← Crime & Justice with Donna Rotunno
Loading summary
Transcript71 lines
- [00:00]
A
Where is Daredevil?
- [00:03]
B
I'm right here.
- [00:04]
A
Don't miss the return of Marvel Television's Daredevil Born Again.
- [00:08]
B
So what's next?
- [00:09]
C
I feel liberated.
- [00:11]
A
We're gonna take this city back over medicated in an all new season. Now streaming only on Disney plus.
- [00:18]
B
They're hunting us. It's time we started hunting them.
- [00:21]
A
I can work with them. This should be tons of fun. Marvel Television's Daredevil Born Again now streaming only on Disney plus.
- [00:30]
B
This is crime and justice. Donna. I'm Donna Rotuno. Was the case against Bryan Kohberger built on a series of critical hidden errors?
- [00:39]
A
The prosecution indicates that Bryan Kohberger entered the house, killed two people on the third floor, made his way downstairs, killed two people on the second floor, got back into his car and left in approximately four minutes. The question is this. If one person, Brian Kohberger, and he pled guilty, but if one person, Brian Coburg, somehow altered the second floor of that house, how did he do it in that amount of time? And why did he do it?
- [01:10]
B
We are digging into Broken Plea, a former FBI agent's critique of the Idaho murder investigation. Before we dive in today. If you are enjoying the show, please go ahead and hit the follow button. It's the easiest way to make sure you never miss an episode. Let's start with Fox digital reporter Mike Ruiz, who has been on this story since day one. So, Mike, let's talk about sort of layout Coburger for me from the beginning in terms of where the case started to how it ended up to where we are now. And that'll be a great segue into my next guest who has written this fascinating book, broken Plea.
- [01:54]
C
Yeah, so I mean, if you want to start all the way at the beginning, it's, it's November 13, 2022. It's the week before students at the University of Idaho are going home for Thanksgiving break. There is a home invasion mass murder of four students in a house just a few feet off of campus. And it, it perplexed investigators for a while. It was seven weeks before they had an arrest. The suspect was Brian Coburger. They picked him up at his parents house in Pennsylvania on the other side of the country. The saga of how they found him and identified him as their person of interest. And then their suspect played out over a period of years and we've been seeing a trickle of information for most of it. Now he's pleaded guilty, he's in prison. They've put a lot of stuff out in the public realm through freedom of information and public records laws. But there's also a lot of stuff that we hadn't seen before that primarily would have been things that the defense would have introduced to the public if this had gone to trial, which it didn't. And that's a lot of what Chris wrote about in this new book, Broken Plea.
- [03:04]
B
Joining me now is FBI special agent and investigative journalist Chris Whitcomb. Chris, thank you so much for joining me today to discuss your new book, Broken Plea.
- [03:17]
A
Hi, Donna. Thanks for bringing me on. I appreciate it.
- [03:21]
B
I'm really happy to have you. And I really have gotten into a good portion of this book, and I find it fascinating, obviously, my background as a former prosecutor and a current criminal defense attorney who has tried many cases. I find what is written in this book fascinating. And of course, some of this information is information we, the public, are hearing for the first time, which is quite extraordinary given the coverage this case got.
- [03:48]
A
Yeah, it really is. Many, many people know this case, one of the most sensationalized cases in recent memory. But what I think is really compelling, when Brian Kohberger changed his plea to guilty and went away behind bars for life, he took all the answers that so many people want with him. And because, as Mike has said, the much of this information, none of this would ever come out at trial, we are left with those questions and very, very little information. And that's what I've really tried to do in this book, is give people a sense of what they don't know, perhaps.
