Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / Why Did Bryan Kohberger Murder 4 University of Idaho Students? Review

Transcript

Why Did Bryan Kohberger Murder 4 University of Idaho Students? Review · Murder Files Unsealed

0:00
Speaker 1: Imagine, imagine spending your entire adult life meticulously studying how
0:05
to commit the perfect crime. Right, like you read all
0:08
the textbooks, you interview the killers, You literally write academic
0:11
papers on the exact psychological blind spots that lead criminals
0:16
to get caught.
0:17
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know every forensic.
0:18
Speaker 1: Trap exactly, every digital trip wire, every single thing you
0:22
are not supposed to do. And then after all that,
0:25
you just you leave the murder weapons sheath lying right
0:28
there on the victim's bed.
0:29
Speaker 2: It's just well, it is the ultimate collapse of theory
0:32
into catastrophic reality. Really, right, you have a mind that
0:36
could map out a flawless crime on a chalkboard, just
0:39
completely undone by the chaotic, visceral physics of actually committing one.
0:45
Speaker 1: I want you, the listener, to really hold onto that contradiction. Yeah,
0:48
because that impossible friction between the educated mind and the
0:52
horrific act is at the core of what we're talking
0:54
about today.
0:55
Speaker 2: It really is.
0:56
Speaker 1: Because today is Wednesday, July twenty ninth, twenty twenty six.
1:00
We are standing at a genuinely pivotal, honestly, completely bewildering
1:05
moment and one of the most chilling cases in modern
1:08
American history the University of Idaho murders.
1:11
Speaker 2: Yeah, the landscape of this entire case is just fractured
1:15
and in interfraction in a way that very few people
1:19
in the legal or even the psychological community anticipated.
1:22
Speaker 1: So to navigate this fracture, we have an incredible stack
1:25
of sources we are unpacking today for.
1:26
Speaker 2: This deep dive we do.
1:28
Speaker 1: We're looking at the latest breaking news articles, plus some
1:30
really detailed court filings from just a few days ago,
1:33
and these are regarding Brian Coberger's truly shocking July twenty
1:37
twenty six petition to withdraw his guilty plea.
1:39
Speaker 2: Which is just wild timing it is.
1:42
Speaker 1: And perhaps most intensely, we are drawing from the newly
1:45
released three part Netflix docuseries that literally just dropped titled
1:49
The Idaho Murders College Nightmare.
1:51
Speaker 2: And that docusary is doing something incredibly vital right now. Yeah,
1:55
it is pulling a lot of the behind the scenes
1:57
investigative theories like the cycle logical profiling, the behavioral analysis
2:02
into the public eye for the very first time because
2:05
of the gag orders, right exactly now that the gag
2:07
orders and those initial you know, judicial restrictions from the
2:10
early years of the case are firmly in the rear
2:13
view mirror. We're finally seeing the raw data that investigators
2:16
were actually wrestling with.
2:18
Speaker 1: Right, And our mission today isn't just to recount the
2:21
timeline of a true crime tragedy. I mean, if you
2:23
follow true crime at all, you likely know the broad
2:27
strokes of the tragedy in Moscow, Idaho. Sure, our goal
2:30
today is to take these new sources, this sudden legal upheaval,
2:33
and really explore the terrifying psychological question sitting right at
2:37
the dead center.
2:38
Speaker 2: Of it all, which is what actually happens when the
2:41
academic theoretical study of evil crosses the line into real
2:45
world horror. Yes, that is the foundational paradox. Here, you
2:49
have a suspect who was a PhD student in criminology,
2:53
someone who theoretically possessed the ultimate cutting edge playbook on
2:57
exactly how to commit and crucially, how to cover up
3:00
complex crimes. He was studying the psychology of offenders, right, Yeah,
3:04
the mechanics of crime scenes. And yet the physical and
3:07
digital evidence trail he left behind was textbook in all
3:10
the wrong ways.
3:11
Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this to really grasp the sheer audacity
3:14
of this twenty twenty six legal pivot and to dive
3:17
into those competing psychological theories of why this happened, which
3:21
is really the dark heart of the new documentary. We
3:24
have to anchor ourselves in reality.
3:26
Speaker 2: We need to look at what forced the initial conviction exactly.
3:29
Speaker 1: Let's look at the timeline.
3:30
Speaker 2: So the timeline is just stark and devastating. We're looking
3:33
at the early hours of November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, Moscow, Idaho.
3:37
Speaker 1: A quiet, tightly knit college down very.
3:40
Speaker 2: Much so and for University of Idaho students. Kaylee Goncalves,
3:44
Madison Mogan, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin are killed in
3:48
an off campus rental home on King Road, and.
3:50
Speaker 1: The timeline places the event sometime around four am.
3:53
Speaker 2: Right, yeah, right around four am. Kaylee and Madison were
3:57
close friends, Xana and Ethan were a couple. They had
4:00
all been out at various social events that Saturday night,
4:03
returning home in the early hours.
4:05
Speaker 1: And there were two other roommates in the house on
4:07
the first floor.
4:08
Speaker 2: Right who survived, one of whom later recounted briefly seeing
4:12
a masked figure walking toward the backsliding glass door was terrifying,
4:17
utterly terrifying, and weeks of absolute terror gripped the community
4:21
and really the whole nation until late December twenty twenty
4:24
two when Brian Coberger is apprehended in Pennsylvania and he.
4:28
Speaker 1: Was at the time a criminology PhD student at Washington
4:31
State University in Pullman.
4:33
Speaker 2: Yeah, just a fifteen minute drive across the state line
4:35
from Moscow.
4:36
Speaker 1: So the legal machinery grinds away for years, you know,
4:39
complex pre trial hearings, gag orders, huge debates over genetic genealogy.
4:43
Speaker 2: Oh, massive debates.
4:45
Speaker 1: And then in July of twenty twenty five, just a
4:47
year ago, the trial is averted. Coburger pleaded guilty.
4:50
Speaker 2: He did.
4:50
Speaker 1: He stood in a courtroompleted guilty to four counts of
4:53
first degree murder and burglary.
4:55
Speaker 2: And the context of that twenty twenty five plea is
4:58
vital for understanding what is happening today. He took that
5:01
plea deal specifically and strategically to avoid the death penalty.
5:05
In exchange, she received four consecutive life sentences without the
5:08
possibility of parole, and crucially for the psychological profile we
5:12
are going to build today, during that entire allocution process,
5:16
He offered absolutely no explanation on at all, no stipment
5:19
of motive, no apology, literally nothing.
