Diddy NOT Guilty on Most Serious Charges, and Bryan Kohberger Takes Plea Deal, with Aidala, Holloway, Blum, Murphy | Ep. 1100
03:22:58 Share

When a university is built on merit, problem solving and real world results, America leads. When it pioneers breakthroughs in national defense and supports American innovation, America wins. And when that same university ensures world class education is within reach for all families,

America prospers. This is MIT, a partner in building a stronger America. Learn more at understanding.mit.edu. Life insurers put life into the things you live for. The new factory that's hiring your neighbors. Maintenance on the bridge that keeps traffic flowing. The paycheck that puts pizza night on the table.

Life insurers contribute $8 trillion to the U.S. economy through bond purchases and other investments and protect the financial security of 90 million American families like yours. See how life insurers put life into America at acli.com, paid for by the American Council of Life Insurers. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. ♪

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. I'm Megyn Kelly. We've had an extraordinary day of legal news, probably the biggest day we've had in years. I don't know. The Trump stuff was pretty big and this is pretty big, too. Not only did we get the Diddy verdict, but we did get a guilty plea in the Brian Kohlberger homicide case out of Idaho. And we're going to talk about that in a little bit.

We have it covered. We covered it live today. For those of you who are with us on our live YouTube streams, which we did for both pieces of breaking news. Thank you. For those of you who missed it, we've got our live coverage here, um, plus some. So you are going to hear not only live reaction to the Diddy verdict as it came in from Phil Holloway and Arthur Idalla and yours truly, but you are going to hear the Brian Kohlberger guilty plea from him.

and our instant analysis thereafter. What a day. I've got so many mixed feelings about everything we saw today. You'll hear them all in the following program. Thank you for listening.

It's time you've heard about Riverbend Ranch. Riverbend Ranch is located just a few miles from West Yellowstone, Montana, and it's known as one of the most respected Angus ranches in the nation. Angus beef is known for its great flavor and tenderness, but the cattle at Riverbend Ranch are not your average Angus cattle.

35 years ago, using ultrasound technology, the owner of Riverbend Ranch began scouting the nation to identify specific purebred Angus cows that genetically produce a higher level of marbling and tenderness than normal Angus cattle. After over 30 years of careful selection and breeding, Riverbend Ranch developed beef that has superior flavor and tenderness. They take great pride in the humane treatment of their herd.

The cattle spend their days in lush mountain meadows of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. And they're raised without the use of artificial growth hormones or antibiotics. It's real American beef, born in America, raised in America, and processed here too. And the beef is shipped direct from the ranch to your home.

Go to riverbendranch.com. Use promo code Megan and get yourself 20 bucks off your first order. That's riverbendranch.com promo code M-E-G-Y-N. Good morning, everyone. There is breaking news out of a federal courthouse in New York where Sean Combs has been found not guilty on the majority of counts against him and has been found guilty of only the two least serious crimes.

that he was charged with. There is little question that this is a defeat for the prosecution. The two counts on which he's been found guilty are transportation to engage in prostitution with respect. There were two counts of it with respect to Cassie Ventura and Jane who testified under a pseudonym and he has been found not guilty on racketeering, not guilty on sex trafficking with respect to Cassie Ventura and with respect to Jane.

Both of those sex trafficking counts required 15 years minimum in prison. The Rico count that he's been found not guilty of was a sentence of 20 to life, though it didn't have a mandatory minimum. So the sex trafficking ones were extremely serious, 15 years minimum. And he's escaped liability on both of those. He's escaped criminal guilt on both of those.

It was a, it was going to be a miracle. It was going to be an obvious jury nullification. If he escaped a guilty verdict on transportation to engage in prostitution, the evidence was overwhelming that he did that. There were receipts. There was testimony by the escorts. It was very clear that Sean Combs did pay these male escorts to cross state lines and to come into his various hotel rooms and have sex with his girlfriends, Cassie and Jane. And, um,

it, they had him dead to rights on that. I mean, he really should have pled guilty on those. And I've been saying all along, if they found him not guilty on those, it would prove that this has been a total nullification of the jury. He was a famous man and they didn't want to find him guilty because it's very clear he did those two. Um, it is stunning that he managed to escape a guilty verdict on Rico, less stunning on Rico, but on sex trafficking where the evidence was just overwhelming on the fact that

He did threaten at least Cassie and Jane over and over again. He beat both women when they would not comply with his demands. But clearly what we're seeing here is the jury bought and believed the defense argument that these women had agency, that these women were not forced to do anything. The defense got up there and argued that they were swingers.

that they were engaging in a swinger lifestyle, notwithstanding the beatings it took to get them to comply in certain instances. The jury clearly bought that.

Um, there was testimony that would be helpful for the defense. I don't mean to scoff at the conclusion entirely. There was testimony to support a not guilty, including, uh, text messages from Cassie Ventura saying, I can't wait to freak off. I love our freak offs when we both want them and testimony that Cassie stayed in part because she loved the lifestyle. She loved the trappings of life with Diddy.

And Jane is still having her apartment paid for by Sean Combs to this moment. And there definitely could be a takeaway that Jane was in it because she wanted the apartment and she wanted to be connected with somebody famous and rich and not because she had any fear for her life or otherwise or retribution if she submitted. New York Times reporting here, caller from inside the courtroom, Sean Combs is smiling.

Um, as he shook one of his lawyer's hands and turned again to look at his family, he put his hands together in prayer and mouth. Thank you. Thank you at the jury. That's the right thing to say. Sean Combs, he pumped his right fist. Yep. This is exactly the right attitude for Sean Combs who just got away with serious felonies. In my view, he's guilty as sin in my view. And this jury just gave him a total pass. They bought Mark Agnifilo's

argument, it appears the same one that did not work for Agnifilo in the NXIVM sex cult case out of Albany, New York, in which he went in there and said, these women, we don't do sex cults. Women are powerful. Women make their own decisions. These women up in this other case chose to have themselves branded. No one made them with his guy's initials. And he tried the same thing here, but with a much, much better result. This, this is a win for Sean Diddy Combs. There's no question about it.

The minimum charge or the charges likely on this particular count are far less serious. It's it calls for up to 10 years in prison. There's no way he's going to get 10 years in prison on these two unless you have a judge who's very, very angry for some reason. We looked at the.

the federal sentencing guidelines, which are just recommendations. The judge doesn't have to follow them. Um, he can go any place between zero and 10, but, um, we, we deduced that he has an offense level of about 26 points, which calls for a sentence of 5.25 years to 6.5 years in prison. The base sentence

offense level for this crime, we deduce to be about 14. This is all on a sliding scale. Plus you add another four levels because the offense may have involved coercion anyway. Um, and then another four for causing another person to engage in a sexual act. So if they believe that if this judge says that that's what happened, he could be facing five or six years in prison on each count. They would be likely to run consecutive, although it's possible the judge could say they run, um, one

one after the other or together congruent. So we'll see likely to run at the same time is my, my view. There's no way he's getting more than five years in prison. But that won't, the sentencing won't happen today. That'll happen. I believe at another, at another hearing, I want to bring in Phil Holloway. He's been watching this case. You know him from our coverage of the Fannie Willis matter. He's a trial attorney down in Atlanta, Georgia. And Phil, you had been

feeling and predicting that we were headed for a likely NG. I realize it's not a full not guilty, but anybody who tells you this isn't a win for Diddy is lying to you. This is an absolute win for him. And that's why he's pumping his fist and smiling today. Your thoughts.

Well, thanks for having me. It's always great to be with you here, Megan. Look, this is about many things, but at the heart of this verdict, I think, is reasonable doubt. I mean, all it takes for a jury to find someone not guilty is one doubt for which a reason can be attached.

And if you have statements made by victims, you've read some of them in your opening just now where these alleged victims had expressed a willingness and a desire to participate in some of these things. It is a very difficult thing for a prosecutor sometimes to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that despite evidence,

those statements. And despite that evidence, they are in fact victims. Okay. And so the jury is probably going to leave there thinking, you know what? He's a slimy person. He's a terrible person. He's probably guilty of all of these things, but the prosecution was just unable to prove to us beyond a reasonable doubt, all the elements of the crimes as to the, uh,

the rest of the counts. And look, whatever the judge does give him in terms of sentencing, there's no parole to speak of in the federal system. And it's entirely possible that these are not run consecutively or concurrently. They could in fact be stacked potentially. And there's no reason to think that the judge is going to stay necessarily within the sentencing guidelines. It's very possible that the judge will

uh, maxes out whatever is possible on, on what he's been convicted of. So, so,

For a man of his age, even a five or six or seven year prison sentence in the federal system is not insignificant at all. Now, I do agree with you. On balance, this was a win. He's already been in custody for 10 months or so, I think it is now, and he will get credit for that. So for Diddy and for his team, there is something of a light at the end of his tunnel, but it's not over yet. The sentencing process

could still be relatively severe under the circumstances. My team's informing me if there are no enhancements, no enhancements to the bare minimum sentencing under the Transportation to Engage in Prostitution charges, one conviction on this charge would be 15 to 21 months imprisonment.

two counts, convicted under two counts, which is what he has been, is 21 to 27 months. So about two years. But we believe that there will be enhancements given the level that he was accused of coercion and so on. So we'll see. So we're looking at probably two. I mean, it technically could be up to 10 years, but it's not going to be that because he has a criminal record, but he did not

It's not so great that he served jail for more than 30 days or got to the point where this would be held against him. In other words, they don't count his criminal history against him unless he was sentenced to more than a year of probation or 30 days in jail on prior offenses. And he wasn't. So it's as if he had no prior offenses. New York Times reporting that Mark Agnifilo, Sean Combs' lead lawyer, has asked that his client be released ahead of sentencing now that

He is no longer facing sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges, much more serious charges than the ones that he was convicted on. He's saying Combs is not a flight risk because he does not have access to his passport or his plane. This is his first conviction, he says, and it's a prostitution offense. And so he should be released on appropriate conditions, Agnifilo said. The lawyer is asking that Mr. Combs return to his home in Miami Beach, Florida. That's very interesting. And he's probably going to win that, I think. We'll see.

I'm bringing in now Arthur Idalla, famed criminal defense attorney, but also has a history as a prosecutor back when he was younger. Just got off of the Harvey Weinstein trial himself. And your reaction, Arthur, to the breaking news that Sean Combs basically won this case, but for two prostitution counts.

It's a tremendous victory. And here's why I'm personally happy. The prosecutor who brought the case, Damian Williams, I don't think he was a good guy. I don't think he was a good U.S. attorney in the Southern District. I think his personal ambitions just clouded his judgment. I mean, he was going around telling people quietly that he was positioning himself to run for president of the United States.

And he wanted to bring down Combs. He wanted to bring on the mayor of the city of New York. That was his ambition. And the conviction rates are so high in the Southern District that once you get indicted, it's over 90 percent when you go to trial. So this is a huge victory for Dupre.

for the defense, for Sean, because there's no mandatory minimum. You know, when I spoke yesterday, all these other counts, the judge, if he was his uncle, has to send him to prison. But that's not the case here. However, I don't think this judge is going to give him a walk in the park either. He's definitely giving him jail time. The judge is allowed to take into consideration all of the factors he heard during this trial, even the ones he was acquitted of.

I was involved in a case where it was a murder case in federal court. The guy was acquitted of the murder, but there was a drug aspect of it that he was convicted of. He should have gotten three or four years, and the judge gave him the maximum, what

with all the enhancements and she's put on the record. I'm taking into account all the facts I heard about the murder. So Sean Combs could be home in a very short amount of time or he can, you know, I think it's up to 10 years that he can be, he can be sentenced to. So if you're the defense attorney though, Megan,

You're you're you're very satisfied with the outcome of this case. You're thrilled. You can't say thrilled because your client did get found guilty on two counts, but you're thrilled. No, you're thrilled. This is a huge, huge win. This guy was looking at life in prison, life in prison. If he got convicted on the Rico count and those sex trafficking counts, two of them, one for Cassie, one for Jane are no joke.

15 years minimum required. Mandatory. Right. The judge has no discretion. So, you know, he managed to skate on both of those. This coming in now that

The defense, again, trying to argue for his freedom pending sentencing. They suggested a $1 million bond. The judge had rejected that pending trial. They asked repeatedly to get Sean Combs out on bail pending trial. And the judge repeatedly said no. The government here vehemently opposing Sean Combs' release. The lead prosecutor, Maureen Comey, saying the defense is underplaying the seriousness of the conviction and is urging the judge to keep him detained.

what kind of factors would go into that analysis? Guys, do you know, like when the judge, you got a conviction, but it's two prostitution counts. I mean, they are felony counts, but

I don't know, would you normally detain a guy like this? Megan, all I can say is this. If they put it forth, the same bail package that they have put forth, where he was gonna have to stay in his house, pay for his own security, obviously have ankle bondage on, have no electronic devices in his house except like a landline old school telephone to communicate with people, it would be so beyond the pale.

It would be such an injustice for this judge not to give him bail under those conditions based on this conviction. If Sean Combs or anyone went in and pled guilty to this count, you would be looking at probably a non-jail disposition. You'd probably be looking at some form of probation.

I don't think he's going to get probation because of the jail, the notoriety, who he is. But he absolutely, he's not a danger to society under those bail conditions. He's not a flight risk under those bail conditions. He's no longer facing mandatory jail time. So the judge definitely, definitely should be giving him some sort of bail package.

Right now, the New York Times reporting the judge said he needs time to consider the law before making a decision on whether Combs can walk out of the courthouse today. He's been incarcerated since September of twenty twenty four. I mean, how much time can the judge take here? He sends him back to prison. It's like I don't know how much time is he going to take.

If I can feel that one, I have a little bit different take on it, Megan. Look, he no longer has the presumption of innocence, right, at least with respect to the charges he was convicted of. So there's no right to bail like there might be arguably a right to bail in a pretrial situation, at least if you meet the criteria. In this case,

the judge already knows whether or not he's thinking about sending Combs to prison for some extended period of time. And if he's going to send him to prison, there's no real, it doesn't really make sense to go ahead and release him now. If he's going to be giving him some additional jail time, why let him out? Go ahead and let him begin serving that now. He's already convicted. The judge has heard all of the evidence of all of the

terrible things that Combs has done during his life, and particularly with respect to some of these women, the domestic violence, the drugs, all of it. He's heard all of this stuff. And so if he is thinking, look, if I'm the judge, and if I'm thinking, okay, I'm going to be sending him, let's just say it's going to be a three or four year prison sentence.

I'm going to say, no, you're not going to get out on bail. You're going to go ahead and stay in custody. We'll sentence you next month. But that way, this time is counting towards the overall sentence. On the other hand, if the judge is thinking, okay, I'm going to let him out on probation, well, and if he lets him out on bond, then that's...

could be an indicator that the judge is thinking about probation or some lower jail term. I don't think the judge is thinking about a bare minimum jail term, maybe not the maximum, probably something in the middle. And in my view, that would weigh in favor of keeping him in custody, denying the bail package. It doesn't do much good to let somebody go home to Miami Beach just to order them back to prison a few months later, at least in my view. No, no, that's a great, that

actually is a great point. And I will tell you from what my clients tell me, the hardest part about going to prison is going to prison is actually those first days. And right now, believe it or not, Sean Combs has a routine. It may have been thrown off for the trial, but you know, he knows all the people. He knows the guards. He knows the commissary. He knows the work. So he's in a...

relatively comfort zone as opposed to him leaving and then going back, which makes things more difficult. However, these charges in the world of federal criminal law are pretty minute. Mm-hmm. I mean, it is a felony. It's not the same as like

hiring a prostitute and like getting caught in hotel room with her, right? Transportation to engage in prostitution as a federal crime is a felony with real jail time attached to it. So this is not that petty, Annie. It's not as small as it could be. But yeah, compared to the other charges he was facing. Here's one other bit of color for you. New York Times reporting. This won't surprise you. Combs's body language is totally different from yesterday when he seemed crestfallen and grim after the jury said it had reached a verdict

on four of the five counts. Now acquitted of the most serious charges, Mr. Combs appears energetic and relieved. Can we just talk about, here's the picture, here's a sketch artist's picture of Combs yesterday of the grimness

And, um, I'm sure we'll get one today of him looking much more relieved. I I'm so confused about, um, here's a little bit more New York times with a touch of levity. The judge said he assumed Combs would not want to return to the Brooklyn jail where he had, he has been held. Combs shook his head vigorously and put his hands together in prayer. Oh, it's all just so chummy inside the courtroom for this disgusting pervert female abuser who

who I can't believe is about Jerome R. Streets again. I'm sorry. I'm disgusted by this verdict. This is fucking ridiculous. I just find it absolutely outrageous the amount of crime that this guy just got away with. I believe he committed arson. He definitely battered Cassie. He battered Jane, too. The statute of limitations for batter

in Los Angeles, California is one year, one year. So if they didn't charge him for battery within one year and they couldn't because he bought the tape and it remained hidden thanks to those security guards out there, then they could never charge him with that again. There's no question. He dragged her back into that hotel room. Why wasn't that kidnapping? They only talked about the kidnapping of Capricorn Clark, who was his sort of main assistant because she said he grabbed her and made her

her go with him over to Kid Cudi's house. There's no question he broke into Kid Cudi's house in my view, and that he opened up the Christmas presents and locked the door in and made a threat. There's no question in my mind he was behind the arson of Kid Cudi's car. And there was proof, plenty of proof to prove that. No, okay, there was female fingerprints they found on that, the fire bomb that was left there, the Molotov cocktail. And the prosecution said there's no question he didn't do it himself. But

He said, I'm going to bomb Kid Cudi's car. It's in writing. Cassie Ventura emailed her mother saying, oh my God, he's threatening to bomb his car. And two weeks later, it got bombed. Oh, gee. It was just some third party who also had, it's just like the proof was there. The beating,

The threats that if they didn't go back into those room and get off with these male escorts that they were going to get beaten. The testimony from that Daniel Phillip, who was the male escort, who heard Combs abusing Cassie behind the door. And she was screaming, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, as he heard him slapping her. Get back out there. She came back out. She was shaking. She got back into the escort's lap.

physically shaking. She was so scared to the point where that guy couldn't perform sexually because this was so horrifying to him. What, what in the actual F went on in there?

So, Megan, let me just get Megan more pissed off, if I may. So if the judge gives him a reasonable sentence, let's say he sends him to five years, OK, and he's already got time in Atlanta with a halfway house. He's out in three. How quick is he going to be accepted back into that Hollywood scene? Blah, blah, blah, blah. Or do you think people will still keep him out of the arms lane?

