Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to dive right back into those
Speaker 1: core documents and keep it rolling. And to do that,
Speaker 1: we're going to start off with the Affidavid of Rylean
Speaker 1: l Nowlan, Case number c R twenty nine DASH twenty
Speaker 1: two DASH twenty eight oh five State of Idaho Plaintiff
Speaker 1: vers Brian C.
Speaker 2: Coberger.
Speaker 1: The defendant, Rylean l Nowlan, deposes and says as follows. One,
Speaker 1: I am over the age of eighteen years old and
Speaker 1: competent to make this afid David based on my personal knowledge.
Speaker 2: Two.
Speaker 1: I am employed as the laboratory manager of the Idaho
Speaker 1: State Police Forensic Services Laboratory in Meridian, Idaho.
Speaker 2: Three.
Speaker 1: I have been employed with the ISPFS since November of
Speaker 1: two thousand and two and have served as the Meridian
Speaker 1: Laboratory Manager since September of two thousand and fourteen.
Speaker 2: Four.
Speaker 1: I am currently qualified and proficiency tested biological screening analyst.
Speaker 1: I have been qualified in biological screening since June of
Speaker 1: two thousand and three.
Speaker 2: Five.
Speaker 1: I am currently qualified and proficiency tested DNA analyst. I
Speaker 1: have been qualified in DNA analysis since May of two
Speaker 1: thousand and five. Six I affirm the ISSPFS Laboratory system,
Speaker 1: as well as the ISPFS Laboratory in Meridian, Idaho, are
Speaker 1: accredited by A two LA in accordance and with the
Speaker 1: recognition of ISO and IEC one seven zero two five
Speaker 1: two zero one seven requirements, in addition to the R
Speaker 1: two twenty one specific requirements for forensic examination. Number seven
Speaker 1: I affirm DNA casework analysis in nuclear short tandem repeats
Speaker 1: STRs is part of the Meridian Laboratory scope of accredation.
Speaker 1: STRs are short repeating DNA sequences that are highly variable
Speaker 1: between individuals and are used in forensic science to differentiate
Speaker 1: between individuals, including between related individuals. Number eight I affirm
Speaker 1: the ISPFS Laboratory does not perform single nucleotide polymorphism SNP
Speaker 1: analysis SNPs or single sequence variations in the DNA at
Speaker 1: specific points. SNPs are not as highly variable between individuals
Speaker 1: as STRs and can be used in ancestry studies. Number
Speaker 1: nine I affirm STR data and SNP data cannot be
Speaker 1: directly compared. Ten I affirm the ISPFS Biology DNA Casework
Speaker 1: section does not require some comitting agencies to notify the
Speaker 1: laboratory of how a suspect subject was identified. In a case,
Speaker 1: how a suspect was identified has no effect on the
Speaker 1: laboratory analysis performed on the known reference sample from that individual.
Speaker 1: It also has no impact on the statistical calculations performed
Speaker 1: when doing a direct comparison of the reference sample STR
Speaker 1: profile with the STR profile developed from the evidence sample.
Speaker 1: Number eleven. I affirm all ISPFS analytical methods, including the
Speaker 1: methods of the Biology DNA Casework Unit, are available on
Speaker 1: our public website www. Dot isp dot Idaho dot gov.
Speaker 1: Number twelve. I certify, under the penalty of perjury pursuant
Speaker 1: to the law of the State of Idaho, that the
Speaker 1: foregoing is true and correct, respectfully submitted this fourteenth day
Speaker 1: of July twenty twenty three, and this was signed by
Speaker 1: ry Lean Nowland. The next document we have is the
Speaker 1: response to the State's motion to reconsider orders staying time
Speaker 1: for a speedy trial. Case number c R DASH twenty
Speaker 1: two DASH zero zero zero two eight zero five, State
Speaker 1: of Idaho Plaintiff versus Brian C.
Speaker 2: Coburger.
Speaker 1: The defendant comes now Brian C. Coberger buy and, through
Speaker 1: their attorney, Jay Weston Logsdon, Chief Deputy of Litigation and
Speaker 1: hereby submits the following response to the State's motion to
Speaker 1: reconsider order staying time for a speedy trial. The state's
Speaker 1: motion is concerned only with mister Coberger's statutory right to
Speaker 1: a speedy trial, though it never makes that plane. To
Speaker 1: be clear, there is no way to read a partial
Speaker 1: waiver of a constitutional right as a full waiver ce
Speaker 1: e g. State versus Vasquez, one sixty three, Idaho five
Speaker 1: point fifty seven, twenty eighteen. Other jurisdictions use partial waivers
Speaker 1: of speedy trial. See Harris versus State, twenty twenty two
Speaker 1: WL one four eight six one eighty four at six.
