Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / ‘The Idaho Murders: College Nightmare’: 4 Things We Learned

Transcript

‘The Idaho Murders: College Nightmare’: 4 Things We Learned · Murder Files Unsealed

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Imagine for a second, right that it is a Sunday morning,
• 0:04
  you're pouring a cup of coffee, maybe you're just looking
• 0:07
  up the window, and suddenly your phone buzzes. Just a
• 0:10
  normal weekend, exactly, just totally ordinary. But it's a mass
• 0:14
  automated text alert from the university that your daughter attends.
• 0:18
  Oh boy, Yeah, And the text is just brief, it's sterile,
• 0:22
  and it contains the word homicide.
• 0:24
  Speaker 2: That is terrifying.
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: Right now. Initially, you know, you might think nothing of it.
• 0:29
  I mean, campus is a big places. Things happen, right,
• 0:32
  try to rationalize it. You do. So, you try to
• 0:34
  call your daughter just to check in, and it goes
• 0:37
  straight to voicemail, which is.
• 0:39
  Speaker 2: I mean, for a college student on a Sunday morning,
• 0:42
  maybe not that weird.
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: Right exactly. So you try again, voicemail again, you try
• 0:46
  her roommate. Nothing.
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: Panic starts setting in.
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah, So you check social media and you start seeing
• 0:52
  these these fragmented, panicked comments, people you don't even know,
• 0:58
  offering condolences to your family, and you still haven't heard
• 1:01
  a single word from the police.
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: It is the absolute worst nightmare of the modern digital age,
• 1:07
  really is. We've built these communication systems that are so
• 1:11
  incredibly efficient they have. I mean, they've entirely outpaced our
• 1:15
  capacity for human empathy.
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's so true.
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: Information now moves at the speed of light. While the
• 1:21
  human process is required to handle grief, to verify facts,
• 1:27
  to deliver world shattering news with dignity, those still move
• 1:31
  at the speed of a physical conversation, right like.
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: An actual human being knocking on a door. And today
• 1:37
  we are going to look exactly at what happens when
• 1:39
  those two speeds collide catastrophically. Welcome to today's deep dive.
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: Thanks for having me.
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: We are unpacking the new Netflix docuseriies The Idaho Murders
• 1:49
  College Nightmare, which premiered on July twenty nine, twenty twenty six.
• 1:53
  It was directed by Skyborgman and executive produced by Joe Berlinger.
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: Quite a team, honestly, it really is.
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: But before we get into the actual mechanic of what happened,
• 2:01
  I want to establish our mission for this deep dive,
• 2:03
  because if you are tuning in, you probably know that
• 2:05
  the true crime ecosystem can be well, an incredibly toxic place.
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: Oh absolutely very toxic.
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: It often turns tragedy into this sort of spectator sport
• 2:14
  and we are not doing that today, absolutely.
• 2:17
  Speaker 2: Not, and frankly avoiding that trap is It's exactly what
• 2:20
  makes this particular docu series so culturally significant, I think, yeah, yeah,
• 2:25
  because the filmmakers they were handed at an unprecedented level
• 2:29
  of access. Yeah, they had police body camera footage, internal
• 2:33
  investigative files, deeply intimate interviews.
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: With the families, which is rare to get all at.
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: Once, super rare, and in the wrong hands, that material
• 2:41
  becomes like a sensationalist highlight reel, oh for sure. But
• 2:45
  Borgmann and Berliner, they used it to actively deconstruct the
• 2:50
  mythology we tend to build around.
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: Killers, right, exactly. The core philosophy here, both of the
• 2:55
  series and of our conversation today is to prioritize the
• 2:58
  humanity of the victim over our societies, you know, are
• 3:02
  kind of macobre obsession with the perpetrator.
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: Completely agree.
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: We are here to center Madison Mogan, kille Guncalves, Xana Cernonle,
• 3:09
  and Ethan Chapin.
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: Such young, vibrant lives.
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: Four vibrant young adults whose lives were interrupted in their
• 3:16
  off campus house at eleven twenty two King Road in Moscow, Idaho.
• 3:21
  And this was on November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, and.
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: By focusing on the human cost rather than just you know,
• 3:27
  the gory details, the documentary actually reveals four crucial takeaways,
• 3:32
  takeaways that completely reframe how we understand the mechanics of
• 3:36
  this tragedy. It forces us to examine the investigation, the
• 3:40
  actual biological reality of fear, the psychological profile of the perpetrator,
• 3:45
  and the profound, lingering damage inflicted on the community.
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and to really understand the gravity of that damage,
• 3:50
  we have to start not with the crime, but with
• 3:52
  the immediate chaote.
• 3:54
  Speaker 2: Aftermath, because it was pure chaos.
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: It was because the first major revelation here is how
• 3:59
  our modern systemic safety protocols, you know, the very structures
• 4:02
  designed to protect us, can accidentally amplify human suffering to
• 4:06
  a frankly unimaginable degree.
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: It's really hard to watch.
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: So picture Moscow, Idaho. It's November thirteenth. The police arrive
• 4:13
  at the house in response to a nine to one
• 4:14
  one call, and they walk into a scene that is
• 4:16
  just completely staggering.
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: I mean, these are small town officers, right.
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: Small town officers confronting a scale of violence that is
• 4:23
  entirely outside their historical experience. And meanwhile, because the surviving
• 4:28
  roommates had started calling friends before calling nine to one one,
• 4:31
  a crowd of college students is already gathering on the
• 4:34
  lawn outside.
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: And from a procedural standpoint, right, the police are now
• 4:39
  operating in this hyper compressed timeline. What do you mean, Well,
• 4:43
  standard law enforcement protocol dictates a very specific, meticulous order
• 4:48
  of operations. First, you secure the scene. Second, identify the
• 4:53
  victims with absolute forensic.
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: Certainty, right, you can't just guess exactly.
