Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: The State Responds To The Kohberger Bushy Eyebrow Motion (8/15/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: The State Responds To The Kohberger Bushy Eyebrow Motion (8/15/26) · Beyond The Horizon

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
0:03
Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to head back up to Moscow
0:06
Speaker 1: and we're going to take a look at the state's
0:07
Speaker 1: response to defendant's motion in lemon A Number seven, Witness
0:12
Speaker 1: identification by bushy eyebrows Case number CR zero one Dash
0:17
Speaker 1: twenty four DASH three one sixty sixty five, State of Idaho,
0:21
Speaker 1: Plaintiff verse Brian C. Coberger. The defendant comes now the
0:26
Speaker 1: State of Idaho buy and through the Lata County Prosecuting Attorney,
0:30
Speaker 1: and hereby response to Defendant's motion in Lemonae number seven
0:33
Speaker 1: witness identification by bushy eyebrows. Defendant's basis for his motion
0:38
Speaker 1: are the Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule four three, six
0:41
Speaker 1: oh one, and six oh two. Applying the Idaho rules
0:45
Speaker 1: of Evidence to the facts of the case at hand,
0:48
Speaker 1: the court should find DM's description of the intruder, including
0:51
Speaker 1: that he had bushy eyebrows, admissible. The State in corporates
0:54
Speaker 1: it's previously filed State's motion in Lemonae, text messages and testimony,
1:00
Speaker 1: as well as the state's motion in lemone. The nine
1:02
Speaker 1: to one one call into the response to the extent
1:05
Speaker 1: that the State is referring to any exceptions to the
1:08
Speaker 1: rule against hearsay as anticipated evidence facts. On November thirteenth,
1:13
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, sometime before four nineteen am, DM observed
1:18
Speaker 1: a person inside her residence, which she shared with her
1:21
Speaker 1: four roommates, at eleven twenty two King rhad C State's
1:25
Speaker 1: Exhibit S one Summary exhibit of DM's phone records. DM
1:29
Speaker 1: placed several phone calls and sent several text messages to
1:32
Speaker 1: her roommates. The only roommate who responds is BF. The
1:37
Speaker 1: two had a short phone conversation twenty four seconds and
1:40
Speaker 1: forty one seconds idea, page two. Within those phone calls
1:44
Speaker 1: and text messages, DM relayed to BF that she saw
1:48
Speaker 1: a person in the residence wearing black and he had
1:50
Speaker 1: on a black ski mask that covered his forehead and
1:53
Speaker 1: mouth Idea, pages two and three. On November thirteenth, twenty
1:58
Speaker 1: twenty two, at approximately eleven fifteen, a nine to one
2:01
Speaker 1: one call was placed from eleven twenty two King Road
2:04
Speaker 1: for a reported unresponsive female. The caller stated one of
2:08
Speaker 1: the roommates was not waking up. Transcript of nine to
2:11
Speaker 1: one one call, page two, line sixty two and sixty three.
2:14
Speaker 1: The caller stated, oh, and they saw some man in
2:17
Speaker 1: their house last night Idea at line sixty nine. Moscow
2:21
Speaker 1: Police Department responded to the scene at line one eighty
2:24
Speaker 1: and one eighty two the same day, at approximately twelve
2:28
Speaker 1: oh nine pm, Moscow Police Department officer Mitch Nunez took
2:32
Speaker 1: a statement from DM on scene outside of eleven twenty
2:35
Speaker 1: two King Road. DM told the officer Nunez she had
2:39
Speaker 1: saw a mal not insanely tall, wearing all black and
2:42
Speaker 1: a mask that was just covering his forehead and his
2:45
Speaker 1: mouth defended its Exhibit number two, page seventeen, lines five
2:49
Speaker 1: and seven. Later, DM repeated the description, he was a
2:52
Speaker 1: little bit taller than me. I couldn't really see much
2:55
Speaker 1: of him, and I'm almost positive he was wearing a
2:57
Speaker 1: full black outfit, and he had this mask that was
3:00
Speaker 1: just over his forehead and over his mouth Idea at
3:03
Speaker 1: pages twenty one, lines two through seven. DM gave a
3:07
Speaker 1: description a third time, repeating he had a mask, he
3:10
Speaker 1: was an inch or two taller than her, he was
3:12
Speaker 1: a basketball player, kind of skinny, and the voice she
3:15
Speaker 1: did not recognize Idea at page thirty one, lines a
3:19
Speaker 1: through twenty five, Page thirty two, lines one through three
3:23
Speaker 1: The same day, at approximately one forty seven pm, DM
3:27
Speaker 1: was interviewed at the Moscow Police Department by Detective Lawrence Mowry.
3:32
Speaker 1: During this interview, DM reported she saw white male she
3:35
Speaker 1: did not know, maybe my height of a few inches taller, skinny,
3:38
Speaker 1: athletic build, wearing all black, wearing this mask that covers
3:43
Speaker 1: just his forehead, and here defendants Exhibit number three, page fourteen,
3:47
Speaker 1: lines twenty through twenty five. Regarding his height, she reported
3:51
Speaker 1: on five foot ten, so he's probably six foot idea.
3:54
Speaker 1: At page fifteen, lines twenty and twenty one, she reported,
3:58
Speaker 1: I don't remember what his eyes look like either. I
4:01
Speaker 1: didn't recognize his eyes, but definitely a white guy idea,
4:04
Speaker 1: page twenty, lines nineteen and twenty pages twenty one, lines
4:08
Speaker 1: two and four. Four days later, on November seventeenth, twenty
4:12
Speaker 1: twenty two, DM was interviewed by Idaho State Police Detective
4:16
Speaker 1: Victoria Gooch and MPD Captain then Sergeant Dustin Blaker. DM
4:21
Speaker 1: gave a detailed accounting of what she did on Saturday,
4:25
Speaker 1: November twelfth, twenty twenty two, until she went to bed
4:28
Speaker 1: at approximately three twenty am on Sunday, November thirteenth, twenty
4:32
Speaker 1: twenty two Defendants, Exhibit number six, pages nineteen through fifty.
4:38
Speaker 1: Sometime between four am and four twenty am, DM woke
4:41
Speaker 1: up and heard Amel's voice, a voice she did not recognize,
4:45
Speaker 1: say it's okay, I'm going to help you idea page fifty,
4:48
Speaker 1: line eleven, page fifty two, lines fifteen and sixteen, page
4:52
Speaker 1: fifty three, line eighteen, page sixty one, line twenty five,
4:56
Speaker 1: and page sixty two, lines one and two and twenty one.