- [04:24]
B
Well, I think what's really been interesting about it, especially for me, is as I read through it and clearly I followed it very, very thoroughly from the beginning. And then obviously with Fox, as the plea took place and forward, and we were all surprised about the plea, it all kind of seemed to happen very fast. We knew that there were motions pending that ended up not being heard. And then, you know, bam, he takes this deal. And, you know, there was all the controversy surrounding some of the family members being okay with it, some of the family members of the victim saying, we weren't even notified of this. So a lot of things happened very quickly. And as a defense attorney, I can understand sometimes those things happen. And if a client says, I want to take a deal and you have to make things happen fast, especially when you have a trial date set and a judge saying, if you're going to do something about this, you better do it before jury subpoenas go out and all the subpoenas to the witnesses go out. And so, you know, I can understand the, the rush at that point, but now sort of looking back and dissecting it, it's really an interesting conversation to have. So I'm, I'm really excited to do that with you today. And the first, the first thing I want to talk to you about in your book, and it's probably the only one going to challenge you on just a little bit, is it was in the very beginning, and I think it was actually in the prologue where you said that lawyers that have the. Or, excuse me, clients that have the ability to pay their lawyers put themselves in, in different positions. And obviously, as a lawyer who gets paid to try cases, what I always say, and I think I'm one of the only ones that challenges this point, is clients that have higher profile cases need people who stand up for them in such a strong way because the power of the government is going at them even tougher. So people think, oh, it's better to be somebody who can afford lawyers, and it's better to be a person of means. But at the end of the day, a lot of times, those are the people the government is coming after even harder and they're using more resources on these big cases. So that was just my first point that I wanted to make.
- [06:26]
A
Well, listen, I would agree and I would say very well said. Although I didn't quote him at the beginning, Mark Twain had that famous line about justice and the quality of their attorneys. And it's not always money, as you say. There are some very, very talented public defenders, but we've seen in high profile cases, the OJ Case probably iconic in these discussions. So I think what I was trying to say is there's an awful lot that people don't know about the justice system that you do. And I'm very, very keen to talk to you about those things. It's great for me as well to talk to an attorney who's tried cases and understands the ins and outs of these things.
- [07:09]
B
So I really. There were so many things I want to talk about. I think we'll try to keep it as, you know, concise as we can given our time period that we have. But what I first want to talk about is looking at the defense team here. The defense team has really remained unbelievably quiet. Right. They have not said much. The lead lawyer on the case, Ann Taylor, did come out recently and make a statement in regard to one of the sources in your book who we heard Mike talk about, Brett Turvey. And, you know, I want to talk to you a little bit about that because of Course, that statement came out after the book and the information about the book was released. And now she's saying, you know, basically this is a person that signed, you know, non disclosures and shouldn't be talking about this. And there was a privilege and, you know, so the fact that now she's sort of throwing her own expert under the bus, I'm wondering, you know, what your take is on that and if you think that that diminishes the source, you know, for you, given the fact that she has now come out and said he's going against what we talked about him doing.
- [08:14]
A
The only things I'll say about Dr. Brent Turvey, because he can certainly speak for himself and he has. He's been vocal and I assume he'll say more. But a couple things. One, Brent Turvey is one of the most ethically centered, professional and experienced people I've ever dealt with in 30 years of working in law enforcement and the intelligence community in places like this. And Dr. Turvey, as I said numerous times in this book, would only talk very specific terms about very specific things that he felt he had latitude to discuss. He and I've stated that in the book and I've talked about it afterwards. One thing I have not said, and I think it's important to state is this. I said in the book, I thanked in the acknowledgments, and I relied upon other sources, several sources. He among all of them, was the only source that I spoke with who consented to using his name. He, after 3,000 cases, 30 years of working as an expert witness, he's testified in more than 75 trials. He's written 20 or 22 books or something like that. He is a wildly experienced in this field. And I don't know that I've ever met a person that was more dedicated to the truth within the construct, the ethical guidelines of his profession. So I'll let him speak for himself. But I don't think the things that may have been mentioned in a public sector are fair or accurate or accurate at all.
- [09:42]
B
Well, and what I found interesting about the statement was I tried to put myself in Ann Taylor's shoes and I thought if I was going to make a statement. And again, she has not said much. Right. She has never made any public statements. She's never come out, spoken to the media. She did not come out after the plea and make any statements. And, you know, I understand that. But at the same time, this case had so much media attention they're talking about it, whether she makes a statement or not. And sometimes it's better to make your own statement than to let others make them for you. But I do. What I did find interesting was I thought if this were me and this book was written and I was going to respond to something, I would probably be responding to the criticisms about what I did or didn't do in the book much more than I would be worried about the person who may have talked. Right. So I thought that that was just a very interesting response from her. I was thinking I was waiting for the next paragraph to say, and these are the reasons why, why these decisions were made. And that paragraph never came, which I found quite interesting.
