The University of Idaho Murders: Bad Facts: The Prosecution's Case

[00:00:00] Thank you so much to our sponsor, Viya Hemp. These folks make delectable gummies for you to enjoy of the THC and THC-free CBD and CBN varieties. We love the CBD and CBN options. There's something for everyone, whether you want to relax, get high, become more productive,

[00:00:18] or boost your sleep routine. Whatever mood you're trying to create, Viya's got you covered. These gummies are delicious and legal to ship to all 50 states. If you're like us, you might need some help settling down at night to go to sleep. We can be

[00:00:32] downright jittery after a day spent running around looking into disturbing stories about crime. I've found Xen to be a nice THC-free option. CBN and CBD help me unwind as I try to catch some Zs. Viya's new Dreams formulations also can help with sleep.

[00:00:49] They allow for a fully customizable sleep journey, featuring 2, 5, and 10 milligram options, depending on the strength you're seeking. Head to viyahemp.com and use the code MSHEET to receive 15% off, plus one free sample of their award-winning gummies

[00:01:04] for people age 21 and older. That's viiahemp.com and use MSHEET at checkout. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Get the rest you deserve with Dreams from Viya. Content warning. This episode contains discussion of the murder of four young people.

[00:01:24] The University of Idaho slayings occurred on November 13, 2022 in Moscow, Idaho. Between 4 and 4.25 a.m., four University of Idaho students were murdered in a rented off-campus house. 21-year-old Kaylee Gonsalves, 21-year-old Madison Mogan, 20-year-old Zanna Cronodel, and 20-year-old

[00:01:44] Ethan Chapin were murdered. It was a horrific crime that shocked the world. Truly something straight out of a parent's worst nightmare. On December 30, 2022, police arrested a now 29-year-old Washington State University criminology PhD student named Brian Koberger.

[00:02:03] Today we're going to talk about the case against him. Bad Facts is a series where we outline what we feel are the biggest hurdles ahead for both sides of a criminal case. Today we'll be focusing

[00:02:14] on obstacles for the prosecution. This would be analysis, maybe a bit of opinion. Your opinion may diverge with ours in some places, but we're primarily looking at this from a utilitarian and strategic position, not one of actual guilt versus actual innocence. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a

[00:02:35] journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder

[00:02:47] Sheet. And this is the University of Idaho murders, bad facts, the prosecution's case. So I was the one doing the bulk of research for this episode, Kevin. And let me just tell you, just as a preface

[00:03:48] for this specific episode, I really had to stretch to find what I feel are significant hurdles for the prosecution. So in this episode, we're going to be talking about problems the prosecution

[00:04:03] might have with its case, but we're not hiding the ball. It's a really good case. And so the problems you found are a bit nitpicky. They're nitpicky and I feel like they're worth talking

[00:04:14] about. And I would not blame the defense for bringing them up necessarily, at least in some cases. But I think that I wanted to say that because I don't want people to come away with

[00:04:25] like, wow, Anya's just really very nitpicky about this. This is a result of me really trying to find stuff that would be at all conceivably bad for the prosecution. This is a devastating case against

[00:04:39] Brian Koberger. There's a lot of chatter online that seems to not think it is, but that's my opinion. It's a devastating case. Yeah, it's bad. So keep that in mind. Let's start out by talking about something that's a general truism around prosecution cases. We've heard this from defense

[00:04:58] attorneys. We've heard this from prosecutors. The defense dragging out a case like this endlessly is bad for the prosecution. Why is that? Typically, not always, but typically, prosecution cases do not get better with age. Witnesses

[00:05:16] forget things. Witnesses die. There's more time for the defense to come up with some legal arguments or factual arguments. Time is a friend of the defense, not necessarily the prosecution. Because the defense, their case gets stronger the more ambiguity, the more forgetfulness in a

[00:05:38] witness as opposed to the prosecution where the prosecution is looking to build solid facts, and all the defense has to do is muddy the waters, knocks facts down. So when you have a case that's been dragged out, to use your terminology, it does give people more of a

[00:05:57] chance to forget things. If I were to ask you what we had for dinner last night, I'm sure you would remember if I asked you what we had for dinner six months ago last Thursday. Who knows?

[00:06:09] If I say, I know what did we have for dinner three years ago last Thursday, and so on, the more time passes, the less likely a person is to have that level of exact recall.

[00:06:19] So what I see from the defense posture in this case is that they are in absolutely no rush to do anything, and that I believe this will sort of lag in terms of timing. Now, Lata County Judge

[00:06:32] John Judge seems to be trying to schedule hearings, kind of keep things on track, but the ball is fully in the defense's court here. And doing things like filing endless requests for discovery despite things being litigated around that really speaks to me as

[00:06:50] a teen that is saying, we'll take our sweet time on this. And that's their right. They shouldn't rush. It really, you know, it kind of behooves the defense in any case to take their time and do as good a job as possible. So...

[00:07:03] Nathan Rees Plus, as you say, it's basic strategy. The longer the defense takes, the better it is for their case, generally. Toni Caley But it's also very frustrating for families. I know Kayleigh Gonsalves'

[00:07:14] family said they feel that the whole thing is dragging. I think that they and other families should be braced for more of that, and I think the public should be braced for more of that.