I mean, look, I will make it my personal mission to maintain his humiliation in

in the minds of all Americans. There's no question he, he he's fallen as this revered figure for a large portion of America, but he also has diehard fans who want to pretend this is a Johnny Depp situation, you know, where, where he was wrongfully accused. That's, that's my own view by somebody who was out to get him, who played the victim when in fact she was abusive. This is not that situation. This is not Cassandra Ventura was an extremely sympathetic witness

who was not some powerful, I'm going to play a kid Cuddy against Sean Combs. She was traumatized by this guy. She remains suicidal to this day, given all that was done to her. Listen to this. I'm like, I almost don't even want to read these updates. New York times. Sean Combs is now on his knees, his elbows on the chair where he was sitting, his head buried. He appeared to be

praying. He started, he started a round of applause, which was echoed by his family who are jubilant. Yay. Yay. We only have an abuser and a solicitor of prostitutes in the family, not a sex trafficker. Sean Combs, his supporters and family are now clapping and whistling for his legal team who are all embracing each other. They actually did get a victory and that's different. I mean, they should be, should be hugging. Go ahead, Phil.

The judge is allowing that kind of thing in the court? Yeah, I'm surprised about that also. What's that about?

Or maybe the judge is all back. There's no place in the courtroom for this because, look, regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with the verdict, there's a certain dignity and decorum that's appropriate for courtrooms. And in federal courts, judges are famous for enforcing it, oftentimes much more so than at the state level. But look, back to your whole thing. Well, this is a Biden appointee, so who knows about the dignity required? Sorry, keep going. Yeah.

Back to your dismay with the jury's verdict. Look, juries are always wild cards. You've got 12 people in there that come from different backgrounds, different walks of life. They have different political philosophies. They have different religious philosophies. They have their own biases, whether they say they can leave them outside the courtroom or not. They bring them in there and they analyze and they view things. And sometimes jurors are just stupid people.

Sometimes they're just dumb. Sometimes they're not capable of understanding the law or following the judge's instructions. So you factor all of that in there and what you've got is a system where, guess what?

After doing this almost 40 years, I have come to the conclusion that you cannot trust jurors to ever get it right, whether you're a prosecutor or whether you're a defense lawyer. Jurors and juries cannot be trusted to get it right. They get it wrong a lot. And that is what usually brings people to the bargaining table to come up with plea deals like we have seen maybe in the Koberger case coming up today. But look, the

You just can't trust a jury ever to get to the right result. Sometimes they do, but a lot of times, unfortunately, they don't. And that cuts both ways for the prosecution and the defense.

I'm so confused on what the jury has done here. Like when you factor in the notes we got yesterday, Arthur, we get a note saying they reached a verdict on counts two through five, but they couldn't agree on count one, which was the racketeering conspiracy. Now we find out that at that time, we assume it didn't change. They thought he was guilty of the prostitution stuff, but they did not think that he was a sex trafficker who forced Cassie and Jane to

perform sex acts under threat of coercion or fraud. And yet they were they were about to be a hung jury on the Rico count. Now, I don't get it. And then today, I guess the holdouts who said, I think he's guilty of Rico this morning turned around and said, all right, he's not. He's not because they acquitted him of that. I don't get it, because to prove

How was there a juror who said he didn't sex traffic, but he might be guilty of RICO? I guess somebody was looking at the RICO statute saying maybe he did do the arson. Maybe he did do the drug selling. Right. The other predicate. Right. There were other predicate acts that they didn't have to be the ones he was charged with. They were ones outside of the charge crimes.

that they could have said those were predicate acts and therefore he's guilty of the racketeering. Look, I'm happy he didn't... You know, look, I'm with you about who Sean Combs is as a person, but as someone who works in the system, this RICO law has really been abused as of late because of what his original intent was to what they're using it for now. So I'm happy that this didn't play out. Or maybe...

They were confused on, well, even if he did do some of the other predicate acts, is his business, which is music and recording and taking care of other artists and clothing and alcohol and all of this stuff, is that really a criminal enterprise or is it a legitimate enterprise that Mr. Combs individually did some criminality with?

So it probably got a little confusing, a little mixed up. I'm happy. Maybe this will have a chilling effect on prosecutors across the country to just be throwing these RICO counts around where they are not really deserved. But Megan, it also goes to you never know what happens next.

When a jury goes out overnight and they go home and they go to sleep and they think about it. And let's face it, the Sean Combs stuff is popping up all over everyone's phone in the back of the cab. So who knows what they heard? Who knows what they absorbed and what changed? But something changed really quickly. Right. It's not like they were in there and it's three o'clock this afternoon. I mean, they came in, they must have taken one out and it was over.

No. And they were not sequestered. So they had access to their friends and family and who knows how that went and whose input, if any, they took during that timeframe. Want to say this, uh, this just happened inside the courtroom. Um,

The court, the Times reporting, the court is adjourning for a few hours while the judge considers the arguments from Mr. Combs' lawyers and prosecutors about whether he should be released. Inner City Press, which is an organization that's been reporting on this from the beginning, says, yes, okay, that proposal, wait a couple hours, give me a couple hours, that makes sense. Mr. Combs does not want to go back to the detention center. He is shaking his head. So something about at 1 p.m. will convene and I'll let the parties decide.

No. So I'm not sure exactly whether he gives the decision at one or they're just going to reconvene at one. Megan, what's happening right now is a very young, inexperienced judge is now going in the Southern District of New York where there are literally judges there appointed

I think rolling back to George H.W. Bush, there's definitely a bunch of Clinton employees, meaning people who have been on the bench for 35, 40 years. And he's going to have one or two mentors and he's going to their chambers or picking their brain somehow or another and say, what do you think I should do not to embarrass myself? Because it always comes down to covering your own butt with these judges, in my opinion. And

then that's how he's going to make his decision. He's not looking up any case law. There's no case law on this. It's his discretion. You know what the case law is? It's totally in his discretion. So he's going to go and ask Judge Lewis Kaplan, who was the one who tried the Trump case. He's going to go look at all these famous guys who just did the Menendez case.

Judge Stein, those are both Clinton appointees. They've been around for decades. And, you know, what do you think? What do you think? What do you think? And then he'll do whatever he thinks is in his best interest. So what do you think before I tell us? Yeah, go ahead, Phil. Yeah, you go. He's exactly correct. That's what the judge is doing. He's just going back and asking another judge, what am I supposed to do under these circumstances? And I bet the advice that he gets is something along the lines of, look,

Do you think you're going to send him to prison for any length of time? If the answer is yes, maybe consider keeping him in jail. If you're not sure that you're going to send him to prison, maybe let him go on house arrest until you figure that out. Or maybe you already know that you're not going to send him to any significant prison, in which case, you know, that would make sense to go ahead and let him out. But I think the best advice that any other judge could give this newbie judge would be that, look,

Keep him in jail if you think you're going to send him back to prison. Because once you let him out, you're going to start getting all kinds of motions to delay report dates, to delay this, to delay that. And it's just going to open up a big can of worms that maybe you don't want to open. So if you're going to send him to prison, leave him be where he is right now. And what about you guys? Does this even factor in the safety of these women?

What about the safety of Cassie Ventura and Jane and Mia, who was another woman who testified against him under a pseudonym, but he knows very well who she is and who all these women are. And I'm sorry, but this is a man I believe blew up another man's car because he was dating Combs's girlfriend.

I still have questions about how Combs's first wife died. I don't have evidence to show he killed her. She died of pneumonia, but it was very suspicious. And if you believe the draft diary, the alleged diary that hit YouTube, her friends, the dead wife's friends believe he had something to do with it.

He was involved in this in shooting someone in the face in a nightclub. And that victim says he did it, even though another man went to prison for it. But that man is saying Diddy paid him off to take the rap.

And we've heard weeks now, seven weeks of testimony about how he's beaten these women to a pulp when he was allegedly in love with them, not when they were taking the stand in a federal trial against him, trying to get him locked up for the rest of his life. Does the judge consider that at all, Arthur, that he may be a danger if you let him out to these women?

It's the primary thing that he's going to consume. The two primary things are danger to society and risk of flight. It feels 100% correct. I mean, if the judge is thinking about keeping him and sentencing him to jail time, and I, look, I've been wrong a lot of times and I've been right. I'm going to be shocked if he sentences him to like time served and five years probation. But you never know. Oh, God.

But yes, dangerousness, absolutely. That's why I think if he does let him out, I think he's going to – he should severely limit his ability to communicate outside of his lawyering and his immediate family with a landline phone that can be monitored. But if human instinct or common sense is going to play a role –

I think it's fair to say that Sean had the life scared out of him, like literally the life scared out of him. Because this judge, if the prosecutor ran the table, I don't know if Sean Combs was ever going to see the light of day.

So, you know, if I'm his lawyer and I've been in this position where I've gotten people cleared of major, major crimes and I said, listen, the only way I'm going to come and hit you in the head with a bat is if you ever get in trouble again. Because don't tell me I put my family aside, I put my life aside to save your backside and you're going to do anything like this again. I imagine there's going to be a long term relationship between Mark Ignifilo and Sean Combs. And Mark is going to do everything he can to make sure that Sean...

At the very least, doesn't hurt anybody else. His power is about to end. He did, he's just a cog in the wheel of the Sean Combs empire. He's nothing to Sean Combs. He'll be grateful to him. He's not going to have ongoing control over Sean Combs. No one has control over Sean Combs. That's what we learned in this case, Phil, that he's,

The whole alleged enterprise was set up to treat him like he was God. There was testimony from, you know, the one the one woman who worked for him that she was the one she had to be available 24 seven. She was not allowed to sleep with a lock on her door in his home, whereas all the male employees could the security guards. They they could. But her lock had to stay undone and he would go in there and she said it sexually assault her.

I realize these things are complicated. Was it? Did she say no at the time? Was she overwhelmed that it was Sean Combs and she didn't say anything? Is that fair to hold against him if she didn't? Well, all that's complicated. My point is simply everybody was there to serve Sean Combs. And the reason he's behaved with impunity for all this time is because everyone around him has let him. That hotel intercontinental security guard took the

the money. The head of security blessed it. He took 50 grand and he gave 50 grand to the underling who then split his 50 with another guy. There was only one honest guy of the bunch who didn't take the money. The first guy on scene at the hotel didn't take the money, but did take out his phone and videotaped the hotel surveillance cameras because he said he wanted to show it to his wife, but I'm sure he had a little feeling someone else

might take the money. That's the only reason CNN years later got this tape and we and these jurors saw who Sean Combs really is. So it's just,

I just don't think the lawyer's not going to have ongoing influence over this. Look at this guy, this thug. He's going to be thrilled he's out. And if anything, I feel like he's going to be feeling empowered that he's Sean effing Diddy Combs and he got away again with felonies. But the judge could have control over him. I mean, I don't want to speak out of turn, but

The judge may be able to sentence him to five years, don't count, consecutively of three years of probation. He may be able to be on probation for 10 years where, you know, federal probation could be pretty intensive. You know, you have to report once a week. You have to, I mean, they could go to your house anytime unannounced. They can give you a curfew, whether the judge gives you a curfew or not. Some...

28-year-old probation officer can tell Sean Combs, I want you home every night at 8 o'clock. You can leave at 8 o'clock in the morning. And I really only want you doing work events. If you want to leave the jurisdiction of the Southern District of New York, which is basically the five boroughs and a little bit upstate, but it's not even the five boroughs, but two of the five, you have to let me know. So

There are ways to keep an eye on Sean Combs through the federal system, again, which is no joke. It's not like it's a walk in the park. It can be if you're a good guy who's never been in trouble and obeys all the rules and it was a money kind of case. Yeah, they can be very lenient on you. But if they want to keep their thumb on you, they have the ability to do so.

And that's exactly the argument I would be making to the judge if I were his lawyer trying to get him released and sentenced to house arrest, pending sentencing, and then arguing for probation. But look, unless a leopard can change its spots in the last nine or 10 months while he's been in federal lockup,

I think that for all the reasons we've been talking about, that video and all the testimony of how he has basically kept his thumb on these women and kept them oppressed and subjugated them and used them to demonstrate how he was all-powerful and lording over every aspect of their lives—

For those reasons, I think they are still at risk from him. Even if he is even if he's behind bars, they might be at some risk from him, in my opinion. And so I think that the the the better and the safer course of action, if you're the judge, is to leave him in custody and then also to give him the maximum sentence that you can, because the judge really should not talk about that, Phil.

What do you think it would likely be if the maximum you could get for the transportation to engage in prostitution is up to 10 years in prison and he's been found guilty of two counts but has no criminal history that the court would look at? He does have a criminal history, but it doesn't, you know, as I said at the beginning, rise to a certain level. What what would you expect the judge to sentence him to?

what would I expect or what would I do? Because, you know, if it were me, I would very seriously consider giving him the max and maybe even stacking them for a total of...

I would take into consideration all of the things that we've seen in this trial, whether it's something that amounted to a conviction or not, the judge sat there and saw it. And if the judge believed that that's the type of person he is, then the judge would be justified in believing that he is in more need of rehabilitation than someone who had not done all those things, even if they're barred by the statute of limitations in California. Now, what I expect the judge to do is to kind of maybe split the difference between

Because a lot of times we see that with newbie judges. They want to split the baby King Solomon type and say, look, all right, well, the defense wants him to go home and straight probation. The prosecutor wants the max. I'm going to do something in the middle because I want to be seen as being fair because I'm still making my bones here in the federal judiciary. So I think I would expect the judge to do something probably in the middle.

I don't think that's out of the way. And Meg, I can just tell you this. We're talking about the lawyering and all of that, and I'll make it a little personal, right? So the Weinstein case, right? We beat the top charge, but he's still facing basically life in prison because he's 73 years old with cancer, heart disease, diabetes, but he hasn't been sentenced yet. If he gets sentenced to something where he can see the light at the end of the tunnel in two years and three years in New York,

Then you know what? I did my job because I was handed a case that he was sentenced to 23 years, which was he was it was the death penalty. And I gave him an opportunity. He could stay healthy in prison. He could get out. Of course, he's got to win the California appeal. The same thing holds true here. Although we all agree this is a huge victory for the defense attorneys. If the judge does what Phil says, it says.

I think you're a pretty despicable, you pissed in a woman's mouth until she was gagging. Like, I'm sorry, sir. I can't get that out of my mind. So I'm sentencing you to 10 years on one, 10 years on Cassie, because that's who you pissed in her mouth, and five on the other. And I'm running them consecutively, which means he's got to do like a dozen years consecutively.

Then even though the lawyers did the best they could, I don't think Sean Coleman is going to look at doing 12 years in prison as a victory. So the book, the last chapter of this book has not been written yet. When I know you got to run, Arthur, but quickly, when you get sentenced in federal court, do you have to serve the whole sentence? Eighty five percent. I'm pretty sure eighty five percent. There's some stuff that's put in the first step back, but it doesn't apply to sex crimes. A

A lot of the ways to get out of prison early, we represent Ghislaine Maxwell. We're trying to at least get her into a nicer facility. We're not even asking her to be released. Just get her out of a maximum facility. But when you're convicted of a sex crime, a lot of the rules go out the window.

Okay. Thank you for your analysis. I know you got to run. Thanks for doing this. All the best. Great. Phil more coming in here. Um, this is from the New York times. What happened during the verdict as the not guilty verdicts for the sex trafficking counts came on, which he was found not guilty members of his family and his legal team began to cry when the full verdict had been read. Mr. Combs turned to his family and mouthed, I'm going home.

And yeah, it may be. And then let me give you another piece. CNN reports that Cassie Ventura's lawyer, Douglas Wigdor, I know him well, that he gave the following statement. This case proved that

That change is long overdue. Cassie Ventura paved the way for a jury to find Sean Diddy Combs guilty on some of the counts against him. The entire criminal process, this entire criminal process started when our client Cassie Ventura had the courage to file her civil complaint in November 2023. Although the jury did not find Combs guilty of sex trafficking Cassie beyond a reasonable doubt, she paved the way for a jury to find him guilty of transportation to engage in prostitution.

He continued, by coming forward with her experience, Cassie has left an indelible mark on both the entertainment industry and the fight for justice. Her exemplary courage throughout the trial brought attention to the realities of powerful men in our orbit and the misconduct that has persisted for decades without repercussions. I've got to say, the only part of that that strikes me as real is the last one where, yes, if she hadn't come forward, he wouldn't have been exposed. That is true. But

It's it's a sweet lawyer trying to spin her courage in taking the stand as some sort of a win. And it just wasn't. It just wasn't a win. They barely believed anything she said. Or if they did, they just didn't think it was a legal problem. They didn't think it rose to the level of criminality. They appear to have bought the defense's argument on Cassie, not the prosecution's film.

It seems that her words that she has used that expressed, and I'm just generalizing and putting it all together, her words that, whether it was text messages or other, that indicated that she was something of a willing participant, in fact, eager to participate in some of this.

I can see, this is not my belief, but I can see how a jury might see, that might believe that this is a little bit of buyer's remorse by her and that she sees things differently through the lens of hindsight than it really was when all this was going on. And we spoke about reasonable doubt. And if you're on the jury and the judge says, if you have a doubt for which a reason can be attached, it is your duty to acquit,

then if the jurors are following those instructions, you know, that means a lot. And if you're in the jury room and you say, look, well, I think he's a bad guy and he probably did, you know, pressure her, but she made these statements and she expressed some willingness to be there. So according to the judge, this is a doubt in my brain and I've got a duty to acquit on that charge. And I think that's really probably the best way

to explain it. And it's also true, by the way, that had she not been willing to come forward and testify, we wouldn't have had this trial and we wouldn't have the convictions that we do have. Back to what you were saying. I don't know who you said reported this, but somebody was reporting that he's waving his fist saying, I'm coming home.

That might be a little bit premature. And I don't know if his lawyers have maybe told him that, okay, if you, if it's just these counts, that's a time served thing. If that, if that's the case, he might be prematurely celebrating his release. I'm not so sure that's going to happen.

Mm hmm. Right. Because we're going to find out, we think today around 1 p.m., what the judge is going to do, at least in between now and sentencing. Like, how long does it normally take between the guilty verdict and the sentencing? Is there any chance we have to do all the reports and all that? There's no way where he's getting sentenced today at one. It's just about whether he stays in jail pending sentencing.