- [10:46]
A
Yeah. I want to say something unequivocally, and nobody's ever asked me these questions. I haven't even had a chance to talk about it. But we're in the source business, Right. I worked as a journalist. My first job before I went in the FBI was a print journalist at a daily newspaper. And I've written for major publications. And I had a show on CNBC with Martha McCavin now at Fox for a year and was nominated for Peabody reporting from Guantanamo Bay. I say these things for one and one only. Only one reason. I've worked in sources, confidential sources, in law enforcement and in the media for 30 years. And I tried to be very, very careful in talking about information that was given to me by people who felt very, very strongly on one side or another that justice may or may not have been done. And the reason I bring all this up is because people talk about Dr. Turvey, because he's the only one, in my opinion, who is brave enough to allow his name to be used in a book. But I can tell you unequivocally, and Mike, I think you'll back me up on this. There are other sources who will be named and who will come forward themselves in a not distant future. There are so many people in the universe of having access to the information. I think this is the first and maybe the most surprising, but it is not, in my opinion, definitely not the last word we'll hear in terms of information being being given out. So thank you for bringing up this conversation, but it's not. This is not one person. It's not even a small group of people.
- [12:19]
B
Right. Well, I think the only reason we're bringing it up, of course, is because the only person mentioned, and like you said, it is very brave to be the only person to use your name. And I've always said that if you stand behind what you're going to say you should come forward, do it. So I have a lot of respect for that. But given the fact that the only person that I guess is out there with their name to be criticized is him, and the fact that Ann Taylor came out and did that, I think is is worth the conversation given the fact that she is really under fire here when it comes to some of the things that we're now wondering why she didn't do. So I think that it was definitely worth mentioning given the fact that we have really not heard from her. Otherwise, what I want to get into is I want you to pick the three most compelling parts of this book in terms of what we are finding out now, what you think should have been challenged and you know, having a conversations about those things. I mean, my guess is you're going to tell me, obviously the chain of custody and the DNA on the knife sheath. I think we're going to talk about the way the police processed the scene and then, you know, you tell me what your, your three favorites are. But those are the two that sort of jumped out to me as the best conversations to have about this plea, the trial that didn't happen, and the evidence we're learning about.
- [13:40]
A
Great question. And I think I might surprise you, and I would say a bit cryptically that the best part of Broken Plea never ended up in the book. The publisher cut about 25 or 30 pages out of the book. Now this is 25 or 30 pages out of a 430 page book. So let's put it in perspective. Right. But I never talked about, for various reasons, any of the names that have come up during the conversation that many, many people know and that have been mentioned, anything from persons of interest to witnesses to people that have said various things during the course. So what is in the book now itself, in my opinion, the number one most compelling, most troublesome, and what I hope generates the most interest moving forward is the second the common areas of the second floor of that house. And anybody that has read the book understands that this is relatively small part of the book itself. But the book is laid out kind of like a grand jury presentation, Donna, as you have looked at so many times, which is different than the way other people have written books. I did not do recent interviews because I wanted to look at the information people have not seen that they didn't get to look at going to trial so we could generate that conversation. The very first one is this. The third floor bedroom looks in my experience, and I have a fair amount like A traditional crime scene, the second floor bedroom looks almost exactly the same, like a traditional horrific crime scene. The common areas, meaning the third floor hallway down the stairs to the second floor, across the living room, left down the hallway into Zanna's bedroom. That has all the characteristics of a crime scene, but dramatically differently. And as the prosecution's own expert, Paulette Sutton has said, and I quote in the book, that those blood spatter, those stains recovered during the forensic analysis of the crime scene were, quote, unquote, diluted with an unknown substance. She doesn't say that about the third four bedroom. She doesn't say that about the second floor bedroom. She only talks about a very large physical space on the second floor. And no one to this day has discussed how that's possible. And I think that I would say that's number one. Number two, I think Mike might be responsible for this. But I think he was the first one to read the book and say the issue that stood out was the chain of custody. And I would agree, again, it's a small part of the book, but from my perspective as an FBI agent, if I had ever presented evidence without a chain of custody to an assistant United States attorney, to you, Don, as a former prosecutor, it would have been a bit of an issue. Now, I've seen different defense attorneys talk about chain of custody. I would agree that it is something that Judge Hippler would have had to rule on in court. In my opinion, looking at a jury and explaining how a few human cells of DNA ended up on a knife sheath when the pattern, excuse me, on the path of that knife sheath from the third floor bedroom to the FBI is. Is. Is a quite a process. So those would be my three top issues.