5:22
Speaker 1: He just accepted the absolute maximum penalty short of death
5:26
and went silent, which left everyone, the families of Kaylee, Madison,
5:30
Xena and Ethan, the investigators, you me, the public just
5:34
staring into this massive void, a complete void. But then,
5:38
almost exactly a year later, late July twenty twenty six,
5:42
literally right now comes this bombshell update. Coberger is suddenly
5:45
claiming actual innocence.
5:47
Speaker 2: The petition filed this month as just a wildly aggressive
5:50
legal pivot. He is asserting that his twenty twenty five
5:52
bilkeplea was based on and the court filings use this
5:54
exact phrase. Actually they say false promises and blatant disinformation. Yeah,
5:59
he has filed a formal petition to withdraw the guilty
6:02
plea entirely have his life sentences vacated, and he is
6:05
demanding a full public trial.
6:07
Speaker 1: It is head spinning. I mean to stand in open
6:10
court admit to a quadruple homicide to save your own
6:14
life and then three hundred and sixty five days later
6:17
say well, never mind, I was tricked.
6:18
Speaker 2: I am entirely innocent it's practically unheard of, and the.
6:21
Speaker 1: Timing is wild, right, it coincides almost perfectly with the
6:24
release of the Netflix docusaries exploring his psyche exactly. But
6:29
let's look at what actually forced that guilty plea in
6:31
the first place, back in twenty twenty five. Because the
6:34
prosecutors didn't just have a hunch. They lay out a
6:37
mountain of forensic and digital evidence.
6:39
Speaker 2: Oh, the evidence was a masterclass in modern investigative techniques.
6:43
They combined traditional forensics with digital tracking. Right, But the
6:46
absolute lynchpin of the physical evidence, the thing that broke
6:49
the case wide open, is a k bar knife sheath
6:53
found right there on the bed next to the victims
6:55
on the third floor.
6:56
Speaker 1: Yeah, the murder weapon itself was never.
6:57
Speaker 2: Recovered, right, never recovered. But on the button snap of
7:01
that leather sheath, investigators found a microscomic amount of touch DNA.
7:07
Speaker 1: Okay, let's pause and explain touch DNA for a second,
7:09
because I think a lot of people assume DNA means
7:12
like a pool of blood or a hair follicle. But
7:15
touch DNA is almost imperceptible.
7:17
Speaker 2: Oh, it is entirely invisible to the naked eye. We
7:20
are talking about epithelial cells, skin cells just from touching something. Exactly,
7:26
when you touch a surface, especially something requiring friction, like
7:29
snapping a heavy button on a knife sheath, you leave
7:32
behind microscopic skin cells. Okay, So forensic scientists swab that
7:36
specific area, extract the cellular material, and they use a
7:40
process called polymerous chain reaction or PCR to amplify that
7:44
tiny sample.
7:45
Speaker 1: Until they have enough genetic material to build a complete
7:47
DNA profile exactly. So they have the profile of an
7:50
unknown male. But how did they match that microscopic sequence
7:54
to a criminology student a whole state away.
7:56
Speaker 2: Through investigative genetic genealogy or IgG.
7:59
Speaker 1: Right, which is credible science, it really is.
8:02
Speaker 2: They take that unknown DNA profile and translate it into
8:05
a format that looks for s and ps single nucleotide
8:09
polymorphisms tiny genetic variations, yes, variations that point to familial relationships.
8:15
They take that SMP profile and upload it to public
8:18
opt in ancestry databases like ged match.
8:21
Speaker 1: So they don't find the killer right away, No.
8:24
Speaker 2: They find the killer's distant cousins.
8:27
Speaker 1: They basically build a massive family tree backward exactly.
8:30
Speaker 2: They build the tree backwards to a common ancestor maybe
8:33
great great grandparents, and then they trace every single branch
8:37
forward to the present.
8:38
Speaker 1: Day looking for males at the right age.
8:40
Speaker 2: Right age, living in the right geographical area who fit
8:43
the suspect profile, and that exhaustive process eventually led them
8:47
to target Brian Koberger.
8:49
Speaker 1: But genetic genealogy isn't allowed to be the sole basis
8:52
of an arrest in court. Right, It's just.
8:54
Speaker 2: A lead, that's right, It's just an investigative lead, so
8:57
they have to confirm it practically.
8:58
Speaker 1: Where did they do that?
9:00
Speaker 2: Surveilled Coburger after he drove cross country back to his
9:03
parents' residence in Pennsylvania for the winter holidays. Investigators literally
9:07
collected discarded items from the family's trash in the middle
9:11
of the night.
9:11
Speaker 1: Wow.
9:12
Speaker 2: Yeah, And the DNA extracted from that trash was a
9:15
familial match to the DNA on the knife sheath left
9:18
in Moscow, Idaho.
9:19
Speaker 1: So it genetically links the man staying in that house
9:23
to the murder scene precisely. So you have the physical
9:26
presence of his DNA at the crime scene. But the
9:29
prosecution didn't stop there. They built this like digital and
9:33
vehicular cage around him.
9:34
Speaker 2: They really did let's talk about the.
9:36
Speaker 1: Cell phone data, because I think people misunderstand how cell
9:40
tower pinging actually works. It's not like a GPS dot
9:43
on a map.
9:44
Speaker 2: No, it's not GPS at all. When your phone is on,
9:46
even if you aren't actively making a call, it is
9:48
constantly reaching out to the nearest cell towers to maintain
9:51
a network connection. Okay, And cell towers have multiple antennas
9:54
pointing in different directions, which divides the surrounding area into sectors. Right,
9:59
So investigators pull the historical cell site analysis. They look
10:02
at which specific tower and which specific sector of that
10:06
tower the phone connected to.
10:08
Speaker 1: And Coburger's phone had connected to cellular towers servicing the
10:12
immediate area near the King roadhouse more than twenty times
10:15
in the months preceding the murders.
10:16
Speaker 2: Over twenty times. And you have to consider the time
10:19
of day two. What do you mean, Well, if you
10:21
commute past a house at noon every day on your
10:23
way to work, that's meaningless. But these pings occurred primarily
10:28
during late night and early morning hours.
10:30
Speaker 1: Oh wow.
10:31
Speaker 2: Furthermore, on the night of the murders, his phone pinged
10:34
the towers. Leaving his residence in Pullman headed toward Moscow.
10:39
Then the phone disconnected from the network entirely.
