April 24, 2025 • 42 mins
As Bryan Kohberger’s trial approaches, his defense team continues to file a series of motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a possible outcome.
Sources now allege that the decision to plead not guilty came at the urging of his mother, Maryann Kohberger, who reportedly believes he should fight the charges. A conviction could put him on a path toward capital punishment.
In court, an Idaho judge denied Kohberger’s request to allow defense experts to testify against the prosecution’s claims about his movements and Amazon purchase history. Prosecutors say evidence shows Kohberger bought a knife and sheath online in the months leading up to the killings. Court filings also state he searched for a replacement knife after the murders.
Joining Nancy Grace today,
- Joshua Ritter - Criminal Defense Attorney, Former Prosecutor, Host of Courtroom Confidential on YouTube; website: joshuaritter.com; Twitter, Instagram & TikTok: @joshuaritteresq, YouTube: CRConfidential
- Dr. Bethany Marshall - Psychoanalyst, Author: "Deal Breaker," featured in hit show: "Paris in Love" on Peacock www.drbethanymarshall.com , Instagram & TikTok: drbethanymarshall, Twitter: @DrBethanyLive
- Chris McDonough - Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective, Host of YouTube channel, "The Interview Room." www.coldcasefoundation.org/chris-mcdonough
- Joseph Scott Morgan - Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University, Author, "Blood Beneath My Feet", Host: "Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan", @JoScottForensic
- Sydney Sumner - Crime Online Investigative Reporter
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace a bombshell claim. Is Brian
Coburger's own mother secretly torpedoing his defense? I'm Nancy Grace,
this is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Location of emergency of.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
One one who.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Joining us an all star panel, but straight out to
the author who has written that definitive book on the
Coburger trial, Howard Bloom joining us. Howard question, what is
the report all about that Coburger's own mother is sabotaging
his defense?
Speaker 4 (00:53):
Brian Coberger's mother does not want to admit that her
son is guilty. She is telling him and everyone involved
in the defense team she has no intention of settling
this case.
Speaker 5 (01:06):
She wants it.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
All to go to trial, even though two things are
looming over the case.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
A very curious Howard Bloom why the mother would gamble
with her son's life since he is facing the firing squad.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
First, this is the death penalty which is now going
to end in a firing squad. Idaho has passed a
law requiring that the death penalty be serviced by a
firing squad. The second thing is that the evidence against
Brian Coburger is pretty convincing. You just have to go
(01:43):
to this one salient fact. They have DNA from the
knife sheath that matches DNA taken.
Speaker 5 (01:50):
From a cheek squab after his arrest.
Speaker 4 (01:52):
So the defense is doing everything they can to save Coburger,
not just from a a guilty verdict, but from the
death penalty and hovering over all this is Colburger's mother
trying to say putting down her foot and say no,
she does not want to cross that rubercon where her
son might be a mass murderer.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
I'm going to get to the rest of the family.
Where does the dad stand on this? Where does the
sisters stand on this? Remember they the sisters are the
ones that suspected Coburger their own brother at the get
go and voiced those concerns, and the parents beating them down.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
According to reports straight out to the panel, Josh.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
Ritter joining me, high profile criminal defense attorney joining us
out of la host of courtroom confidential.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Josh, thank you for being with us.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
This is greatly hampering the defense ability to maneuver because
if the mother is behind the scenes going HLN, there
will not be a guilty plea. She's setting her son,
her own son, up for the firing squad. So when
you've got it reminds me of a case that I
(03:01):
consulted on in Fulton County. It wasn't my case, but
I was watching it.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
A young man murdered his mother, who happened to be
a sitting judge.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Judge Josephine Holmes Cook all right, been a defense attorney
for years, got on the bench. The family kept saying,
don't plead, don't plead to the sun.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
They offered him a really light sentence, which I disagree with.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
But that said, he listened to the family, he got convicted,
he got life behind bars.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
That's what I'm talking about. What about it, Josh, Well.
Speaker 6 (03:38):
It's about his high stakes the game, as you could
possibly be claim, because we are talking about the death
pedal to hear, this isn't a matter of you know what,
let me take my chances, let me see what the
evidence actually is and this and we heard from the
author just there. And one thing I'll take issue with
is he talked about the evidence against him. I haven't
seen any evidence so so far. What we're talking about
(03:59):
is alleged at Place.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
Actually has a straight face when he's saying that, Well,
I want to watch you.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
I want to say your demeanor. Okay, yeah, what did
you just say that?
Speaker 1 (04:08):
You actually say you say you haven't seen any evidence
indicating guilt.
Speaker 6 (04:13):
I haven't seen an exhibit marked in court. I haven't
seen a witness taken taken the stand under oath, so
so far. I mean, we live in America where they're
presumed innocent right now there is no evidence. But in
this game that is being played, this game of chicken,
we're not just talking about somebody going to prison for
the rest of their life. We're talking about somebody who
might possibly be facing the firing squad. So I absolutely
(04:35):
do understand why the family pressures are going to be
something that's very difficult for his defense team to be handling.
If they're trying to negotiate some sort of a flea
that avoids him receiving the capital punishment, the greatest punishment
we have in this country. That is, I think their
first and foremost goal in this whole thing is just
to try to save their client's life, you know, to.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
Dodor Bethany Marshall joining us guys for the as you
just joining us. Apparently Mommy Coburger is to torpedoing her
son's defense case. Demanding that they go to trial to
prove his innocence. Okay, you know what can love be that?
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Blind?
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Doctor Bethany with me, Doctor Bethany Marshall, renowned psychoanalyst out
of the California jurisdiction, author of deal Breaker. You can
see her now on Peacock and find her at doctor
Bethany Marshall dot com. Question love that blind that she
can't see the evidence and all that that Josh Ritter
just said.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
It's blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Of course he's presumed innocent. He's just throwing that out
there as a fallback. Yes, he's presumed innocence. But the
rest of that phrase is unless and until the state
pierces the presumption of innocence with evidence. Okay, they always
leave that part out, But unless he wants to argue
(05:56):
DNA isn't real, Josh Ritter has a problem.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Blind love, Bethany, blind love.
Speaker 7 (06:03):
Not only does this mother have blinders on Nancy, but
I would imagine that this family has a long and
storied history of those two sisters being concerned about their brother,
pointing out his symptoms, trying to get some kind of
psychological help for him, and the mother shooting them down,
not believing them. You know, I find that in families
(06:26):
sometimes the parents idealize the most disturbed child. So you'll
have two kids who are really functioning highly in society,
are bright. You'll have one child who's maybe personality disordered,
maybe associopath, and the parent chooses to put that child
on a pedestal. It's as if the idea that that
(06:47):
child needs help is just unfathomable for them. So I
think this mother, unfortunately, is not in reality, and as
you pointed out earlier, she's going to hurt her son
in some way through this pushing the defense attorneys.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
And let me point out one more thing, doctor Bethany,
He's the baby.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
He's the baby.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Of the family, the golden boy, the only boy. Okay,
So I don't know how that works in the mother
son dynamic.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
I don't know that, but it means something.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
I'm just a trial lawyer, but I know enough to
know that the baby is coddle. The only boy is
very often elevated, like you're saying.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
But you know, Chris McDonough, let me go to you.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Unlike doctor Bethany, who comes at it from a psychological angle,
you and I've seen so many murder case I can't
even count the number of cases I investigated, tried, or covered.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Same with you.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
McDonough, Director Cold Case's Foundation, former homicide detective, having worked
over three hundred homicides during his career, also star of
The Interview Room, Chris, let's just break down all that
that Bethany just said. I've seen so many mothers will
probably every mother of a defendant. They tried to fight me,
(08:03):
physically fight me in the courtroom to defend their son.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
They don't believe their baby could do it.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
The looks I've gotten, if looks could kill, I mean,
the jury has to see everything going on in the courtroom,
and the mom is.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
Always front seat, right behind the.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Sun, charged with murder, crying and carrying on, acting like
they're going to pass out. Are you surprised the mother
is saying, no, you're not pleading because you didn't do it.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Forget the DNA. It happens all the time, Chris.
Speaker 8 (08:36):
Absolutely, Nancy, And isn't it interesting that that type of
unconditional love is that blind. I mean, remember, let's go
back to the point that she wrote an op ed
defending the death penalty against Ted Bundy of all people.
So you know, we have to think through that and say, okay, well,
what was the trigger between the mother and the son
(08:59):
that has caused her, you know, to defend him in
such a fashion, No, grante, that's her son. We get
that piece of the puzzle. But I think the evidence
is going to be damning for the family.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
I think he meant she attacked the death penalty in
an op ed, even though the death penalty was for
Ted Bundy. You know, I interviewed some of his survivors
changed their lives forever, not in a good way.
