Shownotes Transcript
Hey everyone, this is Jodi Sweetin from How Rude Tanneritos. Hyundai's most electric EV lineup is going to change everything that you thought about EVs. One thing that you're absolutely going to love and that's going to grab your attention is the ultra-fast charging in the Ioniq 5 and Ioniq 6.
No more waiting around for your car to charge. These EVs can go from 10 to 80% in as little as 18 minutes using a 350-kilowatt, 800-volt DC ultra-fast charger. Now that is fast. Plus, you get America's best warranty with a 10-year, 100,000-mile limited electric battery warranty. Learn more about Hyundai EVs at HyundaiUSA.com. Call 562-314-4603 for complete details. America's best warranty claim based on total package of warranty program.
See dealer for limited warranty details. See your Hyundai dealer for further details and limitations. With millions of books on Amazon, there's a reading feeling for everyone. For example, Raquel's, Whoa! when she first entered the kingdom by dragonback is different to Ari's, Whoa! when he found out there was more than one crime scene, which is also different to Ava's, Whoa! the moment when the stable boy became a stable man.
From whoa to whoa to whoa. Amazon Books. That reading feeling awaits. Hey, I'm Ryan Reynolds. At Mint Mobile, we like to do the opposite of what big wireless does. They charge you a lot. We charge you a little. So naturally, when they announced they'd be raising their prices due to inflation, we decided to deflate our prices due to not hating you.
That's right. We're cutting the price of Mint Unlimited from $30 a month to just $15 a month. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. $45 upfront for three months plus taxes and fees. Promote it for new customers for a limited time. Unlimited more than 40 gigabytes per month. Slows. Full terms at mintmobile.com. Brian Koberger out stargazing and driving the night four University of Idaho students were murdered. That's part of the alibi he's offering to the court.
Sometimes, and this won't shock anybody who's done defense work, clients will lie to their attorneys. This is The Idaho Massacre, a production of KT Studios and iHeartRadio. Season 2, Episode 4, A Hamster Wheel of Justice. I'm Courtney Armstrong, a producer at KT Studios with Stephanie Lidecker and Gabe Castillo.
On December 30, 2022, six weeks after the murders of Ethan Chapin, Zanna Kernodle, Madison Mogan, and Kaylee Gonzalez, 28-year-old criminology PhD student Brian Koberger was arrested at his family home in Pennsylvania's Pocono Mountains. Here's Monroe County Assistant District Attorney Michael Mancuso.
Here's Stephanie.
Just picturing the accused Brian Koberger wearing shorts and a t-shirt and surgical latex gloves is such a chilling detail. So let's just play this out for a second. If in fact Brian Koberger did this, that would actually mean that he murdered four people, then he went back to class in the days thereafter,
Then his dad picks him up at his apartment in Washington. And as we know, the two of them infamously drove in Brian's white Elantra across country to go home for Thanksgiving break. You'll also remember that the police pulled Brian and his dad over twice, allegedly to see if he had any scratch marks on his hand. And body cam footage shows that he did. Now he's home. He's at his parents' house for Thanksgiving break.
And he realizes his car is a crime scene. So now he's wearing these latex gloves and cleaning it out, making sure that things are put in their proper Ziploc bags. CNN reported that he cleaned his car inside and out, not missing an inch.
That's a pretty big deal. Does that mean he's just trying to make sure there isn't any evidence left behind? Or as the defense would probably say, maybe he's just a meticulous guy that doesn't like germs and just likes to forever be wearing a latex glove. On January 4th, 2023, the accused was extradited back to Idaho, where he appeared in court to waive his right to a speedy trial.
Seven long months after that, on August 23rd, Judge John Judge, who continues to preside over the case, pushed back the initial start date, which was set for October 2nd, 2023. As of this recording, a new trial start date has still not been set.
Recently, victim Kaylee Goncalves' family released a statement saying, "This case is turning into a hamster wheel of motions, hearings and delayed decisions. Can we all just agree that this case needs to move forward and the judge needs to start setting hard deadlines in this case?" Kaylee's mom says she feels like they've been in limbo now for more than a year and while she's hopeful, mostly what they want is a trial date to be set.