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: And third, and this is crucial, secute the next akin notifications.
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: And that's usually very controlled, highly controlled.
• 5:04
  Speaker 2: Usually it involves an officer and often a chaplain, going
• 5:07
  to a family's home in person, getting them to sit down,
• 5:10
  and delivering the news with compassion and immediate support.
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: Right, it's a human centric process. But Moscow Police Chief
• 5:19
  Anthony Dollinger, he also has another obligation here. He has
• 5:22
  to inform the University of Idaho that a major crime
• 5:25
  has occurred involving their students, which he does, Which he does,
• 5:28
  so he notifies the university and this is where the
• 5:31
  collision happens because the moment Dean of Students, Blaine Eckles
• 5:34
  gets that information. A completely different institutional protocol.
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: Is triggered, exactly because the university is bound by federal regulations,
• 5:43
  specifically the Cleary Act.
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: Right, the Clearact, which.
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: Dictates how campuses must handle and report crime their emergency
• 5:52
  alert procedures. They aren't designed for the nuance of individual grief, no,
• 5:56
  not at all. They're designed for immediate, broad scale threat mitigation.
• 6:00
  So if there is a potential active killer, the university's
• 6:03
  protocol demands rapid, indiscriminate mass communication to lock down the campus.
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this. Dean Eckles triggers a campus wide
• 6:12
  text alert system. It goes out to thousands of phones simultaneously,
• 6:16
  and the text specifically uses the word homicide.
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: Just dropped right in there, just dropped.
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: But here is the devastating mechanical failure in all of this.
• 6:25
  The police were completely unaware that this mass alert was
• 6:28
  being blasted out.
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: It's a massive failure of interagency communication. You have two
• 6:34
  entities trying to manage the same crisis, but operating in
• 6:37
  total silos.
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: Silos.
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: Yeah, the police are methodically working toward a controlled family notification,
• 6:43
  while the university just dropped a digital bomb on the
• 6:46
  entire community.
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: It's like an autoimmune response, right, you have two different
• 6:50
  immune systems, the university's emergency protocol and the police's notification procedure.
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: That's a really good way to put it.
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: Both are trying to protect the body of the community,
• 6:59
  but instead the attacking each other. Because think about the
• 7:02
  practical result here for you as a listener. You have
• 7:05
  friends of the victims literally standing on the sidewalk outside
• 7:10
  eleven twenty two King Road, just waiting, crying, confused, waiting
• 7:14
  for an officer to just come out and tell them
• 7:16
  what is going on, and suddenly all their phones vibrate
• 7:18
  at the exact same time.
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: Oh mat.
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: They look down and they find out their friends have
• 7:23
  been murdered via a sterile automated text message.
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: It completely strips the digity from the moment. It really does.
• 7:30
  And the documentary is very careful to note that this wasn't,
• 7:34
  you know, an act of malicious negligence by the university, right.
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: No one was trying to be cruel exactly.
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: No administrator woke up that morning wanting to traumatize these families.
• 7:44
  It was simply the rigid execution of a pre programmed system,
• 7:49
  a system that just lacked the contextual awareness to realize
• 7:53
  the police hadn't actually spoken to the parents yet.
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: And the ripple effect of that broken communication, I mean,
• 7:59
  it is just gut wrenching when you see how it
• 8:01
  played out for the families in the documentary, it's devastating.
• 8:04
  Take Xana Cernaude's father, Jeff, he was actually right there
• 8:07
  in the area, right, he was close by. Yeah, he
• 8:09
  had driven up for a Washington State University football game.
• 8:12
  So that morning he tried calling Xana, couldn't get her,
• 8:16
  and naturally assumed she was just sleeping in after a
• 8:18
  late Saturday night.
• 8:19
  Speaker 2: Which is the most logical, comforting assumption a parent can.
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: Make, you know, of course. But then his phone rings
• 8:25
  and it's not the police, it's his other daughter, Jasmine.
• 8:28
  Speaker 2: Oh wow.
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: Because Xanna's friends, who had received the university alert or
• 8:32
  heard the rumors just spreading like wildfire on campus, they
• 8:35
  had called Jasmine, and Jasmine is put in the impossible
• 8:38
  position of having to call her father to tell him
• 8:40
  Xana might be dead.
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: That shouldn't happen, that should never happen.
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: Never, And then Jeff literally physically drives to the King roadhouse.
• 8:49
  When he gets there, he is met by officers who
• 8:52
  have to escort him away from the scene and take
• 8:54
  him to the station just to formally confirm what he
• 8:57
  has already been told by his traumatized daughter.
• 8:59
  Speaker 2: It inverts the entire structure of how we handle tragedy. Yeah,
• 9:02
  he is walking through a nightmare that has essentially been
• 9:06
  well crowdsourced before the authorities could even establish a perimeter.
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: Crowdsourced grief. It's horrible and.
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: We see this deeply distressing pattern repeat with the other
• 9:15
  families too, Manison Mogan and Kaylee Goncalves's parents. They eventually
• 9:21
  got their official notification at the police station, but for
• 9:25
  Kayley's parents, Steve and Christy Guncalves, that official word was
• 9:29
  severely delayed by the sheer speed of social media.
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: Yeah. The documentary points out that they were seeing rumors
• 9:37
  of a shooting, they were looking at Facebook posts offering
• 9:40
  condolences for their daughter, all of this before law enforcement
• 9:43
  had officially confirmed her death to them.
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: You really have to try to understand the psychological torture
• 9:48
  of that limbo.
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: I can't even imagine.
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: Your brain is trying to reject the information because it
• 9:52
  hasn't come from an official source, right, But the sheer
• 9:55
  volume of the digital noise is just suffocating you.
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: Right, because everywhere you look, people are saying she's gone.