No, in the state system, a lot of times you can move straight into sentencing, but not, I don't expect that in this case, there will be a pre-sentence investigation. Um, and it's entirely in the judge's discretion, but I'd say in roughly a month, uh, give or take, they'll be back maybe two. Um, they'll be back for the sentencing after which time the judge can take advantage of the, um, reports that have been generated by the probation department, uh, looking in at

not only the things that happened in the trial, but other things related to his background. They really do a deep dive and present all of it to the judge. And they actually might make a recommendation as well, not binding on the court. And you better believe that during the intervening time, both the prosecutor and the defense, they're going to be asked to submit something called a sentencing memorandum, which is where you

lay out your case to the judge in writing as to what sentence you're seeking and why, and why it factors into the guidelines and is supported by law. And those things, I would imagine each side may have already gotten a head start at least drafting it or at least laying out the structure of it. But, you know, that could be several pages long. Those documents can be

you know, four or five or six pages, or it could be, you know, a little bit longer depending on the circumstances, but those have to be prepared, submitted, reviewed. So all those things are going to take several weeks to, to, to make it happen. Um, as, and as we've been talking about, yeah, it's going to take a while. So I got to say this, um, today at one is going to be an Epic moment in,

legal news across the United States of America, because we may find out, yes, this is interesting, whether he stays in jail pending the sentencing by by this judge. And we are also going to hear Brian Kohlberger, we believe, say he is guilty of quadruple murder in Idaho, which will be on camera and we will be showing it to the audience in full. So in our last minute together, Phil, your thoughts on the Kohlberger plea.

So I am in the camp that the Coburger plea deal, uh, is preposterous. I think that unless you've got all of the families on board with it and that you've, uh, you've counseled with the families and you've got all of their support and you've got a rock solid case, the evidence against him is overwhelming. Uh,

I think the only reason to take the death penalty off the table and to take a plea deal is if the families were lobbying for it. I understand that the families here were split. Some wanted it, some didn't. And, you know, I understand the reasons for why they might or might not want the plea deal. But if you've got a rock solid case and you don't have all of the families on board with it, I think the prosecutor should have gone forward with the trial and sought the death penalty.

So agree with every word you just said. Bill, thank you. Thanks so much for doing this. Arthur, goodbye. Thanks to him as well. We want our audience to stay tuned because now we're going to turn to the Brian Kohlberger plea hearing. It's going to start at one and we are going to cover it in full. OK, to hear him say he committed these murders. Let's be honest. America can still be a dangerous place and you cannot afford to wait for help when you need it.

Sure, you could use a firearm, but in today's America, defending yourself with deadly force could have legal consequences. According to FBI data, 99.9% of all altercations do not require lethal force. And that's exactly why so many are turning to Burna. Burna is proudly American, hand-assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana. These less lethal self-defense launchers are trusted by hundreds of government agencies, law enforcement departments, and private security companies.

Over 600,000 burn up pistols have been sold most to private citizens who refuse to be victims.

Berna launchers fire rock hard kinetic rounds and powerful tear gas and pepper projectiles capable of stopping a threat from up to 60 feet away. No background checks, no waiting periods, and Berna can ship straight to your door. Take responsibility, protect your future. Visit Berna.com right now or your local sportsman warehouse. That's B-Y-R-N-A.com

or your local sportsman warehouse. Visit now and be prepared to defend. Remember when you were a kid with an iron stomach, pizza, ice cream, hot wings, nothing fazed you. But these days, if you're like most people, you feel like your stomach can be a bear trap. One wrong bite and you're done. Here's the thing. Years ago, our ancestors ate lots of bitter plants daily and they made their digestion work even as they got older.

But our modern diet has completely eliminated these essential compounds. You've heard me talk before about Just Thrive probiotics. Now they have their newest product, digestive bitters. These tasteless capsules contain 12 bitter herbs. They say help wake up your digestive system for results you can feel. No more bloat, burping, or belly aches after meals. Just comfortable digestion like when you were younger.

Just Thrive Digestive Bitters helps your cravings and keeps you satisfied longer. Give your gut the care it deserves. Try Just Thrive Probiotic and Digestive Bitters today, risk-free, and save 20% with code MEGAN at justthrivehealth.com. See the difference for yourself or get a full product refund, no questions asked. That's justthrivehealth.com, code MEGAN, because your health is your greatest asset.

When a university is built on merit, problem solving and real world results, America leads. When it pioneers breakthroughs in national defense and supports American innovation, America wins. And when that same university ensures world class education is within reach for all families,

America prospers. This is MIT, a partner in building a stronger America. Learn more at understanding.mit.edu. Life insurers put life into the things you live for. The new factory that's hiring your neighbors. Maintenance on the bridge that keeps traffic flowing. The paycheck that puts pizza night on the table.

It was two and a half years ago.

Almost exactly. That Brian Kohlberger moved to Washington state to pursue his PhD and to behave as a, act as a teacher's assistant in teaching other students studying criminal justice.

No one knew at that time, perhaps not even Brian Kohlberger, that he would become the subject of the criminal justice system himself after committing four homicides in the course of 12 minutes in November of 2022 on the neighboring University of Idaho campus.

In moments, he's expected to walk into an Idaho courthouse, the Ada County Courthouse in Boise, Idaho, and plead guilty to all four of those murders. Two 20-year-olds, two 21-year-olds, while some of them were sleeping in their beds and others were about to go to sleep. We will have the live feed. We have it. We can see it now. Right now, it's not showing anything. So as soon as it does, we're going there live. We're going to watch it live together. We won't be talking. We'll be watching.

And then we will have instant analysis on the back end or where there's any pausing that allows it with Matt Murphy, lifetime prosecutor, along with Howard Bloom, who's been he's owned this story from the start and others as we get started. So we're going to watch it. We'll tell you what's been happening outside of the courthouse and and in as we await what what's going to be, let's face it, a dramatic moment in legal history.

This guy's been telling us since he was arrested in December 2022, it wasn't me. It wasn't me. I will be exonerated. Remember, he didn't just say found not guilty. I'm innocent. He said I'll be exonerated through his first lawyer, but he wouldn't actually speak. We haven't heard him speak when he entered his not guilty plea. He kept he remained silent and the judge had to do it for him.

It's very rare we hear him say anything. Something's in passing at a couple of court hearings. But today we are expected we are expecting to hear him say guilty, guilty, guilty and to confirm the bare minimum details about the crimes. We do not believe that he's going to have to offer any explanation or motive. It's possible this judge has done it. This court has done it with other defendants, but there's no promises here and the odds are against it.

nothing's written in the deal that would require it, which would suggest he's not going to do it, but we'll see. We'll see. We might also hear from the families of the victims. We've had prosecutors tell us that even at this stage, that would be something you, you would expect. We don't know how it's going to work inside of this Idaho courtroom. The family of Kaylee Gonsalves, her dad, Steve is enraged.

This is the family of Ethan Chapin that will show walking into the courthouse moments ago. Ethan was just 20 years old when murdered. He was a triplet. Two of those pictured there, clearly his brother and sister, who are also at the University of Idaho. Can you imagine having to go back to school with your triplet brother murdered?

the family did release a statement saying they support this plea bargain. They've been in, I don't know, for lack of a better word, a gentler place about this. I think from the beginning, most of their statements from the beginning have, have been, I don't know. They don't seem in the angry place as much as Steve is. I say that not judgmentally at all. You guys know me, I'm fine with some anger and I,

I just feel like what Steve Gonzalez is feeling, Gonsalves is feeling is, is what most parents would feel. It must be very, very hard to take the high road and say, okay, we'll settle for life in prison. I just feel like if I were Steve Gonsalves, I, if I were God forbid in his position, I'd be saying what he's saying. He's outraged. He's furious. He's

With the prosecution for cutting this deal over the family's objections, not all of them, as I point out, the Chapins are for it. One parent of Maddie Mogan, who was asleep and the best friend of Kaylee Gonsalves and also murdered. One parent has said he has he supports this to this deal.

We haven't heard from Zanna Cronodal's parents and we haven't heard from Maddie Mogan's mother. We've heard from the father who said he's okay, they're divorced. But we expect a statement from her mother after today's proceedings. And perhaps Zanna Cronodal's always been the most sort of elusive person in this story to get information about. Her mom, don't really know much about her. And we don't know, I don't think we'd even know her family if we saw them as they're walking in.

It's 105. They're not opening the feed yet, but just so you know, we, this court, they allow cameras in the courtrooms in Idaho state court, which is where this is going down. There was quite a bit of bargaining over how the camera would be positioned during the Kohlberger trial, which was set to start. Um, jury selection was going to begin the beginning of August and they ultimately settled on one camera at the back of the courthouse, like sort of focused on the witness stand. We don't know what to expect for the plea, uh,

or how this will be positioned. I certainly hope that they're they're allowing the camera to be positioned on the defendant as he speaks. And we hear him take ownership of this horrific act. Steve Gonsalves saying outside of court a moment ago, he's not going in. I don't know who knows whether he'll change his mind. He still has some time. He was outside the courthouse telling reporters that prosecutors made a deal with the devil

that he's not going in the courtroom to watch that devil. And he also alluded to Kohlberger's family. We are assuming here possibly being made aware of this plea deal ahead of the victim's families. Take a listen. Yeah, what do you want? We know, we know when you flew out here. We know, we know. We have your flight records. How are you preparing to see him today?

I'm not gonna say. When you say you know the flight records, what do you mean, Steve? I know when his parents booked their flight, when his father did. What does that mean? You'll find out. Would you like to say something to them? No, I don't care about it. The rest of your family went inside. Is it important for them to be in there today? Yeah, for sure. Where are you going? Are you not able to get- I'm just getting out of this suit. You're not staying in? No, I'm not going in there.

Who can second guess him? I mean, I'm sure it's going to be stomach turning for all of them to even lay eyes on this monster. Court TV reporting that people were lining up at 4 a.m. outside of the courthouse to try to get a seat inside. It's one of those cases that has captured the attention of the nation just because it's so horrific. I mean, my kids know about this one. You know, your kids don't normally get into true crime, but

like in my son's high school, he's a freshman now he's going into sophomore, but they, they were talking about it. He wound up doing a presentation on it because they were also interested in this. And he was just willing to do the, the work on, on getting the facts. And everyone was fascinating. It's because it's just beyond it's, it's, it's sort of escapes the normal bounds of what you understand a human's capable of. We know that there are murderers. We know that there are serial killers. We know that there are,

horrible men out there who will torture people. I mean, it's sometimes women, but let's face it, the vast majority are men. And, but we, we've never seen a crime where in 12 minutes, four able-bodied, beautiful, everything in front of them, young people were stabbed to death and two surviving roommates didn't hear anything. Didn't, didn't see anything. Didn't also get attacked. I mean, the whole thing was so bizarre and he was well on his way toward having a successful life.

his professor at his college in Pennsylvania, Catherine Ramsland, was set to take the stand in this case for the prosecution. And she's the one who recommended him to Washington State for the Ph.D. program with a glowing recommendation that he got his master's at her college in Pennsylvania. And she's like one of

the people when it comes to criminal justice and these forensic examinations of crime scenes and criminals. And she sat down with Brian Enten of News Nation last night and was

fascinating the whole thing was fascinating including her talking about well let's just go through it as we wait for the live feed to come from this idaho courtroom uh she starts off by saying what her initial impression of kohlberger was stop 42 what was your um perception of him

He seemed like eager to be in the classroom. He was polite. He was respectful, intense and curious. And there was no reason for me to think that he was anything other than someone who was really interested in this potential career. OK, that's how she kicked it off. And then she got to what it was like when she found out he'd been charged for

And whether she looks back now on what she taught him in a different way. I'm going to bring in our panel as we wait. Now, again, it's Matt Murphy. Matt's a former homicide prosecutor lifetime. Uh, that's how he spent his adult years putting terrible people in jail. So good on him and author of the book, the book of murder and Howard bloom, who is the journalist to follow on this case. Since the very beginning, he's also the author of the book when the night comes falling and

A Requiem for the Idaho Student Murders, which is now out in paperback. Highly recommend if you have any interest in this case. Matt Howard, welcome back. Thank you for being here. Let me just give you another additional bit of color. Brian Enten reporting from News Nation in Idaho in the line outside the courtroom waiting to go in. They have us up against the wall to make room for the victim's families as they walk by to enter. Everyone is silent. I'm so sad for them. I can only imagine how

the level of decorum you would try to offer these families as they walk into that courtroom. I mean, the, the amount of sobriety you would try to bring to that moment as a, as an onlooker, as a journalist, as a lawyer, Matt, you've been there, you've been the prosecutor in this exact circumstance. Try to try to set the scene for us.

Well, this is obviously a tremendously somber moment. The prosecution outlined some good points on why you might offer a plea for a case like this. The appellate process goes on forever. That's true. The families have to go through it in trial. Of course, that's true. But that's the case in every single murder.

They're all brutal. And if you give the family a heads up as a prosecutor, but having them having them come in. One of the things that's disturbing to me about this case, Megan, of course, is the disconnect that appears to have taken place between the prosecution and at least the Gonsalves family.

um and in in a in a word that really should never happen um sometimes it's unavoidable it appears that certainly some of these family members are on board with this plea again there's good reasons for that

But every family, Megan, that you deal with in a murder case is somewhere on a spectrum between profound sadness and profound anger. And they all sort of wind up and they evolve over time typically.

And Mr. Gonzales clearly, and I think for the entire pendency of this case, has been very much on the anger side of the spectrum. Like you said, who can blame him? But there are different rules in Idaho than many other states that have what's called Marcy's Law.

And in California, for example, the family has a constitutional right, the immediate family members to address the court, to to address the defendant and to talk about the impact that this had on their family. And this is one of those things that the plea or just or just before sentencing at the pleading, like the day that he cops the plea or at the sentencing.

Under Marcy's Law, which is also known as the Victim's Bill of Rights, they have a right to address the court each and every time there is a significant event in a courtroom. So any significant event

procedural event in a courtroom, the family has the right to address the judge and to address the defendant if they're present. So, and it's a powerful thing. Idaho attempted to adopt this in 2019 and they didn't for whatever reason. And you can mark my words on this. I predict after this case, there's going to be a renewed push to adopt Marcy's law in the state of Idaho. Mm-hmm.

And we don't know exactly what to expect when it comes to the family. Howard, your thoughts on this? We haven't gotten your opinion or to talk to you since the news broke that he's- Yes. I mean, I think the prosecution made a very pragmatic but ultimately cynical decision. I mean, all along in this case, we've seen the authorities in Idaho trying to move on. Remember Judge Judge? He couldn't wait to leave the case to get off of it.

Then when judge Hippler came in the first thing he said his first day in the courtroom I'd like to say I'm happy to be here, but I'm not and then the University of Idaho They wanted the whole town to forget about it They they insisted that the murder house should be torn down and then you had Chief Fry who was running Sorry to interrupt you Howard is starting. Let's go there live just FYI We're seeing inside the courtroom. We can see the judge just shuffling papers at his desk We are seeing

All right, this is CR 012431665. Defendant is present in custody with counsel, Ms. Thompson, Ms. Jennings, and pardon me, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Massoff, and Ms. Barlow. The state's present with Mr. Thompson, Mr. Horowitz, Ms. Jennings, and Mr.

Mr. Nye is here as well. Am I missing anybody? I'm sorry. Ms. Allen is here as well. Ms. Allen is here as well. Very well, thank you. All right, we are here today to entertain a change of plea. Before I start, I want to address some issues of concern and otherwise...

First, I appreciate everybody in attendance today being on their best behavior. Please no outbursts or demonstrations. Any such conduct will result in immediate removal and may result in an inability to attend further court proceedings in this case.

I want to point out that there have been calls by some for the public to contact me and my office in an attempt to influence my decision-making in this case. This has been extraordinarily disruptive for court staff and the ability for them to get work done, not only in this case, but in other cases where defendants are entitled to work.

have their cases processed and frankly as important if not more so for victims to have their cases processed in those cases. It's also highly inappropriate. A court is not supposed to and this court will never take into account public sentiment in making an opinion regarding its judicial decisions in cases.

Courts should and I always will make decisions based on where the facts and the law lead me, period. I have not read any of the numerous messages nor listened to any of the numerous voicemails that have been sent to me and my staff. Those have all been forwarded to security and, where appropriate, to law enforcement.

I ask that you not continue to mount such campaigns or to send me information like this because, again, it is not appropriate and, frankly, not something I would take into account when deciding a matter in a case like this. I also want people to understand some very basic concepts about the ideas of separation of powers, what the court's duties are.

and what the duties and the rights of the executive, or in this case, the prosecuting attorney is. The executive, the elected prosecutor, is the sole authority in deciding what charges to pursue, including whether, as well as what penalties to ask for, and what penalties to pursue, including the death penalty. This court cannot require the prosecutor to seek the death penalty,

nor would it be appropriate for this court to attempt to do that. This court, in considering a plea agreement, if it were to reject this plea agreement, cannot force the state to seek the death penalty. My role and power in considering a plea agreement is extremely limited. My role is to ensure that the defendant's plea is given freely, voluntarily, and intelligently.

If those things are met, I can only reject a plea such as the one in this case where I'm not being asked to agree to the sentence in advance. If I can only reject it, for example, if the defendant does not meet or admit to all of the elements of the crime. That is, I can ensure what is called a factual basis to the plea.

Finally, I want to offer my apologies to all the families, including the victims' families, the families of the defendant, for the short notice for today's hearing and I'm sure what must have been the hurried efforts to get here. I, like most everyone else, learned of this plea agreement Monday afternoon and had no inkling of it beforehand.

Prior to that time, I was under the belief that this case was proceeding to trial, as had been indicated, and my staff and I were busy continuing to work on preparations to have potentially 10,000 citizens of Ada County come to jury duty starting in mid-July with the questionnaire process in mid-July. Once I learned of the defendant's decision to change his plea in this case, it was important that I take the plea as soon as possible

because of the extraordinary administrative efforts that were otherwise attendant to the process of getting this trial potentially underway on time and including the significant process of bringing, again, potentially up to 10,000 jurors to come in and fill out juror questionnaires prior to the beginning of the Vordire process. And so it was important that we...

If we're going to go down this road, do so expeditiously so that we can avoid those costs and expenses associated with that. Otherwise, if it was not going to result in a plea or for some reason the plea were to fall through today, that we could continue diligently towards trial at the time specified.