To get a better understanding of these pretrial proceedings, I spoke with Kirk Nermy, legal analyst and former defense attorney to Jodi Arias. Arias was in a widely publicized death penalty case in 2013 for murdering her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander in Arizona.
In the state of Idaho, three people have been executed since the mid-1970s. For context, during that time, nearly 1,600 felons have been put to death in the United States. I asked Kirk about a hearing in this case that took place on January 26, 2024. At that hearing, Koburger's defense attorney, Ann Taylor, tried for the second time to get all charges dismissed. I asked Kirk if it was rare for attorneys to take a second bite at the apple.
No, we have to understand in a death penalty context, if a defendant is sentenced to death, what the attorneys did or did not do will be examined for years down the road. I mean, if somebody is sentenced to death, usually it takes about 15 years for that execution to actually take place. And during those 15 years,
The federal courts will take a look at it, and it will go all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the reasons, about 50% of the death penalty verdicts get overturned, and one of the reasons for that is the council's failure to pursue certain avenues of defense. So it is reasonable and expected and really reasonable
minimum practice for the defense attorneys in a death penalty case to pursue every avenue possible, even multiple times if there is reason to do that. The victim's family want the trial to be expedited. It sounds like the judge as well wanted to expedite the case, but defense obviously has been pushing hard to delay. Can you speak to that?
Yeah, I mean, it goes back to some extent about having things done right. I mean, the prosecution knows and with all due respect to the family, I understand why they want justice to be swift. But the prosecution understands that if they are investing all these resources, I mean, it always costs.
the state pursuing the death penalty, both for the prosecution team and for the defense team. It costs a lot of money. It costs a lot of court resources, et cetera. They want to make sure they do it once. If it is expedited in any way, and in that review process years down the road, the court says, no, wait a minute.
this trial happened too fast because you did not give the defense proper notice on this particular issue or proper time to investigate the mitigating circumstances surrounding Mr. Kohlberger's life, then it could be redone again. And so hasty justice doesn't necessarily mean justice. It has to be justice done thoroughly and 100% correctly, or again, there's a 50% chance that a sentencing verdict would be overturned.
Wow, that's a crazy high statistic. Is the pressure so much higher because of that extrajudicial oversight?
Sure. I mean, there's an expression amongst defense attorneys that death is different, and that is exactly the case. It is a meticulous, high-stress situation where every avenue must be pursued because of that scrutiny that it's going to face years down the road. No defense attorney wants to be considered ineffective. Nobody involved wants to have to try the case again. That 50%
rate I talk about is always related to the sentencing. It doesn't have anything to do with guilt or innocence, but it has to do with that death sentence. And that means that the judge, the prosecution, and the defense attorney all have to do their job almost perfectly, if you will, because the penalty is one from which no redress can be made once it's imposed.
Here's something I don't know about and I don't know how much listeners do at all. What do people need to know about closed-door hearings for a grand jury and what is a grand jury?
Sure. Well, a grand jury, you know, you think about it just like any other form of jury duty might be the way that people can relate to it most. But when you're in a grand jury, it's secretive. It's just the prosecution presenting evidence. And the question is, is there probable cause to charge a defendant with a certain crime?
The offense is not there. They do not provide evidence. It's not a trial. But ultimately, it's that secret proceeding to decide whether or not a charge is made. So the difference really is the secrecy of it and the charging decision. It's a lower standard versus, you know, guilty or not guilty, what a normal jury does in a public setting. And are these just regular, like I was on jury duty yesterday, as a matter of fact, is this just the normal population?
Yes. I don't know why it seems very mysterious to me.
Well, I think it sounds mysterious because it somewhat is. I mean, it happens behind closed doors. Nobody knows about the proceeding. The future defendant doesn't know that this is going on. The testimony doesn't take place in open court. There's no cross-examination. All that is really seen, at least in my experience in Arizona, when it's done is the transcript of the proceedings. That's it.