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: Exactly, And Chief Dollinger later stated on the record that
• 10:05
  if the university had simply picked up the phone and said, hey,
• 10:08
  we are about to blast this alert, the police could
• 10:10
  have dynamically adjusted.
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: They could have done something right.
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: They could have rushed units to the parents' homes or
• 10:17
  at the very least made immediate phone calls to beat
• 10:19
  the digital wave. But because the silos remained closed, the
• 10:23
  family suffered an entirely preventable secondary trauma.
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: It just makes you wonder how any emergency management system
• 10:29
  in twenty twenty six hasn't solved this, Like, how are
• 10:32
  we still here?
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: It's a huge blind spot.
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: But that fracture of communication outside the house, right, the
• 10:38
  absolute chaos and confusion of that morning, it actually mirrors
• 10:42
  the profound paralysis that occurred inside the house hours earlier.
• 10:46
  Speaker 2: Yes, yes it does.
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: And this is where we have to transition, because this
• 10:50
  brings us to the second major revelation of the docuseries,
• 10:53
  and easily, I think the most misunderstood aspect of the
• 10:57
  entire case.
• 10:57
  Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely, the most misunters said.
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: We need to talk talk about the surviving roommates, Dylan
• 11:02
  Mortenson and Bethany Funk. K.
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: This is an area where the public discourse was just
• 11:06
  incredibly toxic, and the documentary does a phenomenal job, of
• 11:10
  course correcting the narrative using actual science.
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: Let's lay out the timeline first, just so everyone is
• 11:15
  on the same page. The documentary walks us through Mortenson's experience.
• 11:19
  It's roughly four am, right, she hears a disturbance. She
• 11:23
  actually opens her bedroom door, looks out and she sees
• 11:26
  a figure clad in black wearing a mask. And prior
• 11:30
  to this, she hears a male voice, a voice she
• 11:33
  does not recognize, saying something like it's okay, I'm gonna
• 11:36
  help you.
• 11:37
  Speaker 2: And from an auditory processing standpoint, that sentence is a
• 11:41
  complete paradox.
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: What do you mean by a paradox?
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: Well, the words themselves suggest comfort, right, I'm going to
• 11:46
  help you, But the context, the tone, and the presence
• 11:50
  of a masked stranger in your home at four am
• 11:53
  suggests lethal danger. Right, So it creates an immediate cognitive
• 11:56
  dissonance in the brain.
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: So she locks herself in her room. Later, she made
• 12:00
  to join Funk and the two young women remain locked
• 12:03
  in that room for hours. They do not call nine
• 12:05
  one one. They don't call their friends Emily Allen or
• 12:08
  Hunter Johnson until much much later in the morning, and
• 12:11
  ultimately Johnson and other friends come to the house, discover
• 12:15
  the horrific scene, guide the survivors out, and the nine
• 12:18
  one one call is finally made near midday, which is
• 12:23
  that is roughly an eight hour gap between the intrusion
• 12:26
  and the call to the police.
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: And as soon as that eight hour gap became public knowledge,
• 12:31
  the true crime ecosystem completely weaponized it against them.
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: Oh, it was a witch hunt. I mean the armchair
• 12:38
  detectives on TikTok on Reddit. They absolutely tore the survivors apart.
• 12:43
  Speaker 2: It was vicious.
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: They accused them of being complicit, they accused them of
• 12:47
  being callous. But here's where it gets really interesting. The
• 12:51
  documentary doesn't just ask us to be nice to the survivors, right.
• 12:54
  It brings in law enforcement and medical experts to systematically
• 12:58
  dismantle the internet's judgment because the.
• 13:00
  Speaker 2: Internet's judgment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human
• 13:04
  neurobiology completely. Chief Dolloger speaks to this directly. He explains
• 13:09
  that when a human being, especially a young person whose
• 13:12
  brain hasn't fully finished developing its threat assessment centers, is
• 13:16
  suddenly confronted with a situation that violently shatters their concept
• 13:21
  of safety, the brain doesn't just get scared, It effectively
• 13:25
  short circuits.
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: Right. If you are listening to this, you know you
• 13:28
  might be thinking the same thing. The Internet mobs thought, well,
• 13:31
  obviously I would have called nine to one one immediately.
• 13:33
  I would have grabbed my phone.
• 13:34
  Speaker 2: Everyone thinks they'd be the hero, exactly.
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: But people sitting at home judge survival situations like they're
• 13:41
  watching a horror movie on their couch. They have the
• 13:43
  lights on, they have a pause button, their heart rate
• 13:46
  is resting at sixty beats per minute. But acute shock
• 13:49
  isn't rational, not at all. It's not a logic puzzle
• 13:52
  that you're just failing to solve. It is a biological
• 13:54
  hijack exactly.
• 13:56
  Speaker 2: Let's actually look at the mechanics of the freeze response,
• 13:58
  because it's fascinating and so so important. Here, when you
• 14:02
  perceive an overwhelming threat, you're amygdala, which is like the
• 14:06
  alarm bell of the brain. It fires off. It signals
• 14:08
  the hypothalamus, which flood your body with adrenaline and cortisol.
• 14:13
  Usually this triggers fight or flight, Right we all heard
• 14:16
  of that, Right.
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: You fight back or you run away.
• 14:18
  Speaker 2: But if the threat is perceived as insurmountable, or if
• 14:21
  the brain simply cannot compute the deity it's receiving, an
• 14:25
  entirely different system takes over. And what's that The dorsal
• 14:28
  motor nucleus of the vagus nerve activates.
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 14:32
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's an ancient evolutionary response. It drastically drops your
• 14:35
  heart rate and literally paralyzes your vocal cords and your
• 14:39
  voluntary muscles. It is tonic immobility. You are biologically locked
• 14:44
  inside your own body.
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: So it's like the fire alarm goes off in a
• 14:47
  burning building, but the alarm system itself is wired to
• 14:50
  shut off the power to your logic center.