10:42
Speaker 1: Meaning it was turned off or put an airplane.
10:44
Speaker 2: Mode usually yes, And it was disconnected during the exact
10:47
two hour window when the murders occurred.
10:49
Speaker 1: That is so damning.
10:51
Speaker 2: And then it magically reconnected to the network south of Moscow,
10:54
heading back to Pullman shortly after the crime.
10:57
Speaker 1: So you layer the DNA the historical late night cell
11:00
the phone going dark during the murder window, and then
11:03
you add the surveillance.
11:04
Speaker 2: Footage the white Hyundai Elantra.
11:06
Speaker 1: Right investigators canvass the entire region and found footage of
11:10
a white Hyundai Elantra, a vehicle entirely consistent with the
11:14
one Coburger drove and actually had registered in his name.
11:17
Speaker 2: Yeah, appearing on neighborhood cameras looping the King Road area,
11:21
attempting to park, and eventually speeding away during the critical
11:24
window of time.
11:25
Speaker 1: So you hear all that, and it sounds like an
11:27
incredibly tight closed case DNA on the sheath phone pings
11:32
in the middle of the night, the car on camera.
11:35
Speaker 2: It sounds open and shut.
11:36
Speaker 1: But here's is the massive glaring unknown that the sources,
11:41
especially the new docusaries highlight and it's the thing that
11:46
makes this case so deeply unsettling to me. Despite all
11:49
of that circumstantial and physical evidence placing him at the scene,
11:52
investigators found absolutely nothing connecting him to the victims personally, nothing.
11:57
Speaker 2: And they looked with the full power of federal and
11:59
state digital forensics.
12:01
Speaker 1: I mean, they scoured everything.
12:02
Speaker 2: When the plea hearing happened in twenty twenty five, prosecutors
12:05
had to admit they had zero proof of prior direct contact,
12:08
no digital footprints intertwined at all.
12:11
Speaker 1: I really want you, the listener, to think about how
12:14
impossible that sounds in the modern era. I mean, the
12:18
year was twenty twenty two. You were talking about four
12:21
college students in a graduate student, their entire generations live online.
12:25
Yet investigators found no photos of them together, no text messages,
12:29
no direct messages on Instagram, Snapchat or TikTok.
12:32
Speaker 2: No Venmo transactions exactly.
12:34
Speaker 1: No Venmo. No social media interactions connecting Brian Coberger to
12:38
any of the four victims or even to the two
12:40
surviving roommates. Literally nothing linking him to that specific house
12:44
other than those proximity cell tower pinks.
12:47
Speaker 2: It is highly unusual because when you evaluate a crime
12:50
of this magnitude, this level of intimate, close quarters violence
12:53
directed at specific individuals in a private residence. There's almost
12:57
always a clear documented nexes, like.
12:59
Speaker 1: A motive you can trace exactly.
13:01
Speaker 2: Traditional profiling looks for a romantic rejection, maybe a profound
13:04
interpersonal conflict, of financial dispute, a drug debt. There is
13:08
usually a trail of digital breadcrumbs leading from the suspect
13:11
to the victims. Here, the digital and interpersonal slate was
13:14
completely blank.
13:15
Speaker 1: I was trying to think of how to visualize this
13:17
for you, the listener. It's like imagine discovering a secret,
13:21
heavily fortified vault buried deep underground. You finally break into it,
13:27
and inside you find a sophisticated security system with high
13:31
definition cameras that perfectly captured a masked intruder walking around
13:35
the vault. The physical evidence of the intrusion is undeniable.
13:40
Speaker 2: Right, you know he was there, But when you check.
13:42
Speaker 1: The exterior cameras, the vault door never opened. There are
13:45
no blueprints, no tunnels, no explanation for how the intruder
13:48
got inside, or why they even knew the vault existed
13:51
in the first place. That's a great analogy you have
13:53
the undeniable who and the how locked in, but the
13:56
why is just this terrifying gaping.
14:00
Speaker 2: At architectural analogy perfectly captures the frustration of the investigators
14:05
because without a digital footprint, without a text saying you know,
14:07
I hate you, or a diary entry expressing a personal grudge,
14:11
investigators are forced into a very difficult, very speculative position.
14:15
Speaker 1: We have to guess, they have.
14:16
Speaker 2: To move entirely away from interpersonal conflict and start analyzing
14:19
the internal landscape of the suspect, which.
14:21
Speaker 1: Brings us to his background. Because if there wasn't a
14:24
personal grudge, could the motive be rooted in his very
14:28
specific and frankly very dark academic background.
14:32
Speaker 2: This is exactly where the new Netflix series College Nightmare
14:37
focuses the bulk of its analytical weight, because Brian Coberger's
14:40
background isn't just an interesting biographical side note.
14:43
Speaker 1: It's not just trivia, you know.
14:44
Speaker 2: It is the absolute central context of his life leading
14:48
up to November twenty twenty two.
14:51
Speaker 1: Right, and I want to get deeply into what the
14:53
documentary calls the fascination theory.
14:55
Speaker 2: Yes from Ed Jacobson.
14:57
Speaker 1: Right, this is articulated by Ed Jacobson a former FBI
15:00
special agent who is tied to the behavioral analysis of
15:03
the investigation and is featured heavily in the new series.
15:06
Speaker 2: He poses a fascinating question.
15:07
Speaker 1: A question that legitimately gave me chills when I watched it.
15:10
He's talking about Coburger's intense, decade long academic study of killers,
15:14
and he asks, do you want to go out and
15:16
experience that yourself? Are you continuing your research because you've
15:19
got this fascination and draw to commit these crimes?
15:21
Speaker 2: It is a terrifying premise that completely flips the script
15:24
on academia. Jacobson is suggesting that the academic study didn't
15:29
just passively inform Coburger, but actively fueled a pathological compulsion. Wow,
15:35
and to understand how a theory like that holds water,
15:37
we have to look closely at his academic path, which
15:40
the sources detail quite thoroughly.
15:42
Speaker 1: Let's do that.
15:43
Speaker 2: Coburger had a working class upbringing in Pennsylvania. He pursued
15:47
higher education with a laser focused interest in criminology and psychology.
15:52
This culminated in a master's degree from d Sales University.
15:55
Speaker 1: And what's crucial here is who he studied under it
15:58
to sales. He was a student the forensic psychologist Kathryn
16:01
Ramsland right, And.
16:02
Speaker 2: For anyone who consumes true crime, reads psychology literature, or
16:07
studies criminology, Katherine Ramsland is a massive, towering name in
16:11
the field.