And so that obviously required that we act quickly. And so some folks may have not had the amount of time that we would otherwise allow for for them to travel here. And so again, I apologize for that. I want to make people aware that during the hearing, if you are to leave the courtroom for any reason, you will not be readmitted during the hearing.

Also, when we finish the hearing this morning, I ask that the public and media wait in their seats until the victim's families and the defendant's families and others are escorted out of the courtroom before you start to leave. Finally, I want to acknowledge the trial court administrator and her staff, the Ada County Sheriff,

and Ada County 4th District Marshal Service for the huge lift that they've accomplished in preparing for and orchestrating this hearing today, as well as to all the security attendant today that you see, and some of whom you, many of whom you don't see, with less than 48 hours notice. And so I appreciate the hard work that they've been doing

frankly, some of them while they were on some vacation prior to the trial starting and had to call that short. And so I appreciate very much their professionalism and dedication. All right. That said, let's move to the business of today. I understand the state and the defense have reached a plea agreement in this case. For the record, I have a written plea agreement which indicates that

In sum, the defendant will plead guilty to all five counts in the indictment, burglary, felony, and first-degree murder, four counts. The state and the defendant stipulate, that is, that the defense is not free to argue for a lesser sentence at sentencing, to the following. The defendant on the burglary charge will be sentenced to 10 years, fixed.

and that the defendant on counts two through five, the four counts of first degree homicide, on each count would receive a fixed life sentence. All five of those counts to run consecutive to one another. Defendant, as part of the plea agreement, waives his right to appeal as well as his right to appeal the sentence and his right to seek leniency or reconsideration of the sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 35.

This is not a Rule 11 agreement, meaning the court is not bound by the plea agreement and could impose a different lawful sentence at sentencing. The stipulated agreement between the parties is the maximum on each count. So theoretically, the only thing the court could do would be a lesser sentence at sentencing. But the defendant is not free to ask the court to do so under the plea agreement.

Are there any other material terms of the plea agreement that the parties would like to make? Obviously, the plea agreement, the written plea agreement will speak for itself and be part of the court record. Not from the state, Your Honor. Thank you. No, Your Honor. Thank you. All right. Very well. All right.

Ms. Taylor, have you had sufficient time to discuss this case and all of its ramifications with your client? I have, Your Honor. Have you discussed fully with him his rights, defenses, and possible consequences to him of the guilty plea? Yes, Your Honor. Have you been able to do all the discovery you feel necessary? Yes, Your Honor. And have you informed your client of the importance of providing the court truthful and accurate answers in taking this plea today? I have.

Have you apprised your client of any and all offers and counter offers and answered his questions about those? Yes. Do you consent to the entry of the plea today? I do. All right. Mr. Kohlberger, I need to ask you some questions this afternoon, or I guess it's this morning still. I do this to ensure that you understand, so that I am assured that you understand the nature of the charges to which I understand you're going to plead guilty as well as the possible consequences to you of your guilty pleas.

I want to make sure your plea is given voluntarily, and I want to make sure that you actually committed the crimes to which you're pleading guilty, because I don't want you to plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit. If you attempt to plead guilty today, but for some reason I don't accept your plea, then it is possible that your statements today could be used against you later at trial. Do you understand that? Yes. All right. Thank you. And while you're standing, actually, why don't you take the oath from the clerk?

Yes. All right. And Mr. Kohlberg, just to make it easier, you don't need to stand when you speak to me. I appreciate the sign of respect, but for convenience, you can remain seated. All right.

Before I start asking questions today, have you consumed, substantive questions, let me ask you, have you consumed any alcohol, drug, or other intoxicating substance that would impair your ability to understand or exercise reasonable judgment? No. You feel like you are thinking clearly today? Yes.

All right, I want you to understand what the possible penalties are for each of the crimes to which I understand you're going to offer a guilty plea today. They include on count one, the burglary, a fine of up to $50,000 and a period of incarceration of up to 10 years in the state penitentiary. You may be required to pay restitution to any victims of the crime.

count two, three, four, and five for first degree murder. The consequences include a fine of up to $50,000, a period of incarceration of life imprisonment, which is a requirement of a sentence, that it be a life sentence with a mandatory minimum sentence of at least 10 years on each of those counts.

In addition, you would be potentially responsible for a fine of up to $5,000 to each of the victims of your crime to be enforced in the form of a civil judgment to operate as additional punishment. This is in excess of any restitution or fines that the court could order. And again, you may be required to pay restitution to the victims of the crime.

You would be required to provide as to counts one, two, three, four, and five, a DNA sample and a right thumbprint impression and potentially pay for analysis of those samples. You would lose any right to possess, purchase, or carry a firearm, the right to serve on jury duty, the right to hold public office, and the right to vote. Do you understand the charges and all those possible consequences? Yes. Thank you.

You've heard the plea agreement that I talked about today. Do you agree with that plea agreement? Yes. And do you understand the nature of the charges that you've been charged with that I understand you're going to plead guilty today too? Yes. As I indicated, I'm not bound by the plea agreement, but the plea agreement is for the maximum on each count. Do you understand that I'm not bound by the plea agreement? Yes. Okay.

Has anyone promised you that I would be lenient or easy on you if you plead guilty? No. Has anyone threatened you or anyone close to you to get you to plead guilty? No. Has anyone, other than the state's agreements with respect to the plea agreement, has anyone promised you anything in exchange for your plea agreement? No. Has anyone told you to be untruthful in answering my questions today? No. No.

Has anyone offered you a reward of any kind other than the plea agreement in order to get you to plead guilty today? No. Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty? Yes. And counsel, obviously there have been a number of motions filed to suppress evidence in this case.

Other than those filed, are there any other motions that you felt were available with respect to Rule 12? No, Your Honor. And Mr. Kohlberg, you understand that by entering the guilty plea in this case, you would be giving up your right to appeal any decision this court made as well as your sentence? Yes. Have you had enough time to decide whether or not to plead guilty?

Yes. Are you pleading guilty freely and voluntarily? Yes. Given your choices, do you believe it's in your best interest to plead guilty? Yes. Have you discussed fully the matter of pleading guilty with your attorney and are you satisfied with the advice you've received? Yes.

Has your attorney advised you to your satisfaction about what your rights are, what your defenses may be, and what the possible consequences to you of your guilty plea are? Yes. Has your attorney done everything you've asked them to do? Yes. Are you satisfied with their representation of you? Yes. I have received a written guilty plea advisory letter.

I'm going to ask you to fill out a questionnaire that is purported to be filled out by you. Did you fill that document out? Yes. Did you understand the questions that you answered in this document? Yes. And are the answers that are outlined in this document your answers? Yes. Are those answers truthful? Yes. Did you sign the document? Yes.

document outlines many of the rights that you have in this case should you not plead guilty. Did you understand those rights? Yes. They include a right to a jury trial, do you understand that? Yes. Include a right to the presumption of innocence, do you understand that? Yes. You have the right to require the state to prove your guilt as to each element beyond a reasonable doubt, do you understand that? Yes.

They include a right to confront your accusers and cross-examine witnesses presented by the state, including by utilizing the subpoena power of the court to accomplish that. Do you understand that? Yes. I understand you would have a privilege against self-incrimination and a right to remain silent, meaning you would not be compelled to testify if you did not wish to had you not pled guilty. Yes.

You understand you're giving up that privilege and those rights that I've just outlined by pleading guilty? Yes. All right. I want you to understand what the state would have had to have proven at trial had you, to the crimes that you're pleading guilty to, had you, if you didn't plead guilty. Let me find the document. Hang on a second here. All right.

So as to count one burglary, the state would have to have proven that on or about November 13, 2022 in Latah County, Idaho, you unlawfully entered a residence located at 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho, with the intent to commit the felony crime of murder. As to count two...

The state would have had to have proven that on or about that same date in Latah County, Idaho, you did willfully, unlawfully, deliberately, with premeditation and malice of forethought, kill and murder Madison Mogan, a human being, by stabbing Madison Mogan from which she died. As to count three, the state would have had to have proven that on that same date in Latah County at that same address,

You did willfully, unlawfully, deliberately with premeditation and malice of forethought kill and murder Kaylee Gonzalez, a human being, by stabbing her from which she died. As to count four, the state would have had to have proven that on or about that same date in Latah County, Idaho, you did willfully, unlawfully, deliberately with premeditation and malice of forethought kill and murder Zanna Curnodal, a human being, by stabbing her from which she died. And then as to count five,

I've also murder in the first degree that honor about November 13th, 2022, 22, pardon me, in Latak County, Idaho. You did willfully, unlawfully, deliberately with premeditation and malice of forethought, kill and murder Ethan Chapin, a human being, by stabbing him from which he died. Do you understand those things the state would have had to have proven? Yes. And do you understand that by pleading guilty, the state no longer has to

the defendant's signature. And you're not going to prove those things because you're admitting those things are true. Yes. I want to also make for the record the defendant has provided with the guilty plea advisory form a document entitled written factual basis that purports to have the defendant's signature dated 1 July 2025. Did you sign that document? Yes.

And then let me ask you, did you, on November 13th, 2022, enter the residence at 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho, with the intent to commit the felony crime of murder? Yes. Did you, on November 13th, 2022, in Latah County, state of Idaho, kill and murder Madison Mogan, a human being? Yes.

Yes. And did you do that willfully, unlawfully, deliberately, and with premeditation and malice of forethought? Yes. Did you honor about that same date in Moscow, Idaho, kill and murder Kaylee Gonzales, a human being? Yes. And did you do that willfully, unlawfully, deliberately, and with premeditation and malice of forethought? Yes.

And did you on that same date in Moscow, Idaho, kill and murder Zanna Kernodle, pardon me, a human being? Yes. And did you do that willfully, unlawfully, deliberately with premeditation and malice of forethought? Yes.

And then on or about November 13th, 2022, again in Latak County, Idaho, did you kill and murder Ethan Chapin, a human being? Yes. Did you do that willfully, unlawfully, deliberately with premeditation and malice of poor thought? Yes. I would ask the state at this time to provide its recitation of its factual basis had this case gone to trial. Thank you, Your Honor.

Your Honor, the organization of the recitation is different than what I think the court and the public may be familiar with from the probable cause affidavit and other documents. The state's evidence as an overview would show that back in March of 2022, when the defendant was residing in his parents' residence or residing back in Pennsylvania, his home state,

He purchased online a K-Bar knife and sheath with an Amazon gift card that he had purchased shortly prior to the purchase of the knife, sheath, and sharpener. Jumping ahead, the end of June of that year, the defendant, Mr. Koberger, moved from Pennsylvania to Pullman, Washington, which is right across the state line from Moscow, Idaho, for the purpose of pursuing a PhD in criminal justice at Washington State University. The state's evidence would indicate the beginning of

July 9th of 2022, Mr. Koberger's phone began connecting to a cell tower that serves the area of the 1122 King Road residence in Moscow, Idaho. Now, I will acknowledge for the court and all present that there are many residences in that area. It's a dense population of mostly college-related occupants. Between

July 9th of 2022 and November 7th, the defendant's phone connected to that particular tower during late night, early morning hours, 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. on approximately 23 times. Now, I will acknowledge also we do not have evidence that the defendant had direct contact with 1122 or with residents of 1122, but we can put his phone in that area on those times.

In the interim, on August 22nd of 2022, Latah County Sheriff's Deputy Darren Duke conducted a traffic stop in the early morning hour or late evening hours, about 11 p.m. on the west side of Moscow on Moscow Pullman Road. This was the traffic stop of Mr. Koberger's car, which turned out to be a 2015 white Hyundai Elantra.

WITH PENNSYLVANIA PLATES. DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRAFFIC STOP, DEPUTY DUKE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN MR. KOBERGER'S NAME, BRIAN KOBERGER, HIS PHONE NUMBER AND HIS ADDRESS, WHICH AT THAT POINT WAS AN APARTMENT ADDRESS IN PULLMAN. WE THEN MOVE TO THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF NOVEMBER 13, 2022.

The state's evidence would show that early morning hours on that day, Mr. Koberger's phone left his Pullman residence, which is an apartment in kind of the north, central northwest part of Pullman. That phone was then subsequently turned off at approximately 2.54 a.m. and remained off until approximately 4.48 a.m. on Sunday, the 13th of November.

The state's evidence includes, would include a trial, video surveillance of a business on the Moscow-Pullman Highway just across the state line from Moscow. It would show a vehicle matching the description of the defendant's Hyundai Elantra entering Moscow at approximately 3.02 a.m.

Compiled surveillance that the investigators put together from businesses and residents then show the defendant's car, the white Elantra, as I've described, circling the 1122 King Road area, that neighborhood,

STARTING AROUND 3:30 OR SO IN THE MORNING. COMES INTO THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF 1122 KING ROAD, WHICH IS ACTUALLY ON A DEAD END, AND THEN LEAVES SEVERAL TIMES. AND APPROXIMATELY 4:05 THAT MORNING, THE DEFENSE CAR HAD ENTERED THAT AREA, WAS LEAVING, STOPPED AT THE INTERSECTION OF KING AND QUEEN ROAD, DID A U-TURN,

And the state's evidence would show that the defendant's car came back and parked behind and above the 1122 King Road residence. The state believes that its evidence would then show that the defendant entered the residence of 1122 through the kitchen sliding door on the backside of the residence, which is the side of the residence that would face the area above where the defendant's car was parked.

The defendant entered the residence, went to the third floor, and with a knife, killed Madison Mogan and came to its office. The defendant, as he left that room, for whatever reason, ended up leaving or the sheath for a K-bar knife was left on the bed next to Madison Mogan's body. And I can jump ahead. That sheath was tested by the Idaho State Police Forensic Lab and single source male DNA was found on the snap of that sheath.

as well as blood from both Kaylee and Madison and other trace evidence. But it's important to note single source male DNA was on the snap of that sheet. The state's evidence would show that Zanna Knodel was still awake at this time. In fact, had taken a door dash order not long before this started. Her room was not on the third floor. It was on the second floor on the west side. As the defendant was either coming down the stairs or leaving,

He encountered Zanna and he ended up killing her also with a large knife. Eason Chapin, Zanna's boyfriend, was asleep in their bedroom, in her bedroom, and the defendant killed him as well with a large fixed-blade knife. Each victim suffered multiple wounds. I will state for the record that there is no evidence there was any sexual component or sexual assault on any of the victims. I want to make that clear so there's no speculation.

There were two other roommates in the house, and they were already asleep. During the course of this, one of those roommates awoke, looked out her door not knowing what was going on, and saw the defendant, who was dressed in black with a black belt top on, holding some sort of container in his hand. And she saw him leave the house through the direction of the kitchen where that sliding door is that I mentioned before. At approximately 4.20 that morning...

So this would have been 15 minutes or so later. Finn's car is seen on a surveillance camera for 1112 King Road, which is immediately next door to the west of 1122, leaving the area at a high rate of speed. And if the court were to see that, or anybody in this courtroom would see that, you can see the car almost loses control as it makes the corner move.

Heads north and then turns to go south on Walinta, which is one of the only ways to get out of that part of town. The evidence would show that following that, the defendant in his Elantra

Drove south of Moscow. We know that he drove on the back roads because there are surveillance cameras on the main highways, Highway 95. It would have picked up the defendant's car if he'd gone that route and they did not show the defendant's car on that route during the time. So we know that he went through a variety of back roads and very rural, isolated part of Latah County. About 4:48 that morning, the defendant's phone comes back on.

And the evidence will show that that phone was located south of Moscow, likely at a side road intersection with Highway 95. From there, the defendant's phone activity tracks it heading back north towards Pullman, Washington, where the defendant lived. About 526, starting approximately 526, various surveillance cameras in Pullman, Washington, pick up the defendant's vehicle as he enters Pullman from the south.

AND HEADS NORTH AND SLIGHTLY WEST TOWARDS HIS APARTMENT WHERE HE ARRIVED AT APPROXIMATELY 5:30 IN THE MORNING. LATER THAT MORNING, STILL SUNDAY, THE 13TH OF NOVEMBER OF 2022, MR. KOBERGER'S PHONE RETURNED TO THE AREA OF KING ROAD. WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE DID, BUT IT RETURNED TO THAT AREA. IT'S ABOUT 9:00 IN THE MORNING. IT'S THERE FOR ABOUT 10 MINUTES AND THEN RETURNED TO HIS POLLMAN RESIDENCE ABOUT 9:30

that state's evidence will show, evidence taken from the defendant's phone, that he took a selfie of himself on his phone in what appears to be the bathroom of his Pullman apartment with a thumbs up. The defendant's phone then went to the Lewis and Clarkston Valley, approximately 30 miles south of Moscow and Pullman,

and the defendant is actually seen with his car at various businesses down there. This area is the confluence of the Clearwater River and the Snake River. Lewiston is Idaho's seaport. Large bodies of moving water down there. In addition to tracing the defendant's activities, as I've just outlined on the 13th and leading up to the 13th, the state's evidence will show that following Sunday, November 13th, 2022,

Business records show that the defendant began searching for a K-bar knife and a K-bar knife sheath, as the state believes, to replace the one that was left at the scene of the murders. The evidence also will suggest that there were at least attempts by the defendant to delete or alter his purchase history on Amazon where all these transactions had occurred.

Later that week, the state's evidence would show that Mr. Koberger went to what we would call DMV, motor vehicle licensing here in Idaho, in Pullman to change his car registration from Pennsylvania to Washington. That's of note because Pennsylvania cars do not require a front license plate.

The vehicles seen on the surveillance cameras of defendant's car showed it didn't have a front license plate on it. At the time of the traffic stop by Deputy Duke in August, there was a Pennsylvania plate, no front license plate. Mr. Koberger proceeded to finish his semester of studies at Washington State University and returned to Pennsylvania for the holidays.

Law enforcement at this point were aware of Mr. Koberger, had been accessing information about him, were trying to find him. They located him in Pennsylvania and they conducted what's called a trash pull during the nighttime hours. Agents of the FBI, who assisted immensely with this case, working with the sanitation department back in this neighborhood in Pennsylvania, took trash that had been set out on the street for collection,

sent the contents of that from the Pennsylvania residents of the defendant's parents to the Idaho State Forensic Laboratory, where the lab experts there were able to identify DNA on a Q-tip as coming from the father of the person whose DNA was found on the knife sheath that was next to Madison Mogan's body in the bed.