• 14:52
  Speaker 2: That's exactly it.
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: Like. You couldn't formulate the multi step plan to unlock
• 14:56
  your phone dial nine one one and explain the situation,
• 14:59
  even and if you wanted to, because the prefrontal cortex,
• 15:02
  you know, the part of your brain that does complex
• 15:04
  problem solving, it has been taken offline by your own
• 15:07
  survival instincts.
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: And what the body camera audio and police interviews in
• 15:11
  the film illustrate is just how deeply entrenched in that
• 15:15
  biochemical shock these young women were.
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: They were just frozen.
• 15:18
  Speaker 2: They weren't making a conscious choice to delay a rescue.
• 15:21
  They were trapped in a state of suspended animation. But
• 15:25
  there is a second, even more consequential layer to this
• 15:28
  that the documentary addresses. Yeah, and it is the medical
• 15:32
  reality of the attack itself.
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: Yes, And this is the part that is so incredibly heavy,
• 15:37
  but so necessary to talk about because you have the families,
• 15:41
  specifically Steve Gonkbs, Kaylee's father, agonizing over that eight hour gap.
• 15:45
  Speaker 2: Understandably so.
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: As a parent, your brain is just a torture chamber
• 15:49
  of what ifs. You replay every single second. You think
• 15:52
  if the roommates had just snapped out of it, you know,
• 15:54
  if they called nine one one at four five am,
• 15:56
  could my daughter have been saved? Could she have made
• 15:58
  it to a hospital.
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: It is the the heaviest burden a survivor or a
• 16:02
  grieving parent can carry. I think, this illusion that a
• 16:06
  different action could have changed the outcome. But the documentary
• 16:10
  brings in the medical examiners and the forensic experts who
• 16:13
  reviewed the trauma, and they provide a definitive, unequivocal medical conclusion.
• 16:20
  The answer to that agonizing what if is no no,
• 16:23
  just a hard no, a hard no. The nature of
• 16:26
  the wounds inflicted on those four students was catastrophic. We
• 16:30
  were talking about massive, immediate trauma to vital organs and
• 16:35
  major vascular structures.
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: The medical experts confirmed that rapid exanguination occurred, which means
• 16:42
  that even if a trauma surgeon and a fully equipped
• 16:44
  ambulance had been idling at the end of the driveway
• 16:47
  on King Rhad, even if paramedics had breached the front
• 16:50
  door thirty seconds after the attacker walked out, it would
• 16:53
  not have mattered. The victims could not have been saved.
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: Hearing Steve Gonkav's process this on camera, I mean it
• 16:58
  is one of the most profound mo of the series.
• 17:00
  Speaker 2: It really is.
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: You can feel it, you can see the physical weight
• 17:03
  of that realization hit him. It's a devastating truth, acknowledging
• 17:07
  the absolute finality of the violence. But paradoxically, it provides
• 17:11
  this immense psychological relief because.
• 17:13
  Speaker 2: It completely severs the chain of blame. It exonerates the
• 17:16
  surviving roommates completely the Internet mobs were crucifying them under
• 17:21
  the assumption that their biological shock cost their friends their lives.
• 17:26
  The medical reality proves that assumption is scientifically false. The
• 17:30
  delay in calling nine one one did not change the
• 17:33
  survival outcome for Madison, Kaylee'sanna or Ethan.
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: It forces all of us to just drop our judgments
• 17:39
  and just sit with the tragedy. The roommates were acting
• 17:42
  under the chaotic, uncontrollable biology of fear. But here's the
• 17:46
  terrifying contrast. I think right, while the survivors were trapped
• 17:49
  in a biological lockdown, the person who did this was
• 17:52
  operating from a place of cold, calculated, almost academic obsession exactly.
• 17:57
  And this brings us to the third made your focal
• 18:00
  point of our deep dive, the sheer hubris of the criminologists.
• 18:04
  Speaker 2: This is a needle the documentary threads very carefully, because,
• 18:08
  as we said, the goal is not to build a
• 18:09
  mythology around Brian.
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: Coburten, No, not at all.
• 18:11
  Speaker 2: But you cannot understand the investigation or how he was
• 18:14
  ultimately caught without examining the profound, glaring ironies of his
• 18:18
  academic background.
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: Let's look at that background, because he wasn't just some
• 18:23
  random drifter who stumbled into Moscow. No, he held a
• 18:27
  master's degree in criminal justice from DeSales University in Pennsylvania,
• 18:32
  and at the time of the murders, he was living
• 18:34
  just a few miles away, actively pursuing a PhD in
• 18:37
  criminology at Washington State University.
• 18:40
  Speaker 2: He was a literal student of the system. He was
• 18:42
  trying to outsmart. Yeah. The filmmakers spend time exploring his
• 18:46
  academic history, specifically highlighting a class he took taught by
• 18:51
  doctor Catherine Ramslan, who was a highly respected expert in
• 18:54
  forensic psychology.
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: Ray I've heard of her.
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: The class was essentially a deep dive into the minds
• 18:58
  of serial.
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: Killers, and the testimony from his classmates is incredibly unsettling.
• 19:03
  There's an interview with a classmate, Lily Caraban, and she
• 19:06
  paints this picture of two different people. It's so outside
• 19:10
  of class. She says, Coburger was withdrawn, awkward, very solitary.
• 19:15
  But the moment he walked into that specific class about
• 19:17
  serial offenders, she said, a switch.
• 19:19
  Speaker 2: One off, literal switch.
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah, he became hyper engaged. He was taking meticulous notes,
• 19:26
  dominating the discussions, and during group work he was rigid
• 19:29
  and aggressive, insisting that his analysis was the only correct.
• 19:33
  Speaker 2: One, which points to a fascinating and disturbing psychological profile.
• 19:37
  Right eraises the question of where the line is drawn
• 19:40
  between academic inquiry and dangerous obsession.