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals in Iowa twenty twenty two, unpublished State
Speaker 1: versus Daily, six thirty nine, NW Dot two D one
Speaker 1: forty one, one forty four. The Appeals Court of Nebraska
Speaker 1: two thousand and two. City of Parma versus Da Bramilski
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety five, WL six forty three seven sixty eight,
Speaker 1: at two. The Appellate Court of Ohio nineteen ninety five
Speaker 1: unpublished the State sites to State versus Lundquist one thirty
Speaker 1: four Idaho eight thirty one, two thousand, wherein the court
Speaker 1: explicitly states that there is nothing wrong with the partial
Speaker 1: waiver for purposes of constitutional rights. See at A thirty
Speaker 1: four citing State versus Warwick one twenty three, Idaho eighty
Speaker 1: three the Court of Appeals nineteen ninety two citing State
Speaker 1: versus Kaiser one, sixteen, Idaho nine to ninety two, nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty nine. Second, the state demands that the trial date
Speaker 1: remain where it is without a waiver of speedy trial.
Speaker 1: The state is free to take this position, but it
Speaker 1: is won with consequences. It has long been established that
Speaker 1: a state may not impose a penalty upon those who
Speaker 1: exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Constitutional rights would
Speaker 1: be of little value if they could be indirectly denied
Speaker 1: or manipulated out of existence Harmon versus four Sims three
Speaker 1: eighty US five twenty eight five forty nineteen sixty five.
Speaker 1: The state brought this prosecution and did so on its
Speaker 1: own timetable. Now that timetable must abide by mister Colberger's
Speaker 1: constitutional rights. The state cannot cry foul when its decisions
Speaker 1: post arrest make an October trial date untenable. Mister Colberger
Speaker 1: has a right to a fair trial, to a defense,
Speaker 1: and to due process. Constitutional Amendments five, six and sixteen.
Speaker 1: He is not required to give up his right to
Speaker 1: a speedy trial in this matter. Because the state refuses
Speaker 1: to provide in materials as to its generic genetic genealogy
Speaker 1: search and chooses the protracted litigation involved with a grand
Speaker 1: jury rather than a preliminary hearing. It is particularly ridiculous
Speaker 1: that the state claims the public has some stake in
Speaker 1: forcing mister Colberger to either abandon his constitutional right to
Speaker 1: defend himself or permit this case to carry on as
Speaker 1: indefinitely as the state wishes. Either the public wants its
Speaker 1: trial in October or it does not. The state's position
Speaker 1: on waiver of speedy trial is its own. If the
Speaker 1: public is to take any interest in this situation at all,
Speaker 1: it should be the wonder at the cavalier attitude the
Speaker 1: government has towards one of the fundamental rights secured to
Speaker 1: our citizens. This was dated on July twenty fourth, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three, and it was signed by Jay Weston Logsden
Speaker 1: and our final document for this batch the motion to
Speaker 1: compel notice of defense or alibi or alternatively to bar
Speaker 1: certain evidence, Case number CR twenty nine DASH twenty two
Speaker 1: DASH twenty eight oh five, State of Idaho Plaintiff versus
Speaker 1: Brian C.
Speaker 2: Coberger.
Speaker 1: The defendant comes now the State of Idaho, buy and
Speaker 1: through the Layta County Prosecuting Attorney, and respectfully moves the
Speaker 1: Court for an order compelling the defense to comply in
Speaker 1: full with Idaho Code nineteen Dash five nineteen and Ida
Speaker 1: dot seed dot r twelve dot one, and provide the
Speaker 1: state with notice of any alibi that may be offered
Speaker 1: herein said notice, to include one the specific place or
Speaker 1: places at which the defendant claims to have been at
Speaker 1: the time of the burglary and homicides in this case,
Speaker 1: and to the names and addresses of all witnesses upon
Speaker 1: whom the defendant intends to rely to establish such an alibi.
Speaker 1: As the court file reflects, The state filed its requests
Speaker 1: for discovery disclosure alibi demand on May twenty third of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, and serve the defense on that same day.
Speaker 1: The parties subsequently stipulated to extend the statutory time for
Speaker 1: the defendant to provide notice of alibi and conply with
Speaker 1: Idaho Code nineteen Dash five nineteen and I dot seed
Speaker 1: dot r twelve dot one to July twenty fourth of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. On July twent twenty fourth of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three, the defendant filed a notice of defendant's response
Speaker 1: to State's alibi demand. This document does not comply with
Speaker 1: the requirements of Idaho Code nineteen Dash five nineteen and
Speaker 1: I dot s dot R twelve dot one in that
Speaker 1: it does not specify a place or places at which
Speaker 1: the defendant claims to have been at the time of
Speaker 1: the offenses herein, nor does it provide names and addresses
Speaker 1: of witnesses upon whom the defendant intends to rely. The
Speaker 1: State recognizes that the defendant has a sixth Amendment constitutional
Speaker 1: right to call witnesses in his or her defense. State
Speaker 1: versus Warrez, one sixty nine Idaho two seventy four, two
Speaker 1: seventy seven the Court of Appeals of twenty twenty one
Speaker 1: Taylor versus Illinois for eighty four US four hundred four
Speaker 1: to ten, nineteen eighty eight. However, as noted in both
Speaker 1: of these cited cases, the defendants right to call witnesses
Speaker 1: in his or her defense is not unfettered, and the
Speaker 1: state has a legitimate interest in obtaining timely and complete
Speaker 1: discovery response from the defendant Warrez Supra as the war
Speaker 1: As Court also observed, if requested by the state during discovery,
Speaker 1: a defendant intending to offer an alibi must file notice
Speaker 1: where the defendant claims to have been at the time
Speaker 1: of the alleged defense and the names and addresses of
Speaker 1: the witnesses whose testimony will support the defendant's alibi Idaho at.