Subsequently, an arrest warrant was issued here in Idaho and a search warrant was issued in the state of Pennsylvania with the assistance not only of the FBI but the Pennsylvania State Police. Mr. Koberger was arrested at his parents' home to return to Idaho. Upon his return to Idaho, a DNA sample was taken from him and it matched the DNA found on the knife sheath next to Maddie's body at the crime scene. I can tell the court

public. The weapon itself, the knife has not yet been recovered. I can tell the court that the defendant's apartment in Pullman was searched as well as his office. Spartan would be a kind characterization. There was virtually nothing there. Nothing of evidentiary value was found. And of course, we are now talking six, eight weeks after the time of the killings.

Pennsylvania the defendant's car was seized and it was actually pretty much disassembled internally and it also had been cleaned there was a bucket of cleaner right beside it I think we can all look to our own cars you know in those compartments in the doors you try to keep them clean where you put stuff there's always some degree of crud in there they were spotless Vince Carr had been meticulously cleaned inside and the state

would present to the jury that that was part of the defendant's plan in covering up this. The defendant has studied crime. In fact, he did a detailed paper on crime scene processing when he was working on his pre-doctorate degrees, and he had that knowledge and skill. So, Your Honor, at the end, the state submits the evidence that I've given just a quick overview of,

and that presenting court would consume weeks, which the state is prepared to do and has been prepared to do, would show that as the defendant has just admitted and pleaded guilty on November 13th, 2022, excuse me, Mr. Koberger entered the residence of 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho. He did that with the intent to kill. We will not represent that he intended to commit all of the murders that he did that night, but we know that that is what resulted.

and that he then killed intentionally, willfully, deliberately with premeditation and with malice forethought, Manny Mogan, Kaylee Gonsalves, Ethan Chapin, and Santa Cruz. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Based on the state's proffer and importantly, based upon defendants' explicit admission to committing these crimes, the court finds there is a factual basis.

Therefore, with respect to count one, burglary, felony, how do you plead, Mr. Kohlberger, guilty or not guilty? Guilty. As to count two, murder in the first degree as it relates to the murder of Madison Mogan, how do you plead, guilty or not guilty? Guilty. As to count three, as it relates to murder in the first degree for the murder of Kaylee Gonsalves, how do you plead, guilty or not guilty? Guilty. As to count four...

The first-degree murder of Zanna Cronodal, pardon me, a human being. How do you plead? Guilty or not guilty? Guilty. As to count five, the first-degree murder of Ethan Chapin, a human being. How do you plead? Guilty or not guilty? Guilty. The court will find that the defendant understands the nature of the charges and each offense and the possible consequences to him of his guilty plea.

Court finds that there is a factual basis for the plea and finds the defendant believes the plea to be in his best interest. I find that the plea was given freely, voluntarily, and was intelligently made. I accept the plea. I direct that it be entered. I'll continue the matter for sentencing in this case. I think it was mentioned on the call Monday afternoon the defense wishes to waive a pretrial investigation. Is that accurate? Yes, Your Honor. The state also? Yes.

Yes, Your Honor. The state does not believe pre-sentence investigation is needed given the evidence that is available. We want to, though, make sure that all of the victims have the opportunity to make statements to the court at sentencing. Absolutely. And certainly both the state and the defense may present whatever sentencing memorandum and other documents you wish me to consider.

The victims will be given an opportunity to provide the statements that they wish to at sentencing. Do we need more than one full day for sentencing?

I do not believe so, your honor. Obviously, we have numerous victims and we have victims who share unique perspectives on this and we want to make sure that they all have time to express their feelings to the court. But I believe that if we can start perhaps 8:30 or so in the morning that we should be able to complete it all in one day. Defense agree with that in terms of the time frame? Yes, your honor.

All right. So as it happens, we have some time reserved in this case in July and August. The week of July 22nd is available. I don't know if that's too soon for the parties or the next week, the week of August 4 is available. Any preference?

Your Honor, we're prepared as soon as the court wants to schedule it. The date, I believe, would be April 22nd. We've told the victims' families that we're looking at approximately those dates. All right. So because of the plan to bring in so many jurors to fill out questionnaires, I had—

that no other trials could take place in this courthouse the week of July 22nd. And so we will use that in terms of the sentencing date because of what I'm sure will be the significant interest of the media and the public and the logistics that will be required to make that happen. Without trials going, it'll be a lot easier to do that. So let's pick that week.

Why don't we pick July 23rd with the idea that if for some reason we don't finish, we could continue into the 24th. We'll start at 9 in the morning. Does that give your team enough time, Sandra? 9 in the morning? All right. Any concerns with that date? No, Your Honor. Thank you. No, sir. All right. Any reason why I should not rescind a non-dissemination order at this time?

I THINK THAT GIVEN THE HISTORY OF THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE BEST IF THAT REMAINED IN PLACE THROUGH SENTENCING. SO WE HAVE TIME TO MAKE SURE THERE'S THE ABILITY TO COMPLETELY ANSWER QUESTIONS. THAT WOULD BE THE STATE'S PREFERENCE AND RECOMMENDATION. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION FOR THE ORDER TO REMAIN IN PLACE. I WILL AT THIS POINT, THE IDEA TO KEEP IT UNTIL SENTENCING, WHICH TIME IT WOULD BE

withdrawn in order to give the parties the space and time to prepare to meet what I'm sure will be the deluge of media requests. That's at least my preliminary decision at this point. We can always revisit if it seems to be – for some reason, I should, that said.

Obviously, I don't think the defendant, a bond was ever set for the defendant where it would be revoked. The prior order allowing him to come in civilian clothes is revoked given his plea and no longer the presumption of innocence. And in fact, now the actual conviction for the crimes, he will continue to be held at the jail pending sentencing. Is there anything else today? No, Your Honor. Thank you.

I assume the trial date will be vacated. The trial is... The four jurors will be released. The trial will be vacated and I'm...

sure that the jury commissioner will get word to those that receive their summons that they won't be required to attend. So that said, again, if you would all please wait for the parties and the victims, families and others to leave the courtroom before you do, I would appreciate it. And with that, we're adjourned. All right, please. Extraordinary day.

Three years ago, Brian Kohlberger left the Poconos for Washington state where he had everything in front of him. He had gotten into a prestigious PhD program to study criminal justice. He could have had a life in law enforcement, enforcing the law against bad guys. And instead he chose to become one of them. And now three years later, four innocent lives have been stolen by him

as he ruined a fifth, his own along the way. Extraordinary to watch him stand up and say, guilty. I did it. The actual guilty was said while seated, but we saw him stand at the beginning and over and over again, just chilling. Did you murder Madison Mogan, a human being? Yes. Did you murder Kaylee Gonsalves? Yes. And when they were doing the yes part of it, before they got to the guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, when they're doing the yes, it was almost

Kind of snippy the way they were going through it. Here it is. Let me just replay it and then our panel will come back in. Watch. Did you, on November 13th, 2022, enter the residence at 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho, with the intent to commit the felony crime of murder? Yes. Did you, on November 13th, 2022, in Latah County, state of Idaho...

Kill and murder Madison Mogan, a human being? Yes. And did you do that willfully, unlawfully, deliberately, and with premeditation and malice of forethought? Yes. Did you honor about that same date in Moscow, Idaho, kill and murder Kaylee Gonzales, a human being? Yes. And did you do that willfully, unlawfully, deliberately, and with premeditation and malice of forethought? Yes.

And did you on that same date in Moscow, Idaho, kill and murder Zanna Kernodle, pardon me, a human being? Yes. And did you do that willfully, unlawfully, deliberately with premeditation and malice of forethought? Yes.

And then on or about November 13th, 2022, again in Latak County, Idaho, did you kill and murder Ethan Chapin, a human being? Yes. Did you do that willfully, unlawfully, deliberately with premeditation and malice of war thought? Yes.

Just awful. Yes, yes, yes. Like a student taking an oral exam and he's got all the answers and he can comfort himself at having them for the rest of his life as he rots in prison, which is a fate too good for Brian Kohlberger. Bringing back Matt Murphy and Howard Bloom. Wow. Matt, I'll start with you on it. It's not your first rodeo seeing something like that. What did you make of what we just witnessed? Um,

I'm kind of frustrated, actually. I sat on our death penalty special circumstance committee for 15 years in Orange County. And essentially what you do in a special circumstances murder is you go through the law piece by piece and you weigh the aggravating versus mitigating circumstances.

And you go through those very carefully. What are the factors in aggravation? What are the factors in mitigation? And from that, we would make a recommendation to the elected DA, who then makes a very somber decision whether or not to seek the death penalty or life without possibility of parole. We only sought death in less over the course of those 15 years, less than 4% of the cases, Megan. This case screams out for the death penalty. So my big question here is what changed?

Because it's unethical to file a death enhancement or to seek the death penalty with the idea that you are extracting a plea. And I'm not saying this prosecutor did that. But when you hear the evidence, for me, listening to the fact that he got a K-bar on Amazon before he moved out, I think that's a new fact.

I knew about the phones. I knew about the rest of it. This is an overwhelming case. So, again, what changed other than him deciding other than Koberger asking to plead guilty that changed the assessment that this was a death penalty case? And and it is at the end. And I don't like to being a prosecutor is a tough job. I acknowledge that I did it for 26 years. So I'm I'm reluctant to criticize Koberger.

you know, because it is a tough position. But if he choked up at the end, I think that we listened to the DA choke up at the end. He did. He talked about that. It's like, dude, you gave this guy a break and we didn't hear one single thing that changed in your assessment between the aggravating and the mitigating factors. We didn't hear anything. We didn't hear anything about a new story of abuse, some piece of evidence that wasn't going to be admitted. Nothing changed. And one of those families is irate

And...

you don't, it's like the old saying, there's no crying in baseball. There's no crying in, um, when you're in the prosecution business and you're talking about the slaughter of four innocent kids, when you're giving the defendant a break, the big winner today, I hate to say it is Brian Koberger. And, um, I am, uh, I'm, I'm just, I was frustrated listening to that. And I, I got no problem calling him out. Um, unless there was something that changed behind the scenes that we didn't hear about today. I think, um,

I think that they should have proceeded with the death penalty. Well said. Nothing changed, Howard. Nothing changed other than Brian Kohlberger's willingness to take the plea. It is such a cynical decision on the part of the state to make this plea bargain. And during the course of the recitation by Thompson, he kept on saying things like,

So many things we don't know. He said, for whatever reason, we don't know exactly why he did this. The state, the evidence suggests these are answers that we will never get, that the families, more importantly, will never get. I think they need to know this.

It was a very dramatic moment and ultimately very disappointing moment. Even the state's decision to keep the gag order in place. They're trying to keep this quiet for as long as they can to get this over with and then move on. Move on. That's been the, you know, from the beginning of this case. They were in a rush to tear down the house where the murders occurred. The judge himself

himself who took this case, Hipler, said, "I'm not happy to be here. I wish I could say I was, but I'm not." Judge Judge quickly got off of it. The original judge, the chief of police, retired as soon as he could.

This is not a political cover-up, but it's sort of a benign neglect. Let's move on, let Idaho forget this. But the reality is the state, the town, the surviving families, they will never forget this. And I think they've done a real injustice by the state.

Totally agree. They, they deserved the trial that they were promised that they were entitled to. They deserve to see the witnesses take the stand and have the actual evidence, the overwhelming evidence presented against him so that there'd be zero doubt in anybody's mind. We deserved it. We deserve to see him sentenced to death. If the death penalty is not appropriate for Brian Kohlberger, who is it appropriate for?

four innocents, three of whom were asleep in their beds with zero chance of even fighting back. He murdered them at the prime of their life with it all in front of them. Who's the death penalty for? Idaho has the death penalty. They believe in the death penalty because of that prosecutor who wants us to feel that he does empathize with the victim's family with that choking up at the very end part.

It was in his hands, Matt. He could have said no. The only thing that changed, I've been reading nonstop about it since we found out that there was a deal. The only thing that changed was the circumstances on the defense side. None of the proof and Taylor's attempt to get the death penalty off the table was

failed. Ann Taylor's attempt, Howard and I have been talking about this for two years now, to get the DNA evidence thrown out because there was some, like, T's weren't perfectly crossed and I's weren't perfectly dotted in finding that hit in the DNA database. Her challenge to that failed. Ann Taylor's attempt at the last minute to bring in four other names as possible suspects failed when the judge said there's zero evidence those people did it. And in fact, DNA and fingerprint tests have been done on them and they have nothing to do with this case.

Only when Ann Taylor realized she didn't have a shot at disproving anything, at really poking holes in the prosecution's case, did she go to them on Friday and say, make us an offer? And he did. And what you're saying is a prosecutor who knows he has a good case would nine times out of 10 and has the right to say, I will not make you a deal. The deal is he can plead guilty and be subjected to the death penalty.

Yeah, not nine times out of 10, Megan. That's the only thing I've heard between you and Howard that he disagree with. It's 999 times out of 1000 on a death case. The decision was already made. So why did we just go through all this? And I'll tell you another thing I take issue with. What's with the acknowledgement of there are many other houses in the area? The guy's pleading guilty. We know he was there to go check out King's Road. Well,

Like, why is he doing that? There's other houses that are there. He's trying to imply, well, maybe I couldn't have won this case. Don't attack me because maybe my case wasn't that solid. He is going overboard to impugn his own case publicly so he won't be criticized. Well, let me tell you another thing. Yeah, and another thing, and look, when he says there was no component, I wrote this down, no sexual component or sexual assault, he doesn't know that.

How do we know what Brian Koberger's intent was, which is exactly you're just talking about, Megan? What do we why did he enter that house? And he was obsessed with Ted Bundy. We know about that from some of the information. Actually, I think I read about that from something that that Howard wrote. We know that he was obsessed with Ted Bundy. Ted Bundy sexually abused every single one of his victims.

So, like Mike Tyson says, everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face, right? The great philosopher Mike Tyson. We don't know what Brian Koberger was thinking, but I can tell you this, the vast majority of serial killers – and I prosecuted 13 of these guys. I'm about to write a second book on serial killers.

The vast majority of them back in the 1880s, they were dubbed sadistic lust murderers. That's what they used to say. He doesn't know this guy with his beard. Sorry, does not know what Brian Koberger was thinking when he went in there. And he cannot say there was not a sexual component to it. And I'll tell you what, on behalf of sexual abuse victims everywhere, these victims can't speak for themselves. That was a slap in the face to people that have survived.

horrific things like this. He doesn't know. So he maybe he meant to say there was no actual sexual assault, which is fine. But he spoke to his intent. And that, I think, was inappropriate.

Also, it's incorrect. I mean, you cannot go into a house, target a young woman, and without having a sexual element in some way being part of the motivation. And the thing is, we'll never know his real motivation. All these things that Thompson said, he admitted for whatever reason, evidence suggests, we'll never get those answers.

Also interesting, this is a major victory really for Ann Taylor. She accomplished what she could with the cards she was dealt. She kept her client from going before a firing squad.

And yet the only time there was, I thought, a moment of perhaps a disagreement when the judge asked her, did you get all the discovery you needed? And that's been a key part for her. She's been protesting that time after time. She filed two separate motions about not getting the discovery she needed. And yet here she paused, you know, pregnantly. And then she conceded yes, just to appease the judge, I think. Yeah. Can I add something else, Megan? You know, just having...

Having done so many of these, when you listen to that judge, that's a no-nonsense judge. I know Howard's got some criticism for him as a practicing lawyer. I can't offer any from what I just saw. But look, that judge would have taken care of business. He would have made the right rulings. He was sober. As a person,

A trial lawyer, that's the type of person that when you've got the evidence, when you have a judicial officer like that who is smart and on the ball, like I think this judge very much is, um,

That's the courtroom where you win your cases. So again, what has changed? I mean, you've got a solid judge. You have overwhelming evidence. I've heard nothing whatsoever in mitigation offered at any point by the defense. This is a really good death penalty case. And they all get appealed and –

You know, you're going to face the highest level of appellate scrutiny through the Ninth Circuit as death penalty cases should. But again, the decision was made. The family's geared up for it. I want to know what changed other than him coming to the table and wanting to take a deal, which they always do. Let me just add this other piece of it, because you mentioned this. Did he have sexual motive in mind or was there any sexual element to this?

To back up what you said, you remember this came out in that Dateline special that happened like a month ago that led Ann Taylor to say we need a delay of the trial date. This thing is so damning to us. And clearly somebody on team prosecution or cop participated or so it would seem because a lot of the evidence we heard the prosecutor talking about there, we learned from that Dateline special. And one of the things was that

in November 2022 after, I believe it was after the murders, Brian Kohlberger searched the internet for information about Ted Bundy and

and made a number of searches for pornography with the keywords drugged, sleeping, and passed out. Now you tell me why he insisted on going in there at four in the morning when three out of his four victims were asleep. Ethan was asleep, Zanna was up, and she got chased. But Maddie and Kaylee were asleep in their beds, and he's searching for porn relating to sleeping victims, Matt?

And this prosecutor can say there was no sexual. He doesn't know what Brian Kohlberger did. He didn't he doesn't know whether he got off as he's murdering those two girls or what element it brought up for him. Like, how dare he say that?

That's right. That's right. Totally inappropriate for him to do that. I don't know if he misspoke and just meant to say sexual assault, because of course that doesn't appear to have happened. But for him to say there's no sexual component, that offends me. Sorry. I don't think he misspoke. I think he said it deliberately because he wants to put his plea deal in the best light.

i also think it's interesting to look at ann taylor and her team uh she filed many motions uh saying that coberger because where he was on the autistic spectrum wasn't able to understand right things he couldn't cooperate with his lawyers he couldn't understand what was happening in the courtroom he couldn't actually even make a plea now all of a sudden she is allowing him to make this plea he's saying under oath that he understands everything and

I know lawyers have a responsibility to defend their clients, whoever they are, to the best of their abilities. But things were said in defense of Kohlberger by Ann and her team, Ms. Massooth. Ms. Massooth put her arm around Kohlberger and said it is an honor, an honor to defend him. These things, I think, need to be answered.

Yeah, there's a, you know, I'm a little more, um, here it is, here it is just, just to reiterate, this is the full quote from the prosecutor. I will say for the record that there is no evidence there was any sexual component or sexual assault on any of the victims. I want to make that clear. So there's no speculation. There it is clear as day. There is no sexual, there was no sexual component.

Um, that he is out of line. How can he possibly know in, in light of those searches, which by the way, he didn't mention.