- [16:51]
B
And I think those are. Those are all great. Let's start with number one, because what. I guess my question when it comes to that issue in terms of diluted blood, and, you know, my question, I guess, is, is had that been presented and, and you said this is like a grand jury presentation. You are much more fair than any prosecutor I've ever seen. If this was a grand jury, a grand jury presentation, because they're normally. The grand jury presentation is normally what we heard the prosecutor read at the plea.
- [17:18]
A
So much more fair treatise, right?
- [17:22]
B
Much more. Yes, exactly. Exactly. Much more fair. But that being said, even if that evidence were to come out at trial that this was diluted in some way, what do you think that would have told us or ultimately resulted in? Because I guess I was asking the same questions as I was reading the book. But then I always come back to. And maybe it's my defense attorney brain that steps in and says, okay, but you always have to think about the other end of that. And if what you're saying is that. That, you know, what was going to come out about that? Was it somebody, you know, walking up and down the stairs with glass of some kind of liquid in their hand and spilling it all over the place? Could it have been somebody running with the glass in their hand? Could it have been that? You know, if it was that, somebody tried to clean something up, I think that then it's sort of shifting this blame to the victim's roommates in this case in some way, shape or form, which the judge, of course, said they weren't going to be allowed to do. So I guess my question is, if this were to go to trial, how do you think that was going to play out in front of the jury? And in what way? And I mean, maybe the answer is, you don't know, given the fact that they didn't do any testing on these things. But that. That's where my mind takes me. Like, to what end does that lead?
- [18:44]
A
Again, I'm not an attorney, but I have testified in murder cases, one with a death penalty. I testified in the death penalty case, a guy named Oscar Ray Bolan who was actually executed. And I've said murder is not typically a federal crime. I've worked two murder cases as an FBI agent. Both were on government reservations. So I have some experience. But going to the. Excuse me. The defense argument, I don't know what Ann Taylor would have said, but this is what I saw in looking at it. Problems with timeline. Because the timeline presented by Bill Thompson and the prosecution indicates that Brian Kohberger entered the house, killed two people on the third floor, made his way downstairs, killed two people on the second floor, got back into his car, and left in approximately four minutes. Now, the timelines changed, but what he presented at trial was going to come down to approximately four minutes. The question is this. If one person, Brian Kohberger, and he pled guilty, but if one person, Brian Kohberger, somehow altered the second floor of that house, how did he do it in that amount of time? And why did he do it? Why was the second floor commoners, the second floor, the beer pong table, the knee walls, the flat walls, why was that area so dramatically different in appearance, in laboratory analysis, in assessment by the prosecution's own experts? Why is that so different? How did it get to be so different? And why do we believe that could have happened in four minutes. And then we go, as you just asked, what are the plausible options? And maybe you want to talk about those. Those plausible options, what they might have been.
- [20:25]
B
Yeah. And I think what. Yeah, I would like to, actually. I mean, I know that there was evidence of one of the girls running down the stairs, that table being knocked over. At least that's the theory, right, that the table's knocked over because of the commotion. That's corroborated by the other roommates. And I know that the roommates testimony or statements that they had given to police are definitely. They were definitely not challenged. Right? Those statements were not challenged. They took the statements, they wrote them down. But I'm not so sure that in that moment, that's really law enforcement's job, Right? Law enforcement is to record. Their job is to record what witnesses tell them and maybe later try to follow up and say, okay, well, what about this? Or this person told us this? I mean, I think at the end of the day, there's no doubt about the fact that these people in the house that survived were. Were drinking all night long. I think there's no doubt about the fact that it's very strange that you hear your roommates screaming and you hear a voice in your house, and you see somebody show up with black clothing on, and you get afraid. And it's very strange that you don't do anything about that in that moment. But I guess the question still remains, what does chat. What end does challenging all of that lead to? And I'm just wondering if in talking about it, it sort of is twofold. It's. It's the prosecutor saying, okay, maybe we don't have the strongest case on earth. And that's why, at the end of the day, we offer this plea, and it's the defense saying, we have to do anything we can do to try to spare him from being killed. And so everybody just sort of throws up their hands and says this is the right thing to do. I mean, I don't know the answer, but these are the things that were going through my head as I was reading this book.