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: Exactly where does it crossover?
• 19:46
  Speaker 2: And the documentary pushes this further By looking at his
• 19:48
  digital research, investigators found that Coburger operated a redd account
• 19:53
  where he posted surveys explicitly targeting formally incarcerated individuals.
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: Wait, hold on, Like, if you are do doing academic
• 20:00
  research on criminals, there are institutional review boards, right, there
• 20:04
  are ethical guidelines you have.
• 20:05
  Speaker 2: To follow, right, lots of red pape.
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: You usually ask broad sociological questions about socioeconomic status or
• 20:11
  the criminal justice system. But these survey questions were wildly different.
• 20:15
  Speaker 2: They were tactical.
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: He wasn't asking about their childhoods. He was asking highly specific,
• 20:21
  tactical questions, things like how did you select your target?
• 20:26
  Or what were you feeling right before you committed the crime?
• 20:28
  Or what were the logistical steps you took to avoid detection?
• 20:32
  Speaker 2: Exactly when you analyze the methodology of those surveys, they
• 20:36
  abandon the structure of quantitative academic research, as Kaylee's sister
• 20:41
  leavea Goncalves brilliantly points out in the series, when you
• 20:45
  look at those questions in hindsight, they don't look like
• 20:48
  a student gathering data for a thesis. No, they don't
• 20:51
  look like a predator gathering intelligence for a tactical operation.
• 20:54
  He was trying to mac out the psychological and physiological
• 20:57
  sequence of committing a violent crime.
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: This is where I find myself just absolutely baffled by
• 21:02
  the arrogance of it all. On one hand, you have
• 21:04
  the digital side. The forensics experts in the documentary is
• 21:08
  show how hard he tried to be a digital ghost.
• 21:10
  Speaker 2: He really tried.
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: He used incognito browsing. He constantly wiped his search history,
• 21:14
  he cleared his device memory, and he had an incredibly
• 21:17
  sparse contact list on his phone, only about eighteen people.
• 21:21
  He thought he was digitally invisible.
• 21:23
  Speaker 2: But incognito mode is a consumer level privacy tool. It
• 21:28
  is not a forensic shield.
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: People don't realize that.
• 21:30
  Speaker 2: No. Yeah, it prevents your local browser from saving your history,
• 21:33
  but it does absolutely nothing to hide your traffic from
• 21:36
  your Internet service provider. It doesn't stop a router from
• 21:39
  logging the MC address of your device. Despite his efforts,
• 21:44
  investigators were still able to surface his search histories related
• 21:48
  to serial killers and wiretapping.
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: So what does this all mean. He's trying to be
• 21:53
  a digital ghost, but physically he is making errors that
• 21:57
  a first year criminology student would know to avoid.
• 22:00
  Speaker 2: Amateur mistakes.
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: He brings his cell phone with him, and even though
• 22:03
  he turned it off or put it in airplane mode
• 22:05
  during the actual window of the crime, the network still
• 22:08
  registered the device's behavior.
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: Right, Let's actually explain how cell tower triangulation works in
• 22:13
  this context, because it's key. Even if you aren't making
• 22:16
  a call, if your phone is powered on and connected
• 22:18
  to the network, it is constantly pinging the nearest cell
• 22:21
  towers to register its location in case a call comes in.
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: Right, it has to know where you are to write
• 22:26
  the call exactly.
• 22:28
  Speaker 2: Investigators didn't just look at where his phone was during
• 22:30
  the murders. They looked at the metadata of his travel
• 22:33
  patterns before and after. They mapped his phone pinging towers
• 22:37
  in the vicinity of the King Road house numerous times
• 22:40
  in the months prior stalking the house, and they tracked
• 22:43
  his highly irregular travel patterns in the hours immediately following
• 22:47
  the crime. His attempt to mask his location actually created
• 22:51
  a suspicious void in the data that investigators just zeroed
• 22:55
  rite in on.
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: And then, you know, the most glaring physical mistake of all,
• 22:59
  leaving the knife sheath directly on the bed next to
• 23:02
  the victims with a microscopic trace of touch DNA on
• 23:06
  the metal snap just unbelievable. I mean, how does someone
• 23:08
  who spends years studying the minds of killers, who sits
• 23:12
  in classrooms analyzing how criminals are caught, how does he
• 23:15
  remain so oblivious to his own physical traceability.
• 23:18
  Speaker 2: It defies logic.
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: It's like an architect who spends their whole life studying
• 23:22
  why bridges collapse and then decides to build their own
• 23:25
  bridge out of pep mache. There's a blinding arrogance there,
• 23:28
  the theory completely evaporated in the face of reality.
• 23:32
  Speaker 2: Hubris is really the only word for it. It is
• 23:35
  a blinding, terrifying arrogance. He studied the theory of crime,
• 23:39
  but when he stepped into the chaotic, messy, physical reality
• 23:43
  of committing an atrocity, he made fundamental blunders. He was
• 23:47
  caught by the exact forensic methodologies he was theoretically mastering.
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: And his academic mask was slipping in other ways too. Right.
• 23:54
  The documentary points out that between the murders in November
• 23:57
  and his arrest in late December, he was actually removed
• 24:00
  from his teaching assistant position at Washington State University.
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: Right, I forgot about that.
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah. The university cited a pattern of unprofessional conduct, specifically
• 24:08
  noting deeply concerning interactions with female students. The facade of
• 24:13
  the rigorous scholar was cracking on multiple fronts.
• 24:16
  Speaker 2: But the ultimate tragic irony of Brian Coberger, and the
• 24:19
  thing that the documentary highlights so powerfully, is that this
• 24:22
  was a man whose entire academic life was dedicated to
• 24:25
  understanding why offenders do what they do. Yet when he
• 24:29
  was caught, he utterly failed to provide the one thing
• 24:33
  his studies focused on. He left behind the genetic material,
• 24:37
  he left behind the digital breadcrumbs, but he offered absolutely
• 24:41
  zero explanation.