Speaker 9 (09:29):
Scot.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
I'm going to get right to you, but I want
to find.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Out from Howard Bloom about the rest of the family. Okay,
we know where the mom stands, Howard, but what about
the dad.
Speaker 4 (09:41):
I'm hearing from people close to the Coburger family, from
people close to the legal teams, that the real resistance
is coming from Brian's mother. His father is sort of
going with the flow. Neither one of them wants to
admit that their.
Speaker 5 (09:58):
Son is guilty.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
I leave your information, Howard Blame, author of the definitive book,
as of now on Brian Coberger.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
When the night comes falling, Okay.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
So that's the mom the dad who's kind of just
following her lead.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
What about the sisters, Howard blame.
Speaker 5 (10:18):
The sisters are a different case from the parents.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
One of them is a psychologist, a family psychologist, the
other one an aspiring actress.
Speaker 5 (10:30):
They're both can confront.
Speaker 4 (10:32):
The reality, it seems, with a lot more focus and
a lot more pain, perhaps than the parents.
Speaker 5 (10:39):
They realize what is happening. But one sister raised questions
originally with the father over the long Christmas.
Speaker 4 (10:46):
Vacation after their trip father and son trip across country,
she raised questions about her brother, Brian Coberger. And when
she raised this to a father, what did the father do?
According to my sources, he just walked out of the room.
He could not deal with it.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
I'm not surprised.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
Joining me is Sidney Sumner, Crime Stories, investigative reporter on
the case from the very beginning. Sidney, let's think back
for a moment. We were first covering the raid on
the family's Pocono's home, remember, and they found Coburger wearing
shorts or underwear, but knowing him, probably shorts, okay, and
(11:25):
plastic gloves, you know, rubber gloves, and he was sorting
through trash and putting trash in individual plastic bags, or
so we've been told, and wait for it, then throwing
away the trash in the neighbor's Herbie Kirby, the neighbors
big outdoor trash bend. Ben I'm at that time, as
(11:49):
I recall, the sisters started asking then, hey, I think.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
He did it. What do you think? Well, do you
remember that at the very beginning.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Yeah, Nancy. So that's what the reports are saying now
is that his sisters were immediately suspicious after hearing news
of what was going on in Moscow. They had that
description of the car not long after Coburger got home
for Christmas, and they looked at their brother, they looked
at his car, and they were immediately concerned that he
(12:23):
was somehow involved. And as Bloom said, his sources are
saying that the parents completely shut those arguments down from
the sisters, would not even entertain a conversation about it.
And days later the FBI shows up at their.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
House to arrest Brian.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
And now we know the defense is going to blame
this odd behavior with the trash on Coberger's OCD diagnosis.
Who he's going to say this is an unusual behavior
for me. It may have looked odd considering I have
just been implicated in this crime, but I always handle
my trash weird. I had dream of photia, I have
(13:01):
OCD behaviors that require me to do this, or I
feel anxiety and stress.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Okay, Sidney, you're scaring me a little bit because you
sound like you actually believe that. Okay, just a quick
answer from doctor Bethany Marshall. Did you hear what Sidney
just said that he's going to try to explain away
his behavior of wearing plastic gloves or rubber gloves at
what three am?
Speaker 2 (13:26):
Was it at three am? Said some crazy.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Time when they were watching it from outside walking around
the house on the inside three am?
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Okay, So how can you explain he's not getting rid
of his trash.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
He's separating his parents trash at his parents' Pocono's home,
wearing plastic gloves, probably a face covering too, putting it
in plastic bags and I bet they were baggies sellable baggies.
Don't know that yet, and putting it in the neighbor's trash.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
How can that be? That's getting rid of evidence?
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Bethany Hey, reader's digest answer, not the full volume.
Speaker 7 (14:07):
I have never seen an OCD patient engage in this
kind of behavior, and if he did have OCD, he
would be avoiding the trash, not going towards it.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Okay, here's another thing to Joe Scott Morgan joining me,
Professor Forensics, Jacksonville State University, author of Blood Beneath My
Feet on Amazon, death investigator over a thousand investigations under
his belt, and star of hit podcast Body Bags with
Joe Scott Morgan.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Joe Scott.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
Separating the trash, putting it in little baggies, throwing it
in the neighbor's trash. Could any of that disruption of
the evidence possibly destroy DNA evidence?
Speaker 2 (14:50):
And cops watched him.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
Vacuuming, spraying with four nine or commet cleaning out his car.
What does it take to get rid of DNA evidence?
But you know you got to address is it hair?
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Is it fiber? Is it blood? Is it touch? Respond?
Speaker 9 (15:10):
Well, you know, when you're talking about these categories of
potential evidence, our DNA rich evidence that are there, the
first thing, I think, probably the first thing that's the
most fragile is going to be any components of hair,
because you can lose it pretty quickly. Even a strong
gust of wind can blow it away probably second along
(15:31):
that is going to be any kind of touch DNA.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
We have to.
Speaker 9 (15:34):
Remember that touch DNA actually presents as a result of
dead sloughing skin cells. So if you have dry skin,
you can appreciate how easily that can be lost very quickly.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Crime stories with Nancy Gray exactly.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Let's play on one of the roommates has passed out
and she was strong class.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Oh and they tell some man in their house up.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
Yeah, joining us in all star panels straight out to
Howard Bloom, author of.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
The definitive book on the Idaho murders.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
When the night comes falling, Howard, we're talking about the
mother torpedoing the defense, and I've got to move on
very quickly because there's so much happening in the courtroom.
But do you believe any of the family is going
to take the stand. That's a very very tricky question
(16:41):
because it could open up his Coburger's.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Reputation, his past. If the family says one.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
Slip up, all that's going to come into evidence, okay,
because it will be deemed the defense brought it up.
And also, what am I hearing about Coburger's sister is
writing a book.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
I think, and again this is just my hypothesis that
Brian's sister, who is a psychologist, will be taken put
on the stand, I think, and what I'm hearing is
she might even confirm her brother's purchase of the Amazon
knife from Amazon and that she's seen him with it.
(17:22):
That again, I can't say that for a fact, but
this is what I am hearing. And I also think
that she is writing a book on this case. I've
heard that too, And so she's been delving into this
with a bit more objectivity, a bit more sensitivity, sensitivity
(17:43):
to the family drama she's living through, and I think
her the defense will not the defense, rather the prosecution
will put her on the stand to try to get
the answers to speaking.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Now, I'm very curious about how the sister is going
to testify regarding Brian Coburger ordered the knife that that
was him, because we know the defense is going to argue,
wait for it, a shared Amazon account.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
But that said, can I just focus on the book.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
The sister is writing a book. Oh please please.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Please, someone put her on the stand. Josh Ritter.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
That opens up a whole can of worms for cross examination.
The sister may now have a pecuniary interest in the
outcome money interest in the outcome of this trial. Did
nobody learn anything from Becky Hill? The clerk in the
Murdog case? Remember Murdog murdered his wife, Maggie and son
(18:43):
Paul Okay. In that case, the clerk of court, Becky Hill,
who seemed like a perfectly wonderful person, reportedly said comments
to the jury that the defense claims made them come.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Back with a guilty verdict.
Speaker 5 (19:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
I don't believe that. She may have made offhand comments,
maybe even in jest, but.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
They voted the way they wanted to vote. That said
she wrote a book, and she was drawn and quartered
over writing a book, suggesting that somehow she had a
money motive in the outcome of this trial, that she
said things to the jury to make them reach a
certain verdict so she could make money. It's kind of
(19:26):
preposterous that she could think that far in advance.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
I don't think that happened. Do I think there'll be
any trial? Yes? Do I think it really happened. No,
same thing here, Josh Well in that case too.
Speaker 6 (19:39):
That's such a great example, it led to near disaster
for the prosecution because the defense was able to make
great hay of it. I mean, these are no small
problems when you anytime you're calling a witness, as the prosecution,
you're hoping that that person is coming in with no motivations,
no biases that exist outside of court. Well, as you
(19:59):
point out, Nancy, what bigger interest could somebody have, but
that they look to gain money off of this. They
look to profit off of this. They look to profit
perhaps even by the outcome of it, but certainly by
the story of it.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
It's not a.
Speaker 5 (20:14):
Problem to be lightly dismissed.
Speaker 6 (20:17):
I think it's definitely something the prosecution is going to
have to deal with.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
The significance of putting the sister on the stand for
so many reasons. Watching him clean out his car immediately
after the murders, obsessively him cleaning out the trash, wearing
plastic gloves, sorting it and using the neighbors a trash disposal,
but also a shared Amazon account.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Is this really happening?
Speaker 1 (20:43):
Do they think the jury will believe what the aging
mother and father ordered a k bar knife.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
Listen, listen to the defense.