- [22:15]
A
Well, thank you. And as an attorney, you know this very well. Statistically. Just Google it. Statistically, the vast majority of criminal prosecutions end in a plea agreement. Right? It's easier for the state. It's easier on the victims. It's easier on the witnesses. The system, over time, has evolved to a point where plea agreements are a very, very important part of the process. I was a victim in a case one time, assault with a deadly weapon that went to trial. And he changed his plea in the middle of the trial based on the evidence at the time. So changing pleas in the criminal defense of an accused person is not unusual. It's quite common in this particular case. I don't take any stand. I say very, very clearly, but Bryan Kohberger pled guilty as a grown man, well educated, sound frame of mind, to the horrific murders of four people and one count of burglary.
- [23:08]
B
Right.
- [23:09]
A
So I don't dispute that. What I say is, I think, although I don't say it, but we're talking about it right now, I think the question that stands out in my mind is how did he do it alone in that amount of time? And if that is a question that people want answers to, my next question, as a former law enforcement official, is, is it okay that we accept that one person pled guilty to these crimes with prima facie evidence, in my opinion, that somebody else may have been involved? It's okay to say, okay, you know, we got half of them. Is that fair to the families? Is it fair to the victims, the memory of the victims? So these are all questions that bring
- [23:41]
B
up that I agree with. Yes, that, that, that is a very fair and reasonable question. And I think that's where the quality of the investigation comes into question, because you're saying, okay, you find all these things sort of strange the way some of it's recorded. You have different officers at different times writing their reports. And, you know, so I think that that's a very fair question given the evidence that was collected, given the evidence that wasn't tested. And I think you're right. The question comes down to is if somebody else acted here, you know, then definitely that's something that they should have looked at. And I think that that was the problem that most people felt about the plea. When was that? The plea did not require Brian Coburger to make any specific admissions other than the death. He never had to say why he did this. He never had to give any additional information. If anybody else was involved and if the prosecutors thought that anybody else was involved, you think that maybe they would have made him swear to facts and, you know, there's other things that they could have done to preserve that whole issue in case someone else ends up getting arrested down the road.
- [24:51]
A
Listen, I agree 100%. Judge Hippler has. Has a remarkable career as a jurist. Right. He's been. I think I found evidence maybe he had one overturned decision. He's a remarkable judge.
- [25:03]
B
Amazing. When I read that in the book?
- [25:04]
A
Yeah, Absolutely amazing. Right? Look, who wouldn't think Judge Hipwood did a brilliant job, you know, well, people have any opinion that they want, but I think looking at the information in the same breath, you have to acknowledge that he ruled against Ann Taylor in every single motion. Motions in limine, the Frank's hearing, various things. Right. So from Ann Taylor's perspective going into trial, she may have felt, rightly so, that she had tried everything she could conceivably try in terms of motions. And she was walking into that courtroom well behind the power curve. Most people would accept that to be the case. So that brings up the next question. What did the prosecution want to get out of this? And the answer is they want to get closure for the families. They want to find justice. And by looking at all the information that we knew prior to this conversation, they had that he presented the DNA on a knife sheath, he presented the cell tower analysis, and he presented the tying the white car to Brian Kohberger. He read it in court. Brian Kohberger listened to it. He changed his plea to guilty and said four times yes and four times guilty. There's no question about that. The next question is why? And I'm not the only one. The people that came to me for this case, I didn't seek it out. People came to me and some of them were law enforcement. And they said, look at this as a career professional. Do you see some issues with this crime scene? Do you see some issues with the evidence? Do you see some issues that create really super compelling questions? And my answer is yes. And that's what. That's why we're having this conversation.
- [26:37]
B
You're right. And I think the crime scene issue, what struck me from Jump street and reading the book and obviously being a part of the press coverage of this, that crime scene was absolutely contaminated from minute one.
- [26:55]
A
Minute one there was.
- [26:56]
B
Is that going to happen? Yeah, minute one. Now, is that going to happen when you have multiple people living in the house and they're already there at the time this occurs? And can some of that possibly not be avoided? Sure. But the minute law enforcement is called, I mean, they shouldn't have let anyone in and out of that house while that house was being looked at by investigators and officers, while officers were walking through anything that they were recovering? I mean, I think all of those issues are. Are. Are definitely fodder for really amazing cross examination.