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: And that silence, that glaring intentional lack of an explanation,
• 24:47
  leads us directly into the fourth and honestly, the most painful,
• 24:51
  unresolved aspect of this entire tragedy for the families. Yes,
• 24:55
  the judicial void.
• 24:57
  Speaker 2: We really have to look at how the legal system
• 24:58
  process is a case like this because the mechanics of
• 25:01
  the law often run completely counter to the psychological needs
• 25:04
  of the victims' families in what way. Well, in July
• 25:07
  twenty twenty five, the legal proceedings took a sharp, sudden turn.
• 25:12
  Brian Koberger entered a guilty plea. He pleaded guilty to
• 25:15
  four counts of first degree murder in one count of burglary.
• 25:19
  Speaker 1: And the immediate result of that plea was that he
• 25:21
  received four consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. Now,
• 25:26
  let's be clear about what this means. Mechanically, by accepting
• 25:29
  this plea, the prosecution took the death penalty off the table,
• 25:32
  but more importantly, it abruptly short circuited the prospect of
• 25:36
  a massive, highly publicized, month's long trial.
• 25:40
  Speaker 2: Exactly when a defendant pleads guilty. They bypassed the discovery
• 25:45
  phase being aired in open court. They bypass cross examination,
• 25:49
  they bypassed the requirement for the prosecution to publicly lay
• 25:53
  out every single piece of evidence and construct a narrative
• 25:56
  timeline for a jury.
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: And because grief is not a monolith, the documentary spends
• 26:01
  significant time exploring how this sudden legal finality fractured the families.
• 26:06
  Speaker 2: Right, Everyone reacted differently.
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: You look at Jasmin Kernodle, Santa's sister. Her reaction was
• 26:11
  one of profound relief.
• 26:12
  Speaker 2: Which is entirely understandable when you consider the trauma of
• 26:15
  a trial.
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: I mean absolutely, For Jasmine, a plea deal meant she
• 26:18
  wouldn't have to spend weeks in a courtroom breathing the
• 26:20
  same air as the man who killed her sister, just awful.
• 26:23
  It meant she wouldn't have to listen to medical examiners
• 26:25
  graphically detail the autopsy reports. She wouldn't have to watch
• 26:28
  the media circus descend on Moscow again. For her, avoiding
• 26:32
  that extended psychological torture was a mercy. The finality of
• 26:36
  the life sentences was enough.
• 26:38
  Speaker 2: But then you look at the Goncalves family. Olivea and
• 26:41
  Christy Goncalves had a completely different, equally valid reaction. They
• 26:46
  felt deeply hurt and betrayed by the plea deal.
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they were very vocal about that.
• 26:51
  Speaker 2: For them, a plea didn't feel like justice. It felt
• 26:54
  like the system allowed Coburger to retain control. By pleading out,
• 26:59
  he of avoid being put on the stand, He avoided
• 27:02
  the crucible of public accountability.
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: They wanted him to face the evidence. They wanted the
• 27:06
  opportunity to look him in the eye in a court
• 27:08
  of law and demand answers to the fundamental questions why Madison,
• 27:12
  why Kylee, why Xana? Why Ethan? Why eleven two to
• 27:16
  two King Road on that specific night?
• 27:18
  Speaker 2: And they never got that.
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: No, by accepting the plea, the legal system effectively stole
• 27:23
  their chance to ask those questions.
• 27:25
  Speaker 2: Chief Dollinger provides a quote in the documentary that really
• 27:28
  serves as the bleak anchor for this entire section.
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: I say, what does he say?
• 27:32
  Speaker 2: He says, Ultimately, we never have been able to answer
• 27:34
  that question that everyone wants answered, which is why we
• 27:37
  don't know why these four. We don't know why this house.
• 27:39
  I don't think we'll ever know.
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: Wow. That quote just hangs in the air because it
• 27:44
  forces us to confront this deeply uncomfortable limitation of our
• 27:48
  legal system. We are conditioned by procedural dramas on TV
• 27:52
  to treat a guilty plea like the final chapter of
• 27:55
  a book. The gavel bangs, the sentences read, and society says, Okay,
• 27:59
  the system worked, Justice has been served. The story is
• 28:02
  over tied.
• 28:03
  Speaker 2: Up with a bow.
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: But for these families, the justice system didn't give them
• 28:06
  a finished book. It just handed them a book with
• 28:08
  the last fifty pages violently ripped out. There is no
• 28:12
  narrative resolution. It is just a gaping open wound.
• 28:15
  Speaker 2: It highlights what the justice system is actually designed to
• 28:18
  do versus what we want it to do. The courts
• 28:21
  are structural mechanisms designed to establish the who, the what,
• 28:24
  the where, and the how. They determine legal culpability and
• 28:27
  administer a penalty, but they are entirely ill equipped to
• 28:30
  answer the why. The law cannot mandate a satisfying psychological explanation.
• 28:36
  It cannot force a perpetrator to provide a narrative that
• 28:39
  makes sense of senseless.
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: Violence and adding absolute insult to injury. The source material
• 28:44
  notes that a year after the plea, in July twenty
• 28:47
  twenty six, Coburger petitioned to withdraw his guilty plea and
• 28:51
  claim innocence.
• 28:52
  Speaker 2: Just cruel.
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: Now, the documentary was locked before this happens, so it's
• 28:55
  not in the film, but we have to mention it
• 28:57
  because the families publicly viewed this move as nothing more
• 29:01
  than a cruel attention grab.
• 29:02
  Speaker 2: It is a horrific continuation of the psychological toll. He
• 29:06
  is weaponizing the appellate process to keep the families in
• 29:10
  a state of perpetual instability. Yeah, it proves that the
• 29:13
  absence of a motive in this case isn't just a
• 29:16
  missing detail, It is an active, ongoing trauma that he
• 29:20
  continues to inflict on them.