4:59
Speaker 1: In two twenty two, DM opened her door and saw
5:04
Speaker 1: someone from my mind. It's like I almost saw him
5:07
Speaker 1: wearing these like blurry glasses, like it's fuzzy and cloudy.
5:10
Speaker 1: But it was like a figure of someone wearing all black,
5:13
Speaker 1: and it was like they had a ski mask that
5:16
Speaker 1: was covering their forehead and their chin and mouth. But
5:19
Speaker 1: I could see the eye. All I remember was seeing
5:22
Speaker 1: their eyebrows, and I don't I don't remember what their
5:25
Speaker 1: eyes looked like, but I remember their eyebrows. I don't
5:28
Speaker 1: remember the color the eyebrows were. I just remember like
5:32
Speaker 1: bushy eyebrows. That's all I could think about. Idea at
5:36
Speaker 1: page seventy four, line twenty five, page seventy five, lines
5:40
Speaker 1: one through ten DM described the male as not skinny
5:43
Speaker 1: tone that basketball kind of type. DM also stated that
5:49
Speaker 1: she thought the mail was around five foot ten and
5:51
Speaker 1: then six foot somewhere around their idea lines eight through ten.
5:55
Speaker 1: DM stated the male was approximately three feet from her
5:59
Speaker 1: from where she was standing. I would say about three
6:01
Speaker 1: feet from what I remember. Again, that could be off,
6:05
Speaker 1: because I obviously probably still a little bit drunk. I
6:08
Speaker 1: just woke up. I don't remember fully ID page at
6:11
Speaker 1: seventy seven, lines one through four. Again, she described the mail.
6:16
Speaker 1: I know he looked at me because I could see
6:17
Speaker 1: his eyebrows. I think I think, I just I think
6:20
Speaker 1: I just saw one eyebrow. I don't know why or
6:23
Speaker 1: how idea page seventy eight, line six through nine. DM
6:27
Speaker 1: recounted calling and texting her roommate BF, and she discussed
6:30
Speaker 1: with BF that there was someone in the house wearing
6:33
Speaker 1: all black and a ski mask. Cee States Exhibit S two,
6:37
Speaker 1: page seventy nine through one oh four of transcript not
6:40
Speaker 1: included in Defendants Exhibit six, page seventy nine, lines sixteen
6:45
Speaker 1: through nineteen. DM conveyed to the interviewers that the facts
6:48
Speaker 1: didn't fully make sense to her and she didn't know
6:51
Speaker 1: how to explain everything idea, page ninety two, line seventeen
6:55
Speaker 1: and eighteen. Detective Gouch explained to DM that the important
6:59
Speaker 1: thing was to tell only the things she knew were true.
7:02
Speaker 1: That's the most important idea lines nineteen through twenty four.
7:06
Speaker 1: DM agreed. Idea. Line twenty five. Detective Gooch acknowledged DM's
7:11
Speaker 1: trauma ID at page ninety three, lines one and two.
7:15
Speaker 1: DM confirmed idea. At line three, Detective Gooch and Captain
7:18
Speaker 1: Blaker confirmed the facts from DM's memory. Again. DM reiterated
7:23
Speaker 1: she saw a male figure in the hallway approximately three
7:26
Speaker 1: feet from her. He was holding something. He was wearing
7:29
Speaker 1: all black clothes. His forehead was covered. He was wearing
7:32
Speaker 1: a mask. She remembers his eyebrows. Idea at page ninety six,
7:36
Speaker 1: lines eighteen through twenty four, Page ninety seven, line three,
7:40
Speaker 1: Defendants Exhibit six, page one oh five, line eighteen through
7:43
Speaker 1: twenty five. Captain Blaker asked what was covering his face,
7:47
Speaker 1: and DM stated, I don't know, weird looking ski mask.
7:51
Speaker 1: It wasn't like a regular sche mask with like eyes,
7:54
Speaker 1: and you know, because I saw his eyebrows, and I
7:56
Speaker 1: think I saw his nose and like part of his
7:59
Speaker 1: face but I don't don't know Defendants Exhibit six at
8:03
Speaker 1: page one oh five, lines twenty two through twenty five.
8:07
Speaker 1: Page one oh six, line one. Detective Gooch asked DM
8:10
Speaker 1: if she knew what a bacloville was and showed her
8:13
Speaker 1: a picture idea at pages one oh six, line two.
8:16
Speaker 1: In response, in addressing whether she could see the mel's mouth,
8:19
Speaker 1: DM stated, no, I don't remember if I saw it, like.
8:22
Speaker 1: I don't remember if I saw his nose, but I
8:25
Speaker 1: know I saw his eyebrows, and I don't remember his eyes.
8:29
Speaker 1: I just feel like I can see eyebrows. But I
8:31
Speaker 1: mean that could be it. I mean that would make
8:33
Speaker 1: sense why the forehead was covered and this part of
8:36
Speaker 1: his face was covered idea, page one oh seven, lines
8:39
Speaker 1: twelve through eighteen. The investigators inquired if DM could provide
8:43
Speaker 1: a composite for an artist idea at page one thirty four,
8:47
Speaker 1: lines thirteen through fifteen. DM responded, no, I don't remember
8:51
Speaker 1: what his eyes looked like. I don't remember what his
8:53
Speaker 1: nose look like. I just remember eyebrows. I don't know
8:56
Speaker 1: exactly what the eyebrows look like at all. Really, I
8:59
Speaker 1: just remember thinking like eyebrows, Yeah, Bushy, that's all like.
9:03
Speaker 1: I don't remember the shape, I don't remember like the color.
9:06
Speaker 1: I just remember like bushy eyebrows, and that's the only
9:09
Speaker 1: thing I can remember. On December first, twenty twenty two,
9:13
Speaker 1: eighteen days after her first interview, DM was interviewed by
9:16
Speaker 1: forensic interviewer Aaron Williamson. DM gave a detailed accounting of Saturday,
9:21
Speaker 1: November twelfth, twenty twenty two, until she went to bed
9:24
Speaker 1: on Sunday, November thirteenth, twenty twenty two. Defendants Exhibit number seven,
9:29
Speaker 1: page nineteen and twenty see States Exhibit as three, pages
9:33
Speaker 1: twenty one through thirty one of transcript which were not
9:36
Speaker 1: included in Defendants Exhibit seven, pages twenty one through twenty nine.
9:41
Speaker 1: DM reported she heard a man's voice and it wasn't Ethan's.
9:45
Speaker 1: It was like, it's okay, I'm gonna help you. Defendants
9:48
Speaker 1: Exhibit number seven, page thirty two, lines nine through fifteen.