Is the transcript, does that go on the official record? And is that something that can be looked at by the defense or anyone else at a later time? Yeah, certainly. And we see this in a lot of death penalty cases, but also other cases where they might challenge the sufficiency of the indictment.
And those challenges are all based on the grand jury. If the prosecution failed to present exculpatory evidence that they knew they had, et cetera. If a witness lied during the grand jury in order to precipitate an indictment being filed, those sort of things can be something that they looked at because, again, you're not subject to cross-examination. So if a police officer goes in there and says something that...
is not true or is later contradicted, they contradict themselves on the stand, that testimony can be used to attack their credibility and or attack the credibility of the indictment. One more follow-up. With that, let's say that scenario just happened, a police officer or any witness is then, you know, their testimony is found to be contradictory. Could that mean midstream that the charges are then changed, that those are then dropped, or is that not the case?
No, that's unlikely because that is a challenge that would maybe take place at the grand jury, challenging the grand jury transcript. So let's say Officer X goes in and testifies to something and his police report is completely different. You could maybe challenge the grand jury proceedings on that basis. If it gets to the trial portion of the proceedings, you could go back and impeach his credibility with
that prior testimony. Like in Arizona, there's limits, and I forget the exact amount of days, but you have to challenge the grand jury finding within a certain amount of days. That precedes trial. So once that window is closed and or things are ruled upon, that becomes an issue for the appellate record, not trial per se, other than to impeach the witness with their prior testimony.
So the second hearing I wanted to talk about, this happened February 28th of this year, and this hearing was open to the public. So in this instance, a lot was made on the fact that the defendant, Brian Kohlberger, was wearing a suit. Can you give your thoughts on that, the judge's decision, the family's reaction?
Sure. And I understand seeing some of the family's comments, how they don't appreciate seeing that, what have you. But we have to remember, going back to what I said earlier about the propriety that everything is done right in a death penalty case, a defendant is presumed innocent. And we tend to forget that, I think, in the court of public opinion. And if they are seen, especially when we talk about a high profile case like this,
If they are seen in jail garb or shackled with a stun belt and chains and what have you, then people begin to inform an impression not only of his guilt, his violent nature. They begin forming those impressions off those visuals.
So you want to prevent that at every stage of the proceeding before guilt has been established, if you will. So that is very important. Again, if you have an appellate attorney looks down years down the road and says, well, look, this guy was put in shackles and paraded in front of the entire jury panel of Latah County, and therefore his trial wasn't fair, that could be a viable argument that could have a death sentence reversed.
So really, it sounds like for the greater good of the sanctity of not having the case overturned almost. Well, yeah. I mean, that's one less issue of pursuit, if you will, on the appellate level at the federal level. With your courtroom experience, I don't know if you've had the experience of where a defendant is both dressed in civilian clothes and
and dressed in shackles? And is there a different feel sort of in the room or from the jury? Well, the jury is only going to see a defendant in street clothes, quote unquote. If they are a danger, every effort is made specifically
to mask any restraints that they have on them. They're not going to be sitting there with handcuffs on unless there's some particular reason for it. The jury would probably be instructed not to make any inferences from that. So anytime somebody's in front of a jury, they are going to be in quote-unquote street clothes and any restraints will be masked.
That's a really interesting point because I must have conflated seeing pretrial hearings because I'm like, oh, well, I can picture plenty of defendants in clothes, but not in front of the jury. That's true. So if there is a pretrial hearing where it's only the judge, if you will, and not televised, then the judge has knowledge, obviously, of the defendant's custodial status because in many cases they set that status.
They don't need to be protected from it if it doesn't interfere with the Sixth Amendment right of the defendant, because ultimately in a courtroom, it is the jury that makes the decision. They are the final arbiter of guilt or innocence. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Perfect sense. Thank you. Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in a moment.
Navy Federal Credit Union likes to reward their members for using their credit cards. Whether you're shopping for groceries or booking your next vacation, the More Rewards card could make every purchase rewarding. More Rewards is your everyday, everywhere rewards card. And you could earn 30,000 bonus points when you spend $3,000 in the first 90 days of account opening. Get a low intro APR on balance transfers. Plus, get a one-time statement credit for Walmart Plus membership.