[00:07:22] So that's something that could theoretically hurt the prosecution, that this will take so long and some of their fresh evidence will kind of be more faded by the time we actually get to trial. Nathan Rees Right. Toni Caley But that's more of a hypothetical

[00:07:36] problem rather than anything specifically that I'm like, wow, this is huge for them. Another issue that I kind of came across as sort of a fundamental case issue is the lack of motive.

[00:07:50] Of course, you don't even need to prove a motive if you're a prosecutor. You just need to prove a person did this particular criminal act at this particular time. You don't need to have a reason

[00:08:01] to explain it. But I think jurors and people in general like to have reasons because that makes the story better and more easy to understand. Nathan Rees Yeah. I think a lot of average true crime listeners probably have less of that problem

[00:08:18] to some extent because we all know that people are doing crazy stuff all the time for horrible reasons. And the more we try to get into somebody's head, the more confusing it can be. It's important to try to understand killers and their psychology in order to kind of

[00:08:32] have a sense of why this stuff happens. But at the same time, something that would make sense to a killer would read as what the heck am I looking at to a normal person? The truth will

[00:08:46] set you free. Ritt is all about getting an answer to a deeply personal question. What if the person you thought was your soulmate never really existed? After a chance meeting on the Hinge

[00:09:19] dating app, a man named Kanan stole Ritt's heart. She fell hard for him, but he ended up dragging her into a web of lies. The Kanan she came to love was an invention, a ghost. Ritt's journey to piece

[00:09:32] together this disturbing mystery isn't just compelling. It's a raw look at self-discovery and the power of coming together to form a community through shared grief and trauma. Listen and follow You Probably Think This Story's About You wherever you listen to podcasts.

[00:09:50] I think I've told this story on the show before, but when I was in law school and I was working in a judge's office, there was a bizarre criminal case that came up. And I said to the judge

[00:10:02] something like, I can't even understand why did he do this? Why did the defendant do this? And the judge looked at me like I was very naive and said, doesn't matter. Is there any reason

[00:10:13] good enough to explain this? And his point was, we don't need to try to necessarily understand and explain. All we need to do is look at what happened and then deal with the consequences of that. But with that said, people like to see a motive.

[00:10:26] People like to see a motive and that's understandable. And let's look at Koberger. So Brian Koberger doesn't seemingly have the kind of violent criminal history that we're aware of that would make sense for such a brutal crime on the outside. We do have media reports circulating

[00:10:40] that he had a heroin habit at some point and that he had a history of very creepy behavior towards women. But that's not quite the same thing as outright violence. So the time of the murders,

[00:10:51] this on the surface is a criminology PhD student who had already had enough success in academia to reach that point. He had an associate degree in psychology from Northampton Community College. He had a DeSales University degree. He got his master's there as well. And then he's at

[00:11:10] Washington State University completing a prestigious event, a PhD doctorate. I mean, that's a big deal. So you might want to see some sort of motive from somebody like that. Now, the counter argument that I should note is that education or lack thereof doesn't necessarily

[00:11:28] mean anything. You can be a very bad person and be very educated and vice versa. But I think it is something to note that at least his life was together enough to kind of get him on some sort

[00:11:42] of decent career path, but he wasn't seemingly doing other violent acts. Again, as you note, anybody who follows true crime knows that sometimes people have these drives and stuff within them that makes them do horrible things. But over the years,

[00:11:58] they learn how to mask them and lead an ordinary life. So I'm not saying that's necessarily what happened with Kohlberger. I'm just saying, to me at least, it's not necessarily shocking that a person would commit a horrific act even though they haven't had a history of such.

[00:12:14] SONIA DARA Also, I think we can conjecture some things. I mean, criminology, the study of crime is a lot drier than most people think. It's not how to get away with murder or some TV show where a bunch of people are sitting around smoking

[00:12:28] pipes and musing to themselves, ah, the killer is obviously a musical genius. Each killing is like a note in his symphony. That's not how criminology – it's like a lot of sociology and looking at stats. DAVID REINER Yeah, I have to tell you,

[00:12:42] I found that out the hard way. SONIA DARA I did too. DAVID REINER Because when I was an undergraduate, I saw that there was an elective class in criminology. And I said, oh boy, this will be fun.

[00:12:53] And I signed up and no offense to my teacher, it wasn't the least bit fun. It was just really dry academic stuff. And I met a couple of interesting people. But as far as I know, none of them became

[00:13:04] serial killers. SONIA DARA You know, that was kind of my experience. I was like, well, I know a lot about crime, so I can come in. And they're like, here's the actual underlying issues with crime and poverty. And I'm like, I actually found it very

[00:13:16] interesting because I was like, this is actually a realistic look at crime. And I appreciate that you're giving me the real stuff rather than this TV nonsense. But I think people might have – so

[00:13:27] I think the fact that Koberger was interested in criminology, I don't think that necessarily should be like a huge red flag. I don't want people to be mean to criminology students is what I'm saying.