- [27:30]
A
Right.
- [27:30]
B
Again, I think if I'm the defense attorney, I'm going all, you know, I'm going all in on that. The question is, is it enough to compel a jury that what happened in there didn't happen? I mean, you have four dead bodies. You have a graphic crime scene that I'm trying hard not to get into just for the family's preservation. But, you know, you have these horrible things, and I can't even imagine being the law enforcement officer walking into that scene and not thinking, oh, my God, I better like, lock this down right now.
- [28:03]
A
No, listen, what is different about this case from so many widely, widely known cases, just starting with OJ and you get Menendez brothers and I mean, it's so many, even JonBenet Ramsey, which remains a mystery to a certain extent. What's different about this case is we know what happened from the very first moment because it was on Officer Nunez body camera. From the day, from the moment he got out of his car thinking this was a medical emergency to when he followed Hunter up the stairs into the house and followed back and forth the first hour of this crime scene, which is critically important, as you've just pointed out. It's recorded on camera in pretty good definition. And you can go back and look at it and try and see how that fits the narrative. And as you said, you cannot go into a crime scene without trucking something in. You cannot leave a crime scene without tracking something else. Maybe microscopic, but they teach you that. Day one in a forensic analysis course, a homicide investigative course at pretty much any law enforcement academy. So we can watch where they touched the railings, where they later found blood. You can look at what they may have brought in and out the knife sheath that Hunter left on the ping pong table, the beer pong table, that's an issue when it was put there. And you can watch this play out. So much of this information many people know already, and it's more. Much of this information in this book has now come out. It's been made public, including. There are no photographs in this book. Let's be honest about that. But we know that the Moscow Police Department released a huge tranche of extremely gruesome photographs by accident and then brought them back. So looking at how information leaks out of this thing or source information or whatever, they've given out a tremendous amount of information themselves. And because there's so much and it's hard to keep track of, why do I bring it up? I bring it up for this reason. You talked about the juries and the fact that Brian Coburger never allocated. He did not have to explain anything during his change of plea hearing. So prior to now, we couldn't talk about any of these issues because we didn't know they were issues. We didn't know any of these things were a problem. So I think you bring up a really one. Another really great point. And that is how. How much do we know now and how do we speculate a jury would have looked at these things? Juries have a lot of different opinions about any given thing. We never would have known because it never went to trial. And at least we have a discussion. In my opinion, we have a discussion now. And I think, in my opinion, that's important.
- [30:35]
B
Yeah, no, and I think you're right. And I. And let me ask you this. Do you think the fact that the call that came in and the police thinking this was a medical emergency rather than a murder or a crime scene, affected the way they went in there and their thought process and that they had to do this pivot, and they just didn't seem to be ready to do what they needed to do, given what they found there. Do you think that that initial call being really inaccurate was part of the cause of that?
- [31:01]
A
Very much so, and I think it's really important to point that out. Officer Nunez is a great career as a police officer, but he thought he was responding to a medical emergency. And I think before that, he was an EMT or he was certainly a medical first responder before he went to the police. And he had actually received an award for investigating or for responding to a very violent crime. But you can see very clearly the humanity that played out in his body camera, what he said when he walks down the hallway and he realizes it's not a medical emergency, he realizes it's a homicide. You can hear he says several expletives. You can hear the change in his breathing. You can look at his behaviors where he walks back and forth. And then he talks to Officer Warner coming up the stairs. Warner comes down, in my opinion, consummate professional, very calm, put on nitrile gloves. He looks very measured. In a small town of 26,000 people that doesn't have many violent crimes like this, I thought it was extraordinary. Did a fabulous job. And it goes from there, right? Then they go back out, they come in, they clear the house. They didn't even know there were two other people in the house. So it plays out in a way that we can assess their behaviors. No question in my mind on a Sunday morning, noon on a Sunday after a big football weekend, there was no question in my mind that his behavior and his approach to that crime Scene changed dramatically once he realized it wasn't a passed out person on the floor who ostensibly had too much to drink. All of a sudden it's a gruesome homicide and a quadruple homicide. That is shocking for anyone, even law enforcement.