When you use the Navy Federal mobile app, you can redeem your rewards. Plus, rewards never expire while account is open. Learn more at NavyFederal.org. An average credit card APR that's 6.81% lower than the industry average. Value claim based on 2023 internal average APR assigned to members compared to bank industry average credit card APR published in the Federal Reserve's G.19 Consumer Credit Data Release. Navy Federal is made it their mission to help military members. And at NavyFederal.org.
Hi, I'm Cindy Crawford, and I'm the founder of Meaningful Beauty.
Well, I don't know about you, but like I never liked being told, oh, wow, you look so good for your age. Like, why even bother saying that? Why don't you just say you look great at any age, every age? That's what Meaningful Beauty is all about. We create products that make you feel confident in your skin at the age you are now. Meaningful Beauty. Beautiful skin at every age. Learn more at MeaningfulBeauty.com.
MITRE's mission is to solve problems for a safer world. If you have a passion for applied cybersecurity with skills in infrastructure threat intelligence, deterrence technologies, advisal threat emulation, or intelligence analysis, explore the many challenging and fulfilling career opportunities at MITRE.org slash careers. That's M-I-T-R-E dot org slash careers.
There have been well more than a dozen pretrial hearings in this case, but the most significant revelation is the alibi of the accused. So here, their alibi defense apparently is that he likes to drive around and see the moon and the stars. The new alibi? I have like a little theory about that. Do I buy it? No. The prosecution is currently taking great issue with what they claim is the defense's lack of progress in furthering the details of the defendant's alibi.
In an April 24, 2024 filing from Prosecutor Bill Thompson, he writes, It has now been approximately 11 months since the state filed its request for discovery disclosure, alibi demand, on May 23, 2023, and almost a year and a half since the homicides occurred.
The defendant has been given more time than he is legally entitled in order to provide his alibi. The state is substantially prejudiced and compromised in its ability to investigate and respond to new or additional alibi-related disclosures. Brian Koberger out stargazing and driving the night four University of Idaho students were murdered. That's part of the alibi he's offering to the court. That's crime reporter Anjanette Levy, who's been following this case from the beginning.
She continues describing the alibi details on a recent episode of Law and Crime Network's Crime Fix with Anjanette Levy.
So he says he certainly wasn't at that house. Instead, his lawyers write, Mr. Koberger was out driving in the early morning hours of November 13, 2022, as he often did, to hike and run and or see the moon and stars. He drove throughout the area south of Pullman, Washington, west of Moscow, Idaho, including Wawaye Park.
In Idaho, if a defendant is going to claim they have an alibi, they have to tell the prosecutor about a specific place or places where they were when a crime took place, and they have to identify a witness or witnesses who can vouch for them.
In the state's motion filed after the alibi was revealed, Prosecutor Bill Thompson writes, The state respectfully submits that the defendant's supplemental alibi response continues to lack the specificity required by Idaho Code 19-519, which provides that the defense shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been...
at the time of the alleged offense, and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi. In an effort to better understand the legalities of these motions, I continued my conversation with Kirk Nurmi. I asked him to explain why the prosecution had such a strongly worded filing after the alibi was revealed.
It's interesting because Idaho must be a little different. An alibi, in my experience in Arizona, is nothing that has to be supported or enunciated. I mean, you might call witnesses to support it.
but you wouldn't have to enunciate it, if you will. I'd love clarification of the fact that in this case, the prosecution said the lack of a finalized version of Koberger's alibi was concerning and argued that a deadline was necessary to ensure the alibi was not affected by evidence unveiled during discovery. I guess first, what is discovery? Because my understanding was that was the finding out of information
Yeah, I mean, there is a bit of mystery surrounding that because we don't have all the information. My understanding is that
What the Kohlberger team is saying with this stargazing alibi, if you will, is that they will be able to support this alibi not by persons or video evidence, but strictly by cell phone evidence that contradicts the cell phone evidence brought in by the state.
And they are also making the assertion, as I understand it, that the state has not fully disclosed all the cell phone evidence that would be supportive of the alibi. Thus, they are simply putting out there that he was stargazing and their cell phone expert will support that.