Speaker 1: Two seventy seven Dash two seventy eight as evidence by
Speaker 1: the defendants July twenty fourth, twenty twenty three, Notice of
Speaker 1: Defendant's response to State's alibi demand. The defendant has failed
Speaker 1: to comply in any fashion with the requirements of this statute,
Speaker 1: court rule, and applicable case law. It is important to
Speaker 1: note that the scheduled October second, twenty twenty three, jury
Speaker 1: trial is barely more than two months away. If the
Speaker 1: defense intends to rely on an alibi, it is essential
Speaker 1: that they be required to provide prompt notice so the
Speaker 1: state can fulfill its obligations under Idaho Code nineteen Dash
Speaker 1: five nineteen to investigate and respond to the notice of alibi.
Speaker 1: Any further delays will substantially prejudice the state's rights. Similar
Speaker 1: to the situation in Warrez, the state has no idea
Speaker 1: how the defendants notice regarding alibi constitutes an alibi, and
Speaker 1: as observed above, the state is unable to comply with
Speaker 1: I dot S dot R twelve dot one in Idaho
Speaker 1: Code nineteen Dash five nineteen because, based on the lack
Speaker 1: of information in this case, we don't know how this
Speaker 1: alibi is an alibi at all. The state also notes,
Speaker 1: as the United States Supreme Court observed in Taylor versus Illinois,
Speaker 1: the ease with which an alibi can be fabricated and
Speaker 1: the state's interest in protecting itself against an eleventh hour
Speaker 1: defense is both obvious and legitimate Taylor Supra.
Speaker 2: At.
Speaker 1: Four to twelve, Note seventeen, Citing to Williams versus Florida
Speaker 1: three ninety nine US seventy eight, nineteen seventy, the adversary
Speaker 1: system of trial is hardly an end in itself. It
Speaker 1: is not yet a poker game which players enjoy an
Speaker 1: absolute right always to conceal their cards until played. Based
Speaker 1: on the above, the State respectfully praise the Court for
Speaker 1: an order compelling the defendant to comply in full with
Speaker 1: Idaho Code nineteen Dash five nineteen and I dot S
Speaker 1: dot R twelve dot one by filing a notice specifying
Speaker 1: where the defendant claims to have been at the time
Speaker 1: of the alleged defenses, and the names and addresses of
Speaker 1: the witnesses whose testimony will support the defendant's alibi. Given
Speaker 1: the time constraints, the State praise that the Court directed
Speaker 1: the defendant to comply no later than ten days from
Speaker 1: the date of the court order, and that the State
Speaker 1: be allowed, pursuant to Idaho Code nineteen Dash five, nineteen two,
Speaker 1: to provide the defense written notice of names and addresses
Speaker 1: of witnesses who the State intends to rely on to
Speaker 1: establish the defendant's presence at the scene of the offenses,
Speaker 1: and any other witnesses to be relied on to rebut
Speaker 1: testimony of any of the defendant's alibi witnesses no later
Speaker 1: than ten days before trial. Alternatively, the State praise for
Speaker 1: an order of this court pursu into Idaho Code nineteen
Speaker 1: Dash five, nineteen four, prohibiting the defendant from presenting any evidence,
Speaker 1: whether by direct or cross examination, in support of any
Speaker 1: clanmed alibi, other than from the defendant himself. And this
Speaker 1: document was signed by William Thompson, And this one was
Speaker 1: dated on July twenty seventh, of twenty twenty three. All right, folks,
Speaker 1: that's going to do it for this one. All of
Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
Speaker 1: in the description box. What's up everyone, and welcome back
Speaker 1: to the program. So Brian Coberger is requesting more time
Speaker 1: to decide about offering an alibi. And how do we
Speaker 1: know that because there were new court filings that hit
Speaker 1: the docket, and these new filings occurred on Monday, So
Speaker 1: they're definitely working behind the scenes double time in the
Speaker 1: cap of Brian Colberger trying to formulate a strategy for
Speaker 1: a defense here. Now, what they're going to come up with,
Speaker 1: your guest is as good as mine, because as much
Speaker 1: as I've racked my brain and tried to play the
Speaker 1: devil's advocate here, I don't know how Brian Colberger plans
Speaker 1: to explain away all of the evidence that has been
Speaker 1: presented thus far against them, never mind what they have
Speaker 1: hit up their sleeve. So today we have an article
Speaker 1: from ABC News and the headline Idaho college murder suspect
Speaker 1: Brian Colberger requests more time to decide offering an alibi.