Speaker 10 (20:52):
It's misleading that the way that you just portray it
that because there is a purchase in a household account,
that that is automatically attributable to him, and that there's
somehow purchase.
Speaker 11 (21:04):
In the household account, it's attributed under his particular name
in the account, as I understand it, Now, could somebody
else in the family get to it?
Speaker 2 (21:12):
I don't know.
Speaker 11 (21:12):
I suppose you're an expert will tell us that.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
But.
Speaker 11 (21:18):
I'm not sure how that is excluded. And I'm not
sure how that's expert testimony. I understand you have an
expert to say, well, you know, all these other factors
come into play, and all these other things could have happened,
and okay, you can put that on, but I'm not
sure where that excludes the state's evidence.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Sidney Sumner, you've comed over every word that went down
in the courtroom.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
The defense is arguing that there was a.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
Joint account on Amazon and maybe somebody else ordered the
k bar knife and she you know, it reminds me
of top Mom Casey Anthony.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
Okay, that's a nightmare right there.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
But remember she did that damning search on how to
make homemade.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
Chloroform and her daughter, little Kelly.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
According to the state was drugged, unconscious and died in
the mom's trunk. All right, her mother Todd Mom's mother,
Cindy Anthony, gets on the stand and claims she was
doing a search for Chlora phil because of bamboo.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Growing in the backyard. Iighly did that to take the
heat off top mom.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Okay, So I guess the theory here is somebody else
in the family, on a shared Amazon account, ordered the
k bar knife and sheath, and then Sydney, they went
back and ordered a replacement knife when the first one
got lost in a murder, and then tried to delete
the Amazon order history.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
Really, is that what they're claiming?
Speaker 3 (22:45):
Yes they are, And in their filing last month, giving
more detail into this argument, they mentioned that other camping
gear was purchased, a backpack, a tire repair kit, things
of that nature. So they're suggesting that, oh, this was
a usual purchase, this was a campaign type purchase and
(23:09):
not necessarily attributable to Brian because they share this family account.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
And what's interesting about.
Speaker 3 (23:16):
That, I do the same thing. I share an Amazon
account with my family, and I recently realized that, oh,
you can set up a separate account that's under this
household account. That uses your name particularly, so instead of
shopping as my mother or my father, I can shop
as myself and my purchase history is separate than the
(23:40):
other people on that household account. So they're going to
try and say that, oh, somebody else was using Brian's account,
and that just makes no sense. Why would somebody else
in his family go out of their way to specifically
shop as Brian and then have it delivered to Brian
and not someone else in the family. That's what they're
(24:01):
going to try and say, and I don't think it's
going to hold any wire.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Josh Ritter, She's right, And can I also say Ridder
that I'm so happy right now at the prospect the
defense calling the mom and the dad, I guess up
in their seventies at this juncture, I'm not sure about.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
That to try to put them on the stand to
claim they ordered the camping gear, they ordered the k bar.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
I mean, if they put that defense up, the state
is going to rebut and bring on and rebuttal every
single family member that had access to that Amazon account
and say did you order the k bar knife and
have it shipped to Brian Coburger.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
They're not gonna lie about that under oath. I hope
they do it. Nothing can make me happier ridder.
Speaker 6 (24:52):
Listen, the defense is holding the prosecution's feet to the
fire here. If they want to say he bought a
knife on the sh account and lo and behold that
account is shared by others, well then they better be
able to back it up and prove that in fact,
it was him purchasing it. Now, the idea that one
account can have several different logins and that you can
(25:12):
track that log into a particular individual, sure that sounds
like evidence that's pointing towards that direction. But who else
is able to access those different sub accounts? Are Does
that mean that you have to have a unique log
in information and password. I don't know. The problem is
we don't know the problem.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
And I'm a little surprised because you're totally losing my point,
my point. Let me break it down for you, ritter
as if you need my help, please fine.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Go ahead to fence.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
In fact, I assist you bring it up in the
opening statement that somebody else could have ordered the k
bar nine. Yes, it's on the state to prove he
did it. But you just heard Sydney sum it up
in about three sentences. It was very convincing.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
Go ahead.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
I'd be mad if you didn't, because once you do that,
the state is going to bring on everybody on that
family account and ask them under oath did.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
You order it? Did you order it? Did you order it?
Did you order it?
Speaker 1 (26:14):
And when every family member, all four of them, say no,
I didn't order it, then the defense looks like a
big fat liar, and so does Brian Coburger.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
So is that what you want, Ridder?
Speaker 6 (26:25):
Or they say, I don't know. You're talking about purchases
made years ago. You're talking about we make several purchases,
including camping equipment, including things like knives. Is it impossible
that I ever purchased a knife in the past when
I have a specific memory of it.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
Now, No, Look, somebody may fall for that BS in court,
but I'm not falling for it. I appreciate what you're doing.
It's very artful. It's wildy like a fox. But Joe
Scott Morgan, you hear Ridder comparing apples and oranges right here,
and that works a lot of time. My head blow
off in the court because I couldn' jump in like
I'm doing right now.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
This is not about what may have been ordered three
years ago. This is about what was.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Ordered just before four students were slaughtered butchered in their
beds by.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Akbar knife, by a knife matching the one Coburger ordered.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
So, Joe Scott, the knife, you want to tell me
a knife this size, a military knife. Let's see a
picture of the knife. Please control room. That Mama and
Pau Pau bought the knife. Sister, the one writing the book,
the shrink the other one what they bought a knife
just before the murders and had it shipped to Coburger.
(27:45):
Tell us about the knife.
Speaker 9 (27:47):
It's a combat knife, Nancy, and our troopers have carried
it since literally prior to World War Two. The Coast's
used it, Navy used it on decks, but it's generally
associated with the United States Marine Corps. As matter of fact,
the sheath that he had had the anchor globe and
(28:10):
eagle and blazoned on the sheet itself, and it said USMC.
All right. So with that said, we have to understand.
So if you're going to purchase a knife, let's say
you want to go hunting, there are a lot more
There are a lot more knives out there that would
(28:30):
be more apropos for hunting. Perhaps, Why would somebody up
in age want this knife? What are they going to do?
Sit around? Are they going to peel apples with it?
Peel potatoes with it back in the kitchen. I don't
understand the utility of it in a common household. And
I think one of the things that we're kind of
(28:50):
skipping over here we keep talking about ordering. I want
to know about delivery. Where was it delivered to? Was
there any contact with the person it was delivered too.
I'd be interested to know if we're going to have
a driver that's going to get up on the stand
and make testimony. I don't know how they'll keep track
of all that sort of thing, but there will be
(29:11):
a tracking relative to this. You know, we're tracking who's
ordering the thing, but who took delivery up, When did
it show up, where did it show up. All of
these little intricacies are going to be playing into this
as well.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Nan, Hey, what about this?
Speaker 1 (29:25):
A lot of drivers AB or Amazon have, like cops
have dash can video going on. I wonder if that
has been retrieved or I'm trying to remember. I think
I have it in my notes when I went to
Coburger's pulling An apartment, spoke to all of his neighbors.
I'm pretty sure I saw cameras. I'm not sure because
(29:47):
I looked at so many places. But if there is
surveillance from that day from that delivery man, that would
be a bombshell. But here is the fly in the ointment.
At the time the knife was ordered, it was eight
(30:07):
months before the murders.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
Okay, so at that.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
Time Coburger was not yet living in Pullman. His dad
hadn't driven him out there and tried to make friends
for him. Right, he actually went to neighbors saying, hey,
could you be friend my son.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
He's very much of a loner.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
So anyway, the knife did go to the family's place.
Now wait, wait, wait, Sidney Sumner, I may have an
answer for that. After the murders, isn't it true that
someone went online to order a replacement knife. Was that
replacement knife ever delivered?
Speaker 3 (30:50):
No, Nancy, a replacement knife was never purchased. But in
the week after the homicides, somebody did go online on
that shared Oberger family account and look at similar knives
to the one that was used allegedly in the murders.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
Okay, In Sydney. Isn't it true that someone also went
on and try to delete the Amazon search history? I
know for a fact that that's possible because Santa tries
to delete the search history, so the Christmas recipients don't
see the search history on the shared Amazon accounts.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
See, this jury's going to know all of this, the
ins and out. Did someone try to delete the search history?
Speaker 3 (31:36):
That's also correct. We're still trying to get some more
details on that timeline, and again all of this will
come out much more clearly during the trial.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
But we believe the time.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
That has purchased eight months before the murders, at some
point after that knife is delivered, somebody tries to go
in and delete record of that purchase. And then a
week after the murders, how many goes and books at
that knife? Again on Amazon.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, you know, Chris mcdonnald and
joining me Director Cold Case Foundation also starred the Interview
Room on YouTube. Chris, you first raised the alarm and
the wave the red flag on the Amazon analytics months
and months and months ago. Why do they care? What
(32:33):
are they looking for? And now we know, Chris, you
were right?