- [32:42]
B
Right? Yeah, I think it's really interesting and I kind of thought that as I read through it and I thought, and I don't think I realized that when they first got the call, the call was for a medical emergency. Given the fact that that wasn't really it been out there, but it definitely wasn't something we focused on talking about. But I think now in retrospect, looking back at some of these issues, I think it's definitely, definitely plays a really large part. And why do you think that Coburger took a plea here? What do you think made him change his opinion?
- [33:12]
A
I think only two people know the answer. And look, this isn't rocket science. We know Brian Coburger made up his mind. He's the one who made the decision. And we might expect that Ann Taylor, as his attorney would, would, would know as well. She's been talking to him for three years. And even if she didn't ask him specifically, and I know you as a defense attorney have much more to say than I do about this, but I've heard many defense attorneys say, I don't want to know. I want to defend my client. He has constitutional rights and we want to protect those. That's the American system of justice. I honor that. I respect that. I agree with that. I do think during the course of looking at evidence, over the course over three years preparing for trial, I believe she probably had some sense. Now, I can't speak for Ann Taylor. I have no, I'm not saying that she did, but I will say this. Only one person knows. That's Brian Coburger. And he touched, he told Judge Hippler, I did it. He said it four times. So is that the innocence.
- [34:02]
B
I, I think that's fair.
- [34:04]
A
Is, does that always matter in these cases? I don't know. Look, the. John Grisham just did a really interesting book on, on, on these issues with an Innocence Project, wrongful convictions slant. And I'm not doing that, but he did and he pointed out that of roughly 200 convictions overturned by the Innocence Project, that I think it was 25% or something like that started with a guilty plea. So there are a lot of questions, but I don't, I don't ask those questions in the book. I never question whether or not Brian Coburger did it. I said, what's wrong with this scenario? And I leave it up to the reader to make up his or her mind.
- [34:42]
B
Yeah, And I liked that. I liked how you set it up, saying that at the very beginning. And you made it very clear that that was what you were attempting to do. And I think you did a very fair job doing it. Now, after you've done that, and I know that you didn't say this in the book, but I'm going to ask you now, after finding everything you found out, after all the investigation you did, after everybody you. You have interviewed, do you think if you heard this information and you were sitting on a jury, that there would be enough reasonable doubt for you, to, as a juror, have said that Brian Kohlberger was not guilty?
- [35:16]
A
Okay, great question. But I want to point out two things. I've been on the law side. Prosecutions, many prosecutions built, many cases that did not go to trial. I've never sat on a jury. I've worked with juries. I've presented to juries. I've testified before juries as a victim and as a. And as a law enforcement official. And the short answer, this is not a cop out, but I think you know what I'm saying. You just never know. You just never know.
- [35:38]
B
Sure.
- [35:38]
A
And a lot of it comes down to the way it's presented. Judge Hippler showed in ruling against Dan Taylor's defense every single time. So that tells you kind of the way he approaches the case. The next question is based on what Bill Thompson said in his change of plea hearing when he recited the evidence as he would have presented it at trial, do I think that was adequate to take to trial in a death penalty investigation? And my answer is, if I had presented that as an FBI agent in a case of this nature to a prosecutor, I do not believe that they would have. I do not think it would have gone well for me in my presentation.
- [36:18]
B
And do you think that's why there was a plea here?
- [36:20]
A
I think that's certainly something we should, you know, we should discuss. Yes, absolutely.
- [36:26]
B
Yeah. And I think that, too. I mean, when this happened, this quick change plea took place, and we heard it was going to happen and it was going to happen within one, two, or three days. I mean, it was a very quick turnaround.
- [36:36]
A
Right.
- [36:36]
B
I think we all wondered why the government was willing to do so. And I've been someone who, you know, again, has spent the majority of my career on the defense side. Right away, I said that I thought that that either you know, said that they thought they had some weaknesses in their case because otherwise, why not move forward? You have the death penalty in your, in your jurisdiction, and if there's ever a case that's appropriate for the death penalty, it would be a case with these facts.
- [37:06]
A
Yes.
- [37:06]
B
And so, you know, I can understand it. And there's nothing to do with your view on the death penalty and whether you agree with it or don't. It has to do with the fact that you are a elected official and if your jurisdiction has that available, this would probably be the time to use it.