I have to ask, what's your knee-jerk reaction to the alibi, if you want to share? Do I buy it? No. But if that's what you're asking, do I buy it? No. But it remains to be seen what the cell phone evidence is going to demonstrate. A lot of people tend to think that a defense attorney or a group of defense attorneys sit down and concoct a defense.
or that they sit down with their client and they make up a defense. But sometimes, and this won't shock anybody who's done defense work, clients will lie to their attorneys, right? And a lot of times, sometimes, you know, you can lie in a way that there's no affirmative
proof to the contrary. So he says, I'm out stargazing. He very well could have been stargazing before or after he committed this crime. There's no proof to the contrary. So my guess is Mr. Kohlberger believes he's very smart and says, hey, this is my alibi. You can't disprove it. Stephanie joins the conversation.
That does sound like it's right out of a movie. Is that what actually happens? Somebody seems so tricky that they're going to create this entire fabric of a story to their defense attorney. As a defense attorney, are you able to call BS or do you have to play along? Well, as a defense attorney, unless you can disprove it, you have to allow the client to tell their story. You are not judging jury. You are there to help them tell their story, whether you believe it or not.
So if a client comes up and we continue with the alibi example, how can you disprove that? Is there some way to disprove that? No, there's not. That's the point. Unless the attorney can prove the alibi to be false.
false. Let's say he says, I was with my mother or I was buying gas and there's no evidence to support the alibi. Then he or she can confront their client with this evidence. There's no gotcha moment, right? There's no one more thing. Let me ask you this, because you can't disprove it. And that's why a lot of criminal defendants think, hey, this is a great story because it cannot be disproven. They've got time to sit in jail and vet their lie, if you will. And this cannot be disproved.
It might not be able to be proven, but it certainly can't be disproven. Is it as simple as somebody checking the weather to say that that particular night there were no stars to be seen in the sky? No, not at all. I mean, you could still stargaze. You could still gaze at the clouds. You could do anything, right? I mean, you could say it's less probable, but you can't definitively prove it to be a lie, can you?
As a defense attorney, you hear this story, you're not buying it. Are you able to excuse yourself as the defense attorney? No. Just because you don't believe a story doesn't mean that you are not the right attorney for the client. I mean, clients all the time in my experience say, I want an attorney that believes in me. I want an attorney that believes in me. And the response is fine. If you want one stupid enough, go find one.
But I'm not going to buy this story, and I don't think a jury will. But if that doesn't knock the client off the story, then they, the client, can get up on the stand and tell that story. Brian Kohlberger can get up on the stand and tell the story that he was stargazing that night. That does not violate the ethics of the attorney. And as a matter of fact, it is their ethical obligation, particularly in a death penalty case. An attorney can't say, well, you know what? I had this defense.
or I had this bit of mitigation, but I didn't believe it. So I didn't present it to the jury because it's not what the attorney believes. It's what the jury believes. After this conversation, we checked the weather and saw that when Koberger is alleged to be stargazing, it was overcast with intermittent ice fog.
Having spoken with defense attorney Kirk Nermey, Stephanie and I wanted to balance the equation. Here's attorney and former prosecutor Steven Greenberg's take on the suspect's alibi and how he thinks it may play in court. It underscores the lack of sophistication of the defense team. It really does. I mean, are you going to open to a jury and say to the jury, we have a moon and a star as defense? That's their alibi? Come on. They're going to look at you and say, my goodness.
Where did you come from? Is there anything to the fact that you kind of can't poke holes in it versus saying, you know, I went to the gas station at 12.33 a.m.? So is that perhaps the rationale, that there's nothing specific about it, that it is so vague?
I think it's like throwing a whole bunch of stuff against the wall, hope something sticks or something will come out later on. There's just what the prosecution is trying to avoid that will bolster it. They just want to have it out there. They're obligated to disclose their alibi.