Speaker 11 (32:37):
Yeah?
Speaker 8 (32:37):
And what Doc Morgan was talking about, I mean, the
intricacy of that particular knife. If you look at it,
that knife has what they call a blood groove in it.
Uh that that knife is designed to kill. It was
designed for the military. So when you when you talk about,
you know, another fly in the ointment for a moment here, Nancy,
(33:00):
Let's also remember that somehow that knife sheath ends up
a couple of thousand miles away underneath one of the
victims in this case. So if the family's going to say,
you know, hypothetically, if the defense is going to say, yeah,
the mom or the dad or whoever, the two sisters
ordered this knife, well great, let's see their DNA.
Speaker 5 (33:20):
Let's see their DNA on that knife sheath.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
Scott. Yeah.
Speaker 9 (33:25):
One of my biggest things here, Nancy, is the fact
that if you go back and you look at this
idea of who ordered the knife, if all of I
don't know who's domicile in his house in Pennsylvania along
with him, his mom and dad. I don't know if
the sisters are there. I have no idea, but I
do know this, If the occupants of that domicile are
(33:47):
compelled to testify in this trial, not only are they
going to say, well, did you order it on the
family account? They're going to be asked a follow up question, well,
we know that it was delivered, did you sign for it,
did you take it off the porch? Did you receive it?
And there's going to be a big dead silence in
that in that courtroom, because I don't know unless somebody
(34:09):
were bold enough to try to cover their tracks for
this guy or try to lie on his behalf. Not
that they would, but aside from that, there's going to
be silence in the courtroom because we know who took
delivery of a knife or who collected it off of
the porch. No one else is going to be there
saying that they saw it.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
Okay, And how old is she?
Speaker 6 (34:39):
She's twenty twenty, you said.
Speaker 10 (34:44):
Twenty.
Speaker 11 (34:45):
Here's okay them clo, clo.
Speaker 7 (34:49):
Okay.
Speaker 6 (34:49):
I need someone who stops passing the phone around because
I've talked to four different people.
Speaker 5 (34:53):
Hey, sorry, they just give me the phone.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Is she breathing?
Speaker 7 (34:57):
Will Hello?
Speaker 5 (34:58):
Is she breathing? No?
Speaker 1 (35:04):
You are hearing a female resident of the home on
King Road and they had called a friend over and
you hear the friends say get out, get out, get out,
because he did not want Dylan and or Bethany the
roommates to come and see Xana's butchered body.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
Speaking of Dylan Mortenson.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
We believe that there is a move of foot to
have her on the stand for many reasons, but to
make a voice an in court in front of the
jury voice identification of Brian Coburger.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
Remember the roommates, one or both of them heard I'm
here to help you. I'm here to help you.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
That was said to the murder victims before they were slaughtered.
Now we know Coburger may not take the stand, So
how can Dylan make a voice identification comparing Coberger's voice
to what she heard that night?
Speaker 2 (36:11):
Here's a good way.
Speaker 4 (36:14):
What actually happened was I was stuck in the middle
of the intersection.
Speaker 6 (36:17):
Yeah, I was by you full time.
Speaker 1 (36:19):
Yeah, yeah, we just got this for you anyway, I'm
just gonna get this out here, okay.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
So can you would.
Speaker 6 (36:28):
Explain that to me a little bit further So, in Pennsylvania, when.
Speaker 9 (36:31):
You're stuck with in their tear.
Speaker 1 (36:32):
Section, you have to make the left.
Speaker 6 (36:34):
So what would what would the appropriate thing for me
to have done? Just Yeah, it's a little bit of
confusion with sweeding because someone has stopped. I wasn't sure
what they were doing, and then they put on their
light to turn Okay.
Speaker 1 (36:50):
We all learned from the OJ Simpson double murder trial.
Never perform a demonstration in front of the jury that
you have not practice. Remember when Johnny Cochrane tried to
pull the glove onto OJ Simpson's hand, it was as
big as a Virginia ham. Let me just say that,
(37:12):
I think I could have gotten it on his hand.
But that said Dylan Mortenson on the stand to make
a voice id of Brian Coberger.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
Has it ever been.
Speaker 1 (37:26):
Done to our forensics professor Joe Scott Morgan.
Speaker 9 (37:30):
I'm glad you threw this to me, Nancy, because one
of the things I'm thinking about. We rely on eyewitness
ear witness, and I'm thinking, does that fall into the
same category. Because one of the problems is, and I
can't speak to this because she's a non forensic scientist,
she hasn't worked at Laneley, you know, where they can
run these tapes and they so I think that that's
(37:52):
going to be a major sticking point. They can say,
well does it sound like the same person? And I
can see the defense objecting to this because they'll say
she's not qualified to make this assessment. So I think
that the chances of her being able to actually make
an ID and that be accepted in court, even if
it gets that far, are slim and none.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
Well, you know what, Joskott Morgan, let me remind you. Wait,
maybe I'm wrong.
Speaker 2 (38:15):
Did you go to law school behind my back?
Speaker 9 (38:17):
No, I've been sitting at her feet all these years
learning from you.
Speaker 2 (38:22):
So, Joshua Ridder, she absolutely.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
I mean, if she can do it, she absolutely will
be allowed on the stand to make a voice comparison.
Speaker 2 (38:34):
Right, there's no hoop for her to go to.
Speaker 1 (38:37):
She won't be testifying as an expert. She will be
making a comparison to what she heard that night. Of course,
they will practice ahead of time, and if she can't
make it, then they won't put her up for that reason.
But josh Ridder, there's nothing to disallow her from making
that comparison. My question to you is, I wonder if
that's why they did not have him speak in court.
(39:00):
He didn't enter his own plate, he doesn't say anything.
The lawyer entered the not guilty plate for him. I
wonder if that's why they're keeping him quiet, so there
won't be any in court audio of him for her
to compare.
Speaker 6 (39:15):
That is an interesting point that I had never put
together before as to why he we've never heard him
actually speak in court. But you're right, I mean, as
far as asking her to make the identification, I don't
know if the judge legally can prevent them, but if
I'm the defense, I am still going blue in the
face objecting to this because think of how this could
work out.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
One she could say, yeah, yeah, that's how it's going
to work out.
Speaker 6 (39:40):
And then the jury is going to accept that as
an absolute ideation of the defendant.
Speaker 5 (39:45):
And if she.
Speaker 6 (39:45):
Doesn't identify it, if she says I can't tell he
heard the speaking, the prosecution cries that a word. Yeah,
but the prosecution can explain it away, Ritter.
Speaker 1 (39:59):
That's what happens when the state puts up damning evidence.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
The jury believes it. But you know another issue.
Speaker 1 (40:08):
We don't have to have him testify, because isn't it true,
Chris mcdonney, you've executed plenty of search warrants while the
defendant doesn't have to give a statement or speak to
police under the constitution. Right to remain silent fit amendment.
They can be forced to comply to a DNA sample,
(40:29):
they can be made to walk and get their gait.
They can be forced compelled to give a writing sample.
They can be forced to give a speaking sample.
Speaker 5 (40:39):
Yep.
Speaker 8 (40:40):
Absolutely, and then you could give that to an acoustics
expert who can measure those you know, those tremors from
the voice.
Speaker 5 (40:48):
One loophole though, is the acoustics in the house.
Speaker 8 (40:52):
I think the defense can argue, Hey, the house is gone,
we can't do a comparative analysis.
Speaker 1 (40:57):
Thank you for tipping him off to that, Chris McDonald,
doctor Bethany Marshall. Again, the whole specter of his autism
and his OCD has been raised.
Speaker 2 (41:08):
The judge has said.
Speaker 1 (41:09):
Point blank, and I've got him on tape saying he
doesn't appear to be impinged in any way. So unless
he takes a stand, you're not bringing in autism because
he's exhibited no odd behavior.
Speaker 2 (41:24):
In the courtroom at all. Is that real?
Speaker 1 (41:29):
What would you expect to see from someone that's barely
under the spectrum.
Speaker 7 (41:33):
Well, first of all, we're all on the spectrum.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
Everybody is neuroatypical.
Speaker 7 (41:38):
So the idea that he is special in any real
way I do not buy the fact that he.
Speaker 2 (41:43):
Was a PhD student.
Speaker 7 (41:45):
He was getting through school functioning at a very high level.
Speaker 2 (41:48):
That means that.