Speaker 1: This article was authored by Sasha Pezanik, the man acused
Speaker 1: of killing for Idaho college students, is asking the court
Speaker 1: for more time to decide whether to offer an alibi
Speaker 1: as he prepares to mount his defense at trial this fall.
Speaker 1: According to new court documents, Brian Coolberger's lawyers said an
Speaker 1: emotion filed Friday that because of the voluminous discovery process
Speaker 1: which is still ongoing, and because they're still investigating the
Speaker 1: charges against their client, deciding now would be at a
Speaker 1: minimum premature, as waiting through the extensive information that makes
Speaker 1: up the case is incomplete. Sounds like a bunch of
Speaker 1: hogwash to me. What's his alibi? Where was he and
Speaker 1: who had eyes on him at the time when these
Speaker 1: murders occurred. You would think that you'd have your alibi
Speaker 1: all wrapped up nice and tight with a little bow
Speaker 1: on it. But that doesn't seem to be what's going
Speaker 1: on with Colberger here, and he can't even offer up
Speaker 1: an alibi. So how is it that he's going to
Speaker 1: get himself off these charges when something basic as far
Speaker 1: as an alibi hasn't even been provided as of yet.
Speaker 1: There's a question for all of you contrarians out there
Speaker 1: who think Brian Colberger is innocent. Additionally, deciding at this
Speaker 1: juncture may tread into disclosures of protected information. They said,
Speaker 1: Oh it may huh. You would think that if you
Speaker 1: had an alibi, you'd be screaming about it from the rooftop.
Speaker 1: I know that if I was accused of crimes such
Speaker 1: as these, I'd be yelling and screaming for everybody to
Speaker 1: hear me. My alibi is this? Go ask Johnny. We
Speaker 1: were down at the local pub doing shots, Jegermeister. But no,
Speaker 1: we haven't heard anything like that, have we. Instead, it's
Speaker 1: about the process. It's about the technicalities, and that's how
Speaker 1: it always will be for people who are not innocent. Now,
Speaker 1: it's one thing when you're innocent and you're attacking the
Speaker 1: process as well as providing some evidence for why you're innocent.
Speaker 1: But when people are only attacking the process. One thing
Speaker 1: that I have certainly learned over the past few years
Speaker 1: that we've been following this stuff. When it's a complete
Speaker 1: attack of the process, looking for loopholes and technicalities, it
Speaker 1: usually means that the person doing that is guilty and
Speaker 1: that their legal team has no other way to go
Speaker 1: after the case and try and destroy the foundation that
Speaker 1: it's built. Upon and this defense strategy thus far is
Speaker 1: oozing with all sorts of signs of exactly that. Colberger's
Speaker 1: defense says it needs time to make this determination and
Speaker 1: consider evidentiary rules.
Speaker 2: Now, I don't disagree with that.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of discovery to get through here, and
Speaker 1: that's why I said from the beginning, I don't think
Speaker 1: this trial kicks off when they say it's going to
Speaker 1: in October. I think we're looking at a summer of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four type of start date for this. And
Speaker 1: the reason being is that the discovery is massive. We're
Speaker 1: talking three trillobytes so far of information that they've handed over,
Speaker 1: meaning the prosecution, so the defense obviously they have to
Speaker 1: go through all of that with a fine tooth comb,
Speaker 1: and it's going to take time. So I highly doubt
Speaker 1: this trial kicks off in October like they said. And
Speaker 1: you're getting a bunch of little tells about that along
Speaker 1: the way, and this is certainly one of them. When
Speaker 1: they start complaining or bringing up the fact that there's
Speaker 1: a lot of evidence to go through, that's usually a
Speaker 1: sign that they're going to ask for.
Speaker 2: The trial to be delayed a little bit.
Speaker 1: The Leata County prosecutor's office leading the case against Coberger
Speaker 1: put in their demand for his notice of alibi a
Speaker 1: day after his May twenty second arraignment. According to Idaho law,
Speaker 1: defendants are supposed to respond to that demand within ten
Speaker 1: days or at such different time as the court may direct,
Speaker 1: with a written statement of where they claim to have
Speaker 1: been at the time of the alleged crime, along with
Speaker 1: the identities of the witnesses on whom they plan to
Speaker 1: rely on for that alibi. Now, I'm sure that there's
Speaker 1: some legal mind out there that understands this way better
Speaker 1: than me, But it seems like if you have an alibi,
Speaker 1: that's one of the first things you want to talk about. Hey,
Speaker 1: go talk to so and so. We were hanging out.