- [37:23]
A
Yes. And look, I think you got to stipulate, as you would say as an attorney, that it was a horrific crime that by any examination appears to have been premeditated. For someone to go there prepared to commit these horrific crimes at that time of night. They didn't walk in off the street and rob somebody. It's not a robbery gone bad. Bill Thompson said very clearly he was not sexually motivated. So then you come down to what's the motive? What made a person, Bryan Kohberger, go into that house at 4 o', clock, 4:15 in the morning, commit those horrific crimes? That is important. That's important to discuss in a death penalty case where you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that person did it at that time, in that manner, without ever discussing motive, means or mechanism. Why, how? Is very troublesome, I think, for a lot of people. And I think now.
- [38:22]
B
Yes, go ahead. No, I was gonna say, especially when you're potentially asking for the death penalty,
- [38:29]
A
it's a death penalty case. I mean, somebody's gonna say at some point, Brian, they're gonna stand you up against a post and they're gonna shoot you. It's a firing squad. I don't care what you think about the death penalty. There's a slight difference between lying in a bed and getting a lethal injection and standing out with a blindfold and getting a last cigarette and getting shot, you know, shot by a firing squad. I, I'm saying that the stakes in this thing were enormous. They were enormous for the prosecution, they were enormous for the defense. It was. People were talking about this case around the world, and it was a community that was traumatized. It was four extended families that were traumatized. It was friends. It was a college campus. The extent of the emotion surrounding this case was extraordinary, and so was the consequence. We never saw that play out. We, we saw it go away forever. Nobody's going to know the answers to those questions because Brian Coburger, I believe he's never going to say it. He didn't say it in that courtroom that day. I don't believe he's ever going to tell anybody anything.
- [39:32]
B
And just so everybody's clear, you, you yourself have never had an opportunity to speak to Brian Kohberger.
- [39:37]
A
No, and I did that intentionally. I did not want to talk to Brian Kohberger because even if he had agreed to testify or, excuse me, I'm sorry, if he had agreed to talk to me, I wanted to look at this case in one very specific manner. My expertise would be what I know about forensic examination of a crime scene and a prosecution of major criminal offenses. Right. That's what I could bring to it. I don't gain a lot by talking to anybody else and listening to their, to their. We've already had that. I think this is the fourth book, maybe the fourth book about this case. And the first three looked in those terms. They did a lot of interviews, they asked a lot of opinions. I wanted not to do that. I didn't want to rely upon what somebody told me three and a half years after the fact. I wanted to look at it and say, what do we not know? What questions should we ask them now? So, no, I never talked to Brian Coburg, nor even wanted to.
- [40:34]
B
Well, and I think that's fair, too. And if we look at, you know, obviously this book lays out a lot of things that we did not know and looks at it in a way that is just different than other things that were reported. Reported on. But we do also have to remember that. And I was thinking about the case in the context of if the, if there was a hearing on the knife sheath and if the judge threw out the knife sheath for lack of chain of custody or other issues, you know, what were they left with? And of course, they had other circumstantial evidence. They had information about the car and they had information about, you know, somebody potentially trying to stalk them for a period of time. And they had the, the phone data, which I, I found the phone data to be pretty compelling. And the fact that the phone was turned off and the phone was turned back. Turned back on. And so these are all small pieces of information, of course. But again, the question becomes, would a jury have convicted him? And this is still an answer that we will, a question we will never have answered given the fact that there was no trial. This is such a fabulous book for anybody who wants to read it because there's so much opportunity to have a discussion about it. And I think a high level legal discussion this is not people's theories. This is not, you know, you tell me what you think this was, here's the evidence, here's what was done, here's what wasn't done and you kind of come up with your own conclusion. And I think it will make for very interesting conversation between people at dinner. And definitely true crime junkies. And so I think everyone should read it. And Chris, I thank you so much for agreeing to come out with me.
- [42:06]
A
Donna, I can't tell you how much I appreciate this measured legally based conversation. Thanks so much.
- [42:14]
B
Thank you for joining me for another episode of Crime and Justice. Remember, we want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts, questions or theories and we will answer them on air. Ryan Reynolds here from IT Mobile.
- [42:28]
C
I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for 15amonth plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities.
- [42:36]
B
So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you
- [42:40]
C
to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do@mintmobile.com
- [42:44]
B
Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full terms@mintmobile.com.