9:52
Speaker 1: DM stated she saw an all black figure about my height,
9:56
Speaker 1: maybe a few inches taller, skinny build, wearing a mask
9:59
Speaker 1: idep Page thirty three, lines nineteen through twenty two. Page
10:03
Speaker 1: thirty four, line one, DM described, I don't know if
10:07
Speaker 1: it was just like one eyebrow or two, but it
10:10
Speaker 1: was just like the bushy eyebrow idea. At pages thirty four,
10:14
Speaker 1: lines three through five, DM texted BF, there's a guy
10:17
Speaker 1: in all black idea at page thirty five, lines twenty
10:21
Speaker 1: two through twenty three. Again, DM described the sche mask.
10:26
Speaker 1: I couldn't see any of his hair, but I remember
10:28
Speaker 1: just like seeing like it was like almost rectangular, like
10:32
Speaker 1: not the circle ones. It was like rectangular because I
10:35
Speaker 1: remember seeing like just like I don't know how to
10:38
Speaker 1: explain it, just seeing like this. Maybe i'd be able
10:41
Speaker 1: to see like a cross. But I don't remember seeing
10:43
Speaker 1: his eyes, but I feel like his eyes were there.
10:47
Speaker 1: I could just see like an eyebrow. I feel like
10:49
Speaker 1: that's how I know he saw me, because I could
10:51
Speaker 1: see his eyebrow, Like if he can see his eyebrow,
10:54
Speaker 1: he can see me. Idea at page ninety seven, line
10:58
Speaker 1: six through seventeen. Reiterated from what I remember, I think
11:03
Speaker 1: he was like just walking past the little wall and
11:06
Speaker 1: going towards the kitchen. And I don't know, like I
11:09
Speaker 1: just remember seeing an eyebrow. I don't know why I
11:11
Speaker 1: just see one. It was just like like one bushy eyebrow.
11:14
Speaker 1: I don't remember the color like the full shape. I
11:17
Speaker 1: just remember it being bushy idea at pages ninety eight,
11:21
Speaker 1: lines twenty through twenty five, lines one and two. She
11:25
Speaker 1: described his clothing again, stating the male was wearing black
11:28
Speaker 1: long sleeves, black pants, and black boots idea at page
11:32
Speaker 1: ninety nine, lines fourteen through nineteen. At the end of
11:34
Speaker 1: the interview, DM drew the mask for the interviewer Idea
11:38
Speaker 1: at page one seventy four, lines twenty through twenty five.
11:41
Speaker 1: While drawing, she gave a consistent description of the mask
11:45
Speaker 1: and noted the eyebrows. I don't remember if I saw
11:47
Speaker 1: one or two like it was. It was just weird
11:51
Speaker 1: Idea at pages one seventy six, lines two through three.
11:55
Speaker 1: All Right, folks, we're gonna wrap up with episode one
11:57
Speaker 1: right here, and in the next episode, dealing with the Top,
12:00
Speaker 1: we're gonna pick up where we left off, and that's
12:02
Speaker 1: On December twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, Brian Colberger was
12:06
Speaker 1: arrested in all Brightsville. All of the information that goes
12:10
Speaker 1: with this episode, including my contact information, can be found
12:14
Speaker 1: in the description box. What's up everyone, and welcome back
12:17
Speaker 1: to the program. In this episode, we're headed back out
12:20
Speaker 1: to Moscow and we're gonna pick up where we left
12:23
Speaker 1: off with the States response to Brian Colberger's bushy eyebrow
12:27
Speaker 1: motion in Lemonay on December twenty ninth, twenty twenty two.
12:32
Speaker 1: Brian Coldberger was arrested in all Brightsville, Pennsylvania the following day.
12:36
Speaker 1: On December thirtieth, twenty twenty two, forty seven days after
12:40
Speaker 1: his first interview, DM was interviewed by Idaho State Police
12:44
Speaker 1: ISP detectives Joe Lake and Gary Tolisen in Cordelaine, Idaho.
12:49
Speaker 1: Defendant's Exhibit number nine. DM was asked about Brian Colberger.
12:53
Speaker 1: DM was asked, have you seen a picture of mister
12:56
Speaker 1: Colberger idea page ninety six, linees twenty three and twenty four.
13:01
Speaker 1: DM responded, yeah, I looked him up today when I
13:03
Speaker 1: found out idea A page ninety six, line twenty five,
13:07
Speaker 1: page ninety seven, line one were regarding what pictures she saw,
13:12
Speaker 1: as she stated, I've seen the mugshot one with the
13:14
Speaker 1: best thing I think idea at page ninety seven, line
13:18
Speaker 1: six through seven, the interviewer asked her this, Brian Colberger
13:21
Speaker 1: is the person that you saw in the mug shot.
13:24
Speaker 1: Is that the same person you saw in your house
13:26
Speaker 1: idea A, page ninety seven, line sixteen through eighteen. DM responded,
13:31
Speaker 1: I have no clue from what I remember. I just
13:33
Speaker 1: remember seeing this figure that was like not fat, obviously,
13:37
Speaker 1: but more like the skinnier tone build and some mask on.
13:41
Speaker 1: I don't know what the mask exactly was, but when
13:44
Speaker 1: I thought about it, it was just like covering here
13:46
Speaker 1: and here. I don't know if it was covering his
13:48
Speaker 1: mouth his nose or below his mouth and nose. I
13:51
Speaker 1: just remember knowing that he was white, but I don't
13:54
Speaker 1: know how he was white. I just knew he was
13:57
Speaker 1: and this knowing theirs like I knew he had looked
14:00
Speaker 1: at me because of the bushy eyebrow. That's all I remember,
14:04
Speaker 1: But I have no idea what he looked like. I
14:06
Speaker 1: don't like when I look at his picture, nothing came
14:08
Speaker 1: back to me at all, So like, I don't know.
14:11
Speaker 1: I feel like if I saw that, my mind would
14:13
Speaker 1: be like, oh, yeah, that's him, But it's just I
14:15
Speaker 1: don't remember at all. Idea, page ninety seven, lines nineteen
14:20
Speaker 1: through twenty five, Page ninety eight, lines one through five,
14:23
Speaker 1: fifteen through twenty Regarding DM telling BF the male had
14:27
Speaker 1: a big nose, DM stated, all I remember, but I
14:31
Speaker 1: don't remember big nose at all, like at all. That's like,
14:34
Speaker 1: all I remember is like some bushy eyebrows in the
14:36
Speaker 1: black and some sort of mask, but it wasn't like
14:39
Speaker 1: one of those circle scheme masks. That's all I remember.