16:12
Speaker 1: She is a titan. I mean, she is a renowned
16:14
expert on serial killers, the criminal mind, behavioral analysis.
16:18
Speaker 2: She has written dozens of books on the subject.
16:19
Speaker 1: And famously she worked directly with Dennis Raider, the BTK killer,
16:23
to write an exhaustive book about his psychology and developmental history.
16:27
Speaker 2: Exactly. So, when you take our classes, you aren't just
16:30
learning basic criminal justice administration. You are engaged in a
16:35
high level, intense immersion into the darkest, most depraved parts
16:39
of human behavior.
16:40
Speaker 1: You're studying the mechanics of psychopathy.
16:42
Speaker 2: Yes, the staging of crime scenes, the psychological signatures left
16:46
behind by serial offenders. It's intense stuff.
16:49
Speaker 1: And Coburger wasn't just sitting in the back of the
16:51
lecture hall scrolling on his phone doing the bare minimum
16:55
to pass not at all the docuseries interviews his former classmates.
17:00
This one quote from a classmate named Lily Caravan that
17:02
really stuck with me. Oh, I know, the one she's
17:04
describing his demeanor in Ramsland's class, where they were analyzing
17:08
every type of killer, reconstructing crime scenes, figuring out offender patterns.
17:13
Caravan says, Brian adored Professor Ramsland. It was like a
17:17
switch one off in his head in that class.
17:19
Speaker 2: That specific phrase a switch went off is very telling
17:22
in behavioral analysis.
17:24
Speaker 1: Why is that?
17:24
Speaker 2: It suggests an awakening or a profound, perhaps dangerous resonance
17:29
with the material. And we know he took this fascination
17:32
much further than just completing his assigned coursework.
17:36
Speaker 1: Right He conducted independent research. The sources highlight a specific
17:40
survey he posted on Reddit, aggressively seeking out people who
17:44
had actually committed crimes.
17:46
Speaker 2: The Reddit survey is such a bizarre piece of this puzzle.
17:49
Speaker 1: Tell us how that works.
17:50
Speaker 2: He was utilizing standard psychological research instruments, but applying them
17:55
directly to an offender population. He was asking them highly specific,
18:00
granular questions about the emotions and psychological traits that influenced
18:05
their decision making.
18:06
Speaker 1: Like what kind of questions He.
18:07
Speaker 2: Wanted to know their effective state, how they felt before
18:10
they left their house, what their pulse felt like during
18:12
the commission of the crime, how the adrenaline crash affected
18:16
them afterwards, just incredibly specific. He was actively trying to
18:19
map the internal, emotional and neurobiological landscape of a violent offender.
18:24
Speaker 1: What's fascinating here is how the fascination theory interprets all
18:27
of this data. The theory pauses that Coberger's intense, unrelenting
18:32
study of crime scenes and criminal minds might have slowly mutated.
18:36
Speaker 2: Right.
18:36
Speaker 1: It started as an abstract, scholarly interest, the exact kind
18:40
of interests thousands of criminology students have, But for him
18:44
it morphed into a compulsion for personal enactment. The boundary
18:48
between observing the subject as a scientist and becoming the
18:52
subject just collapsed.
18:54
Speaker 2: The theory relies heavily on the concept of escalation, meaning what, well,
18:58
you can only read so many books about the psychology
19:00
of a killer, you can only analyze so many blood
19:02
spatter patterns, you can only map out the cognitive distortions
19:06
of an offender so many times before. A certain type
19:09
of deeply fractured mind asks, but what does it actually
19:12
feel like?
19:12
Speaker 1: It's the dangerous threshold between theoretical knowledge and experiential knowledge exactly,
19:17
And you have to wonder how that feels for the
19:20
educators involved. The sources mentioned. Katherine Ramsland, reflecting on this
19:23
back in twenty twenty five during the plea phase, is
19:26
incredibly uncomfortable to read. She openly, bravely asked the question
19:31
did I inspire him in some way?
19:33
Speaker 2: Which is an emotionally devastating question for an educator to
19:36
have to ask themselves. But she also provides vital context.
19:40
She noted that when he was her student, she saw
19:43
no glaring red flags of violence. He was polite, he
19:46
was respectful, he was intense and curious about the material.
19:50
She makes it the very valid point that the exact
19:52
same academic material she teaches is used to inspire and
19:56
train future FBI profilers, homicide detectives, and forensic psychologists. It's
20:02
vital knowledge for society's defense, of course, but in incredibly
20:06
rare cases, when introduced to a mind already primed for violence,
20:10
it can provide a framework for something darker.
20:12
Speaker 1: Okay, I have to push back a little here because
20:14
I think the listener might be feeling the exact same way.
20:16
Go ahead, think about this. Hundreds of thousands of people
20:19
consume true crime podcasts every day. Thousands of people study
20:23
forensic psychology at universities. Every single year they read Ramsling's books,
20:27
they study BTK. What makes this specific instance different. Why
20:32
does an academic interest suddenly become a blueprint for a
20:36
quadruple homicide. We can't just say that studying crime causes crime.
20:40
Speaker 2: It is a crucial pushback and you are absolutely right,
20:43
academic study does not cause murder.
20:45
Speaker 1: Right?
20:45
Speaker 2: The psychological theory Isn't that reading a book about Dennis
20:48
Rader magically turned Brian Coberger into a killer?
20:51
Speaker 1: Okay?
20:51
Speaker 2: The theory is that if a pre existing pathology, a
20:55
dark compulsion, a lack of empathy, a latent violent ideation
20:59
is already present in individual, the academic environment provides the language,
21:03
the methodology, and perhaps the internal justification for it.
21:06
Speaker 1: It feeds the fixation.
21:08
Speaker 2: Yes, the academia doesn't plant the seed, but it acts
21:11
as a very potent fertilizer.
21:13
Speaker 1: I look at it like this. It's the difference between
21:15
a meteorologist who spends their whole life safely studying a
21:19
tornado on a Doppler radar screen in a laboratory and
21:22
someone who looks at that exact same radar and suddenly
21:25
decides they want to see what it actually feels like
21:27
to stand inside the funnel.
21:29
Speaker 2: That is a brilliant way to frame the mechanism at play.
21:32
Speaker 1: The radar didn't create the tornado, and the radar didn't
21:35
force them to drive into it, but the radar showed
21:38
them exactly where it was, how it formed, and how
21:40
the winds moved.