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: And what I respect so much about the documentary is
• 29:23
  that it refuses to fill that void with cheap speculation.
• 29:26
  Speaker 2: It doesn't do that at all.
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: It doesn't parade a bunch of armchair psychologists on screen
• 29:30
  to guess at his motives. It simply leaves the void
• 29:33
  there exposed to show the audience what the families and
• 29:36
  the community of Moscow have to carry with them every single.
• 29:39
  Speaker 2: Day, which forces a pivot in the narrative. If the
• 29:42
  perpetrator isn't going to give us an explanation, and if
• 29:45
  the legal system cannot manufacture one, we have to look inward.
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: Right at ourselves.
• 29:50
  Speaker 2: We have to look at how we as a society
• 29:53
  process these unexplainable tragedies.
• 29:55
  Speaker 1: And this brings us to the fifth and I think
• 29:57
  the most profound section of our deep dive. We need
• 30:01
  to talk about the ethics of memory and the true
• 30:03
  crime ecosystem itself. Because Borgmann and Berlinger really elevate this
• 30:08
  documentary from a simple recounting of facts into a vital
• 30:12
  piece of media criticism.
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: They forced the audience to examine the contextual layers surrounding
• 30:17
  the crime, starting with the secondary trauma inflicted by the public.
• 30:20
  We touch on this with the surviving roommates, but the
• 30:22
  documentary broadens the scope to show how amateur online sleuths
• 30:26
  terrorize the victim's broader circle of friends.
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: Let's talk about the mechanics of that online frenzy. In
• 30:31
  those early weeks of the investigation, the Moscow police were
• 30:34
  maintaining a very tight hold on information.
• 30:36
  Speaker 2: As they should.
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: As they should, they weren't releasing details because they didn't
• 30:40
  want to tip off the killer. But in the digital age,
• 30:43
  an information vacuum doesn't stay empty. The Internet rushed in
• 30:47
  to fill that vacuum with rumors, wild conspiracy theories, and
• 30:51
  baseless accusations.
• 30:53
  Speaker 2: It's a phenomenon driven by parasocial relationships and the gamification
• 30:57
  of tragedy. True crime consumers often feel entitled to the
• 31:01
  details of an investigation in real time, like they're owed it,
• 31:04
  like they're owed it, and when they don't get them,
• 31:06
  they form mobs. The documentary shows how friends of the victims,
• 31:10
  college students who are the deepest, most agonizing stages of
• 31:14
  fresh grief, were suddenly receiving death threats and harassment from
• 31:17
  strangers on TikTok and read it.
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: It's disgusting.
• 31:20
  Speaker 2: The true crime ecosystem actively hindered the private morning process
• 31:24
  of the people who actually knew the victims.
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: It's sickening when you realize that people sitting behind keyboards
• 31:29
  thousands of miles away were inflicting real psychological damage on
• 31:33
  grieving kids just for clicks and views, pure exploitation. And
• 31:36
  it wasn't just the friends who paid a massive personal cost.
• 31:40
  The documentary gives a very necessary voice to the first responders.
• 31:44
  Speaker 2: Law enforcement officers are often expected to be stoic machines,
• 31:48
  but the documentary breaks down that wall. Chief Dollinger talks
• 31:52
  openly about the toll this took on his department.
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: You have to remember the context right exactly.
• 31:57
  Speaker 2: This is a university town police force. They deal with
• 31:59
  noways complaints, underage drinking, maybe property theft. The scale of
• 32:04
  the violence inside eleven twenty two King Road exceeded their
• 32:07
  ordinary experience by a factor of a thousand.
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: Officers who walked into that house on November thirteenth required
• 32:13
  significant ongoing psychological support. The department was so overwhelmed by
• 32:18
  the sheer magnitude of the crime scene and the resulting
• 32:21
  media circus that they had to pull in mutual aid
• 32:24
  from the Idaho State Police and the FBI just to
• 32:27
  keep the investigation functioning. Just as stay Afloat, the trauma
• 32:30
  radiated outward, infecting everyone who touched the case.
• 32:33
  Speaker 2: And that radiation extended to the physical space itself. The
• 32:38
  house at eleven twenty two King Road became a massive
• 32:41
  point of contention. Ultimately, the University of Idaho, which acquired
• 32:46
  the property, decided to demolish the.
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: House, which was so controversial.
• 32:51
  Speaker 2: Highly sensitive, and the documentary covers it with a lot
• 32:54
  of grace.
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it notes that some of the victim's family members
• 32:57
  strongly objected to the demolition. To the university, knocking it
• 33:01
  down was a way to sanitize the campus, to remove
• 33:04
  a glaring physical reminder of the horror and try to move.
• 33:07
  Speaker 2: Forward right pr in safety.
• 33:09
  Speaker 1: But for some of the parents, that house was not
• 33:12
  just a crime scene. It was the very last physical
• 33:15
  place on Earth where their children breathed. It was a
• 33:18
  tangible connection and was also physical evidence.
• 33:21
  Speaker 2: Destroying the house meant erasing that connection forever. And what's
• 33:25
  notable is how the filmmakers handle this disagreement. They don't
• 33:28
  turn it into a spectacle. They don't manufacture drama between
• 33:31
  the university and the families. They simply let the parents
• 33:34
  speak their piece, and they allow the audience to sit
• 33:37
  with the pain of watching that physical structure be torn down.
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: Which is perfectly aligned with the documentary's entire ethos. The
• 33:45
  filmmakers made a conscious ethical choice about where to point
• 33:48
  the camera. If you track the screen time in the series,
• 33:51
  it deliberately spends significantly more time exploring the ordinary, beautiful
• 33:56
  college joys of Madison, Kaylee, Xana, and Ethan than it
• 33:59
  does examining the killer's background.