Speaker 7 (41:49):
He's competent enough to stand trial. Now, if I were
the defense attorneys, I would not be introducing autism for
a very specific reason, and that is that people who
are very severe in terms of their diagnosis tend to
have preoccupations. So if there's a homicidal preoccupation, it would
be very difficult for an autistic person to get that
(42:11):
out of their mind. They also have preoccupations with physical objects.
It could be a train, it could be a book,
it could be a knife, a knife that's ordered eight
months before a murder, a knife that's re ordered again
because that autistic person is obsessed with the knife. So
I would be very careful with this autistic diagnosis if
(42:32):
I were them.
Speaker 2 (42:33):
Really, it can cut both ways.
Speaker 1 (42:35):
We wait as justice unfolds. A trial date set forward
this summer, and we will be there. Nancy Grace signing off,
goodbye friend.
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace a bombshell claim. Is Brian
Coburger's own mother secretly torpedoing his defense? I'm Nancy Grace,
this is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Location of emergency of.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
One one who.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Joining us an all star panel, but straight out to
the author who has written that definitive book on the
Coburger trial, Howard Bloom joining us. Howard question, what is
the report all about that Coburger's own mother is sabotaging
his defense?
Speaker 4 (00:53):
Brian Coberger's mother does not want to admit that her
son is guilty. She is telling him and everyone involved
in the defense team she has no intention of settling
this case.
Speaker 5 (01:06):
She wants it.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
All to go to trial, even though two things are
looming over the case.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
A very curious Howard Bloom why the mother would gamble
with her son's life since he is facing the firing squad.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
First, this is the death penalty which is now going
to end in a firing squad. Idaho has passed a
law requiring that the death penalty be serviced by a
firing squad. The second thing is that the evidence against
Brian Coburger is pretty convincing. You just have to go
(01:43):
to this one salient fact. They have DNA from the
knife sheath that matches DNA taken.
Speaker 5 (01:50):
From a cheek squab after his arrest.
Speaker 4 (01:52):
So the defense is doing everything they can to save Coburger,
not just from a a guilty verdict, but from the
death penalty and hovering over all this is Colburger's mother
trying to say putting down her foot and say no,
she does not want to cross that rubercon where her
son might be a mass murderer.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
I'm going to get to the rest of the family.
Where does the dad stand on this? Where does the
sisters stand on this? Remember they the sisters are the
ones that suspected Coburger their own brother at the get
go and voiced those concerns, and the parents beating them down.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
According to reports straight out to the panel, Josh.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
Ritter joining me, high profile criminal defense attorney joining us
out of la host of courtroom confidential.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Josh, thank you for being with us.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
This is greatly hampering the defense ability to maneuver because
if the mother is behind the scenes going HLN, there
will not be a guilty plea. She's setting her son,
her own son, up for the firing squad. So when
you've got it reminds me of a case that I
(03:01):
consulted on in Fulton County. It wasn't my case, but
I was watching it.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
A young man murdered his mother, who happened to be
a sitting judge.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Judge Josephine Holmes Cook all right, been a defense attorney
for years, got on the bench. The family kept saying,
don't plead, don't plead to the sun.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
They offered him a really light sentence, which I disagree with.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
But that said, he listened to the family, he got convicted,
he got life behind bars.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
That's what I'm talking about. What about it, Josh, Well.
Speaker 6 (03:38):
It's about his high stakes the game, as you could
possibly be claim, because we are talking about the death
pedal to hear, this isn't a matter of you know what,
let me take my chances, let me see what the
evidence actually is and this and we heard from the
author just there. And one thing I'll take issue with
is he talked about the evidence against him. I haven't
seen any evidence so so far. What we're talking about
(03:59):
is alleged at Place.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
Actually has a straight face when he's saying that, Well,
I want to watch you.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
I want to say your demeanor. Okay, yeah, what did
you just say that?
Speaker 1 (04:08):
You actually say you say you haven't seen any evidence
indicating guilt.
Speaker 6 (04:13):
I haven't seen an exhibit marked in court. I haven't
seen a witness taken taken the stand under oath, so
so far. I mean, we live in America where they're
presumed innocent right now there is no evidence. But in
this game that is being played, this game of chicken,
we're not just talking about somebody going to prison for
the rest of their life. We're talking about somebody who
might possibly be facing the firing squad. So I absolutely
(04:35):
do understand why the family pressures are going to be
something that's very difficult for his defense team to be handling.
If they're trying to negotiate some sort of a flea
that avoids him receiving the capital punishment, the greatest punishment
we have in this country. That is, I think their
first and foremost goal in this whole thing is just
to try to save their client's life, you know, to.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
Dodor Bethany Marshall joining us guys for the as you
just joining us. Apparently Mommy Coburger is to torpedoing her
son's defense case. Demanding that they go to trial to
prove his innocence. Okay, you know what can love be that?
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Blind?
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Doctor Bethany with me, Doctor Bethany Marshall, renowned psychoanalyst out
of the California jurisdiction, author of deal Breaker. You can
see her now on Peacock and find her at doctor
Bethany Marshall dot com. Question love that blind that she
can't see the evidence and all that that Josh Ritter
just said.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
It's blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Of course he's presumed innocent. He's just throwing that out
there as a fallback. Yes, he's presumed innocence. But the
rest of that phrase is unless and until the state
pierces the presumption of innocence with evidence. Okay, they always
leave that part out, But unless he wants to argue
(05:56):
DNA isn't real, Josh Ritter has a problem.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Blind love, Bethany, blind love.
Speaker 7 (06:03):
Not only does this mother have blinders on Nancy, but
I would imagine that this family has a long and
storied history of those two sisters being concerned about their brother,
pointing out his symptoms, trying to get some kind of
psychological help for him, and the mother shooting them down,
not believing them. You know, I find that in families
(06:26):
sometimes the parents idealize the most disturbed child. So you'll
have two kids who are really functioning highly in society,
are bright. You'll have one child who's maybe personality disordered,
maybe associopath, and the parent chooses to put that child
on a pedestal. It's as if the idea that that
(06:47):
child needs help is just unfathomable for them. So I
think this mother, unfortunately, is not in reality, and as
you pointed out earlier, she's going to hurt her son
in some way through this pushing the defense attorneys.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
And let me point out one more thing, doctor Bethany,
He's the baby.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
He's the baby.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Of the family, the golden boy, the only boy. Okay,
So I don't know how that works in the mother
son dynamic.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
I don't know that, but it means something.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
I'm just a trial lawyer, but I know enough to
know that the baby is coddle. The only boy is
very often elevated, like you're saying.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
But you know, Chris McDonough, let me go to you.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Unlike doctor Bethany, who comes at it from a psychological angle,
you and I've seen so many murder case I can't
even count the number of cases I investigated, tried, or covered.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Same with you.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
McDonough, Director Cold Case's Foundation, former homicide detective, having worked
over three hundred homicides during his career, also star of
The Interview Room, Chris, let's just break down all that
that Bethany just said. I've seen so many mothers will
probably every mother of a defendant. They tried to fight me,
(08:03):
physically fight me in the courtroom to defend their son.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
They don't believe their baby could do it.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
The looks I've gotten, if looks could kill, I mean,
the jury has to see everything going on in the courtroom,
and the mom is.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
Always front seat, right behind the.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Sun, charged with murder, crying and carrying on, acting like
they're going to pass out. Are you surprised the mother
is saying, no, you're not pleading because you didn't do it.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Forget the DNA. It happens all the time, Chris.
Speaker 8 (08:36):
Absolutely, Nancy, And isn't it interesting that that type of
unconditional love is that blind. I mean, remember, let's go
back to the point that she wrote an op ed
defending the death penalty against Ted Bundy of all people.
So you know, we have to think through that and say, okay, well,
what was the trigger between the mother and the son
(08:59):
that has caused her, you know, to defend him in
such a fashion, No, grante, that's her son. We get
that piece of the puzzle. But I think the evidence
is going to be damning for the family.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
I think he meant she attacked the death penalty in
an op ed, even though the death penalty was for
Ted Bundy. You know, I interviewed some of his survivors
changed their lives forever, not in a good way.
Speaker 9 (09:29):
Scot.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
I'm going to get right to you, but I want
to find.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Out from Howard Bloom about the rest of the family. Okay,
we know where the mom stands, Howard, but what about
the dad.
Speaker 4 (09:41):
I'm hearing from people close to the Coburger family, from
people close to the legal teams, that the real resistance
is coming from Brian's mother. His father is sort of
going with the flow. Neither one of them wants to
admit that their.
Speaker 5 (09:58):
Son is guilty.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
I leave your information, Howard Blame, author of the definitive book,
as of now on Brian Coberger.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
When the night comes falling, Okay.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
So that's the mom the dad who's kind of just
following her lead.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
What about the sisters, Howard blame.