14:42
Speaker 1: On May fifteenth, twenty twenty three, one hundred and eighty three,
14:45
Speaker 1: days after DM's first interview, DM testified at the grand
14:49
Speaker 1: jury proceeding for the above titled matter c States Exhibit
14:53
Speaker 1: as four Grand jury Testimony regarding November thirteenth, twenty twenty two.
14:57
Speaker 1: DM testified that she woke up around four am to
15:00
Speaker 1: noises music, Murphy talking and or singing I did Page
15:05
Speaker 1: one sixty eight, lines four through eleven. DM testified she
15:10
Speaker 1: opened her door and heard a man's voice say it's okay,
15:12
Speaker 1: I'm going to help you, and I didn't know who
15:15
Speaker 1: the man's voice was ID pages one seventy four lines
15:19
Speaker 1: twenty five. Pages one seventy five, lines one through two.
15:22
Speaker 1: DM testified she opened her door again and saw a
15:26
Speaker 1: figure in all black, which I believe was a person.
15:30
Speaker 1: I knew the person was white. I don't know how,
15:32
Speaker 1: but I just knew it knew it was mel I
15:35
Speaker 1: think I knew that because of the voice. The person
15:37
Speaker 1: was around my height or a few inches taller. And
15:40
Speaker 1: then I knew his build was like, wasn't like scrawny,
15:43
Speaker 1: and he wasn't fat, so I figured it was like
15:45
Speaker 1: the basketball tone lean build. Regarding what the person was wearing,
15:50
Speaker 1: DM testified, there was like, from what I think I remember,
15:54
Speaker 1: it was like a black mask, almost like a ski mask,
15:57
Speaker 1: but not it just like covered the head and then
15:59
Speaker 1: maybe up to the mouth, maybe more. I can't remember
16:02
Speaker 1: if it covered just the chin, the mouth, or the
16:04
Speaker 1: nose or the lower idea, page one seventy six, lines
16:09
Speaker 1: fourteen through twenty. DM testified the clothing was all black. Idea.
16:13
Speaker 1: At page one seventy six, line twenty five, she testified, well,
16:17
Speaker 1: the thing I can really remember was that something about
16:20
Speaker 1: a bushy eyebrow. I don't remember seeing anything else, just
16:23
Speaker 1: something about a bushy eyebrow idea, page one seventy seven,
16:28
Speaker 1: lines three through six. The argument DM statements are independently
16:33
Speaker 1: reliable as law enforcement did not employ a witness identification
16:37
Speaker 1: procedure triggering on Mansen Bigger's balancing test. The cases relied
16:42
Speaker 1: upon by the defendant deal with witness identification that result
16:45
Speaker 1: from the use of law enforcement identification techniques. The facts
16:49
Speaker 1: of each of the cited cases are important because they
16:52
Speaker 1: differ vastly from the facts in the case at hand.
16:55
Speaker 1: In State versus Hoisington, witnesses were shown a six photo lineup,
17:00
Speaker 1: resulting in Hoysington being identified, photographs of only Hoysington, and
17:04
Speaker 1: a six person corporeal ie live lineup, which resulted in
17:09
Speaker 1: witnesses positively identifying Hosington. In Wordomon verse State, the witness
17:15
Speaker 1: was shown a six person video lineup with only one
17:17
Speaker 1: male matching the description given by the witness, which led
17:20
Speaker 1: to the identification of Wordemen. In State versus Trevino, the
17:25
Speaker 1: witness was shown a photographic lineup containing several pictures of
17:28
Speaker 1: several men, including Trevino. This process did not result in
17:32
Speaker 1: identification until Trevino showed up to police station shortly thereafter.
17:38
Speaker 1: The United States Supreme Court has held that due process
17:41
Speaker 1: requires the exclusion of identification evidence if police suggestiveness creates
17:45
Speaker 1: a substantial risk of mistake and identification Stoveall vers Dno.
17:50
Speaker 1: Three eighty eight US nineteen sixty seven. In Manson versus Brathwait,
17:55
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court held reliability is a lynchpin in determining
17:58
Speaker 1: the admissibility of ia identification testimony four thirty two US
18:03
Speaker 1: ninety eight one fourteen, nineteen seventy seven. In neil Vers Biggers,
18:08
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court held that the central question is whether,
18:11
Speaker 1: under the totality of the circumstances, the identification was reliable,
18:15
Speaker 1: even though the identification procedure was suggestive. Four nine US
18:20
Speaker 1: one eighty eight, nineteen seventy two. The Supreme Court gave
18:24
Speaker 1: factors to be considered under the totality of the circumstances
18:28
Speaker 1: to determine whether an identification was reliable, i e. The
18:32
Speaker 1: Manson's Bigger test. The reliability factors to be employed after
18:36
Speaker 1: a witness identification are as follows. One the opportunity of
18:41
Speaker 1: the witness to view the criminal at the time of
18:43
Speaker 1: the crime. Two the witness degree of attention, three the
18:47
Speaker 1: accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, four the
18:50
Speaker 1: level of certainty demonstrated at the identification, and five the
18:55
Speaker 1: length of time between the crime and the identification. Manson's
19:00
Speaker 1: Brathweight four thirty two US at one fourteen neil Ver's
19:04
Speaker 1: Bigger's four O nine US at three eighty two. If
19:07
Speaker 1: there are aspects of reliability evident from the factors that
19:10
Speaker 1: substantially outweigh the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification, then
19:15
Speaker 1: the identification testimony will be admissible, ie does not violate
19:20
Speaker 1: due process Manson versus Brathweight four thirty two US at
19:24
Speaker 1: one O six one, fourteen ninety seven, at twenty two
19:28
Speaker 1: forty nine, and twenty two fifty three. In each of
19:31
Speaker 1: the above sided cases, law enforcement employed identification procedures that
19:35
Speaker 1: were arguably suggestive. As a result, it was necessary for
19:39
Speaker 1: the courts to employ the Manson bigger Is balancing tests
19:43
Speaker 1: to determine if the witness identification were reliable or instead
19:47
Speaker 1: and permissively tainted by suggestions that would lead to misidentification.
19:51
Speaker 1: The facts of the Coburger case are vastly different than
19:54
Speaker 1: the cases relied upon by the defendant in the case
19:58
Speaker 1: at hand. On four seven occasions prior to Brian Colberger
20:02
Speaker 1: being arrested, DM gave consistent descriptions of the male she
20:06
Speaker 1: saw in the eleven twenty two King Road residents. Around
20:09
Speaker 1: four am, DM gave the following consistent descriptions one white,
20:13
Speaker 1: two mal, three wearing all black, four few inches taller
20:17
Speaker 1: than DM, five wearing a mask, six skinny, athletic Bill
20:21
Speaker 1: toned seven not a voice she recognized. During three of
20:26
Speaker 1: those interviews, DM also consistently describes the male's eyebrows five times.