He also didn't mention those searches when going back over his evidence. I'm sure that was no accident, Matt. Which are 100 percent admissible, Megan. They would be admissible in court for motive, even if it's an uncharged act. That's coming in. Any judge is letting that in. I guarantee that particular judge would let that into evidence. So, yeah, that's I think maybe I hate to say it.

Let me, let me just say one other thing about judge. I see your point. I take your point was winnable because the judge is no nonsense, but I will say shame on that judge for not understanding how to pronounce Xana Cronodal's name by this point in the proceedings, it was disrespectful. And I can understand once you're nervous, the cameras are on, but it happened repeatedly. And I'm sure it,

it had like the shock effect on anyone who knew Zanna, including her family. Like, I'm sorry, but study the names before you walk in there as the judge. I thought it was disrespectful. And Howard, I also thought it was disrespectful for him to open it up

by chastising Steve Gonsalves, which is really what he did with his whole someone is telling people to call the court. That was Steve in a desperate father whose daughter is murdered, said, please, maybe if we call the courthouse, we can stop this from getting approved. And instead of being like,

you know, gentle about it. Please don't call the court because it's not going to change anything with respect to the families. We understand this is agonizing. Instead, he was angry and his ire was toward the dad of one of the four victims. I mean, Steve is a tragic figure in this whole case. Early on, he made a statement. I was there. He said, you send your daughter off to college and she comes back to you in a box.

I mean, that's heartbreaking. And after living through something like that, everything that he does, however

seems out of bounds, out of normal rules of conduct, of decorum, well, you have to cut him some slack. You have to understand it. He's become, to my mind, and I wrote about him a great deal in my book and elsewhere, an almost Captain Ahab figure who refuses to surrender, who's going on wherever it is, who's doing his own investigation, who's trying to connect the dots any way he can. If he

thinks I did something wrong, he's on my case. I understand that. If he thinks the police did something wrong, he's on their case too. I mean, in many ways, he's a hero and yet he's also will be a victim forever of this case. All those families, that's the real tragedy, there are no survivors, they're only victims.

Yeah, I do want to give credit where credit is due, though. Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry. Yeah, you know, one thing to keep in mind here that I do want to say that I think the judge did do right is by continuing the sentencing hearing itself under Idaho law, the court does not have to give the victims an opportunity to address the court. OK, so that's one thing that the judge didn't have to do that he did do that is incredibly important for victims' families, including hopefully on that day, Mr. Gonsalves himself, because he'll be able to

expressed that with Brian Koberger sitting in the room. And under, they have a crime victims bill of rights that passed in 1994, but it is discretionary with the court. So I do want to say kudos to the court for allowing the family to do that. I think that was very appropriate. And what he could have done, he could have imposed the sentence today.

And so by putting that off, I do want to give him credit on that one point because that is one of those things, even though everybody is going to know what the sentence is going to be. And I can tell you right now, he's not reducing any of these counts. But when family members address the court, I've sat through a lot of those. They are incredibly impactful, and it does give them something, at least emotionally.

They get their moment in court where the defendant has to listen to them to talk about their grief. So, you know, once again, credit where credit is due on that point. We heard that the judge said it was going to be July 22nd. It's been moved to July 23rd. So it's now going to be July 23rd. I will say this. You know, Steve Gonsalves was out there

begging for the court to listen to him because he was very upset about how this went down. And he was very upset that he did learn about the fact that there was a plea deal via email. We talked about this a bit yesterday, Matt, via email. And I just want you to remember that, the audience to remember that as we look back at this prosecutor,

I'm just going to say it. I think working up tears in that one moment, I think he, I think it was an affectation meant by him to show I I'm connected to this case. It's been very hard on me. I'm a feeling person. Don't believe that I, I disregarded anybody's wishes and striking this deal because I really think we wouldn't be seeing

a notification by email to the families that the guy's not going to be put to death and there's not going to be a trial if he deeply cared, as he clearly wants us to believe in this. It might be tears of relief that he can move on. He's finally done. If that is true, Megan, if that watch standby. So, Your Honor, at the end, the state submits the evidence that I've given just quick overview of.

And that's presenting court would consume weeks, which the state is prepared to do and has been prepared to do, which show that as the defendant has just admitted and pleaded guilty on November 13th, 2022. Excuse me. This coberger entered the residence of 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho. He did that with the intent to kill.

We will not represent that he intended to commit all of the murders that he did that night, but we know that that is what resulted and that he then killed intentionally, willfully, deliberately, with premeditation and with malice forethought, Manny Mogan, Kaylee Gonzalez, Ethan Chapin, and Sally Craneau. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, Howard.

Well, he's a very good performer. And this was his opportunity to have his final say and then move on. I think it was a very contrived moment. I think he was milking it for all it was worth. And he can also be very tough. During one of the motions, filings, he got a

the defense witness to cry on the stand when he was, he was coming at him so hard. Uh, Bill Thompson can be a very tough guy. And I, I think this was a moment to show that even though he's making this deal, he cares. Uh, I think that's why it seemed, it seemed orchestrated to me. I have to be honest. It seemed like the timing of it, how it came just right at the last moment while he was closing. He's the Latah County prosecutor, Bill Thompson. I don't know, Matt, do you want to say something on it?

Well, look, when men cry in court, it is among professional prosecutors. It's that's a trope. We make fun of we make fun of people doing that. It's not professional. It's it comes off whether it's legitimate or not. In this case, it comes off as totally performative. And it it also if it

If that's right, if Steve Gonsalves, and I think he's been accurate, obviously he's very angry. But if that's true, that they were notified in an email, you don't get to cry in court when you talk about their daughter. I'm sorry. I mean, I got to call him out on that. It's unprofessional. There are prosecutors all across the country right now who just watched that and rolled their eyes. I guarantee it. And defense lawyers, too. That was...

The case is certainly tragic. It's not even tragic. Tragedy is the wrong word. Murder is not. Tragedy is what happens when somebody gets hit by a bus. OK, murder is different. Murder is intended. So it is as awful as it is. You can cry behind closed doors that you've gone through the evidence. But to cry publicly when Stephen Gonsalves refuses to go inside, I just I think people should have a problem with that. And this guy, look, he he he said he was going for death.

Nothing appears to have changed. And it looks like they blanked. You had all the evidence in the world. But I do want to say this. It is horrible for the families when death penalty cases come back. I had to try cases that came back. My Rodney Alcala case, I did the third trial of that. It's brutal on the families.

But that's why you you you put on a good case and you you keep it streamlined and you do it right. And you remove those issues on appeal. And that's I can't help but think of that. You know, in politics, the Democrats have been trying to trying out that taco thing. This is before Trump dropped bombs on Iran. Trump always chickens out. Thompson always chickens out. He's a taco. This guy, Thompson, he chickened out. That's how it seems to me.

It's for once I agree with politics with you, Megan. Everything goes back to politics in my life. But Howard, I wanted to ask you when you watch when you watch Kohlberger, because you I mean, you've written books about this guy now. You've gone deep into his writings when he was a teenager. Was it what did you make of his snappy little? I know the answer. Yes, yes, yes, I did. I killed that human being and that one.

He was in control. He was the best student. His legal team, you could see they showed some emotion a little bit in their faces. He had a haircut. He didn't wear a suit jacket. He looked like he'd been working out. His arms looked sort of pumped a little bit. You know, it made you think that...

you know, five, you know, five terms in prison, four terms in prison rather is not going to be so hard for him. It's a travesty. It really is. I mentioned that to the audience. He was sitting there. He was clean cut. He didn't have any sort of facial hair. His hair looked like it had been recently cut. It was closely cropped on the sides and,

It looked a little lighter than I saw when he was first arrested and we saw him in the jumpsuit. It looked like a lighter brown as opposed to like the darker brown, at least from the feed I was watching. He was wearing a white button down for the listening audience. He's wearing a white button down like a man, a man's work shirt that you'd wear to, you know, Wall Street and a blue gray tie, but no jacket, which is interesting.

And, um, he had one piece of paper in front of him and one pen. He was next to Ann Taylor and another female attorney. He had broad shoulders. He looked fit. He used to be morbidly obese and then got super into veganism and health and went on this tear after his heroin addiction and got super thin, which, you know, became a new sort of religion in his life from what we read. Um, I want

Do we have Phil now? Phil Holloway is joining us. He's also here. No, he's not here. Okay, he's going to be here in a minute, so he'll join us with his thoughts on everything. Yeah, if I can just add to what you were saying. I'm sorry. Yeah, go. Go ahead. Yeah. From a tactical perspective, you look at that, and when you get into the penalty phase and the defense starts calling experts to talk about his autism or where he is on the spectrum and how he's not functional, what we saw is a guy who was sharp, who understood the rules. He was attentive. He has audacity.

All of that cuts the prosecution way in the penalty phase. So that actually, in my eyes, was very telling on the likelihood of the defense prevailing on any of those mental health issues or any of that sort of thing. Brian Koberger, he was lucid. He understood everything that was going on. And that is exactly why, once again, this is a death penalty case at the very beginning, and it should still be a death penalty case now.

And also you had some motions. Yeah. But you had information yesterday that you sent me. I read it to the audience. Speculation about what may have led him to plead regarding his parents. And let me just give you this bit of information from the courtroom about Kohlberger's parents. And then you can fill things in, Howard. Brian Enten of News Nation's reporting as follows. Brian Kohlberger's parents are not crying, but they do. They look sad, unlike their son, who looks stone cold.

He admitted it all. I'm sitting behind his parents. So the parents were there today. Maybe not his sisters from the sound of it. I'm not sure, but his parents were there. And that leads me back to Steve Gonsalves because outside the court house this morning, he had a couple of, of odd things.

I mean, not well odd in that I didn't fully understand them about asking their news media to go check out when Brian Kohlberger's father bought his plane tickets to come out. Do we have that soundbite? You guys, we can play it. Stand by. Here it is. Yeah. What do you want? We know. We know when you flew out here. We know. We know. We have your flight records. How are you preparing to see him today?

When you say you know the flight records, what do you mean, Steve? I know when his parents booked their flights. When his father did. What does that mean? You'll find out. Would you like to say something to them? No, I don't care about it.

The rest of your family went inside. Is it important for them to be in there today? Yeah, for sure. Where are you going? Are you not able to get in? We're just getting out of this. You're not staying in? No, we're not going in. First of all, it's remarkable because he's usually very composed and you can see today was tough for him. But what do you make of Kohlberger's family, their presence there, and what, if any, role they had in his reversal? Because all along the word had been he's not

taking a plea. He wants to go to trial. What I discovered in the course of my reporting that early on, Ann Taylor had a sense that this is a case that they could

She would like to get a plea deal. She approached Koberger and discussed it with him This is before there was the alternate perpetrator ruling that was ruled out and he said no Because his mother was insisting that she did not want her son to admit to guilt to these crimes Maybe she didn't believe he was guilty or whatever then it seems and this is what I've been told this is what has been suggested to me that on on

It's a matter of record that after the murders, on 6:00 a.m., he called for an hour at the parents' home in Pennsylvania. At 6:00 a.m. he spoke with his mother, not his father.

It was suggested that the state was now going to call the mother to the stand and want to find out what was said during that phone call. That caused Kohlberger, as it was reported to me, a great deal of distress. He did not want this to become public.

He also did not want, it was brought up to him, that his father would have to testify perhaps on the stand about what was said during their cross-country trip that I write about in great detail in my book and in the airmail articles. He wanted that to be kept secret too. So part of the reason

I've been told that he finally agreed to tell his team, try to see if we can get a plea deal, was that he wanted to keep his parents from testifying. He didn't want them to be put in a situation that might leave them in some sort of jeopardy, might impugn their reputations in the community. He was trying to protect them. That led to him making this deal.

What you just said, because I, I struggled with this yesterday asking how can a sociopath who takes the eye, the live so easily for innocence, then have empathy for his parents? Like, well, gee, I don't want that, but maybe it's not empathy. It's that empathy.

I don't want them to be in the position of like going to jail. I'm human being enough to say, I don't want them becoming like the parents of, um, that guy down in Florida, Brian Landry, uh, who killed Gabby Petito. And it was very clear. The parents knew what their son had done. They denied it, but they, they've become the scourges of the nation because it was very clear that they let Gabby Petito's parents suffer while they knew their son had done something terrible.

These are the only anchors he has for the rest of his life in jail. He wants to protect them. If he can get out of this quickly. Everyone wants to just get this over with and move on. And that's why I also find so distressing that the judge allowed this gag order to stay in place until after everything is done. So everything that reporters might find out would become ancient history by the time it gets out there.

Well, I mean, they haven't been able to stop you, Howard. It's been incredible. The scoops you've gotten that we've then watched come alive as the case went on. Scoop after scoop would be verified later as the I think in some of the cases, law enforcement got more bold about releasing some of their things. And let me just ask you to follow up on that, Howard, on that Dateline special that had so many previously unknown details.

Do you think that was law enforcement cooperating with Dateline? Do you think there was some disgruntled cop who was like, this thing's not going the way I want it to go. And I got to make sure this stuff gets out there.

I, you know, participated in that special. Yeah, you were in it. And I really don't want to comment on it and say about any of the sourcing on it. I think it would be unfair to my involvement in there. But just the producers did a tremendous job. They really broke this case open.

Oh, that's interesting. I'm going to text you offline and then, and then I'll get back to my audience in a way that's reportable. Okay. Phil Holloway joins us now. He just beamed in. Uh, we were on the air together not long ago talking about the Diddy trial. And I have to say, Phil, you know, like what a bad day for justice. This is what a bad day, you know, Diddy gets off on the main charges against him and Brian Kohlberger didn't get away with murder, but his life is spared and he doesn't deserve it. Your thoughts.

You know, I'm joining this conversation with your other guests a little late, and I'm not sure what their position may be on this, but look,

As I said, as we were heading out of our earlier Diddy discussion in the last minute or so of that, I think this was a travesty. I think that they had a closed, open and closed case against Koberger. I think it was an obvious conviction. And after hearing this presentation today and the change of plea hearing, I'm even more settled in that conviction. They

The only real reason that I can think of is when I was a prosecutor, you know, we always were told that victims get a say in these things. Now, they don't get to drive the train. And I understand that maybe some of the victims' families may have supported this, but you needed more unanimous agreement. The victims' families needed to know the why of all this, I think, to get enough closure.

Now, I'm sure there's reasonable arguments on the other side of that as well. You know, they don't have to live through the appeals process and thinking about this for the next several decades. All those are valid points. But if you have the victims that are not unanimously on board, then I don't see how they can go forward with a prosecution that does not include the death penalty.

Can you, Matt, can you go to the defendant who's come to you saying, please make an offer and say, I'll consider life without parole if we get a full allocution from you? We want to know the details of the families will not sign off on it. And I'm just not going to do this without their blessing unless they have questions answered. And that's what we need. Can you do that? A hundred percent. You can do that.

100% that's available. And the only thing is to keep in mind here, Megan, it's not life without possibility of parole. It is 50 to life is what we're talking about. Consecutive sentences of burglary plus the four murders. And that's 50 to life right now, mandatory minimum until like you observed yesterday when we were talking about this, until they changed the law in Idaho.

Hopefully they don't, but in California where I am, our legislature changes the law to the benefit of defendants all the time. And 50 years is an awful long time for that law to change. And especially when it comes to-

Well, I know. Yeah, this but this is a 10 year mandatory minimum. So that's 10 years to life, essentially, for each one in Idaho. Stacking them consecutively means this is a determinant sentence. I believe at sentencing day, unless there's some provision in Idaho law I'm not aware of. He's looking at 50 to life, which means if he survives long enough, he would have an opportunity for a parole hearing. That's something that that.

Hasn't been discussed yet, but that's my reading of what I heard from the judge today. Wait, but how can that be? Because they said they'll run consecutively, meaning one after the other. So it would be 50 years potentially on each murder victim plus another 10 on the burglary. No. So that would be- It's 10 years. No? It's a 10-year minimum stacked up.

It's a 10 year minimum for each murder. So like in California for a second degree murder, how are you shaking your head? Did I do my mouth wrong? No, no, no, it's right. It's just, I'm shaking my head in disgust. I mean, you know, we talk about politics being the art of the deal. Well, this was Thompson's chance to make the deal. He had all the cards and he just blew it.

And by the way, Philip, just so you know, everything you said, I agree with. You basically echoed everything I said, too, as another former prosecutor. So you're telling me, Matt, just to back to your main point, there actually is a chance under this deal that he could see the light of day again.

I think there's a there's a there's a good chance you'll get a parole hearing, whether hopefully he's never given an opportunity. And the parole boards in Idaho remain steady. You know, but California, we've seen a huge shift to the left and to people getting out in the legislature, the legislature.

legislature has passed multiple laws that make it easier and easier for lifers to get out. Life used to mean life in California, and over the last 15 years, it has tacked very dramatically the opposite way. So who knows what's going to happen in Idaho, but that's the thing. LWOP is not his sentence. He will have a mandatory minimum time, I believe, based on this math, of 50, and it might even be less than that if burglary is less.

He's going to he's agreeing to the 10. But, you know, as I'm writing down the math and my mouth is usually wrong, but that's this is going to be, I believe, a 50 year to life sentence where he will do a mandatory minimum of 50 less the Berg potentially. But he's going to be eligible for parole hearing based on what I heard today in court.

Wow. He's only 30 years old. He's still a young man.

the victims can't do. I mean, maybe he's in jail, but he gets to, he gets to make something of a life himself, life for himself. Even if it's in prison, they don't get that. He deserves to spend the next several decades, uh,

not just working out the arts and crafts and the whatever kind of things he's going to get lined up for in prison. He needs to spend the next several decades worrying about that firing squad. Is it going to hurt? Are they going to aim right? Is it going to be quick or am I going to feel the firing squad? That's the punishment. That's what he needs to be thinking about over the next 50 or so years, not whether or not he gets to make his Skype calls every day.

And I think families need to have answers. They can't be left with for whatever reason or the evidence suggests. And the taxpayers at Idaho who funded this whole thing for two and a half years, this needs to be taken to a conclusion. Let's find out what happened. Can I add to Philip's comment real quick, Megan?

When it comes to these types of deals, one of the things you hear in the death penalty debate so often is, well, it gives them a long time to sit in their cell and essentially think about what they did. That, again, is humanizing the psychopath. Their brains don't work like that. They

They don't think like the rest of us. Otherwise, they wouldn't have committed the crime in the first place. They don't sit in their cell regretting what they did. There's no such thing as regret in their mind. So Philip is exactly right. I really hit the nail on the head. He's going to go-

looking like psycho in front of a shower. Keep going, Matt. Does that guy look like somebody that's going to sit in a cell and regret anything that he did? I mean, he he that guy probably still has some DNA at the moment. He took that photo of the victims on his body as he's given a thumbs up. So that's not somebody that is going to regret anything in jail. And he looks like a vampire in that photo, by the way. I mean, that's you guys.