Speaker 5 (10:18):
The sisters are a different case from the parents.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
One of them is a psychologist, a family psychologist, the
other one an aspiring actress.
Speaker 5 (10:30):
They're both can confront.
Speaker 4 (10:32):
The reality, it seems, with a lot more focus and
a lot more pain, perhaps than the parents.
Speaker 5 (10:39):
They realize what is happening. But one sister raised questions
originally with the father over the long Christmas.
Speaker 4 (10:46):
Vacation after their trip father and son trip across country,
she raised questions about her brother, Brian Coberger. And when
she raised this to a father, what did the father do?
According to my sources, he just walked out of the room.
He could not deal with it.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
I'm not surprised.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
Joining me is Sidney Sumner, Crime Stories, investigative reporter on
the case from the very beginning. Sidney, let's think back
for a moment. We were first covering the raid on
the family's Pocono's home, remember, and they found Coburger wearing
shorts or underwear, but knowing him, probably shorts, okay, and
(11:25):
plastic gloves, you know, rubber gloves, and he was sorting
through trash and putting trash in individual plastic bags, or
so we've been told, and wait for it, then throwing
away the trash in the neighbor's Herbie Kirby, the neighbors
big outdoor trash bend. Ben I'm at that time, as
(11:49):
I recall, the sisters started asking then, hey, I think.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
He did it. What do you think? Well, do you
remember that at the very beginning.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Yeah, Nancy. So that's what the reports are saying now
is that his sisters were immediately suspicious after hearing news
of what was going on in Moscow. They had that
description of the car not long after Coburger got home
for Christmas, and they looked at their brother, they looked
at his car, and they were immediately concerned that he
(12:23):
was somehow involved. And as Bloom said, his sources are
saying that the parents completely shut those arguments down from
the sisters, would not even entertain a conversation about it.
And days later the FBI shows up at their.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
House to arrest Brian.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
And now we know the defense is going to blame
this odd behavior with the trash on Coberger's OCD diagnosis.
Who he's going to say this is an unusual behavior
for me. It may have looked odd considering I have
just been implicated in this crime, but I always handle
my trash weird. I had dream of photia, I have
(13:01):
OCD behaviors that require me to do this, or I
feel anxiety and stress.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Okay, Sidney, you're scaring me a little bit because you
sound like you actually believe that. Okay, just a quick
answer from doctor Bethany Marshall. Did you hear what Sidney
just said that he's going to try to explain away
his behavior of wearing plastic gloves or rubber gloves at
what three am?
Speaker 2 (13:26):
Was it at three am? Said some crazy.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Time when they were watching it from outside walking around
the house on the inside three am?
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Okay, So how can you explain he's not getting rid
of his trash.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
He's separating his parents trash at his parents' Pocono's home,
wearing plastic gloves, probably a face covering too, putting it
in plastic bags and I bet they were baggies sellable baggies.
Don't know that yet, and putting it in the neighbor's trash.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
How can that be? That's getting rid of evidence?
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Bethany Hey, reader's digest answer, not the full volume.
Speaker 7 (14:07):
I have never seen an OCD patient engage in this
kind of behavior, and if he did have OCD, he
would be avoiding the trash, not going towards it.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Okay, here's another thing to Joe Scott Morgan joining me,
Professor Forensics, Jacksonville State University, author of Blood Beneath My
Feet on Amazon, death investigator over a thousand investigations under
his belt, and star of hit podcast Body Bags with
Joe Scott Morgan.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Joe Scott.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
Separating the trash, putting it in little baggies, throwing it
in the neighbor's trash. Could any of that disruption of
the evidence possibly destroy DNA evidence?
Speaker 2 (14:50):
And cops watched him.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
Vacuuming, spraying with four nine or commet cleaning out his car.
What does it take to get rid of DNA evidence?
But you know you got to address is it hair?
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Is it fiber? Is it blood? Is it touch? Respond?
Speaker 9 (15:10):
Well, you know, when you're talking about these categories of
potential evidence, our DNA rich evidence that are there, the
first thing, I think, probably the first thing that's the
most fragile is going to be any components of hair,
because you can lose it pretty quickly. Even a strong
gust of wind can blow it away probably second along
(15:31):
that is going to be any kind of touch DNA.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
We have to.
Speaker 9 (15:34):
Remember that touch DNA actually presents as a result of
dead sloughing skin cells. So if you have dry skin,
you can appreciate how easily that can be lost very quickly.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Crime stories with Nancy Gray exactly.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Let's play on one of the roommates has passed out
and she was strong class.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Oh and they tell some man in their house up.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
Yeah, joining us in all star panels straight out to
Howard Bloom, author of.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
The definitive book on the Idaho murders.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
When the night comes falling, Howard, we're talking about the
mother torpedoing the defense, and I've got to move on
very quickly because there's so much happening in the courtroom.
But do you believe any of the family is going
to take the stand. That's a very very tricky question
(16:41):
because it could open up his Coburger's.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Reputation, his past. If the family says one.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
Slip up, all that's going to come into evidence, okay,
because it will be deemed the defense brought it up.
And also, what am I hearing about Coburger's sister is
writing a book.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
I think, and again this is just my hypothesis that
Brian's sister, who is a psychologist, will be taken put
on the stand, I think, and what I'm hearing is
she might even confirm her brother's purchase of the Amazon
knife from Amazon and that she's seen him with it.
(17:22):
That again, I can't say that for a fact, but
this is what I am hearing. And I also think
that she is writing a book on this case. I've
heard that too, And so she's been delving into this
with a bit more objectivity, a bit more sensitivity, sensitivity
(17:43):
to the family drama she's living through, and I think
her the defense will not the defense, rather the prosecution
will put her on the stand to try to get
the answers to speaking.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Now, I'm very curious about how the sister is going
to testify regarding Brian Coburger ordered the knife that that
was him, because we know the defense is going to argue,
wait for it, a shared Amazon account.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
But that said, can I just focus on the book.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
The sister is writing a book. Oh please please.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Please, someone put her on the stand. Josh Ritter.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
That opens up a whole can of worms for cross examination.
The sister may now have a pecuniary interest in the
outcome money interest in the outcome of this trial. Did
nobody learn anything from Becky Hill? The clerk in the
Murdog case? Remember Murdog murdered his wife, Maggie and son
(18:43):
Paul Okay. In that case, the clerk of court, Becky Hill,
who seemed like a perfectly wonderful person, reportedly said comments
to the jury that the defense claims made them come.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Back with a guilty verdict.
Speaker 5 (19:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
I don't believe that. She may have made offhand comments,
maybe even in jest, but.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
They voted the way they wanted to vote. That said
she wrote a book, and she was drawn and quartered
over writing a book, suggesting that somehow she had a
money motive in the outcome of this trial, that she
said things to the jury to make them reach a
certain verdict so she could make money. It's kind of
(19:26):
preposterous that she could think that far in advance.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
I don't think that happened. Do I think there'll be
any trial? Yes? Do I think it really happened. No,
same thing here, Josh Well in that case too.
Speaker 6 (19:39):
That's such a great example, it led to near disaster
for the prosecution because the defense was able to make
great hay of it. I mean, these are no small
problems when you anytime you're calling a witness, as the prosecution,
you're hoping that that person is coming in with no motivations,
no biases that exist outside of court. Well, as you
(19:59):
point out, Nancy, what bigger interest could somebody have, but
that they look to gain money off of this. They
look to profit off of this. They look to profit
perhaps even by the outcome of it, but certainly by
the story of it.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
It's not a.
Speaker 5 (20:14):
Problem to be lightly dismissed.
Speaker 6 (20:17):
I think it's definitely something the prosecution is going to
have to deal with.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
The significance of putting the sister on the stand for
so many reasons. Watching him clean out his car immediately
after the murders, obsessively him cleaning out the trash, wearing
plastic gloves, sorting it and using the neighbors a trash disposal,
but also a shared Amazon account.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Is this really happening?
Speaker 1 (20:43):
Do they think the jury will believe what the aging
mother and father ordered a k bar knife.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
Listen, listen to the defense.
Speaker 10 (20:52):
It's misleading that the way that you just portray it
that because there is a purchase in a household account,
that that is automatically attributable to him, and that there's
somehow purchase.
Speaker 11 (21:04):
In the household account, it's attributed under his particular name
in the account, as I understand it, Now, could somebody
else in the family get to it?
Speaker 2 (21:12):
I don't know.
Speaker 11 (21:12):
I suppose you're an expert will tell us that.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
But.