20:31
Speaker 1: DM uses the term bushy to describe the eyebrows. Regarding identification,
20:36
Speaker 1: after Brian Colberger was arrested, DM was interviewed and she
20:40
Speaker 1: relayed that she saw a mugshot of Brian Colberger on
20:43
Speaker 1: the internet. Detective Lake asked, DM, is this Brian Colberger?
20:47
Speaker 1: The person that you saw in this mugshot? Is that
20:50
Speaker 1: the person you saw in your house? DM responded, I
20:53
Speaker 1: have no clue. She related to Detective Lake the person
20:56
Speaker 1: that she saw had on a mask that covered his
20:58
Speaker 1: mouth and his nose. The only discernible features were that
21:02
Speaker 1: the subject was white and had bushy eyebrows. The questioning
21:06
Speaker 1: of DM is not a witness identification. There is no
21:10
Speaker 1: law enforcement procedure employed to suggest identification. Most importantly, there
21:15
Speaker 1: was no identification by DM. After seeing a picture of
21:18
Speaker 1: Brian Kolberger, DM could not say that he was the
21:22
Speaker 1: mail that she saw. November thirteenth, twenty twenty two. DM's
21:27
Speaker 1: multiple descriptions of the mail were based on her own
21:29
Speaker 1: recollection and were not the result of suggestive identification procedures
21:33
Speaker 1: employed by law enforcement. Thus, the Manson Bigger's test is inapplicable. Two.
21:39
Speaker 1: Even if the court applies the Manson Biggers test, the
21:42
Speaker 1: totality of the circumstances presented in this case substantially outweigh
21:47
Speaker 1: any suggestiveness present. Even if the court employs the Manson
21:51
Speaker 1: Bigger is balancing test to the facts of this case,
21:53
Speaker 1: the court should find that DM's descriptions, including bushy eyebrows,
21:57
Speaker 1: are reliable and admissible. Regarding opportunity to view, DM stated
22:03
Speaker 1: she was only approximately three feet from the mail when
22:05
Speaker 1: she saw him. DM was able to get enough of
22:08
Speaker 1: a view of the mail to determine his outfit long
22:11
Speaker 1: sleeve shirt, pants, black shoes, black mask, and the details were.
22:15
Speaker 1: Regarding the mask, he was wearing ski type mask without
22:18
Speaker 1: circular holes, but covering his forehead and mouth. DM also
22:23
Speaker 1: determined the mail was holding an item, although she was
22:26
Speaker 1: not able to determine what the item was. Second, regarding
22:30
Speaker 1: degree of attention, DM statements indicate during the time of
22:33
Speaker 1: her observations, she was only able to see the eye
22:36
Speaker 1: in those area. This means the only discernible features on
22:39
Speaker 1: the mail would have been the nose and the eyes.
22:42
Speaker 1: On November seventeenth, DM states, I just remember like bushy eyebrows.
22:46
Speaker 1: That's all I could think about. Defendant notes DM's artwork
22:49
Speaker 1: drawings found on her bedroom walls, which focuses on eyebrows
22:52
Speaker 1: and eyes see defendant Exhibit number four. This only proves
22:56
Speaker 1: that DM would have a degree of attention to his
22:59
Speaker 1: facial characteristic, thus reinforcing her reliability. Defending states mister Colberger
23:05
Speaker 1: does not have bushy eyebrows. The state intends to introduce
23:08
Speaker 1: a photograph of Brian Colberger, taken from his phone on
23:11
Speaker 1: November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, only hours after the homicides
23:15
Speaker 1: at ten thirty one am. See State's Exhibit five. Whether
23:19
Speaker 1: or not Brian Colberger can be described as having bushy
23:22
Speaker 1: eyebrows is a factual determination to be decided by the jury. Third,
23:27
Speaker 1: regarding the accuracy of the description, Coburger matches DM's descriptions,
23:31
Speaker 1: male white, skinny, athletic build a few inches taller than
23:35
Speaker 1: DM five foot ten, not someone she knew with bushy eyebrows,
23:38
Speaker 1: sees State's Exhibit as five. Brian Colberger's driver's license listing
23:43
Speaker 1: him as six foot and state's exhibit as six photograph
23:46
Speaker 1: taken by Brian Colberger on November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
23:50
Speaker 1: at ten thirty one am, showing his eyebrows fourth. Regarding
23:54
Speaker 1: the level of certainty, DM texted BF a description immediately
23:58
Speaker 1: after her observations. She was interviewed on five separate occasions,
24:02
Speaker 1: and she provided grand jury testimony. DM, without fail gave
24:06
Speaker 1: the same description, which in and of itself indicates her
24:09
Speaker 1: level of certainty. On November seventeenth, twenty twenty three, she
24:13
Speaker 1: related to investigator she was suffering from trauma and was
24:16
Speaker 1: unsure of what is real or not. DM admitted many
24:19
Speaker 1: times she was probably still intoxicated. I don't know if
24:22
Speaker 1: I was still drunk. Probably was. I don't know for sure.
24:25
Speaker 1: I was really asleep, Like I woke up out of
24:28
Speaker 1: nowhere and was obviously probably a little bit drunk. I
24:31
Speaker 1: just woke up. I don't remember fully. Admittedly, DM made
24:35
Speaker 1: statements such as I believe I was also very drunk.
24:39
Speaker 1: I don't know how much of this was real, Like
24:41
Speaker 1: I don't know if my mind was like doing whatever.
24:44
Speaker 1: I don't know any of it, Like half of the stuff.
24:46
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's a dream or if it's real.
24:48
Speaker 1: I just have no clue. But the investigators told DM
24:51
Speaker 1: they only wanted DM to focus on what she knew
24:54
Speaker 1: was true. That's what's most important. DM agreed, and after
24:58
Speaker 1: this DM provided the same descriptions with absolutely no variance.
25:02
Speaker 1: DM also made clear the eyebrows or a feature she
25:06
Speaker 1: most clearly remembered. It's evident by the degree of detail
25:10
Speaker 1: she provided about the events leading up, driving and after
25:13
Speaker 1: the crimes that she provided reliable descriptions. Lastly, regarding the
25:17
Speaker 1: length of time between the crime and identification, while there
25:20
Speaker 1: are multiple consistent descriptions, it was not possible for DM
25:24
Speaker 1: to provide an identification because the mail was completely covered,
25:28
Speaker 1: with only nose and eyes visible. After weighing the above factors,
25:32
Speaker 1: the court should hold that, under the totality of the circumstances,
25:36
Speaker 1: DM's descriptions of the mail, especially bushy eyebrows, are reliable
25:41
Speaker 1: and thus admissible. Three DM's statements are relevant and admissible
25:46
Speaker 1: under Idaho a rule of evidence four One, Evidence is
25:49
Speaker 1: relevant if it has the tendency to make a fact
25:52
Speaker 1: more or less probable than it would be without evidence,
25:56
Speaker 1: and the fact is of consequence in determining the action four.