That is that guy is not going to jail. He's not going to sit and stay present and regret one thing that he did. He's going to regret getting caught, but he will adjust. And just like just like Phil just pointed out, he's going to program and he's going to do the classes and he's going to probably finish out his Ph.D. and he's going to he's going to.

Talk to other inmates and he has an opportunity to make friends and sit in a chat line and his family will get him a TV. And it is absolutely not the same thing as sitting on death row, especially someplace like Idaho that really might execute him. Unlike California and some other states that have death penalty on the books, but it's not actually carried out. Idaho, he would actually face death.

Yeah. Here's what Kaylee Gonsalves is 18 year old sister. Aubrey wrote in reaction to the news of the deal. Brian Kohlberger facing a life in prison means he would still get to speak, form relationships and engage with the world. Meanwhile, our loved ones have been silenced forever. That reality stings more deeply when it feels like the system is protecting his future more than honoring the victim's pasts. So well said by an 18 year old. And by the way, again, to the point of like the judge couldn't even,

pronounce Zanna Kurnodal's name. It's like, yes, it felt disrespectful. Where were the victims there today? There wasn't really even a moment where we learned who they really were or anything about them. There was absolutely no attempt to humanize the victims today by the judge or the prosecutor for that matter. They were all but forgotten in there, Howard.

Totally. I mean, also to go back to the photograph we just showed of the thumbs up, that photograph was taken approximately 20 minutes after he got off the hour phone call with his mother.

So that's sort of the timeline. Do you think he confessed to the mother, Howard? Is that what you're intimating? It's a hypothesis. I think things were said to her that made her perhaps realize something's not right. Just the same way that on the drive across the country, his father realized, was beginning to realize,

"Could my son be this monster?" I mean, you're sitting shoulder to shoulder in a white Hyundai. Every cop in the whole country is looking for a white Hyundai Elantra. You know your son has some problems. You put two and two together. But can they make that leap? - And his sister too, right?

Yes, the sister was the one who really articulated it. At some point she goes to the father and confronts him and he, according to the reporting I've done, he walks off. He doesn't make any comment. But slowly they are following this trail of footprints and they realize where it's leading to them. And I think this phone call, what happened on that phone call would have come up in the courtroom and it might have implicated them, might have put them in perhaps legal jeopardy.

And that picture you're showing now, he looks like an army recruit with his shaved sort of sides and looking in good shape. Oh, he's definitely been working out. I mean, he's got like the broad shoulders now, which he didn't have before. But there is one person who knew him almost as well as the family, arguably, and that was his college professor, his master's degree professor, this Catherine Ramsland professor.

who hasn't spoken at all. She has given no interviews because she was expected to be called as a witness by the prosecution. But since the case has pled out, she feels free to speak. And she gave an interview to news nations, Brian Enten last night. It was fascinating. I'm going to show you guys a couple of pieces of it. I showed one at the top of our show today, but I'm going to get into the substance here. Okay. So he asked her all the right questions like this one, like

Did you get the creepy vibe off of him is essentially what he's asking when, when he was in your many classes. And here's that in stop 43. Was there anything looking back now that was strange about him or that you, that you noticed?

When I look back, there really isn't anything that stood out to me. I think when you're a teacher, your instinct is to accept students at face value. You don't start with suspicions. There really weren't any red flags. He was always really quite respectful and kind.

I'm grateful. He would thank me for things. He was attentive. He would do the work. I didn't have any concerns. I just want the audience and you guys to hear, we worked on this special with Howard in December, 2023, where we, for a week, got into this case. And we pulled and Howard pulled Brian Kohlberger's old writings from his teenage years. And

This is just to the point that he let me play for you how sick he is. We had our producer voice over his Internet posts. They were written. This is not Brian Kohlberger's voice. It's our producer's voice. But this guy who you're about to hear had even Catherine Ramsland fooled about him being a good guy who was just there to study criminology earnestly. We'll start with here. Stop 56. July 4th, 2011.

I've had this horrible depersonalization go on in my life for almost two years. I feel like an organic sack of meat with no self-worth as I'm starting to view everything as this. And then he goes on, stop 55, watch. May 12th, 2011. I always feel as if I am not there, completely depersonalized. Mentally, I experience fog, lack of comprehension at some times, feel like my life is a movie, depersonalization, depression.

No interest in activity. Constant thought of suicide. Crazy thoughts. Delusions of grandeur. Anxiety. Poor self-image. Poor social skills. No emotion. I feel like nothing has a point to it. When I get home, I am mean to my family. This started when VS or visual snow did. I felt no emotion and along with the depersonalization, I can say and do whatever I want with little remorse. Everyone hates me.

Pretty much. I am an asshole. I'm just going to give you one more, Howard, because this one speaks to his relationship with his family. As I hug my family, I look into their faces. I see nothing. It is like I am looking at a video game, but less. I feel less than mentally damaged. It is like I have severe brain damage. I am stuck in the depths of my mind.

I say, hug my family. I feel nothing. But he, that same guy who would then go on to get addicted to heroin, but then get off of it, started straightening out his life and wound up in front of one of the foremost criminal justice and forensic experts in the world at this college in Pennsylvania. And she was totally fooled by him. That's what she told Brian Enten last night. There wasn't an inkling Howard that she was dealing with her own serial killer.

That's what she says. What's also a matter of record is that several days after Koberger was caught in Pennsylvania, she calls up the family. She offers to help. According to Koberger's Pennsylvania attorney, the family wouldn't meet with him until they were cleared by Dr. Ramsland.

So she's been involved in this in the beginning. Brian, who's a great reporter, tenacious reporter, he's been far ahead in the story than just about anyone else. He got Dr. Ramsland to say very shrewdly, do you intend to do a book? Would you like to see him? And she says, yeah, I would. And I think that's what she's been trying to from the beginning.

Well, I mean, everyone wants to read that. I mean you, cause you, we do want answers. So before I get to that piece of her interview, he asked her, of course, the question about like first, first he asked, what did you make of it? When you heard that your star student who you recommended for this PhD program in Washington state had been arrested and charged with these murders. And here's her reaction to that and stop 45.

What did you think when you first heard that Ryan Koberger, your former student, was arrested for this? I was completely floored. I didn't believe it. And his demeanor that we saw on media was that he was confident that he was going to be able to prove his innocence. So I wanted to wait and see. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But as months go by and he kept saying that he had an alibi and I wondered, well, why are you sitting in jail? Give us your alibi. Get out. And that wasn't happening. And then it was really when

He said his alibi, and it was clearly not an alibi, and he would have known that, certainly from all the classes that he had through undergraduate and graduate work. He would have understood that wasn't really an alibi. I think that was when I was really, you know, floored that this is my student who has done these things.

That is so telling because we all watched this and he said he had an alibi. We all waited as lawyers like and as reporters. What's the alibi? Great. Lay it on us. Let us test it. And it came out that he was driving around at night stargazing. So even his mentor in the criminal justice field heard that. And that's when she knew he did it. That was remarkable. Anybody want to take that one? Yeah.

Well, you know, at that moment, Ann Taylor must have realized in the back of her mind, my client is guilty and she has to be thinking, how am I going to plea out of this? How can I prevent him from going to a firing squad? I think I'll give it to you in a second, Phil. But Ann Taylor, by the way, you're despicable. You are despicable because you knew you knew your client had done this and you you did a fine job representing him. But you were about to go into trial and try to blame four other people by name.

She was going to blame four guys. You guys, she and Brian Kohlberger were going to team up and go point the finger at people they knew were innocent. And only this judge, Hippler, important to emphasize, it's a P, not a T in the middle of that name, stopped them. And that's what put him in this compromised position. Go ahead, Phil.

Yeah, you can't go and just willy-nilly blame people without one scintilla of evidence, and the judge absolutely made the right call. But speaking of the study of criminology and criminal justice, my undergraduate degree is in

criminal justice. And so I consider myself sort of a lifelong student of crime and criminology. And so it occurs to me, you know, this person has, he, he has this arrogance about him. Okay. It's what, that's what comes across to me when I see the selfies and, and all of that stuff that where he's like proud of what he's done. So think about moving forward for him. He's going to have criminologists and psychologists and, and,

people in academia, they're going to be going to visit him in prison for as long as he's there, and they're going to be studying him, and he's going to enjoy it. It's going to feed into his arrogance, and it's going to make him feel like he's done something now to finally put himself on the map to be worth something now.

in the world. And to me, that is why this plea deal is so tragic because he gets to spend his days having his ego stroked by academicians as opposed to sitting there worrying about whether or not the firing squad is going to hit the right place. Hmm.

And I don't know that the prosecutor has given any of that one thought as far as determining what is justice in this particular case, because I don't think we're on pins and needles to see if Catherine Ramsland is going to get the interview she wants. Here's that exchange in 48. Would you want to study Brian Koberger? Have you put any thought into that? Is that something that you think could be possible?

I've been thinking about that for two and a half years. I would. I mean, this is my work. If he wanted to do that, I would. I know that he's got the intellectual capacity to do it, to be self-reflective, to help

think through how his life came to this. And so I would definitely do it if he were willing and it would be hard. But I think because I have so much material from him, I have questions for him that I think nobody else but me could ask.

Fair enough. But Matt Murphy, there's nothing to stop that from happening, right? She's allowed to go do it. I was talking to Ashley Banfield yesterday on her podcast saying we watched this happen in the in the Watts trial where the father who killed his wife and their two baby girls and put them in the trial.

disgusting towers and let them, anyway, it was awful. He started talking when he got into jail. He got a girlfriend, he had law enforcement come visit him and he started singing like a canary once he got behind bars and a couple of years had passed and he no longer cared.

Well, one of the things that's really interesting about what we just listened to Megan on the, the thing that he wrote, he hit on a, there's a thing called the hair psychopathy checklist that has the, the essentially the character traits of the psychopath. And when he talks about having no remorse and grandiosity, all of those are homework signs of the psychopath. And what I think is really interesting about, um,

Catherine Ramsey is that it speaks like her. The fact that she had no clue is one of the insidious things about serial killers and about psychopaths is that they tend to be highly intelligent. They tend to be manipulative and charming, and they could be in line in front of us at a Starbucks and we would never know. And that is one of the fascinating things. And this, and one of the scary things

about this personality type. And I think it's very, very interesting that letter that we just listened to that he wrote because he basically checks off a bunch of the hallmark

And saying that he's got no remorse. And then and then the one thing he absolutely got right that he's honest about is when he called himself an asshole, because at the bottom line, that's what these guys are. It's and not every psychopath turns into a murderer. In fact, most of them don't. But they're always they put themselves first. They are highly narcissistic. They tend to you know, they have no morals. They have no there's nothing wrong with the moral theory.

compass. They know right from wrong, but they choose to do the wrong thing when it benefits them. And sometimes it's just benefiting their sordid sexual desires. So I think that this case is interesting and look to the extent that he would participate. Maybe she can learn something. Who knows? Um,

Um, but this, this case is fascinating as tragic as it is today. It's fascinating. He asked her the $64,000 question, which is, it gets to what I think she was about to testify to. She is as interesting as all that was. It's not what she was going to testify to. The question is like, what did you see about him? And what did you teach in the class that might be relevant to this case? And here is that, which is the most newsmaking piece of the interview in, uh,

What is it? Yeah, 44. You guys got it. Can you say, Dr. Ramsland, what it was looking back now that sort of raises your eyebrows specifically in terms of things in the class? I think just the idea of wanting to study offenders and what their thought process was, how they felt about their crimes,

Wanting to study that and then finding out that this is a person who then is now saying he's guilty of doing these things, I have to look at the framework of what I taught and wonder, did I inspire him in some way? Did I, you know, but I can't second guess that because I may have inspired somebody else to become an FBI agent.

And that's unfortunately in this field, you know, that's what we live with. I mean, I'll ask you, I'll give that one to you, Matt, because you're also on the side of, you know, they say there's a fine line sometimes between the cop and the criminal. Um,

It was, she was an interesting person. She was, she sort of had a light affect throughout the interview. She was smiling. I, when I think it's probably, I'm not judging her when you're a reporter, even you get gallows humor. You know, I, you guys know that too. You reported on enough cases just as legal commentators and you as a journalist, Howard.

Sometimes you laugh in inappropriate situations and with your team, you know, you just have to because you deal so much in darkness and that's her life. But I do wonder, like, how do you how do you go to sleep at night if you think you inspired Brian Kohlberger?

Well, yeah, I think that this is almost like family members and it's a chicken or egg thing. I think that psychopaths are born far more often than they're actually made. That's my personal opinion. And having dealt with a bunch of them, including a bunch of them that represented themselves in court, which is another hallmark of the psychopathic slash extreme narcissist personality. But this isn't her fault and it's not his family's fault. I haven't heard one inkling of

through abuse. But so often you don't. That's another big myth when it comes to serial killers, Megan, is that what could possibly have made them do that? And we all hearken back to Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs, and we think about these tortured souls that were subject to horrific abuse. The reality is most of these guys

The big answer is why do they do it? It's because they want to do it. They get off on it. They enjoy it. And for lack of a better term, as disturbing as it is, it's fun for them. And that's not this woman's fault. I think it's the other way around. I think he was fascinated. He was drawn to it. He went into this because of who he was to begin with. I don't think she made him. And as far as the gallows humor, yeah, she's removed from that. I don't think she meant to be...

you know, uh, insensitive or insensitive to the victims or their families. Um, you know, she's an academic, um, and it's, and at the end of the day, just like, it's not, it's not her fault. It's usually not family members fault. Usually, um, this, this, this lands on the shoulders of Brian Koberger himself and the deal today. Um, that is the responsibility of that prosecutor that, that cut him the break.

Here's a defense for the prosecutor, Justin, from the family of Maddie Mogan, Kaylee's best friend.

Um, this is via NBC news that her family saying it's, they support the plea agreement. 100% in a statement read by their attorney outside of the courthouse, the family members thanked late talk County prosecutor, bill Thompson asked those who do not support the agreement to quote, respect our belief that this is the best outcome possible for the victims, their families in the state of Idaho. We lost our Maddie, our kind, loving, vivacious and caring daughter full of purpose and promise.

We are grateful for the gift of her life and we have grieved the loss of that life during each of these 962 days. God, that feels so real when you're, when you've lost somebody.

especially to violent crime, to be counting it in the number of days. I mean, that's that sounds so real. And so there is a split. I mean, does that change your opinion at all, Phil Holloway, about the prosecution's decision? You've got Maddie's parents in support of it. You've got Ethan's parents in support of it. You've got Steve Gonsalves against it. And we don't know about Zanna's parents.

You know, it doesn't change my opinion on balance because I felt like unless there was unanimity on the part of the victim's families, they needed to go forward as planned. But now that being said, I do fully understand why.

where this family is coming from, because after all, they don't have to sit through this trial that would have lasted for weeks on end. They would have been there every day, no doubt. They don't have to worry every time there's an appeals court that issues a ruling that might overturn something and require a second trial. They don't have to worry for the next several decades whether there's going to be something that undoes this trial and they got to live through it all over again. And then they don't have to relive it

when that moment of execution were it ever to arrive, all of these things would have kept the memory of this horrible tragedy in their lives at the front and center for the rest of their lives. And at some point, I think we all as human beings know that families need to be able to move on. They need a little bit of closure. And so,

I fully understand why certain families, including that one, would support ending the proceedings in this way. However, I think that there's also a broader societal interest in having this case tried to the public or in public so that we could have seen behind the curtain and we could have learned the why of it all because why?

Apparently, we're never going to learn why he did this. We can study it. We can speculate. Unless Catherine gets it out of him. Maybe he'll talk to his former teacher. Maybe he's looking forward to being studied by her, Phil. Maybe he will. But is he going to ever tell the truth? We don't know. We don't know. I understand the victims who do want to get this behind them. And look, I just think on balance, if I were the prosecutor, I would have wanted all of the families on board with this.

Can I add to that, Megan, real briefly? You get that information from the families before you announce whether or not you're seeking for the death penalty. You factor that in California, we call it a lives of hearing. And it's a very important, sober, formal process that a DA goes through. And you have all the time in the world to announce that. There's no statute or time limit on how long it takes to consider that.

And a good DA will consider all those factors before they make their announcement. And I don't see why that wasn't considered here ahead of time. Again, you make the call based on the information you have. All those families were available to talk to him. And I offer zero criticism to any of the family members in this. But my criticism is directed at the DA. He should have learned all that before he announced he was seeking the death penalty. So you don't go after it and then change your mind down the line. All that was available at the time.

I mean, his behavior was clearly...

Kaylee's mom silently sobbed as the judge read Kaylee's name. An aunt of Kaylee's had her head down holding her forehead. It was also weeping. The aunt also sobbed when prosecutors spoke about blood on the murder weapon, which that was the first time I'd heard that the girl's blood was on, was on the knife sheet that they found blood on the knife sheets. In addition to

Kohlberger's DNA. Madison Mogan's father, Ben, looked agitated, was breathing heavily, rubbing his eyes with a handkerchief. He did not look at Kohlberger while he answered the judge's questions. I'm sure he couldn't even, I mean, think about it as a dad. Madison Mogan's father, Ben, and Kaylee's father, Steve, couldn't even go in there. I mean, he couldn't go in there and Ben couldn't look at him because of course it's a dad's

job. Every dad knows this and feels this to protect his daughter. And these girls were young. They were 21 years old and their dads weren't there. And of course, no one would have expected them to be there, but that would be your feeling as you sat there or got the news about what had happened to them that day. The human element here is just so jarring, guys.

well it was a moment of high drama and and that makes the the district attorney's behavior so capricious i mean it's just uncivilized and rude not to have confronted them first and tell them exactly what's happening to guide them through this to try to make this entire horrible experience as easy as possible it can be it's going to be an impossible experience anyway your duty as a public servant

And as a feeling human being is to help them through this and not just give them emails telling them what's happening. Yeah. And that's the real, that's the real, I think that's almost the worst of it as a father, you know, of a, of a daughter and a son, but these, these college girls they, they, you know, they, they look like they, they could easily be any of our children. And, and, and it's,

To think about, you're just going to get this information by an email. I mean, it's just... I know, you're searching up your random correspondence and then you learn this. It's rude. It's just bad form. And I hope the voters in Idaho remember how this case was dealt with in the end because...

you know, whether or not they did a good job in their legal presentations in court and argued the motions correctly and did all the right things, the way they went about informing these families of the conclusion of this is just, in my view, unforgivable, utterly unforgivable. And by the way, to the point that we were discussing earlier, and Matt said this is totally possible, the thing that Steve Gonsalves said is,

First, he said it's not over till the plea is accepted. And he did want people to contact the courthouse to express their thoughts, which he was chastised for. But secondly, he said at a bare minimum, I'm reading here, please require a full confession, full accountability, location of the murder weapon, confirmation the defendant acted alone, and the true facts of what happened that night. We deserve to know when the beginning of the end was. Oh my God, that is so...