Speaker 1: I didn't do this. Why am I even in jail
Speaker 1: right now? And if Brian Cohberger was hanging out with
Speaker 1: people around this time when these murders occurred, do you
Speaker 1: really think he'd still be sitting in jail right now
Speaker 1: or do you think that Ann Taylor would be making
Speaker 1: a big deal about it. Of course, she'd be making
Speaker 1: a big deal about it to get him bailed out,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure the judge would look at that and say, hey,
Speaker 1: you know what, this guy has an alibi. What are
Speaker 1: you guys talking about here? But none of that's occurred.
Speaker 1: All we have seen is the massive pile of evidence
Speaker 1: that is being built against Brian Colberger and it all
Speaker 1: looks damning. Each piece of evidence that we receive as
Speaker 1: the public even is more damning than the last one.
Speaker 1: The defense is asking the court for more time to decide,
Speaker 1: or to make an exception to that rule. They ask
Speaker 1: that if the court is not inclined to grant their request,
Speaker 1: a hearing be set to present oral argument, evidence, and
Speaker 1: or testimony in support of their motion. No ruling has
Speaker 1: yet been issued, and I have my eye on those
Speaker 1: court documents obviously every single day, and when we get
Speaker 1: a ruling, we'll have it updated. I plan on adding
Speaker 1: some more documents to the catalog over the week. That way,
Speaker 1: we're not behind and we're all up to date on
Speaker 1: what's going on behind the scenes. Neither Coberger's attorneys nor
Speaker 1: prosecutors immediately responded to requests for comment for this story
Speaker 1: from ABC News, and they're not going to comment because
Speaker 1: of the gag order. The judge in the case has
Speaker 1: issued an order largely barring both parties from speaking publicly
Speaker 1: about the investigation or pending prosecution outside of court and
Speaker 1: just quickly talking about judges. There wasn't a sudden shift
Speaker 1: in judges in this case. What happened was the case
Speaker 1: originally hit Megan Marshall's office because she is a lower
Speaker 1: court but now that it's progressed and he's been arraigned,
Speaker 1: it moves on to the next level of the court system,
Speaker 1: and that means it ends up in Judge John Judge's
Speaker 1: court room and not Judge Marshalls. And I know there
Speaker 1: was some confusion there about that issue. So that's what happened.
Speaker 1: It's nothing, you know, sinister or anything like that. That's
Speaker 1: just how the court system works. You get arraigned in
Speaker 1: one court and then you move on to the next level,
Speaker 1: and Idaho has a tiered court system that functions in
Speaker 1: that manner. Coburger, twenty eight, was indicted last month in
Speaker 1: Charge with four counts of first degree murder and one
Speaker 1: count of burglary. At his arraignment in late May, Coburger
Speaker 1: declined to offer a plea, so the judge entered or
Speaker 1: not guilty plea on his behalf. A trial date has
Speaker 1: been set for October second. Prosecutors alleged that in the
Speaker 1: early morning hours of November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, Coburger,
Speaker 1: a criminology PhD student at Washington State University, broke into
Speaker 1: an off campus home and stabbed to death for University
Speaker 1: of Idaho students Ethan Chapin, Madison Mogan, Xana Kernodle, and
Speaker 1: Kaylee Gonsalves. After a more than six week hunt, police
Speaker 1: zeroed in on Coburger as a suspect, tracking his white
Speaker 1: Hondai a Lantra cell phone signal data and recovering what
Speaker 1: authorities say was his DNA on a knife sheath found
Speaker 1: next to one of the victim's bodies, according to court documents,
Speaker 1: and that's the glue that binds it all together. That
Speaker 1: DNA on that knife sheath ties all that other evidence
Speaker 1: up in a nice little bow. And if you look
Speaker 1: at this evidence piecemeal, yeah, it doesn't look like it's
Speaker 1: a slam dunk. But when you look at all of
Speaker 1: the evidence combined, it makes all of that evidence that
Speaker 1: much stronger. And Brian Colberger and his team, they're going
Speaker 1: to have a big problem contending with all of that
Speaker 1: evidence balled into one He was arrested on December thirtieth
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania after driving cross country to spend the holidays
Speaker 1: at his family home in all Brightsville, Pennsylvania. Since the
Speaker 1: time of Coburger's arrest, the prosecution has disclosed roughly fifty
Speaker 1: one terabytes of information as part of the discovery process,
Speaker 1: including thousands of pages of discovery, thousands of photographs, hundreds
Speaker 1: of hours of recordings, further, many gigabytes of electronic phone
Speaker 1: record and social media data according to court documents. So
Speaker 1: they dropped a whole last ton of information in the
Speaker 1: lapse of the defense. Now they have to have time
Speaker 1: to go through all of that. So, like I said
Speaker 1: earlier in this episode, I don't see the trial unfortunately
Speaker 1: kicking off at the start date of October two like
Speaker 1: their hoping, and that all is based on the gigantic
Speaker 1: amount of evidence that has to be gone through here
Speaker 1: mister Coburger. Investigation and preparation of his defense is underway,
Speaker 1: his defense said in a response to the state's alibi
Speaker 1: demand and requests for a discovery disclosure filed on Friday,
Speaker 1: adding that as determinations are made regarding trial evidence, the
Speaker 1: same will be timely disclosed trial witnesses will be disclosed
Speaker 1: as determinations are made. The defense wrote, mister Kolberger does
Speaker 1: intend to call individuals named in the States supplied discovery materials.