• 34:01
  Speaker 2: It is what I would call a quiet corrective to
• 34:04
  the entire true crime genre, the quiet correct him.
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: I like that.
• 34:07
  Speaker 2: Because so often this genre prioritizes the psychology of the murderer.
• 34:11
  It builds them up into these complex, almost mythical figures. Yeah,
• 34:15
  you know, the evil genius. Meanwhile, the victims are reduced
• 34:19
  to mere plot devices, they become props in the story
• 34:22
  of their own destruction.
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: Exactly, we learn everything about the killer's childhood, and all
• 34:27
  we know about the victims is how they died. This
• 34:30
  documentary violently rejects that structure. You hear these beautiful, heartbreaking
• 34:34
  details that bring them back to life on screen. So
• 34:37
  moving to watch friends talking about their shared meals, their
• 34:40
  inside jokes, their plans for graduation. You learn about Madison's
• 34:45
  incredible warmth and kindness, Kayley's fierce protective loyalty to her family,
• 34:51
  Ethan's humor and his deep bond with his fellow triplets, and.
• 34:54
  Speaker 2: Jeff kernodles sharing that agonizing memory of the day before
• 34:57
  the murders. He talks about how he almost persuaded Zana
• 35:01
  and Ethan to leave Moscow that Saturday and come with
• 35:04
  them to a football game.
• 35:05
  Speaker 1: It's those small sliding door decisions that carries such unbearable
• 35:09
  weight in hindsight. If they had gone to the game,
• 35:11
  maybe they wouldn't have been in the house.
• 35:13
  Speaker 2: It's devastating, it is, and.
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: The documentary insists that remembering those human details is the
• 35:18
  primary ethical obligation of anyone telling the story. It respects
• 35:22
  the family's wishes. By rarely even speaking the perpetrator's name, and.
• 35:27
  Speaker 2: By doing so, it challenges us, the audience, to take
• 35:30
  on that same ethical obligation.
• 35:32
  Speaker 1: It really does. When you sit down to consume a
• 35:33
  true crime deep dive or a documentary or a book,
• 35:36
  you have to ask yourself a hard question. What am
• 35:38
  I feeding here? Am I feeding a morbid fascination with
• 35:42
  a monster? Am I looking for a cheap adrenaline thrill?
• 35:46
  Or am I paying my respects to the lives that
• 35:48
  were brutally unfairly interrupted.
• 35:50
  Speaker 2: It demands a profound shift in how we engage with
• 35:53
  this material. The series doesn't end with a neat bow
• 35:57
  or a satisfying conclusion about justice. He ends with the
• 36:00
  voices of the people who loved Madison, Kaylee, Xana, and Ethan,
• 36:05
  as it should, It leaves the viewer with the weight
• 36:07
  of the loss, emphasizing that no amount of unseen bodycam footage,
• 36:12
  no new psychological profile, and certainly no Internet speculation can
• 36:16
  ever fill the void that was left behind.
• 36:18
  Speaker 1: Which brings us to the end of our deep dive. Today,
• 36:21
  we've covered a massive amount of ground exploring this documentary.
• 36:24
  We started by looking at the shattered colliding protocols of
• 36:27
  that horrific first morning, how the rigid mechanics of university
• 36:31
  alerts and police procedures unintentionally traumatize the families.
• 36:34
  Speaker 2: We examined the absolute medical truths that, while heartbreaking, mercifully
• 36:38
  silence the cruel what ifs, hurled at the surviving roommates,
• 36:42
  explaining the neurobiology of fear that paralyzed them while exonerating
• 36:46
  them from any blame.
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: We analyze the chilling, blinding arrogance of a criminology student
• 36:51
  who thought he could outsmart the digital and physical forensic
• 36:54
  systems he studied, only to be undone by his own
• 36:58
  fundamental blunders.
• 36:59
  Speaker 2: And in front of the harsh reality of the judicial void,
• 37:03
  a legal system that can lock a perpetrator away, that
• 37:06
  can establish the facts of the crime, but cannot force
• 37:09
  them to provide the one thing the families need most
• 37:12
  or reason why.
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: Through it all, we've seen how a piece of media
• 37:16
  can choose ethics over exploitation, demanding that we remember these
• 37:20
  four individuals not as case file entries, but as vibrant
• 37:23
  young adults with ordinary plans for ordinary days. But before
• 37:27
  we sign off, I want to leave you the listener
• 37:29
  with one final lingering thought to chew on. Please, we
• 37:32
  talk at the very beginning about the expectation we bring
• 37:35
  to these stories. How true crime trains us to expect
• 37:38
  a puzzle box?
• 37:39
  Speaker 2: Right, We want to solve it.
• 37:40
  Speaker 1: We want a clear psychological motive, because a motive makes
• 37:43
  a scary, random world feel logical. It makes us feel
• 37:46
  like if we can understand the monster, we can avoid
• 37:48
  the monster, makes us feel safe. But after looking at
• 37:51
  the reality of the Idaho murders, what if the puzzle
• 37:54
  box is a lie? What if the most terrifying truth
• 37:58
  we have to face is that sometimes catastrophic violence has
• 38:01
  absolutely no satisfying.
• 38:03
  Speaker 2: Why that is a chilling thought?
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: If we accept that void, if we accept that some
• 38:07
  darkness just doesn't have a rational explanation, how does that
• 38:10
  change the way we view the limits of our justice system?
• 38:13
  And more importantly, if tomorrow isn't guaranteed and the world
• 38:18
  doesn't always make sense, how does that change the way
• 38:20
  you cherish the ordinary, boring, beautiful days you are given
• 38:24
  Right now?
• 38:25
  Speaker 2: That is the vital question we all have to carry
• 38:27
  with us. Thank you for taking this journey into some
• 38:29
  very difficult truths with us today.
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: Until next time, take care of yourselves and take care
• 38:33
  of each other.