Well put. And I can understand a dad's need to know that. When did my daughter come into your mind as the subject of murder? And we do believe, not Steve's daughter, but we believe that Maddie Mogan was the original intended victim. We'll put their pictures back up because...

We understand that Kaylee had already left this it's Ethan. Um, and then that's Maddie. And then, and then that's Kaylee. And then that's Zanna the Burnett. Okay. So we believe that Maddie who's next to Ethan in this photo was his intended victim because she was the one, he went right up to the third floor. He didn't even stop at the second floor. He clearly knew where she was and Kaylee's presence in the bed that night, or even in the house was unexpected. She had moved out. She

She was only back for a night. So we, the speculation is that he was surprised to find Kaylee again there in the sunglasses, um, that he was surprised to find her in with Maddie. And, you know, you hear Maddie's parents just weeping at the mention of her name and all these others whose children got swept into it because the psychopath entered an unlocked house, which is true of virtually all college houses, at least before this, um, who wanted to do

A dastardly deed. I got to pause. I'm going to say goodbye to you, Howard, and I'm just going to hold the other guys over for a minute on Diddy. Thank you, Howard, for everything on this case. You're great reporting and commentary. It's always a pleasure. You guys, I want to switch all the best. I want to switch to Diddy before we say goodbye because they had to submit their...

their suggested, uh, program on whether Diddy would be released or would be in jail, uh, pending sentencing. And they did that as far as we can see, uh, around one 30, we got, we got one of the submissions. I'm assuming that we got the other one. Uh, let's see. The inner city press was repent reporting at 2.00 PM, uh, submission just now of the bail letters by Combs and the U S attorney's office are in the judge will reconvene the parties at 5.00 PM. Uh,

And I guess he'll make his decision then, but it's pretty crazy. The reaction that we're getting now from the families, the mother walked out of the courtroom, blowing kisses to the fans. Diddy's mother, who is a bizarre, they have a bizarre relationship. I'm sorry. There's strange videos on the internet of them calling each other baby and kissing on the mouth. Like recently it's strange. Um, and now we, let's see.

Here's his mother waving and kissing the crowd. Now, the New York Times reporting a lawyer for Cassandra Ventura submitted a letter to the judge urging him to deny Mr. Combs's request for release on bond. That's Doug Wigdor. He wrote that Miss Ventura believes Mr. Combs is likely to pose a danger to the victims who testified in this case, including herself, as well as to the community. Exactly.

Exactly. That's what we were trying to say earlier, Phil. Like, yes, agreed. So does the judge take that into consideration now that we've heard directly from one of the witnesses and one of his victims? You know, it's a no-brainer. He's been convicted. He's lost the presumption of innocence, at least as to the counts he was convicted of. And so...

You know, he's he is somehow he's it makes more sense to give him a bond now. No, what makes sense is to go ahead and continue letting him serve his time now that that I, if I were the judge, know that I'm going to be giving him when the sentencing begins.

occurs down the road in a few weeks. Look, he's going to be a danger to others. These people know it. The Cassie and the other victims, they know it. They know that their best hope for safety is if he is locked up and does not have that much access to the outside world. Certainly sending him home to live at his home in Miami Beach, definitely

would not give any great comfort to these victims. What this judge is doing, he's delaying, and we talked about this some earlier, because he's consulting with his colleagues to determine whether or not he needs to just act on this and say, look, we're going to keep him in jail or to release him on bond. It ought

to be automatic. He's been convicted. There's jail time that's probably in his future. He needs to just stay put. We don't need to be sitting here waiting until five o'clock on some decision that should have just been automatic. It's entirely within the discretion of the judge. He should have immediately said, nope, we're not even going to entertain that at this time. Sentencing is going to be set for, you know, August 10th or whatever, and just move on. Just to keep it clear for the audience, just because we're talking about judges now, we've switched, we've moved

uh, to the east and to the north. And now we're in a different courtroom. This is federal court in the Diddy case and judge Zubramanian, a Biden appointee who's relatively new to the bench and has to decide not the guilt or innocence of Sean Diddy Combs. That was decided earlier today, guilty on two small counts.

smaller and not guilty on the main charges against him for Rico and sex trafficking. And now this judge has to set a date for sentencing and have recommendations on the sentencing and decide whether Diddy will be free pending, uh, that sentencing hearing out on bail, which he's not right now. Um, adding to what I just said, guys, New York times also reporting that Deontay Nash, he was a witness in this case to stylist and friend of Cassie's

Uh, he wrote a letter to the judge urging, urging him not to release Sean Combs in the wake of the mixed verdict. Prosecutors filed the letter along with their own asking the judge not to give him bail pending sentencing. Uh, Nash who testified that he had seen Combs beating Ms. Ventura cited quote, a long, well-documented history of violent, coercive, and right retaliatory behavior and argued that Mr. Combs should stay in custody. Combs, Mr. Nash wrote,

has repeatedly escaped meaningful accountability. Right on, Deontay Nash. And if released on Wednesday, I have no doubt he will see it as yet another license to continue intimidating, threatening, and harming people who challenge or expose him. What do you make of that, Matt? Do these witnesses, and they're not testimonials, they're pleas, they're begging him not to release this guy pending the serving of his sentence. Will they have any sway with the judge?

They could. The problem, of course, is he wasn't convicted on any of the counts involving them, really. He was convicted on the two man act violations, which is a it's a very old law that, of course, just deals with transporting prostitutes over state lines, which, you know, a lot of lonely guys in New York City, whenever they get a.

they get a hooker to come over one of those bridges from New Jersey, they are technically also committing man act violations. So it's a, that's an old law back when, uh, morality was really, um, uh, something that the federal government would attempt to enforce upon people. So it depends a little bit on, on that, but look, um,

Remember, Megan, when one of the reasons why all the previous attempts at bail were rejected by this judge is that Diddy, while in custody, was borrowing other inmates calling numbers. And the allegation from the prosecution was he was actually attempting to intimidate witnesses from the jail. I think that could weigh in. I think it's also if he is going to give him time for man act violations, I think it's

you know, he'll probably keep them in. But if his intent is to give them credit time served for that, because they really are the least...

You really think he might not get time? And he thinks he was charged with. He could potentially release him. I don't disagree with anything that Phil just said, but it'll be very telling, I think. If he releases him on bond, it means he's probably not intending on sentencing him to any more time, which could be one of the outcomes here. Can I ask you about that? Because there is also a theory that the Mann Act could get ruled out.

invalid, that there could be an appeal on the, on that statute itself, which, which was originally, I guess, passed to, to capture black men who were pimping out white women. And there's a racial element to it. And, you know, they did play the race card in this, with this jury, you know, that's the first thing they said when they stood up there, this is a black man. What has he ever done? They implicated during the course of the trial that the prosecutors brought

The charges, for what reason? Why him? And the judge tried to shut that down, but that horse had already left the barn. So there's a real, you know, there's a question about whether Diddy's lawyers are going to appeal that conviction saying it's a racist statute. It's outdated. It should be overturned. I don't know. There's, do you think they have a leg to stand on there, Matt?

I mean, look, it's a sad state of our current world, Megan. I think you agree with me. We're racist, injected to frigging everything. I think it is an old law, but I don't think I really it just makes my skin crawl when you're talking about making a racial argument on that. I don't think it gets reversed on that.

Mike, you know, the Mann Act, it's the law. And I don't think that it's going to get reversed because of this case. But it is, it's a moral law. It is arguably outdated, but it is still currently the law. It's on the books. But it's nothing like sex trafficking. I want to keep going on this because now I've had a little time to think about what happened here. And I...

I got a lot of thoughts. I mean, my, my friend said, why? Like my friend was texting me. She'd been watching, like, well, why did this happen? And I have to say, I do think there there's a multitude of answers, but one of them is celebrity, um, privilege, money, and the race element. They did play the race card and they, there had, there had been criticism of like the prosecutors for being too white and

There was an analyst, a legal analyst at MSNBC who is raising this point. We cut it. I'll play it. Watch. Well, and also there are some racial dynamics here, Ana, that were at play. And I think both the gender and the racial dynamics are worth talking about. Earlier this spring, I went to cover an unrelated event down near the federal courthouses. And I was there on May 1st when I saw all six of the prosecutors on this team walk from their office, which is now at the Court of International Trade,

to the courtroom itself. And they filed in a single file line and they are all white women to a person, six of them. And they almost look like lawyer Barbies proceeding as they were walking to the court. It's not lost on me that particularly given who the defendant was and in a jury that not only was mixed by gender, but had from my count at least seven people of color on it,

that that dynamic may not have gone over particularly well with them. You can't say she's wrong. I mean, in New York City, the race of the defendant, the race of all the prosecutors, I don't agree with any of that. I mean, I think it's outrageous. You can have a white woman prosecute a black man. That's just fine. By the way, black men got the right to vote before white women did. If we want to have a battle of oppression, which is what the left wants to do. In any event,

Maybe that was a factor because I just can't believe that if you had Phil Holloway sitting there with all that proof against a Phil Holloway, this would have been the result, Phil. Well, you know, over at MSNBC there and on the left in general, their obsession with race and gender is quite frankly very tiresome now. It has been for some time now.

Whether or not race or gender played a part in the jury's verdict, maybe. And that's a question that the jurors themselves might have to answer. You know, we heard some, I think, truth come out of some jurors after the OJ trial that decided, you know, look, we said we weren't going to convict a black man. So race did bleed over into that high profile case. Maybe it had something to do with this, although this was a mixed verdict. Yeah.

look, this whole thing about, uh,

Diddy and his danger to the community, all of that still exists. And this judge would be well served to remember that. The judge is entitled and should remember all of the testimony and all of the evidence from the trial, even things that went to the charges for which he was acquitted, because that should inform the judge's decision about what to do next. That's okay. And by that, I mean prison. For him to consider that?

I'm sorry. My question is, that's OK for the judge to consider evidence that was introduced at trial, even if he wasn't convicted of those counts. Like if the judge, you know, he heard evidence that he committed arson against Kid Cudi's car. But the jury, they didn't really issue a direct finding on that because they may have thought he did that, but didn't do another thing that would have created a RICO charge. But can the judge factor in all of the terrible evidence against him that appears to have been disregarded by the jury when he imposes sentence, Matt?

Well, as they say, the only entity more powerful than a federal judge is God, right, in the United States. And that's something you hear in law school. So a judge can consider anything he wants. What he makes a record of gets a little bit more dicey. But if I could just go back to that previous question, you know, I prosecuted a lot of –

I mean, that sort of the United colors of Benetton over the course of my career. I hope I don't offend anybody by saying that, but I mean, in Southern California, you have a very diverse jury pool, contrary to popular opinion, Orange County is very diverse and it's,

You know, the idea MSNBC, I don't know who that woman was that was talking. I don't think that she's ever prosecuted a case. She certainly hasn't prosecuted a serious one that I'm aware of. And, you know, if her theory was right, Christopher Darden would have convicted OJ with all the evidence they had or Terry White would have convicted the police officers that that.

beat Rodney King. So I think that what really came in here, Megan, was that you can't, when you were talking about professorial presentation, and I thought they did a decent job of laying out the law, the personality and the skill and the talent of the actual

trial lawyers in a case like that does matter. And when you have one that's personable and cracking jokes that the jury is relating to, the defense lawyer here that gave the closing was also white. So I reject her comments on that wholly. And I've had plenty of people of color. I've had people of color on every jury I've ever done of the 133 jury trials I did. And that's just like, that's sort of your typical MSNBC nonsense. Yeah.

By the way, most of the witnesses against Sean Combs were people of color. And the victims. They were Asian or both. Right. That's just that when you see everything through the light of race, it doesn't surprise me that she's criticizing. And by the way, calling them, calling those women, saying they look like a bunch of Barbies is a pejorative that a lot of women should be offended by. Those women, even though they didn't bring it home.

They got they got them. They got them on two counts. They you know, to their credit, they took a run at a very famous, very wealthy guy. And, you know, to throw them under the bus, it's a bunch of Barbies. I thought race was supposed to be bad. MSNBC, not not so much. Well, you know what the real sin is? Like, I don't actually know what they look like, but if they were attractive, I can see why this woman making the comment didn't like them. I'll leave it at that. The Diddy defense has proposed the following bail package.

a $1 million bond co-signed by Sean Combs, his mother, his sister, and the mother of his oldest daughter. Mr. Combs' travel will be restricted to the Southern District of Florida, Central District of California, and the Southern District of New York to attend court, as well as the Eastern District of New York and the District of New Jersey, only to the extent that his travel to and from New York involves an airport in those districts. He's got to fly private, let's not forget. Mr. Combs' passport will be surrendered. Drug testing is ordered. All

all other standard conditions of pretrial supervision. That's his proposal. I just want you to know, as you consider that Phil Holloway, that, um, here's the sketch artist rendering of Diddy after he had learned the verdict literally on his knees, uh,

praying on his chair. This is what the judge allowed to happen in his courtroom. Um, praying to God with whom I'm sure he has a really tight relationship. I'm sure he's super tight with God. Just, you know, you brought the Bible in there every day, just to remind us what a God fearing man he is as his supporters are outside. Actually, we have a soft cut of it. There's one woman

People are chanting around her. It's not Rico. It's free. Go. And here's the woman. Um, let's watch it. I'll explain what we're seeing. She's jumping with very large breasts and spraying baby oil on herself and others.

She's wearing a bright blue wig. She took the wig off. She's wearing next to nothing. She's shaking her breasts and pouring baby oil on herself. I'm sorry, but this is what the prosecutors were up against. Well, I mean, if that's what's on the jury, no wonder they lost. You know, we don't... I don't know that that's on the jury. The jury's anonymous to us other than random descriptions. I don't know that they... And that is juror number 25. That's...

You know, we can have another entire show discussing how people should comport themselves in public or certainly in courtrooms. And I don't know where things went wrong, but I know that that's not it. OK, that's not OK. But the judge to allow some of the outbursts and things like that that we saw take place in the courtroom, OK.

You know, that's a head scratcher. This is going on outside the courtroom. That's, you know, sadly, that's not so much of a head scratcher for me. I can kind of I'm not surprised at all. One bit. Yeah. So it just shows you the power of celebrity and money. And I don't think he's going to change one bit. In fact, this is one comfort I have in the wake of Diddy's acquittal on the most serious charges. Here's my one comfort here.

Much in the same way, I feel like the most serious counts against him were nullified by his fame and his celebrity. They had to find him guilty on the transportation of prostitutes. It was so obvious. It would have been so obvious that they had not found him guilty on those that they were just in the bag for him.

So, but the reason I think he got off largely was I think they were dazzled. I do. I think they were dazzled by his celebrity, his power, his money, just like he dazzled everybody who took the witness stand. And they all talked about that, how he like cast a spell on them. He was a God-like figure. And that's sadly how a lot of Americans are when it comes to super powerful, super wealthy, super famous people. But

But the same was true of OJ Simpson. And I believe that just like OJ Simpson, a man who's engaged in this many crimes for this long a time, like Sean Combs is not going to stop.

He feels more emboldened and empowered to violate the law with impunity than ever now. And I give him seven years at the outset before he gets arrested again on a charge that will be a lot more difficult to weasel out of. And the next time he beats somebody up in the middle of a hotel room, I think you're going to have a court, a hotel clerk who's a lot more reluctant to

to hide the tape and not call the cops than those disgraced security guards at the Hotel Intercontinental were, a place I don't even want to stay anymore, having learned that they took the payoff to hide the tape. So I think Diddy is his own worst enemy.

And he will make the bed that he will wind up lying in for most of his adult life, I predict. And it will be in a prison cell, not even related to this case. So we'll see. Guys, you've done more than your fair share of time on the MK show today. Thank you both so much for your expertise. Thank you. I need to go bleach my eyes now after that last video. She'll show up at the next party if she's invited, no doubt. Thank you, Megan. She'll be there. She's ready to go. All she needs is the AstroCore. Ready to roll.

Thank you. Wow. What a day. What a day for all of you too. Thank you guys so much for being with us live on Sirius XM for some of these hours live on YouTube for three and a half now. And I'm really grateful that you guys make it possible and would love to hear your reactions to these dueling results. What happened in Brian Kohlberger, no death penalty, even though it was obviously going to be a conviction and the death of

And then with Diddy getting off in the most serious charges on his knees, thankful mouthing, I'm going home as his supporters douse themselves in baby oil, yelling, it's not Rico, it's Rico. Okay. You can email me Megan at Megan Kelly.com. Thanks for being with us. And we will see you back tomorrow. Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

Parents, too many kids today are not learning the real history of America. Schools are pushing revisionist narratives or skipping over key ideas altogether. That's why the Tuttle Twins, America's history books, are so important. These story-based books bring our history to life, the good, the bad, and the inspiring. So your kids can understand not only the truth about our founders and the Constitution, but also the ideas and values that made this country great.

Give your children the education they deserve. Don't wait. Go to TuttleTwins.com slash history right now and grab your set of America's history books. If we don't teach the next gen what really happened, no one will. Visit Tuttle, T-U-T-T-L-E, twins.com slash history today. Life insurers put life into the things you live for. The new factory that's hiring your neighbors. Maintenance on the bridge that keeps traffic flowing. The paycheck that puts pizza night on the table.

Life insurers contribute $8 trillion to the U.S. economy through bond purchases and other investments and protect the financial security of 90 million American families like yours. See how life insurers put life into America at acli.com. Paid for by the American Council of Life Insurers.

Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can set up chores, automate allowance, and keep an eye on your kids' spending with real-time notifications. Kids learn to earn, save, and spend wisely. And parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Sign up for Greenlight today at greenlight.com slash podcast.