Speaker 1: So what that means is he doesn't plan on calling
Speaker 1: his own witnesses. He plans on calling witnesses that are
Speaker 1: being brought up by the prosecution. That way his defense
Speaker 1: can hammer them. But I think they're going to need
Speaker 1: to bring a little more to the party than just that,
Speaker 1: because when all is said and done, just the evidence
Speaker 1: that we see here is a mountain high. And can
Speaker 1: you imagine what they have behind the scenes. Imagine GPS
Speaker 1: coordinates him connecting to a Wi Fi router, and all
Speaker 1: of the other evidence that has been collected in the
Speaker 1: aftermath of these murders. The task before Brian Colberger's lawyers
Speaker 1: is massive. The question is are they up for the
Speaker 1: challenge and what strategy do they plan on using? All Right, folks,
Speaker 1: that's gonna do it for this one. All of the
Speaker 1: information that goes with the episode can be found in
Speaker 1: the description box Free one and Welcome back to the program.
Speaker 1: Brian Colberger had until today to file his alibi with
Speaker 1: the court, and according to the record, that's exactly what
Speaker 1: he has done. According to court documents, Brian Colberger says
Speaker 1: he couldn't have committed the murders that occurred at eleven
Speaker 1: twenty two King Rhad in Moscow, Idaho, because well, he
Speaker 1: wasn't there. Never mind what the phone records tell us,
Speaker 1: never mind what the DNA has to say. Brian Kolberger
Speaker 1: himself told you that he wasn't there. And he's obviously
Speaker 1: a pillar of the community, right, you know, a real
Speaker 1: Salt and North kind of guy, and obviously somebody that
Speaker 1: we should take at their word. Right. If Brian Colberger
Speaker 1: says he wasn't there, let's forget all of the evidence
Speaker 1: that's been compiled against him, and let's just go that alibi.
Speaker 2: By the way, did I tell you that there's nobody to.
Speaker 1: Corroborate that alibi that Brian Colberger just gave to the court.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, there's that part of it as well. Today's
Speaker 1: article is from The Independent and the headline Brian Coberger
Speaker 1: defense hints at alibi in Idaho murders, but won't reveal
Speaker 1: what it is as the deadline passes. Brian Colberger's defense
Speaker 1: is sought to undermine the evidence against the accused killer,
Speaker 1: claiming that the DNA evidence tying him to the brutal
Speaker 1: murders may have been planted. I mean, we've reached the
Speaker 1: point already of absurdity. The DNA evidence was planted, Really,
Speaker 1: what kind of evidence do you have to prove that
Speaker 1: that's the case. Because anyone can say whatever they want,
Speaker 1: right but the second you get to court, you're gonna
Speaker 1: have to prove that. You can't just tell the judge
Speaker 1: that you know the prosecution planted evidence. You're gonna have
Speaker 1: to show them where that evidence was planted. And I
Speaker 1: have a funny feeling Brian Coberger's team is going to
Speaker 1: have a problem doing that. This article was authored by
Speaker 1: Rachel Sharp. Brian Coberger has hinted that he has evidence
Speaker 1: placing him in another location at the time of the
Speaker 1: University of Idaho murders, but has stopped short of revealing,
Speaker 1: where as the deadline for him to submit an alibi
Speaker 1: to the court has passed. And I'm certainly not some
Speaker 1: legal genius or anything like that, but I would think
Speaker 1: that if you have an alibi, you'd want that alibi
Speaker 1: out there right away, file to the court documents, and
Speaker 1: you'd want everybody to know that this wasn't me, and
Speaker 1: here's the evidence that proves it. In a filing in
Speaker 1: Leytah County Court on Monday, attorneys for the twenty eight
Speaker 1: year old criminology PhD student suggested that he has an
Speaker 1: alibi for the night of the thirteenth of November, which
Speaker 1: may come to light at trial. Yeah, let's just hold
Speaker 1: it back in reserve. I can't tell you my alibi
Speaker 1: yet because I'm still working on it. The Coberger's defense
Speaker 1: team continues investigating and preparing the case. The document state
Speaker 1: evidence corroborating mister Coberger being at a location other than
Speaker 1: the king Rote address will be disclosed pursu into discovery
Speaker 1: and evidentiary rules, as well as statutory requirements. It is
Speaker 1: anticipated this evidence may be offered by the way of
Speaker 1: cross examination of witnesses produced by the state, as well
Speaker 1: as calling expert witnesses. So you know what he's saying, right,
Speaker 1: I don't have an eyewitness to put me anywhere else,
Speaker 1: So we're going to rely on technicalities and loopholes to
Speaker 1: try and get my ass off the hook. That's what
Speaker 1: he's telling you. And honestly, I didn't expect anything else.
