaker 1: have been on the moon. Yeah, bro, I was on
Speaker 1: the moon doing a moonwalk. That's about how reliable this
Speaker 1: alibi is. Nobody can corroborate this one either, But the
Speaker 1: defense team added raised testimony intends to show that Coburger's
Speaker 1: mobile device did not travel on the East Moscow Pullman
Speaker 1: Highway in the early morning hours of November thirteenth, and
Speaker 1: thus could not be the vehicle captured on video along
Speaker 1: the Moscow Pullman Highway near Floyd's cannabis shop. They said
Speaker 1: that Ray would be able to share further analysis that
Speaker 1: would be based on discovery provided by the prosecution, but
Speaker 1: if such information is not disclosed, mister Ray's testimony will
Speaker 1: also reveal that critical exculpatory evidence further corroborating mister Coberger's
Speaker 1: alibi was either not preserved or has been withheld. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know what, I'm sure that the Old Knights have
Speaker 1: this evidence too. The Old Knights showed up up here
Speaker 1: in Idaho, stole the evidence and then framed Brian Coberger.
Speaker 1: Prosecutors had said, and it's Affid David that a search
Speaker 1: warrant provided Coburger's cell phone data for the twenty four
Speaker 1: hours before and after the incident, and it showed that
Speaker 1: he left his home two hours before the killings and
Speaker 1: then turned his phone off, only to turn it on
Speaker 1: again afterward when he was traveling from Idaho to Pullman.
Speaker 1: A grand jury last May indicted Coburger on four council
Speaker 1: murder and burglary, and a judge entered a not guilty
Speaker 1: plea on his behalf. A trial was expected to begin
Speaker 1: last October, but has been delayed, with a change of
Speaker 1: venue hearing scheduled for June twenty seventh. Cell phone analysis,
Speaker 1: While further detail about how ray would support the defense's
Speaker 1: alibi claim is unclear, the use of such cell phone
Speaker 1: mapping technology and forensics has become a sought after capability
Speaker 1: in legal proceedings. Experts say as prosecutors attempt to prove
Speaker 1: a defendant was at the scene of a crime. Defense
Speaker 1: teams as well mavring on their own experts to refute
Speaker 1: law enforcements analysis. And that's for sure how it happens.
Speaker 1: Every single time you have a trial and there's any
Speaker 1: kind of question about technology, everybody's bringing their own expert
Speaker 1: on board, and then those experts are gonna get in
Speaker 1: front of the jury and they're going to explain why
Speaker 1: they feel the narrative that their pitching is the narrative
Speaker 1: that's supported by the evidence. Kevin Hornan, a retired FBI
Speaker 1: agent and co founder of Precision Cellular Analysis, an Ohio
Speaker 1: based firm that consults in legal cases, said mapping software
Speaker 1: generally works the same. It matches cell site information known
Speaker 1: as called detail records, with a list of cell towers
Speaker 1: and plots it onto a map. He said, analysts can
Speaker 1: determine from which side or sector of a cell tower
Speaker 1: a cell phone utilized. In criminal cases, he added, investigators
Speaker 1: can use that information to analyze whether the phone was
Speaker 1: in a certain vicinity of where the crime happened. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: the question of where the phone was during the date
Speaker 1: and time in question is answered by the jury, who
Speaker 1: must decide based on all the available evidence. If the
Speaker 1: defendant and his phone were at the crime scene. Horn
Speaker 1: said cell phone evidence like this simply helps the jury
Speaker 1: draw these types of conclusions. A properly trained cell phone
Speaker 1: expert will never testify that, based on the cell phone
Speaker 1: data the defendant or his phone, we're at a crime
Speaker 1: scene and that's true. They can only say that they
Speaker 1: were near a crime scene, and that's because the cell
Speaker 1: phone pinged to the tower. But that's not an absolute
Speaker 1: It just goes along with the totality of the evidence
Speaker 1: that has already been presented. Horn said that Raised Tracks
Speaker 1: mapping software has stood out from other programs because it
Speaker 1: includes an estimated coverage area of a cell site, which
Speaker 1: he finds highly problematic and misleading, and that only a
Speaker 1: test drive in which scanning gear is used can help
Speaker 1: determine a cell site's full coverage area. Ray said the
Speaker 1: company he founded has a database in which every cell
Speaker 1: site in the US hundreds of thousands have been mapped,
Speaker 1: updated over time, and archived. We've been drive testing since
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen, and every drive test we do, we archive.
Speaker 1: Ray said. Nobody will ever be able to drive test
Speaker 1: every cell site. It's an impossible task. Horn said, In general,
Speaker 1: it's imperative for the data collected to be accurate and
Speaker 1: interpreted correctly. People's lives, their liberty is on the line,
Speaker 1: and we certainly don't want to convict someone who's innocent
Speaker 1: or use evidence that's questionable and could come back at
Speaker 1: a later time, he said, And there's no doubt about that.
Speaker 1: So I'm glad to see that Coberger has an expert here.
Speaker 1: That way, later on, when he's trying to appeal the
Speaker 1: conviction that I believe is coming, he can't say that
Speaker 1: he didn't have all the proper representation or the proper experts,
Speaker 1: none of that nonsense. So as we get closer to
Speaker 1: the trial, my guess is you can expect more stuff
Speaker 1: like this to pop up, more issues, more experts, and
Speaker 1: more back and forth between both sides as the battle
Speaker 1: for the narrative in Moscow fully gets under way. All right, folks,
Speaker 1: That is a wrap for this one. All of the
Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
Speaker 1: the description box.