26:01
Speaker 1: Defendant argues that evidence of bushy eyebrows is not relevant.
26:04
Speaker 1: This is not the case. DM is the only living
26:07
Speaker 1: person who saw the person responsible for the four homicides
26:11
Speaker 1: at eleven twenty two King Rhad on November thirteenth, twenty
26:14
Speaker 1: twenty two. Her description of this individual includes characteristics such
26:19
Speaker 1: as bushy eyebrows, has the tendency to make a fact
26:22
Speaker 1: i e. The identity of the killer more probable than
26:25
Speaker 1: it would be without the evidence. This fact is of
26:28
Speaker 1: consequence to determining whether Brian Kolberger is the same male
26:32
Speaker 1: DM saw that night the person responsible for the homicides,
26:36
Speaker 1: the central question before the jury. This evidence is relevant.
26:41
Speaker 1: Defendant then argues, pursuant the ire four three, the relevant
26:44
Speaker 1: evidence should be excluded because its probative value is substantially
26:48
Speaker 1: outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of
26:52
Speaker 1: the issues. What is clear from the defendant's filing is
26:55
Speaker 1: that the defendant doesn't like this piece of state's evidence,
26:59
Speaker 1: DM's description of a male having bushy eyebrows, and therefore
27:02
Speaker 1: would like to keep this piece of evidence from the jury. However,
27:06
Speaker 1: his arguments are without merit. As shown above, DM gave
27:11
Speaker 1: constant and consistent descriptions of the male she saw at
27:14
Speaker 1: the time in question. One of the consistent descriptions is
27:17
Speaker 1: that the male had bushy eyebrows. This description is clear,
27:21
Speaker 1: it's not confusing, and therefore will not confuse a jury.
27:24
Speaker 1: The fact that this description may or may not implicate
27:27
Speaker 1: defendant is not a reason to keep this fact from
27:29
Speaker 1: the jury's consideration. It's not reasonable to believe the jury
27:33
Speaker 1: will convict the defendant based on the status of his
27:36
Speaker 1: kept or unkept eyebrows. While this fact is prejudicial, relevant
27:40
Speaker 1: evidence tends to be, it's not unfair. Four. DM's testimony
27:46
Speaker 1: will be based on her personal knowledge. The defendant's reliance
27:49
Speaker 1: on IRE six h two is illogical. Under IRE six
27:53
Speaker 1: oh two, will witness may testify to a matter only
27:56
Speaker 1: if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that
27:59
Speaker 1: the winning sad personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to
28:03
Speaker 1: prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness's own testimony.
28:07
Speaker 1: IRE six h two. DM will testify based on her
28:10
Speaker 1: recollection of what she observed on November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
28:15
Speaker 1: which will include her observations of the mail in eleven
28:18
Speaker 1: twenty two King Rhade residents at the time of the
28:20
Speaker 1: homicides having bushy eyebrows. Five, DM is competent to testify.
28:26
Speaker 1: The defendant next takes another run at challenging DM's competency
28:30
Speaker 1: to testify. Under Ire six oh one, every person is
28:33
Speaker 1: competent to testify, except persons whom the Court finds are
28:37
Speaker 1: incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts about which
28:41
Speaker 1: they are examined, or of relating them accurately. Ire six
28:45
Speaker 1: oh one and A. The defendant has already tried and
28:49
Speaker 1: failed that challenging DM's competency in previous filings. The court
28:53
Speaker 1: has held defendant's own profit establishes that DM's accounts were
28:57
Speaker 1: remarkably consistent throughout her multiple interviews with law enforcement. Order
29:02
Speaker 1: on Defendant's Motions for Frank's hearing filed February nineteenth, twenty
29:07
Speaker 1: twenty five, Page ten. Also, DM was a direct witness
29:11
Speaker 1: and was able to consistently articulate the details she remembered
29:15
Speaker 1: throughout each interview, especially as the facts relied on in
29:18
Speaker 1: search warrant Avid David's Despite the fact that she claimed
29:22
Speaker 1: her memory was fuzzy or that she felt like it
29:24
Speaker 1: was a dream, or that she was still intoxicated. Applying
29:28
Speaker 1: the Court's reasoning in Hoysington, in the case, the defense
29:31
Speaker 1: will be able to probe into DM's capacity and opportunity
29:35
Speaker 1: for observation, her attention, interest, and distraction at trial, the
29:39
Speaker 1: jury is perfectly capable of assessing DM's credibility by wearing
29:43
Speaker 1: her testimony its consistency, or alternatively, any deficiency is elicited
29:48
Speaker 1: through cross examination Hoisington, one oh four Idaho at one
29:51
Speaker 1: twenty nine, six fifty seven p. Dot three d At
29:54
Speaker 1: twenty nine conclusion. In conclusion, the state respectfully requests this
29:59
Speaker 1: court rule can insistently with its previous findings that DM
30:02
Speaker 1: is credible and competent to testify, and allow DM to
30:06
Speaker 1: testify a trial regarding her recollection of the mail she
30:09
Speaker 1: saw in her residence during the early morning hours of
30:12
Speaker 1: November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, as having bushy eyebrows because
30:17
Speaker 1: this evidence is relevant and admissible. This document was dated
30:22
Speaker 1: March seventeenth, twenty twenty five, and it was signed by
30:25
Speaker 1: Ashley Jennings. All of the information that goes with this episode,
30:29
Speaker 1: including my contact information, can be found in the description
30:33
Speaker 1: box ash Join, what's up everyone, and welcome back to
30:38
Speaker 1: the program. We've talked a lot now about the key
30:42
Speaker 1: bits of evidence that led the police to Brian Cohberger.
30:46
Speaker 1: We've talked about the white Hondai a Lantra and how
30:49
Speaker 1: that was a huge piece of evidence and in my opinion,
30:53
Speaker 1: the piece of evidence that linked them to Brian Colberger.
30:57
Speaker 1: We've talked about the knife sheath and the DNA on
31:00
Speaker 1: the knife sheath. We've talked about the pings. We've talked
31:04
Speaker 1: about all of the other evidence that was in the
31:07
Speaker 1: probable cause aff of David. But did you ever think
31:11
Speaker 1: that poor grooming habits might have led to Brian Coberger
31:15
Speaker 1: being identified? Well, folks in the article that we're about
31:19
Speaker 1: to discuss, that's exactly the conversation we're about to have.