Stephanie speaks with Inside Edition reporter Chris Bargo, who followed the case from the beginning, to get his thoughts on the alibi revelation. Right now, when people ask about his guilt or innocence, based on what we know concretely, I mean, it's hard to really say one way or the other. I mean, we don't really know much about the prosecution's case, but we know the defense's entire alibi. So that, you know, at this point, when you think about it, the defense has a much better case just because we know so little.
We know the probable cause affidavit that says he was in the cell phone area. They don't have him at the house in that affidavit. We don't know. There could be fingerprints in the house we don't know about. There could be a million things we don't know about. What we know for a fact, they know we have his car leaving Washington State University. We know he has his car arriving back at Washington State University. We know of a few sightings of it along the way heading towards Moscow, leaving. And we have some photos of the car. We have photos of the car. We don't have photos of Brian Koberger. None of those
things say that they have photos of Brian, but they can prove that Brian is there. They can say they have a car that looks like Brian's driving. It's certainly reasonable. That wise, it's not awful. They don't have his car parked there for what we know. They don't have him getting out of the car. They don't have him inside the house of the information we have so far. So
Based on that alone, it's hard to convict someone with that alibi at this stage, given what we know, because we don't really have any other evidence that definitively places him there. And by the way, most of this information is really circumstantial. Is it very likely that all these small things all happen to lead to the same guy?
Who the hell knows? That's just the reality of it. We don't know. And the sum of small things, I'm not convinced should equal death in my humble opinion. And of course, you know, we're still at the phase of gathering information. The burdens right now are lying with the prosecution. The defense, like I said, the defense alibi is not much in the way of a, it's not like a, he was with a friend who was driving alone. If you had to pick an alibi and you couldn't think of one that would, you know, I was alone doing something.
But with this case and what we know, it's again, reasonable doubt. So could you say knowing what we know, could you 100% say that he's guilty and deserves to die? I would not want to put someone to death based on that knowledge alone. There's something there that's going to be mind boggling when it's presented.
I reached out to data analyst Bodhi Movin, host of another KT Studios podcast, Drew Crimes. Her incredible sleuthing skills came to be known in the public with Netflix documentary, Don't F with Cats. After dissecting the alibi motion, Bodhi had her own particular thoughts to share.
I think what's interesting maybe to talk about is the alibi, the new alibi, because I have like a little theory about that. Body reads for the amended alibi. Brian Koberger's alibi
amended alibi says that he was busy with classes at work and at Washington State University and he was running and hiking and those activities decreased but did not stop. Instead, his nighttime drives increased. And it says this is supported by data from Mr. Koberger's phone showing him in the countryside late at night or early in the morning on several occasions. The
The phone data includes numerous photographs taken on several different late evenings and early mornings, including in November, depicting the night sky.
and then it goes on to say mr coberger was out driving in the early morning hours of november 13th as he often did to hike and or run see the moon and stars he drove throughout the area of south of pullman washington west of moscow idaho including wawawee park so it's basically saying he always goes driving late at night and there's evidence of pictures taken on his phone including pictures that were taken in november
Now, it doesn't say that he has pictures from that night or that morning. It just says including in November. So we need to make that clear right now because a lot of people are running with, well, he has pictures from his phone that night. No, he doesn't. No, he doesn't. So that's number one, because that's a big thing online right now. People are like, well, it's done. He's got a picture. It's got metadata. No, no, no. I very much doubt that. And number two, the PCA says Brian Koberger said,
either turned off his phone, turned it on to airplane mode or was out of service and then picked back up after the murders. Here's what I kind of think and something I kind of want to talk to you about. In the alibi, it states that there's going to be this Cy Ray, who's the CSLI expert, the cell phone tower, cell phone and other radio frequency expert to corroborate that Brian Koberger's phone was
was south of Pullman and west of Moscow? Well, look at a map of Idaho or in Washington, where is Wauwee Beach Park? It's south of Pullman and west of Moscow. Okay. So here's what I kind of think. And it's a bad service area, by the way. It's important to note that. It's a bad service area. Let's stop here for another break. We'll be back in a moment.