Speaker 1: They have nothing to go on. You can't turn a
Speaker 1: chicken shit sandwich into a chicken salad sandwich. I don't
Speaker 1: care how good of a lawyer you are. His attorney
Speaker 1: added that he has a constitutional right to silence as
Speaker 1: well to testify on his own behalf. I'd love to
Speaker 1: see that you thought Alex Murda was a shit show
Speaker 1: on the stand. Let's get Brian Colberger on the stand
Speaker 1: and let's see how bad that turns out. The defence's
Speaker 1: court filing came just ahead of the deadline for the
Speaker 1: accused mass killer to offer an alibi in the case
Speaker 1: that sent shockwaves across America. Under Idaho law, defendants have
Speaker 1: ten days to provide a written statement about where they
Speaker 1: claim to have been at the time of the alleged
Speaker 1: crime and offering information about any witnesses who can support
Speaker 1: their claims. On the twenty third of May, one day
Speaker 1: after he was arraigned on four murder charges, Leyta County
Speaker 1: Prosecutor's office put in a demand for mister Colberger's notice
Speaker 1: of alibi. Back then, mister Colberger's legal team asked Judge
Speaker 1: John Judge for an extension to this deadline, saying that
Speaker 1: they needed more time due to the wealth of evidence
Speaker 1: in the high profile case. As we would say in
Speaker 1: the South Bronx. What that means is they have ugats,
Speaker 1: nothing at all na A, and they're not gonna offer
Speaker 1: any kind of corroborating witness that says they were hanging
Speaker 1: out with Coburger on the night of these murders. If
Speaker 1: they had that, they'd be trotting it out right now
Speaker 1: as we speak. While his alleged alibi remains under wraps
Speaker 1: for now, mister Coberger's defense has sought to undermine the
Speaker 1: evidence against the accused killer, claiming that the DNA evidence
Speaker 1: tying him to the brutal murders may have been planted
Speaker 1: at the crime scene. I mean, come on, talk about
Speaker 1: grasping for straws. Yeah, it was planted. That's exactly what happened.
Speaker 1: The FBI showed up and decided to plant a bunch
Speaker 1: of evidence, and they just conveniently had a fall guy
Speaker 1: all lined up in Brian Coohberger. Okay, sure, I guess
Speaker 1: if that's what the defense is going to bring into
Speaker 1: the courtroom and bring to the jury, it's gonna be
Speaker 1: an easy bit of work for the prosecutors. They better
Speaker 1: have something more than this. In a recent filing in
Speaker 1: Leyta County Court, he suggested that police officers could have
Speaker 1: somehow placed his DNA on the knife sheath, which was
Speaker 1: left behind by the killer at the college rental home
Speaker 1: in Moscow, Idaho. The state's argument asks this court and
Speaker 1: mister Colberger to assume is that the DNA on the
Speaker 1: sheath was placed there by mister Colberger and not by
Speaker 1: someone else during an investigation that spans hundreds of members
Speaker 1: of law enforcement and apparently at least one lab. The
Speaker 1: state refuses to name. Mister Colberger's attorneys wrote. Prosecutors fired
Speaker 1: back at the suggestion that the evidence was rigged, writing
Speaker 1: in a filing that the state is at a loss
Speaker 1: to how the theory supports a claim that the IgG
Speaker 1: information is material to the preparation of his defense. Mister
Speaker 1: Colberger was tied to the thirteenth November murders of Madison Mogan,
Speaker 1: Kaylee Gonsalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin through a knife
Speaker 1: sheath left at the scene. The sheath for a million
Speaker 1: military or a k bar style knife, was found partly
Speaker 1: under Mogan's body after she and Gonsalvas were found stabbed
Speaker 1: multiple times on Mogan's bed on the third floor of
Speaker 1: the home. DNA on the button clasp of the sheath
Speaker 1: was then found to match that of the twenty eight
Speaker 1: year old accused killer. Mister Coberger's attorneys have sought to
Speaker 1: cast doubts on the strength of the DNA evidence, in
Speaker 1: particular the use of genetic genealogy. According to the affid
Speaker 1: David in the case, the FBI used genetic genealogy databases
Speaker 1: to try to identify the DNA source. Trash was then
Speaker 1: collected from the suspect's parents' home in the Pocono Mountains,
Speaker 1: and a familial match from mister Coberger's father was made
Speaker 1: to the sheath, according to the criminal affid David, and
Speaker 1: this is standard operating procedure. At this point, we just
Speaker 1: saw the same thing happen. Re Rex, you were me
Speaker 1: in right, bro leaves some pizza crust and bang he
Speaker 1: gets nailed too. Brian Koberger leaving whatever it is he
Speaker 1: left in the trash. The police came, collected it, and
Speaker 1: before you know it, they got themselves a suspect. Following
Speaker 1: mister Coberger's arrest on the thirtieth of December, DNA samples
Speaker 1: were then taken directly from the suspect and came back
Speaker 1: as a match, says prosecutors. Mister Coburger faces the death
Speaker 1: penalty if convicted of the murders of Gonsalvis, Mogan, Kernodle,
Speaker 1: and Chapin. He is scheduled to stand trial on the
Speaker 1: second of October after being indicted by a grand jury
Speaker 1: on four counts of first degree murder and one burglary charge.