21:41
Speaker 2: The coursework provided the mechanics the radar, and this sinister
21:46
application of knowledge was deeply intuitively felt by the families
21:50
of the victims too.
21:51
Speaker 1: Yeah, I remember reading about that.
21:53
Speaker 2: A levea Gonkhov's Kayley's sister made a devastating observation that
21:57
is captured in the docu series. Looking at his extensive
22:00
academic background in criminology, she said his coursework almost seemed
22:04
like preparation for the perfect crime.
22:07
Speaker 1: Preparation. That word implies intention. It implies that the studying
22:12
wasn't just a pursuit of knowledge, It was a means
22:14
to an end exactly. But that brings up a massive
22:17
gap in the narrative. If his academic fascination provided the
22:21
blueprint for violence, the how to commit a crime, what
22:25
provided the specific target and the trigger? Right?
22:28
Speaker 2: The why why?
22:29
Speaker 1: The house in king wrote why those four specific students
22:32
on that specific Saturday night. Because the fascination theory is
22:36
a great macro explanation. It explains the desire to commit
22:40
a crime, but it doesn't explain the specifics of this crime.
22:43
Speaker 2: The fascination theory provides the engine, but it doesn't provide
22:46
the steering wheel. To understand why that house was targeted,
22:50
investigators and profilers have to zoom in on the micro
22:53
details of the crime scene itself. Okay, let zoom in,
22:56
and this leads us directly into the competing psychological theories
22:59
offered by other experts in our sources. One of the
23:02
most prominent and honestly disturbing theories comes from forensic psychologist
23:06
Gary Briccato.
23:07
Speaker 1: Bricado takes a very different approach than the overarching fascination
23:11
theory walk us through his analysis.
23:13
Speaker 2: Riccado examined the available physical information regarding the nature of
23:17
the attack, the distribution of the injuries, and crucially, the
23:21
architectural layout of the house. Okay, his theory is highly specific.
23:25
He argues that the crime was fundamentally as psychosexual fantasy
23:28
and that it was directed primarily at one specific individual
23:31
in that house, Madison.
23:33
Speaker 1: Mogen Madison Mogen. Okay, how does he get from a
23:37
chaotic mass event involving four victims on two different floors
23:42
to a targeted psycho sexual fantasy aimed at one person?
23:47
What is the mechanism of that psychological escalation?
23:49
Speaker 2: It comes down to the spatial layout, the sequencing of
23:52
the crime, and the psychology of a disrupted fantasy.
23:55
Speaker 1: Disrupted fantasy.
23:56
Speaker 2: Yeah. According to the evidence presented by prosecutors, Madison Mogen
24:00
and Kaylee Guncalves were found in a single bed in
24:03
a bedroom on the third floor of the house. Xana
24:05
Cronaudle and Ethan Chapin were on the second floor. Bracado
24:09
theorizes that the offender entered the house with a very specific,
24:12
heavily rehearsed internal fantasy in his mind, likely focused entirely
24:16
on the third floor bedroom where Madison resided.
24:19
Speaker 1: So he has a script in his head. He knows
24:20
exactly how this is supposed to.
24:21
Speaker 2: Play out precisely, but reality rarely matches the meticulously constructed
24:26
fantasies of a violent offender. The theory posits that the
24:29
unexpected presence of others completely disrupted the offender's planned scenario.
24:34
Perhaps it was Kaylee being in the same bed, throwing
24:37
off the dynamic, or perhaps the later encounter with a
24:39
Xana and Ethan on the second floor as the offender
24:42
was trying to navigate the house.
24:43
Speaker 1: So the script just gets thrown out the window. The
24:45
reality of the house does not match the fantasy.
24:47
Speaker 2: In his head, and when a highly controlled, deeply cherished
24:51
fantasy is disrupted by reality, the cognitive dissonance in the
24:55
offender is immense. Brucado suggests it triggers an escalating explode rage.
25:00
Speaker 1: It induces a panic response.
25:02
Speaker 2: Yes, the targeted, perhaps more controlled fantasy attack rapidly devolves
25:07
into a chaotic mass murder event as the offender attempts
25:10
to regain control of the situation or simply punish the
25:14
individuals who disrupted his internal narrative.
25:17
Speaker 1: If we connect this to the bigger picture of behavioral analysis,
25:20
this kind of psychological framing, where an offender drastically overestimates
25:24
their own control and completely underestimates the chaotic, unpredictable environment
25:29
they're entering, is something we see discussed constantly in the
25:31
psychology of serial offenders.
25:33
Speaker 2: Right ooh, It is a hallmark of disorganized escalation. You
25:38
have offenders who ruminate on a specific violent fantasy. For
25:42
months or even years, they perfect it in their mind.
25:45
They are the director, the star, and they control all
25:47
the variables in their head. But when they cross the
25:50
threshold and actually try to enact it, the victim's fight back,
25:53
or a dog barks, or there are more people present
25:56
than anticipated, the variables change. The extreme frustration of that
26:00
imperfect realization leads to extreme chaotic violence. They are punishing
26:07
reality for not aligning with their fantasy.
26:09
Speaker 1: Which is just a terrifying concept, a fantasy that collapses
26:12
into a massacre. Yeah, and it brings us to another
26:15
theory that was floating around constantly, really dominating the media
26:19
landscape and online sleuthing forms right after his arrest, which
26:23
is the in cell theory.
26:25
Speaker 2: We absolutely have to address the in cell rumors because
26:27
they were pervasive and they shaped the public narrative for
26:29
a long time. For those unfamiliar, the term stands for
26:32
involuntary celibate. It refers to an online subculture, often found
26:37
on obscure message boards, characterized by deep resentment, extreme misogyny,
26:42
and a shared ideological belief that women are the source
26:45
of their personal suffering, romantic rejection and social isolation and.
26:50
Speaker 1: People were incredibly quick to draw comparisons to Elliott Roger,
26:54
the perpetrator of the twenty fourteen Ila Vista attacks, who
26:58
left behind a manifesto and became a sort of dark
27:01
touchstone for that radicalized community. Right, Why did the media
27:04
latch onto this specific label for Brian Coberger?
27:08
Speaker 2: It stemmed directly from investigative reports regarding his behavior at
27:11
Washington State University.
27:12
Speaker 1: Okay, tell me about that.
27:14
Speaker 2: While he was a PhD student there, he was also
27:16
working as a teaching assistant for undergraduate classes. The sources
27:19
detail how faculty and student accounts emerged, describing him having
27:23
significant documented personal difficulties, specifically with women.