Speaker 11 (21:18):
I'm not sure how that is excluded. And I'm not
sure how that's expert testimony. I understand you have an
expert to say, well, you know, all these other factors
come into play, and all these other things could have happened,
and okay, you can put that on, but I'm not
sure where that excludes the state's evidence.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Sidney Sumner, you've comed over every word that went down
in the courtroom.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
The defense is arguing that there was a.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
Joint account on Amazon and maybe somebody else ordered the
k bar knife and she you know, it reminds me
of top Mom Casey Anthony.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
Okay, that's a nightmare right there.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
But remember she did that damning search on how to
make homemade.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
Chloroform and her daughter, little Kelly.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
According to the state was drugged, unconscious and died in
the mom's trunk. All right, her mother Todd Mom's mother,
Cindy Anthony, gets on the stand and claims she was
doing a search for Chlora phil because of bamboo.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Growing in the backyard. Iighly did that to take the
heat off top mom.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Okay, So I guess the theory here is somebody else
in the family, on a shared Amazon account, ordered the
k bar knife and sheath, and then Sydney, they went
back and ordered a replacement knife when the first one
got lost in a murder, and then tried to delete
the Amazon order history.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
Really, is that what they're claiming?
Speaker 3 (22:45):
Yes they are, And in their filing last month, giving
more detail into this argument, they mentioned that other camping
gear was purchased, a backpack, a tire repair kit, things
of that nature. So they're suggesting that, oh, this was
a usual purchase, this was a campaign type purchase and
(23:09):
not necessarily attributable to Brian because they share this family account.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
And what's interesting about.
Speaker 3 (23:16):
That, I do the same thing. I share an Amazon
account with my family, and I recently realized that, oh,
you can set up a separate account that's under this
household account. That uses your name particularly, so instead of
shopping as my mother or my father, I can shop
as myself and my purchase history is separate than the
(23:40):
other people on that household account. So they're going to
try and say that, oh, somebody else was using Brian's account,
and that just makes no sense. Why would somebody else
in his family go out of their way to specifically
shop as Brian and then have it delivered to Brian
and not someone else in the family. That's what they're
(24:01):
going to try and say, and I don't think it's
going to hold any wire.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Josh Ritter, She's right, And can I also say Ridder
that I'm so happy right now at the prospect the
defense calling the mom and the dad, I guess up
in their seventies at this juncture, I'm not sure about.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
That to try to put them on the stand to
claim they ordered the camping gear, they ordered the k bar.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
I mean, if they put that defense up, the state
is going to rebut and bring on and rebuttal every
single family member that had access to that Amazon account
and say did you order the k bar knife and
have it shipped to Brian Coburger.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
They're not gonna lie about that under oath. I hope
they do it. Nothing can make me happier ridder.
Speaker 6 (24:52):
Listen, the defense is holding the prosecution's feet to the
fire here. If they want to say he bought a
knife on the sh account and lo and behold that
account is shared by others, well then they better be
able to back it up and prove that in fact,
it was him purchasing it. Now, the idea that one
account can have several different logins and that you can
(25:12):
track that log into a particular individual, sure that sounds
like evidence that's pointing towards that direction. But who else
is able to access those different sub accounts? Are Does
that mean that you have to have a unique log
in information and password. I don't know. The problem is
we don't know the problem.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
And I'm a little surprised because you're totally losing my point,
my point. Let me break it down for you, ritter
as if you need my help, please fine.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Go ahead to fence.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
In fact, I assist you bring it up in the
opening statement that somebody else could have ordered the k
bar nine. Yes, it's on the state to prove he
did it. But you just heard Sydney sum it up
in about three sentences. It was very convincing.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
Go ahead.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
I'd be mad if you didn't, because once you do that,
the state is going to bring on everybody on that
family account and ask them under oath did.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
You order it? Did you order it? Did you order it?
Did you order it?
Speaker 1 (26:14):
And when every family member, all four of them, say no,
I didn't order it, then the defense looks like a
big fat liar, and so does Brian Coburger.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
So is that what you want, Ridder?
Speaker 6 (26:25):
Or they say, I don't know. You're talking about purchases
made years ago. You're talking about we make several purchases,
including camping equipment, including things like knives. Is it impossible
that I ever purchased a knife in the past when
I have a specific memory of it.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
Now, No, Look, somebody may fall for that BS in court,
but I'm not falling for it. I appreciate what you're doing.
It's very artful. It's wildy like a fox. But Joe
Scott Morgan, you hear Ridder comparing apples and oranges right here,
and that works a lot of time. My head blow
off in the court because I couldn' jump in like
I'm doing right now.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
This is not about what may have been ordered three
years ago. This is about what was.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Ordered just before four students were slaughtered butchered in their
beds by.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Akbar knife, by a knife matching the one Coburger ordered.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
So, Joe Scott, the knife, you want to tell me
a knife this size, a military knife. Let's see a
picture of the knife. Please control room. That Mama and
Pau Pau bought the knife. Sister, the one writing the book,
the shrink the other one what they bought a knife
just before the murders and had it shipped to Coburger.
(27:45):
Tell us about the knife.
Speaker 9 (27:47):
It's a combat knife, Nancy, and our troopers have carried
it since literally prior to World War Two. The Coast's
used it, Navy used it on decks, but it's generally
associated with the United States Marine Corps. As matter of fact,
the sheath that he had had the anchor globe and
(28:10):
eagle and blazoned on the sheet itself, and it said USMC.
All right. So with that said, we have to understand.
So if you're going to purchase a knife, let's say
you want to go hunting, there are a lot more
There are a lot more knives out there that would
(28:30):
be more apropos for hunting. Perhaps, Why would somebody up
in age want this knife? What are they going to do?
Sit around? Are they going to peel apples with it?
Peel potatoes with it back in the kitchen. I don't
understand the utility of it in a common household. And
I think one of the things that we're kind of
(28:50):
skipping over here we keep talking about ordering. I want
to know about delivery. Where was it delivered to? Was
there any contact with the person it was delivered too.
I'd be interested to know if we're going to have
a driver that's going to get up on the stand
and make testimony. I don't know how they'll keep track
of all that sort of thing, but there will be
(29:11):
a tracking relative to this. You know, we're tracking who's
ordering the thing, but who took delivery up, When did
it show up, where did it show up. All of
these little intricacies are going to be playing into this
as well.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Nan, Hey, what about this?
Speaker 1 (29:25):
A lot of drivers AB or Amazon have, like cops
have dash can video going on. I wonder if that
has been retrieved or I'm trying to remember. I think
I have it in my notes when I went to
Coburger's pulling An apartment, spoke to all of his neighbors.
I'm pretty sure I saw cameras. I'm not sure because
(29:47):
I looked at so many places. But if there is
surveillance from that day from that delivery man, that would
be a bombshell. But here is the fly in the ointment.
At the time the knife was ordered, it was eight
(30:07):
months before the murders.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
Okay, so at that.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
Time Coburger was not yet living in Pullman. His dad
hadn't driven him out there and tried to make friends
for him. Right, he actually went to neighbors saying, hey,
could you be friend my son.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
He's very much of a loner.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
So anyway, the knife did go to the family's place.
Now wait, wait, wait, Sidney Sumner, I may have an
answer for that. After the murders, isn't it true that
someone went online to order a replacement knife. Was that
replacement knife ever delivered?
Speaker 3 (30:50):
No, Nancy, a replacement knife was never purchased. But in
the week after the homicides, somebody did go online on
that shared Oberger family account and look at similar knives
to the one that was used allegedly in the murders.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
Okay, In Sydney. Isn't it true that someone also went
on and try to delete the Amazon search history? I
know for a fact that that's possible because Santa tries
to delete the search history, so the Christmas recipients don't
see the search history on the shared Amazon accounts.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
See, this jury's going to know all of this, the
ins and out. Did someone try to delete the search history?
Speaker 3 (31:36):
That's also correct. We're still trying to get some more
details on that timeline, and again all of this will
come out much more clearly during the trial.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
But we believe the time.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
That has purchased eight months before the murders, at some
point after that knife is delivered, somebody tries to go
in and delete record of that purchase. And then a
week after the murders, how many goes and books at
that knife? Again on Amazon.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, you know, Chris mcdonnald and
joining me Director Cold Case Foundation also starred the Interview
Room on YouTube. Chris, you first raised the alarm and
the wave the red flag on the Amazon analytics months
and months and months ago. Why do they care? What
(32:33):
are they looking for? And now we know, Chris, you
were right?
Speaker 11 (32:37):
Yeah?
Speaker 8 (32:37):
And what Doc Morgan was talking about, I mean, the
intricacy of that particular knife. If you look at it,
that knife has what they call a blood groove in it.
Uh that that knife is designed to kill. It was
designed for the military. So when you when you talk about,
you know, another fly in the ointment for a moment here, Nancy,
(33:00):
Let's also remember that somehow that knife sheath ends up
a couple of thousand miles away underneath one of the
victims in this case. So if the family's going to say,
you know, hypothetically, if the defense is going to say, yeah,
the mom or the dad or whoever, the two sisters
ordered this knife, well great, let's see their DNA.