Speaker 1: Mister Coburger is accused of breaking into an off campus
Speaker 1: student home on King Road in the early hours of
Speaker 1: November thirteenth and stabbing the four students to death with
Speaker 1: a large military style knife. Two other female roommates lived
Speaker 1: with the three women at the property and were home
Speaker 1: at the time of the massacre, but they survived. One
Speaker 1: of the survivors, Dylan Mortenson, came face to face with
Speaker 1: the mass killer dressed in head to toe black with
Speaker 1: bushy eyebrows, as he left the home in the aftermath
Speaker 1: of the murders. According to the criminal affet, David and
Speaker 1: we now know that the bushy eyebrows led directly to
Speaker 1: Brian Cohberger, or at least that's what the government alleges
Speaker 1: for more than six weeks, the college town of Moscow
Speaker 1: was plunged into fear as the accused killer remained at
Speaker 1: large with no arrest made and no suspects named. Then,
Speaker 1: on December thirtieth, law enforcement suddenly swooped on mister Coberger's
Speaker 1: family home in all Brightville, Pennsylvania and arrested him for
Speaker 1: the quadruple murders. The motive remains unknown, and it is
Speaker 1: still unclear what connection the WSU PhD student had to
Speaker 1: the University of Idaho's students, if any, prior to the murders.
Speaker 1: Now I'm saying that I think that he definitely had
Speaker 1: to connect to them, that he was following them on
Speaker 1: social media, and that he probably went into the Mad
Speaker 1: Greek numerous times to look at Maddie. I've said before
Speaker 1: that I think Maddie was the target, and I think
Speaker 1: that that bears out by the fact that he went
Speaker 1: to Maddie's room first and killed Maddie not knowing that
Speaker 1: Kaylee was going to be there, and once Kaylee was there,
Speaker 1: well we see the overkill. At least that's what's been
Speaker 1: alleged to us of Kaylee. So he was angry, he
Speaker 1: didn't have his time with Madison that he thought he
Speaker 1: was going to have and that led to.
Speaker 2: The overkill of Kaylee.
Speaker 1: But I think that the whole thing was initiated by
Speaker 1: him following them on social media and him running into
Speaker 1: them at the mad Greek. I think that's where all
Speaker 1: of this started. I think that's where he first saw Madison,
Speaker 1: and I think that's where his obsession began. Now, of course,
Speaker 1: I don't have the evidence to back that up, and
Speaker 1: I'll be very clear with you, that's just the working
Speaker 1: assumption that I'm going on, and as we get closer
Speaker 1: to trial, obviously that could all change drastically, But as
Speaker 1: of now, that seems the most logical path for how
Speaker 1: Brian Cohberger came into contact with these girls. However, the
Speaker 1: AFFID David released in January revealed that mister Coburger was
Speaker 1: tied to the killings through his DNA on the knife sheath,
Speaker 1: surveillance footage showing his white Hyundai Lantra close to the
Speaker 1: crime scene, and cell phone activity. The murder weapon, a
Speaker 1: fixed blade knife, has still never been found, and I
Speaker 1: doubt they'll ever find it. I'm of the opinion that
Speaker 1: on his way home, when he was leaving the house.
Speaker 1: He took that long way so he could go and
Speaker 1: have a burn pit and get rid of some of
Speaker 1: this evidence. That's what I think happened. As a criminal
Speaker 1: justice PhD student at Washington State University, mister Coburger lived
Speaker 1: just fifteen minutes from the victims over the Idaho Washington
Speaker 1: border in Pullman. He had moved there from Pennsylvania and
Speaker 1: began his study there that summer, having just completed his
Speaker 1: first semester before his arrest. Before this, he studied criminology
Speaker 1: at THEA. Sallas University, first as an undergraduate and then
Speaker 1: finishing his graduate studies in June of twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: While there, he studied under renowned forensic psychologist Katherine Ramsland,
Speaker 1: who interviewed the BTK serial killer and co wrote the
Speaker 1: book Confessions of a serial Killer, The Untold Story of
Speaker 1: Dennis Rader, the BTK Killer with him. She's also had
Speaker 1: a lot to say about rex Ywerman, but it's funny
Speaker 1: nothing to say about her buddy, Brian Coberger. Huh, my
Speaker 1: guess is, and it's the cynic in me saying this
Speaker 1: that she's angling for a book deal. He also carried
Speaker 1: out a research project to understand how emotions and psychological
Speaker 1: traits influenced decision making when committing a crime. All right,
Speaker 1: so that brings us up to date in the case
Speaker 1: against Brian Kolberger and the trial to try and get
Speaker 1: that conviction. All of the information that goes with this
Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box