27:28
Speaker 1: I read the details on this and they are incredibly uncomfortable.
27:31
The reports mentioned formal complaints about demeaning behavior toward female students.
27:35
He was accused of aggressive man's plaining, grading female students
27:40
much more harshly than male students, and generally making the
27:44
women in his academic orbit feel deeply uncomfortable and targeted.
27:47
Speaker 2: It was severe enough that it escalated.
27:49
Speaker 1: Yeah, it escalated to the point where the university actually
27:51
removed him from his teaching assistant role.
27:54
Speaker 2: So when you piece those facts together as a journalist
27:57
or a member of the public. The narrative sort of
28:00
rights itself preconnect the docs. You have a suspect accused
28:03
of brutally murdering young, attractive college students, three of the
28:07
four victims were women, and you find out he was
28:10
fired for demeaning and targeting women in a professional setting. Right,
28:14
it is entirely understandable why the public in the media
28:17
tried to connect those dots and apply the in cell label.
28:20
It provides a neat understandable framework for incomprehensible violence, a
28:25
motive born of romantic rejection and generalized ideological hatred.
28:30
Speaker 1: But and this is a massive structural but we have
28:33
to look at what the actual investigators, the people with
28:36
access to the hard data say about this.
28:38
Speaker 2: We do.
28:39
Speaker 1: In the new Netflix docuseries, former FBI agent Ed Jacobson
28:43
explicitly addresses this exact rumor. He states on the record
28:48
that investigators never saw evidence that shows Brian Koberger is
28:51
part of the in cell movement.
28:53
Speaker 2: That is a critical, definitive clarification from law enforcement. When
28:57
the FBI and local police investigate a suspect, they don't
29:00
just look at their physical life. They forensically image every
29:03
device they own.
29:04
Speaker 1: They scour their digital lives.
29:06
Speaker 2: If someone is deeply entrenched in in cell ideology, there
29:10
is always a massive digital trail. There are forum posts, manifestos,
29:14
specific online engagements on sites like four chan or obscure
29:18
discord servers.
29:19
Speaker 1: And Jacobson is saying they simply didn't find that.
29:21
Speaker 2: They didn't find the ideological digital footprint necessary to support
29:24
the media's label. The misogyny in the classroom might have
29:27
been very real, but the connection to an organized online
29:30
hate movement was not supported by the digital.
29:32
Speaker 1: Evidence, which highlights this massive tension. In the true crime genre,
29:36
there is a desperate desire from the media and the
29:38
public for a neat categorized label. We want to say, oh,
29:42
he's an inceell or it was a revenge killing for
29:44
a drug debt.
29:45
Speaker 2: We want a box to put the tragedy in exactly.
29:48
Speaker 1: But the reality of psychological behavioral inference is incredibly messy
29:52
and undocumented. When there is no manifesto, when there is
29:56
no digital grudge, you are left trying to inferm motive
29:59
purely from the blood spatter, the layout of the bodies,
30:02
and the suspect's vague, awkward background.
30:05
Speaker 2: It is the most frustrating reality for investigators. They have
30:08
the physical evidence of proximity in presence, the DNA, the
30:12
cell pings, but without that digital nexus, motive theories remain
30:17
permanently in the realm of psychology, not documented in a
30:20
personal history. They can prove he was there, but they
30:24
cannot definitively prove what was in his head.
30:26
Speaker 1: Here's where it gets really interesting for me, and I
30:28
want you the listener, to you on this. We consume
30:31
so much new, so many documentaries, and we are almost
30:34
socially conditioned to assume that massive world altering tragedies must
30:38
have massive, complex origin.
30:40
Speaker 2: Like a vast conspiracy.
30:41
Speaker 1: Yeah, a vast conspiracy, a deep seated ideological hatred, a lifelong,
30:45
seething vendetta. But what if the origin of this absolute
30:48
horror is just a single, terrifying fixation, just a thought,
30:52
a localized, deeply personal fantasy in one man's head that
30:56
simply spiraled violently out of control because the reality of
31:00
the night didn't match the script he'd been writing in
31:02
his mind.
31:03
Speaker 2: The banality of the origin contrasted with the extreme extremity
31:06
of the outcome, it is a profoundly unsettling thought. The
31:10
idea that a passing fixation, a dark daydream could solidify
31:15
into a quadruple homicide without any grand ideological framework to
31:19
warn us.
31:20
Speaker 1: And this clash between the script of a perfect, theoretically
31:23
sound crime and the chaotic, messy, blood soaked reality of
31:27
the actual night is perfectly mirrored in Coberger's bizarre behavior
31:31
following the murders. Oh Absolutely, the contrast between the academic
31:35
mind and the reality of the crime becomes glaringly apparent
31:38
when we look at the weeks leading up to his arrest.
31:40
Speaker 2: After the plea in twenty twenty five, when the jag
31:42
orders lifted, investigators were finally able to speak more freely
31:45
about the evidence they had collected but never got to
31:47
present at trial. Right lead investigator for the Idaho State Police,
31:52
Alteeant Darren Gilbertson, provided some incredible revelations about Coberger's post
31:56
crime behavior.
31:57
Speaker 1: The things he did in the days and weeks after
32:00
November thirteenth, before his arrest in late December show a
32:04
mind desperately trying to apply textbook criminology to cover his tracks.
32:09
Speaker 2: He is trying to execute the theories he studied.
32:12
Speaker 1: Let's talk about what Gilbertson called the smart moves.
32:15
Speaker 2: So Gilbertson noted marked highly calculated changes in his daily routine.
32:20
Immediately following the murders. He largely stopped using debit and
32:24
credit cards, shifting almost entirely to cash transactions.
32:28
Speaker 1: Because he knows financial forensics is exactly how the FBI
32:31
builds timelines. If you buy gas in Idaho at three am,
32:35
there's a timestamped receipt proving you were there. Cash eliminates
32:39
the financial footprint exactly.
32:41
Speaker 2: Furthermore, he was observed on public surveillance cameras in Pennsylvania
32:44
wearing surgical gloves to take out the trash and go
32:47
to the grocery.
32:47
Speaker 1: Store, which is so telling.
32:49
Speaker 2: He is clearly acutely aware of touch DNA, the very
32:52
thing that was left on the knife sheath, and is
32:54
trying to avoid leaving it in public spaces where law
32:56
enforcement might surreptitiously collect it. Right and digitally, he he
33:00
was actively wiping data from his devices, and when we.