Speaker 5 (33:20):
Let's see their DNA on that knife sheath.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
Scott. Yeah.
Speaker 9 (33:25):
One of my biggest things here, Nancy, is the fact
that if you go back and you look at this
idea of who ordered the knife, if all of I
don't know who's domicile in his house in Pennsylvania along
with him, his mom and dad. I don't know if
the sisters are there. I have no idea, but I
do know this, If the occupants of that domicile are
(33:47):
compelled to testify in this trial, not only are they
going to say, well, did you order it on the
family account? They're going to be asked a follow up question, well,
we know that it was delivered, did you sign for it,
did you take it off the porch? Did you receive it?
And there's going to be a big dead silence in
that in that courtroom, because I don't know unless somebody
(34:09):
were bold enough to try to cover their tracks for
this guy or try to lie on his behalf. Not
that they would, but aside from that, there's going to
be silence in the courtroom because we know who took
delivery of a knife or who collected it off of
the porch. No one else is going to be there
saying that they saw it.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
Okay, And how old is she?
Speaker 6 (34:39):
She's twenty twenty, you said.
Speaker 10 (34:44):
Twenty.
Speaker 11 (34:45):
Here's okay them clo, clo.
Speaker 7 (34:49):
Okay.
Speaker 6 (34:49):
I need someone who stops passing the phone around because
I've talked to four different people.
Speaker 5 (34:53):
Hey, sorry, they just give me the phone.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Is she breathing?
Speaker 7 (34:57):
Will Hello?
Speaker 5 (34:58):
Is she breathing? No?
Speaker 1 (35:04):
You are hearing a female resident of the home on
King Road and they had called a friend over and
you hear the friends say get out, get out, get out,
because he did not want Dylan and or Bethany the
roommates to come and see Xana's butchered body.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
Speaking of Dylan Mortenson.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
We believe that there is a move of foot to
have her on the stand for many reasons, but to
make a voice an in court in front of the
jury voice identification of Brian Coburger.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
Remember the roommates, one or both of them heard I'm
here to help you. I'm here to help you.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
That was said to the murder victims before they were slaughtered.
Now we know Coburger may not take the stand, So
how can Dylan make a voice identification comparing Coberger's voice
to what she heard that night?
Speaker 2 (36:11):
Here's a good way.
Speaker 4 (36:14):
What actually happened was I was stuck in the middle
of the intersection.
Speaker 6 (36:17):
Yeah, I was by you full time.
Speaker 1 (36:19):
Yeah, yeah, we just got this for you anyway, I'm
just gonna get this out here, okay.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
So can you would.
Speaker 6 (36:28):
Explain that to me a little bit further So, in Pennsylvania, when.
Speaker 9 (36:31):
You're stuck with in their tear.
Speaker 1 (36:32):
Section, you have to make the left.
Speaker 6 (36:34):
So what would what would the appropriate thing for me
to have done? Just Yeah, it's a little bit of
confusion with sweeding because someone has stopped. I wasn't sure
what they were doing, and then they put on their
light to turn Okay.
Speaker 1 (36:50):
We all learned from the OJ Simpson double murder trial.
Never perform a demonstration in front of the jury that
you have not practice. Remember when Johnny Cochrane tried to
pull the glove onto OJ Simpson's hand, it was as
big as a Virginia ham. Let me just say that,
(37:12):
I think I could have gotten it on his hand.
But that said Dylan Mortenson on the stand to make
a voice id of Brian Coberger.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
Has it ever been.
Speaker 1 (37:26):
Done to our forensics professor Joe Scott Morgan.
Speaker 9 (37:30):
I'm glad you threw this to me, Nancy, because one
of the things I'm thinking about. We rely on eyewitness
ear witness, and I'm thinking, does that fall into the
same category. Because one of the problems is, and I
can't speak to this because she's a non forensic scientist,
she hasn't worked at Laneley, you know, where they can
run these tapes and they so I think that that's
(37:52):
going to be a major sticking point. They can say,
well does it sound like the same person? And I
can see the defense objecting to this because they'll say
she's not qualified to make this assessment. So I think
that the chances of her being able to actually make
an ID and that be accepted in court, even if
it gets that far, are slim and none.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
Well, you know what, Joskott Morgan, let me remind you. Wait,
maybe I'm wrong.
Speaker 2 (38:15):
Did you go to law school behind my back?
Speaker 9 (38:17):
No, I've been sitting at her feet all these years
learning from you.
Speaker 2 (38:22):
So, Joshua Ridder, she absolutely.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
I mean, if she can do it, she absolutely will
be allowed on the stand to make a voice comparison.
Speaker 2 (38:34):
Right, there's no hoop for her to go to.
Speaker 1 (38:37):
She won't be testifying as an expert. She will be
making a comparison to what she heard that night. Of course,
they will practice ahead of time, and if she can't
make it, then they won't put her up for that reason.
But josh Ridder, there's nothing to disallow her from making
that comparison. My question to you is, I wonder if
that's why they did not have him speak in court.
(39:00):
He didn't enter his own plate, he doesn't say anything.
The lawyer entered the not guilty plate for him. I
wonder if that's why they're keeping him quiet, so there
won't be any in court audio of him for her
to compare.
Speaker 6 (39:15):
That is an interesting point that I had never put
together before as to why he we've never heard him
actually speak in court. But you're right, I mean, as
far as asking her to make the identification, I don't
know if the judge legally can prevent them, but if
I'm the defense, I am still going blue in the
face objecting to this because think of how this could
work out.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
One she could say, yeah, yeah, that's how it's going
to work out.
Speaker 6 (39:40):
And then the jury is going to accept that as
an absolute ideation of the defendant.
Speaker 5 (39:45):
And if she.
Speaker 6 (39:45):
Doesn't identify it, if she says I can't tell he
heard the speaking, the prosecution cries that a word. Yeah,
but the prosecution can explain it away, Ritter.
Speaker 1 (39:59):
That's what happens when the state puts up damning evidence.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
The jury believes it. But you know another issue.
Speaker 1 (40:08):
We don't have to have him testify, because isn't it true,
Chris mcdonney, you've executed plenty of search warrants while the
defendant doesn't have to give a statement or speak to
police under the constitution. Right to remain silent fit amendment.
They can be forced to comply to a DNA sample,
(40:29):
they can be made to walk and get their gait.
They can be forced compelled to give a writing sample.
They can be forced to give a speaking sample.
Speaker 5 (40:39):
Yep.
Speaker 8 (40:40):
Absolutely, and then you could give that to an acoustics
expert who can measure those you know, those tremors from
the voice.
Speaker 5 (40:48):
One loophole though, is the acoustics in the house.
Speaker 8 (40:52):
I think the defense can argue, Hey, the house is gone,
we can't do a comparative analysis.
Speaker 1 (40:57):
Thank you for tipping him off to that, Chris McDonald,
doctor Bethany Marshall. Again, the whole specter of his autism
and his OCD has been raised.
Speaker 2 (41:08):
The judge has said.
Speaker 1 (41:09):
Point blank, and I've got him on tape saying he
doesn't appear to be impinged in any way. So unless
he takes a stand, you're not bringing in autism because
he's exhibited no odd behavior.
Speaker 2 (41:24):
In the courtroom at all. Is that real?
Speaker 1 (41:29):
What would you expect to see from someone that's barely
under the spectrum.
Speaker 7 (41:33):
Well, first of all, we're all on the spectrum.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
Everybody is neuroatypical.
Speaker 7 (41:38):
So the idea that he is special in any real
way I do not buy the fact that he.
Speaker 2 (41:43):
Was a PhD student.
Speaker 7 (41:45):
He was getting through school functioning at a very high level.
Speaker 2 (41:48):
That means that.
Speaker 7 (41:49):
He's competent enough to stand trial. Now, if I were
the defense attorneys, I would not be introducing autism for
a very specific reason, and that is that people who
are very severe in terms of their diagnosis tend to
have preoccupations. So if there's a homicidal preoccupation, it would
be very difficult for an autistic person to get that
(42:11):
out of their mind. They also have preoccupations with physical objects.
It could be a train, it could be a book,
it could be a knife, a knife that's ordered eight
months before a murder, a knife that's re ordered again
because that autistic person is obsessed with the knife. So
I would be very careful with this autistic diagnosis if
(42:32):
I were them.
Speaker 2 (42:33):
Really, it can cut both ways.
Speaker 1 (42:35):
We wait as justice unfolds. A trial date set forward
this summer, and we will be there. Nancy Grace signing off,
goodbye friend.
Host
Nancy Grace
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!