31:24
Speaker 1: So let's get into this article from the Independent and
31:27
Speaker 1: let's hear how poor grooming habits helped police find Brian
31:32
Speaker 1: Coburger headline, One unique facial feature may have linked Brian
31:37
Speaker 1: Cohberger to the Idaho murders. One of the surviving roommates
31:42
Speaker 1: at the eleven twenty two King Roade home said the
31:44
Speaker 1: killer was wearing a mask, but his bushy eyebrows stood out.
31:49
Speaker 1: This article was authored by Andrea Blanco. Brian Coberger's distinct
31:56
Speaker 1: eyebrows may have been among the first in a string
31:59
Speaker 1: of details that linked him to the Idaho murders. According
32:03
Speaker 1: to a new report. Airmel's The Eyes of a Killer
32:06
Speaker 1: Part two offers a vivid description of the Moscow police
32:10
Speaker 1: hunt for evidence that would ultimately materialize in mister Coberger's
32:14
Speaker 1: arrest for the murders of four University of Idaho students,
32:18
Speaker 1: based on an affid David released earlier this month, and
32:22
Speaker 1: sources close to the investigation. Oh wait, I thought there
32:25
Speaker 1: weren't going to be sources close to the investigation. Of
32:28
Speaker 1: course there's going to be. It's just finding those sources
32:32
Speaker 1: and finding the sources that actually have something worthwhile to say,
32:36
Speaker 1: like the author of this article over at Airmel obviously did.
32:41
Speaker 1: According to the report, a lead investigator first had an
32:44
Speaker 1: inkling that mister Coburger would become a suspect in the
32:47
Speaker 1: crime after he ran the Washington State University PhD student's
32:51
Speaker 1: license plate and noticed his bushy eyebrows. So, when all
32:55
Speaker 1: was said and done, it was the roommate and her
33:00
Speaker 1: description of the bushy ass eyebrows that really helped the
33:03
Speaker 1: police put the pieces together. And the crazy part is
33:07
Speaker 1: that's not going to be the strongest bit of evidence
33:09
Speaker 1: when it goes to trial, But for what the investigators
33:13
Speaker 1: were looking for, it was a crucial piece of evidence
33:16
Speaker 1: that if they didn't have it, they probably would have
33:19
Speaker 1: missed out on who Brian Coburger is. Remember, it was
33:22
Speaker 1: those bushy eyebrows and the car that signaled to the
33:25
Speaker 1: investigators that they were on the right track. One of
33:29
Speaker 1: the surviving roommates at the eleven twenty two King Rode
33:32
Speaker 1: home had recounted how she unknowingly saw her friend's killer
33:36
Speaker 1: leaving the scene before going back into her room in
33:39
Speaker 1: a state of shock. The woman said the killer was
33:42
Speaker 1: wearing a mask, but his bushy eyebrows stood out to her.
33:46
Speaker 1: So not only did Brian Coohberger allegedly make a bunch
33:49
Speaker 1: of other mistakes using his own car, the cell phone,
33:54
Speaker 1: all of the other nonsense that we see in the Affidavid,
33:57
Speaker 1: but old boy forgot one of the biggest rules when
34:00
Speaker 1: you're going out, make sure you groom yourself. Bro's out
34:05
Speaker 1: here trying to commit a quadruple homicide with some Sasquatch
34:09
Speaker 1: ass eyebrows. Additionally, the photograph of Coburger shows that he
34:14
Speaker 1: has bushy eyebrows. Coberger's physical description is consistent with the
34:18
Speaker 1: description of the mail the surviving roommate saw inside the
34:21
Speaker 1: King Road residence on November thirteenth. The affid David states,
34:26
Speaker 1: and look, that is all circumstantial. Nobody knows who was
34:30
Speaker 1: really under that mask, but those bushy eyebrows certainly led
34:34
Speaker 1: the police to find Brian Koberger early on, and from
34:37
Speaker 1: there they were able to build the case. Remember, all
34:41
Speaker 1: of it starts as circumstantial. The idea is to have
34:45
Speaker 1: enough evidence as a prosecutor to punch that shit home.
34:49
Speaker 1: Despite remaining tight lipped when quiz by reporters, investigators were
34:53
Speaker 1: aware of footage that showed a Hyndai a Launtra speeding
34:56
Speaker 1: near the scene of the crime as early as November
34:59
Speaker 1: twenty fifth. Mister Coberger's twenty fifteen Lauantra first came onto
35:03
Speaker 1: the radar thanks to a Washington State University officer who
35:07
Speaker 1: was tasked with looking out for that model car. Authorities
35:11
Speaker 1: working on the case then surveiled mister Colberger after he
35:15
Speaker 1: became a person of interest in the murders of Klee Gonsalves,
35:19
Speaker 1: Madison Mogan, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. Law enforcement followed
35:25
Speaker 1: him on his cross country drive with his father to Pennsylvania.
35:29
Speaker 1: For the next two weeks, mister Coburger was kept under
35:32
Speaker 1: surveillance while he stayed at his parents' home in all
35:35
Speaker 1: Brightsville for the holidays. One night he was spott at
35:39
Speaker 1: dumping trash in a neighbor's bin. And you add all
35:41
Speaker 1: of that up and it really looks bad for Colburger.
35:45
Speaker 1: And as I've said before, I always leave room for
35:48
Speaker 1: the prosecution to be wrong. Right. We know that they're
35:50
Speaker 1: not infallible. We know that the government in its best
35:54
Speaker 1: times is barely functioning. So I'm not gonna sit here
35:58
Speaker 1: and act like this is a rap. But Coburger and
36:01
Speaker 1: his team certainly have an uphill battle on their hands.
36:04
Speaker 1: And there's no denying that the evidence in that probable
36:07
Speaker 1: Cause affid David is damning. And when you look at
36:11
Speaker 1: the totality of it all like you should be doing,
36:14
Speaker 1: it tells you a completely different story than if you
36:16
Speaker 1: would just look at it piece by piece. The trash
36:21
Speaker 1: was seized and DNA evidence found on. It was used
36:24
Speaker 1: to tie him to a knife sheath left behind by
36:26
Speaker 1: the killer at the victim's home. According to an AFFID David,
36:30
Speaker 1: cell phone data also linked mister Coberger to the scene.