33:03
Speaker 1: Say wiping data, we don't just mean dragging files to
33:06
the trash pin on his desktop. He was attempting to
33:09
scrub the drives, likely trying to overwrite sectors. So digital
33:12
forensic teams couldn't recover deleted searches.
33:15
Speaker 2: He is trying to become a ghost.
33:17
Speaker 1: He knows how police tracks suspects, finances, digital trails, public DNA,
33:24
and he's actively employing countermeasures. But then right alongside these
33:29
highly educated smart moves, he does something that completely contradicts
33:34
the desire to disappear.
33:35
Speaker 2: The trophy moves.
33:36
Speaker 1: Yeah, Gilbertson called them trophy move This.
33:38
Speaker 2: Is where the psychology gets really twisted. While he was
33:41
actively wiping his devices of personal data to evade capture,
33:45
he was simultaneously retaining screenshots of news coverage about the case.
33:49
Speaker 1: He's keeping the digital clippings.
33:50
Speaker 2: Yes, it suggests an intense narcissistic consumption of the media
33:54
narrative surrounding the crime he allegedly committed. Gilbertson noted that
33:58
Coberger appeared very consumed with criminology and the psychology surrounding
34:02
the murder.
34:03
Speaker 1: He's watching it unfold.
34:04
Speaker 2: He was watching the investigation unfold in real time. He
34:07
might have been analyzing the police response, the press conferences,
34:10
the public panic strictly through his academic lens, critiquing the
34:15
very investigation that was hunting him.
34:17
Speaker 1: So you have a guy wearing gloves to the grocery store,
34:20
paying cash, attempting to wipe solid state hard drives, high
34:24
level forensic awareness, an active, educated attempt at concealment right,
34:29
And yet despite all of this sophisticated maneuvering, he makes
34:33
the most fatal, colossal amateur error imaginable.
34:37
Speaker 2: He left the kbar knife sheath behind right next to
34:40
the victims.
34:41
Speaker 1: A sheath with a microscopic trace of his DNA on
34:43
the button snap.
34:44
Speaker 2: This is the ultimate psychological dissonance of the entire case.
34:48
How does a PhD student in criminology, someone who has
34:50
literally studied crime scene processing, leave behind the single most
34:54
incriminating piece of physical evidence possible.
34:56
Speaker 1: It goes directly back to what we were discussing with
34:58
the fascination theory and the difference between theory and reality.
35:01
The academic study of a crime scene. It's static, it's controllable.
35:06
You are sitting in a comfortable chair looking at high
35:08
resolution photographs of a crime scene in a brightly lit classroom.
35:13
Your heart rate is sixty beats per minute, you have
35:15
a cup of coffee.
35:16
Speaker 2: But the physical act of committing a brutal close quarter's
35:19
crime is fundamentally different. It is fraught with adrenaline, chaos,
35:24
unpredictable variables, and extreme physical exertion.
35:28
Speaker 1: That is the biological crux of it. In a classroom,
35:31
you have all the time in the world to ensure
35:32
you understand every protocol in the dark. In a house,
35:36
you do not control. With people who may be waking up,
35:38
fighting back, or screaming, the physiological response completely overrides the
35:43
intellectual knowledge.
35:44
Speaker 2: The sympathetic nervous system takes over the amygdala, hijacks the brain.
35:48
You experience a mass of adrenaline dump, auditory exclusion, tunnel vision,
35:52
fine motor skills degrade. In that state of primal panic,
35:56
sophistication is incredibly fragile.
35:58
Speaker 1: It's exactly like a chess cran. Imagine someone who spends
36:01
ten years memorizing every possible opening, every famous match, studying
36:07
the theory of the game until they know it flawlessly
36:10
in their head. Okay, But the moment they finally sit
36:14
down at the board in a real high stakes international
36:17
tournament with a live opponent staring them down and the
36:20
clock ticking, the adrenaline hit so hard their handshakes and
36:24
they literally knock over their own king on the very
36:27
first move.
36:28
Speaker 2: That's a great way to put it.
36:29
Speaker 1: The theoretical intellectual knowledge cannot stop the physical reality of
36:33
the body's panic.
36:34
Speaker 2: That is precisely what the evidence suggests happened here. The
36:38
academic blueprint was completely undone by the messy human reality
36:42
of the violent act itself. The intellectual puzzle fell apart
36:45
the moment it was tested in reality.
36:48
Speaker 1: And while armchair detectives and you know, forensic psychologists can
36:51
sit around analyzing the errors and debating the nuances of
36:55
the psychological theories and marveling at the paradox of the
36:58
educated criminal, we have to remember remember the core truth
37:01
of this deep dive. There are people for whom this
37:04
intellectual puzzle is not an abstract theory. It is an ongoing, visceral,
37:09
daily nightmare. It is reality for them, which brings us
37:12
to the human costs of this tragedy and the enduring,
37:16
agonizing void left behind.
37:18
Speaker 2: The aftermath of this case is profound, and the docusries
37:21
focuses heavily on the continuing impact on the victims' families,
37:25
the surviving roommates, and the Moscow community. Right even after
37:29
the twenty twenty five guilty plea, which was supposed to
37:31
bring a measure of finality. The wounds are entirely.
37:34
Speaker 1: Open because a guilty plea gives a family a conviction
37:37
that puts the person in a cell, but it doesn't
37:39
give you peace.
37:40
Speaker 2: No, it doesn't. Moscow Police Chief Anthony Dollinger, who is
37:44
interviewed extensively in the documentary, summarizes the specific heartbreak perfectly.
37:48
After years of leading this investigation. He says, we don't
37:51
know why. We don't know why these four, We don't
37:54
know why this house. I don't think we'll ever know.
37:56
Speaker 1: That quote is so incredibly heavy. I don't think we'll
37:59
ever know. Imagine being a parent, having buried your child
38:01
and hearing the chief of police say that.
38:03
Speaker 2: It's unimaginable.
38:05
Speaker 1: The sources highlight Jeff Kernoble and his father, who is
38:08
demanding answers during the twenty twenty five plea process. He
38:12
publicly demanded that Coburger explain why he did it if
38:16
he was going to be allowed to accept a plea
38:18
deal and avoid the death penalty.
38:19
Speaker 2: I wanted the truth.
38:20
Speaker 1: He essentially wanted the truth in exchange for the States
38:23
sparing the suspect's.