Navy Federal Credit Union likes to reward their members for using their credit cards. Whether you're shopping for groceries or booking your next vacation, the More Rewards card could make every purchase rewarding. More Rewards is your everyday, everywhere rewards card. And you could earn 30,000 bonus points when you spend $3,000 in the first 90 days of account opening. Get a low intro APR on balance transfers. Plus, get a one-time statement credit for Walmart Plus membership.
When you use the Navy Federal mobile app, you can redeem your rewards. Plus, rewards never expire while account is open. Learn more at NavyFederal.org. An average credit card APR that's 6.81% lower than the industry average. Value claim based on 2023 internal average APR assigned to members compared to bank industry average credit card APR published in the Federal Reserve's G.19 Consumer Credit Data Release. Navy Federal is made it their mission to help military members. And at Navy Federal...
Our members are the mission. Message and data rates may apply. Visit NavyFederal.org for more information. Navy Federal is federally insured by NCUA. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at NavyFederal.org. Hi, I'm Cindy Crawford, and I'm the founder of Meaningful Beauty.
Well, I don't know about you, but like I never liked being told, oh, wow, you look so good for your age. Like, why even bother saying that? Why don't you just say you look great at any age, every age? That's what Meaningful Beauty is all about. We create products that make you feel confident in your skin at the age you are now. Meaningful Beauty. Beautiful skin at every age. Learn more at MeaningfulBeauty.com.
MITRE is investing in a massive AI supercomputer to power a new federal AI sandbox. With AI's potential to drive transformational advances across industries, MITRE's expertise in healthcare, cybersecurity, transportation, finance, climate, and national security will be critical. Transform your career while helping solve problems for a safer world. Visit MITRE.org slash careers. That's M-I-T-R-E dot org slash careers.
Bodhi goes on to say this herself, but it's important to note that the following is her own opinion based on extrapolations made from reviewing legal documents.
I think what happened is, is it possible that Brian Koberger actually did go to Wawiwi Park just outside the gate or along that area and left his phone like in a bush or something, drove to Moscow because it took him like an hour, did his murders and then drove back to Wawiwi Park and got the phone because it puts his phone at a location where he's been previously many times.
but it's got terrible service. So it gives him credibility to this alibi. And if that's true, is that an area that police now and whatnot need to be looking at for a K-bar? Dickie coveralls?
Do you know what I mean? Like evidence of a dumping of some kind. That's a really, really interesting thought. If what I said about, you know, leaving the phone at Wobbe Park is true, then that shows intention. I mean, obviously there was intention, clearly. But what I mean is like premeditation in ways that I hadn't really considered all that much.
It just shows a lot more purpose because it's very shady. But again, it's just a theory. More on that next time. For more information on the case and relevant photos, follow us on Instagram at KT underscore studios. The Idaho Massacre is produced by Stephanie Leidegger, Gabriel Castillo, and me, Courtney Armstrong. Editing and sound design by Jeff Twaugh.
Music by Jared Aston. The Idaho Masker is a production of KT Studios and iHeartRadio. For more podcasts like this, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. You can follow Kirk Nermy on Instagram and X at Nermy Unchained and find his books on Amazon.
MITRE's mission is to solve problems for a safer world. If you have a passion for applied cybersecurity with skills in infrastructure threat intelligence, deterrence technologies, advisal threat emulation, or intelligence analysis, explore the many challenging and fulfilling career opportunities at MITRE.org slash careers. That's M-I-T-R-E dot org slash careers. Every day.
Our world gets a little more connected, but a little further apart. But then there are moments that remind us to be more human. Thank you for calling Amica Insurance. Hey, I was just in an accident. Don't worry, we'll get you taken care of. At Amica, we understand that looking out for each other isn't new or groundbreaking. It's human. Amica. Empathy is our best policy.
Hi, icons. It's Paris Hilton. Check out my new single, Chasin', featuring Meghan Trainor. Out today. ♪
I feel so lucky to collaborate with Megan and how perfectly she put my experience into words. Listen to Chasen from my new album, Infinite Icon, on iHeartRadio or wherever you stream music. Don't forget to visit InfiniteIcon.com to pre-save my album. Sponsored by 1111 Media.