36:34
Speaker 1: On December thirtieth, he was finally arrested in an early
36:37
Speaker 1: morning raid on the family home. Although most of those
36:42
Speaker 1: details were included in the AFFID David released last month,
36:45
Speaker 1: Airmel's report published on Saturday revealed that mister Coburger appeared
36:49
Speaker 1: to vanish for several hours on December thirteenth while he
36:53
Speaker 1: drove home with his father. And we talked about that
36:56
Speaker 1: in an earlier episode today, And that's a bad look
36:58
Speaker 1: for the FBI. There's no two ways about that, and
37:02
Speaker 1: no way around it. The FBI should be able to
37:05
Speaker 1: keep a tail on someone like Brian Cohberger and not
37:07
Speaker 1: get caught with their pants down. But that's what happened
37:10
Speaker 1: for fourteen hours, And thankfully Coburger wasn't out here going
37:15
Speaker 1: on some kind of murdering spree like a guy like
37:17
Speaker 1: Ted Bundy. Let's remember when Ted Bundy escaped from custody.
37:21
Speaker 1: Old boy went out on another killing spree. So it's
37:24
Speaker 1: certainly a concern, and if your law enforcement, and you're
37:27
Speaker 1: the person who's tasked with following this guy, your whole
37:30
Speaker 1: entire career in life must be flashing before your eyes.
37:34
Speaker 1: You're gonna find yourself in some po dung station in
37:37
Speaker 1: the middle of nowhere if you screw this up. Law
37:41
Speaker 1: enforcement sources reportedly told the outlet that mister Coburger managed
37:46
Speaker 1: to slip the net almost as soon as his white
37:48
Speaker 1: Hondai A Lantra pulled out of the parking lot at
37:51
Speaker 1: his graduate housing complex. Investigators desperately scoured automated license plate
37:57
Speaker 1: readers in nearby states to try and find any signs
38:00
Speaker 1: as to mister Coberger's car driving through. Hours later, the
38:04
Speaker 1: car finally pinged in Loma, Colorado, around nine hundred miles
38:08
Speaker 1: away from Pullman, and the surveillance operation resumed. It is
38:14
Speaker 1: unclear exactly how long mister Coberger's movements were unknown, but
38:18
Speaker 1: it is roughly a fifteen hour drive from Pullman to Loma.
38:23
Speaker 1: The route the father and son duo took across the
38:25
Speaker 1: US was not the most direct journey, something that reportedly
38:29
Speaker 1: came at mister Coberger's insistence and for unknown reasons. Well,
38:35
Speaker 1: I'm guessing because of the weather, right that has to
38:37
Speaker 1: be it. That's going to be the excuse that's used anyway.
38:41
Speaker 1: And as I said earlier, I'm the kind of guy
38:43
Speaker 1: that I'm trying to avoid driving through that shit too.
38:46
Speaker 1: I don't want to have to be white knuckle driving
38:48
Speaker 1: through an ice storm in the middle of Colorado. His father, Michael,
38:55
Speaker 1: later told The Mechanic that he had looked up the
38:57
Speaker 1: route to Pennsylvania and found the quickest route to be
39:00
Speaker 1: down the I ninety Interstate reported airmail that journey would
39:05
Speaker 1: have taken around thirty six hours, but instead mister Coburger
39:09
Speaker 1: claimed that there would be wintry conditions along the route
39:12
Speaker 1: and that they should instead travel south towards Colorado, a
39:16
Speaker 1: route that added roughly six or seven hours to the journey.
39:20
Speaker 1: Once surveillance teams were back on mister Coburger's tail in Colorado,
39:24
Speaker 1: law enforcement hit another potential issue with the suspect when
39:28
Speaker 1: he was pulled over by police twice in his vehicle
39:31
Speaker 1: while driving through Indiana. Imagine the nightmare that would have been. Remember,
39:36
Speaker 1: they don't have the probable cause yet, so if he gets, say,
39:38
Speaker 1: busted in Indiana, arrested in Indiana, that's going to cause
39:41
Speaker 1: a whole heap of problems for the FBI, especially without
39:45
Speaker 1: him having that probable cause. Yet, he was just a
39:47
Speaker 1: suspect at this point and not somebody that could have
39:50
Speaker 1: been arrested, so it was crucial to let him get
39:53
Speaker 1: to his destination. Both stops took place just minutes apart,
39:58
Speaker 1: on December fifteenth, by county police and the other by
40:02
Speaker 1: state police for driving too close to a vehicle in front.
40:06
Speaker 1: Bodycam footage was previously released from both traffic stops, showing
40:10
Speaker 1: a startled mister Coberger behind the wheel and his father
40:13
Speaker 1: in the passenger seat. Officials in Moscow have not addressed
40:17
Speaker 1: the account that they allegedly lost the accused killer for
40:20
Speaker 1: several hours. They are also unlikely to do so due
40:24
Speaker 1: to a gag order preventing law enforcement officials and defense
40:28
Speaker 1: and prosecution teams from speaking out about the high profile case.
40:33
Speaker 1: And there's no doubt that the information is coming at
40:35
Speaker 1: a drip now. But there's going to be leaks and
40:39
Speaker 1: there's going to be those court documents. The question is
40:42
Speaker 1: when are they going to dump them all so that
40:44
Speaker 1: we can go through them. Mister Coburger is next scheduled
40:48
Speaker 1: to appear in court on the twenty sixth of June
40:51
Speaker 1: for his preliminary hearing. The entire week has been set
40:54
Speaker 1: aside for the hearing, when evidence of the case against
40:57
Speaker 1: mister Coburger will be laid out for the first time
40:59
Speaker 1: in court and mister Coberger is likely to enter a
41:03
Speaker 1: plee on the charges. Until then, mister Coburger will be
41:08
Speaker 1: held behind bars at Leyta County Jail after he was
41:11
Speaker 1: ordered to be held on nobail for a second time
41:15
Speaker 1: end up until that court day, I expect more information
41:18
Speaker 1: like this to come out. I expect more people, more
41:21
Speaker 1: police officers, or more people who are close to the
41:23
Speaker 1: investigation to leak little tidbits here and there. And then
41:27
Speaker 1: you're going to have the journalists out there who are
41:29
Speaker 1: gonna do that good investigative work and they're gonna cultivate
41:33
Speaker 1: their own sources. So there's gonna be some information coming out,
41:36
Speaker 1: but it's not going to be in droves, and there's
41:40
Speaker 1: not going to be a tidal wave of information to
41:41
Speaker 1: hit us until it's trial time. But we're gonna keep
41:45
Speaker 1: on it. We'll keep following along and adding these articles
41:48
Speaker 1: as they become available. That way, when the trial does come,
41:52
Speaker 1: we're all prepared for all of the events that are
41:55
Speaker 1: going to unfold. All right, everyone that's gonna do it
41:58
Speaker 1: for this one. All of the information that goes along
42:02
Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.