38:24
Speaker 2: Life, and he didn't get it. Coburger remains silent. The refusal,
38:28
or perhaps the psychological inability of Coburger to provide that answer,
38:33
has just compounded the grief for these families.
38:35
Speaker 1: The void is just massive.
38:37
Speaker 2: An absence of a motive is a very specific, lingering
38:41
type of torture, and the community's trauma is so deep
38:45
that the physical erasure of the tragedy had to begin.
38:48
The rental house on King Rhad was eventually completely demolished
38:51
by the university.
38:52
Speaker 1: They erased the physical footprint.
38:54
Speaker 2: Of the crime they did trying to give the neighborhood
38:56
a chance to heal, but the psychological footprint remains massive. Really,
39:00
this raises an important question about what we expect from
39:03
the law and where its limits lie. It points out
39:05
a grim reality about our institutions. Even with the twenty
39:09
twenty five guilty plea, and frankly, regardless of the outcome
39:12
of this new twenty twenty six innocence claim and petition
39:15
for a trial, the justice system is fundamentally designed to
39:19
do two things.
39:20
Speaker 1: Determine who committed a crime and prove how they did
39:22
it beyond a reasonable doubt.
39:24
Speaker 2: Exactly, it is entirely structurally ill equipped to answer why
39:29
the court needs physical evidence of an act, It does
39:31
not require an explanation of the soul.
39:33
Speaker 1: And even if we got one, would it actually help. Lt. Gilbertson,
39:37
the lead investigator, noted that even if Brian Coberger suddenly
39:39
sat down tomorrow in an interrogation room and offered a
39:42
full hour's long explanation of his motive, it might only
39:46
make sense to his own mind. It might just be
39:48
a labyrinth of twisted logic, cognitive distortions, and academic justifications
39:53
that brings zero comfort to a grieving mother.
39:55
Speaker 2: Exactly, a motive derived from a dark internal fascination or
39:59
a disrupt psychosexual fantasy does not provide closure. It just
40:03
provides a terrifying glimpse into an abyss.
40:05
Speaker 1: Knowing that a fantasy was disrupted doesn't make the loss
40:08
of four young, vibrant, beloved lives any more rational or acceptable.
40:12
Speaker 2: It doesn't put the world back in order.
40:14
Speaker 1: No, So, what does this all mean for you? And me?
40:18
For you the listener tuning into this deep dive, consuming
40:21
this story, reading the updates about the twenty twenty six
40:24
legal pivot, Why are we so deeply obsessed with figuring
40:28
this out? I think it's.
40:29
Speaker 2: Because we all have this persistent, deeply human need to.
40:33
Speaker 1: Ask why, because why gives us the illusion of safety.
40:38
We desperately want to believe that if we can just
40:40
figure out why it happened, if we can label it
40:43
an incell attack, or a targeted fantasy, or an academic
40:47
experiment gone horribly wrong, then we can spot the signs
40:50
in the future.
40:51
Speaker 2: We think we can predict it.
40:52
Speaker 1: We think that if we know the why, we can
40:54
build a fence around it. We can prevent it from
40:55
happening to us or to our kids.
40:57
Speaker 2: It's an evolutionary defense mechanism. Brains seek patterns to avoid danger.
41:02
But the terror of the Idaho murders and the reality
41:04
that Chief Dollenger and Alteink Gilbertson are pointing out, is
41:07
that sometimes there is no recognizable, preventable pattern.
41:11
Speaker 1: Sometimes the why is just a void that we project
41:14
our own fears into.
41:15
Speaker 2: And staring into that void is exactly what we've been doing.
41:18
Speaker 1: Let's quickly recap the journey of this deep dive. We
41:21
started with the chilling, undeniable facts of November twenty twenty
41:24
two and the sudden, whiplash inducing legal pivot of July
41:28
twenty twenty six. Where a man with four life sentences
41:32
is now pointing to alleged false promises and crying actual innocence,
41:36
demanding a trial.
41:37
Speaker 2: We move through the heavy science of the evidence, the
41:40
touch DNA, the genetic genealogy, the cell tower pinging, and
41:44
contrasted it with the baffling lack of any digital footprint
41:47
connecting him to the victims.
41:48
Speaker 1: That void forced us to explore the unsettling fascination theory,
41:52
examining how a profound academic study of criminal minds might
41:56
have collapsed into a real world compulsion to act.
41:59
Speaker 2: We looked at the impeding psychological profiling, exploring the terrifying
42:03
idea of a disrupted psychosexual fantasy escalating into mass violence
42:07
because reality didn't match the script.
42:09
Speaker 1: And we dispelled the pervasive Internet rumors of in cell
42:12
ideology based directly on the investigator's own digital forensics.
42:16
Speaker 2: And finally, we confronted the paradox of a highly educated
42:20
criminologist making a fatal, rudimentary error in the heat of
42:24
the moment, bringing his entire constructed reality crashing down, leaving
42:28
the families with an unfillable void where the truth should be.
42:32
Speaker 1: It is a case that defies neat categorization. It resists
42:36
the clean narrative. And as we wrap up, I want
42:39
to leave you with a final lingering concept to mull
42:42
over on your own time. Building on everything we've discussed
42:44
from these sources, go ahead. Experts tell us that studying
42:48
evil doesn't immunize you against it. Sometimes, if the pathology
42:52
is there, it might even draw you closer to it.
42:55
But think about this from your own perspective. Okay, We
42:58
as a society are constantly consuming true crime. We are
43:01
demanding the Netflix documentaries, we listen to deep dives, we
43:04
read the psychological analysis. We are constantly trying to peer
43:08
into the minds of killers to understand their motives. But
43:11
if Eltine Gilbertson is right, if a motive only ever
43:14
truly makes sense to the monster who holds it, what
43:16
does it mean that we are all trying so desperately
43:19
to understand it? Are we looking for safety or are
43:23
we just scaring into the exact same dark fascination that
43:26
we condemn.
43:27
Speaker 2: It is a profound question about our own cultural fixations.
43:30
It asks us to examine the line between understanding a
43:33
tragedy and being mesmerized by it.
43:35
Speaker 1: It really does we want the world to make sense.
43:38
We want to be able to point to a motive
43:39
and say there is the reason. But in cases like this,
43:43
the machinery of logic is broken. You are left searching
43:46
for a rational reason in an inherently senseless act. Well said,
43:50
Thank you for joining us on this intense deep dive.
43:53
Keep reading the sources, keep questioning the narrative, and keep
43:55
asking the tough questions.