[00:13:37] And also, I don't think it would benefit any of us, any of us listening or speaking now, to draw some sort of conclusions that if a person is interested in crime, it means there's something wrong with that person. We would be utter hypocrites.

[00:13:50] Because all of us, Anya, me, all of you listening – Except for the person who accidentally tuned in thinking this was completely something else, although frankly, murder sheet should give a hint. We're all interested in crime. And I don't think that means that we're bad people. It just means

[00:14:06] that we're interested in crime. It means we're interested in people. You're getting choked up thinking about it. There's an old saying that if you want to know how a clock works, you don't look at a clock

[00:14:18] that's running perfectly. You look at a clock that's broken, and that helps you understand how the clock functions. And I think with humanity, if you want to understand people and how we react and relate with one another, look at crime. Look at how the system breaks down,

[00:14:36] and that gives you insights into people as a whole. And so such an interest doesn't mean we're bad people. 00.30 Very defensive all of a sudden. But I think it's worth noting, that being said,

[00:14:49] I think the fact that he was interested in crime and that there are media reports about his documented creepiness towards women could fill in the blanks for a motive. Because there have been cases throughout history where men who feel rejected by women on some level

[00:15:05] then take it out on random women, and that people who become obsessed with crimes sometimes then do a crime. So I think there's not going to be much work on the part of the prosecutor to kind of fill in the blanks here. He's not a particularly hyper-sympathetic defendant,

[00:15:22] I would say, in that sense. And I think that if he does, in fact, have a creepiness towards women, then none of this matters that I just said. All right, so next up, there's a lot of discussion about phones. The phone in the case was used

[00:15:44] extensively in the probable cause affidavit for Koberger's arrest. And to boil it down, we'll go more into this in the defense episode, but to boil it down, the phone was switched off at some point, and the police believed that that was to essentially conceal Koberger's location.

[00:16:04] So you'd think, okay, the phone's bad. Here's from the arrest warrant specifically, from Officer Brett Payne of the Moscow, Idaho Police Department. Quote, A query of the 8458 phone in these returns did not show the 8458 phone utilizing

[00:16:24] cellular tower resources in close proximity to the King Road residence between 3 a.m. and 5 a.m. End quote. So the King Road residence is where the victims were murdered, and the 8458 phone was Koberger's phone. So it's not appearing in the area between 3 and 5.

[00:16:43] They believe the killings were somewhere between 4 and 425. So you could say, well, he turned it off. But what the defense is saying is that the phone information is actually really good for them. They say that they have a former law enforcement officer turned podcaster named

[00:17:00] Cy Ray, who is going to come in and say that it exonerates him. It's exculpatory. But is Mr. Ray a good and credible witness in your mind? Do you admire his expertise? Has he

[00:17:17] proved if he has he and his company proved their expertise in other cases where their findings have been respected and accepted by the court? We're going to go into this more in the defense episode,

[00:17:31] but there are some extreme problems with Cy Ray as a witness and the technology that he uses. His work has been barred from at least one courtroom in Colorado for being not credible, not scientific. I know at least one, I believe actually another PhD student or doctorate or

[00:17:48] someone studying this sort of data really tore it up in a paper they wrote. There's been other courtrooms where it's been tossed out of. So it's a lot more controversial than one would think based on how confident the defense sounds about it.

[00:18:07] It's not good, but maybe in this case it'll sell to the jury. I don't know. I mean, everybody knows that people look up to podcasters because they're so articulate and well-spoken. So maybe since this guy is a podcaster, he'll be able to charm the jury.

[00:18:26] Silver tongue will capture their imaginations if it's allowed in, I guess. I don't know. I'm really trying here. The next issue for the prosecution could be one of the witnesses. Lewis Barney Which witness are you thinking of in particular? Tess Terrible So there are two roommates of

[00:18:44] the victims who survived. They were not murdered that night, and one of them actually had an encounter with a killer. So that person is known as DM. And according to... This is what the arrest

[00:18:58] warrant affidavit said about her experience. Quote, DM said she opened her door for the third time after she heard the crying and saw a figure clad in black clothing and a mask that covered the

[00:19:10] person's mouth and nose walking towards her. DM described the figure as five foot ten or taller, male, not very muscular, but athletically built with bushy eyebrows. The male walked past DM as she stood in a frozen shock phase. The male walked towards the back sliding glass door. DM

[00:19:29] locked herself in her room after seeing the male. DM did not state that she recognized the male. This leads investigators to believe that the murderer left the scene. So, end quote. A lot of people have attacked DM and expressed suspicion. Her story is

[00:19:45] essentially that she at some point yelled at everyone to kind of quiet down because she heard noise. She heard kind of a crying, whimpering sound, someone saying, it's okay, I'll help you. And people have said, what did she really know? She must have been involved. Why wouldn't you

[00:19:59] have called the police sooner? She must have been part of this coverup. A lot of conspiracy theories around her. I'll get to what I actually think about that in a minute. But I think if there's

[00:20:11] a way to attack her credibility, the defense has some ammo that people have already kind of discussed online. Why didn't you do something sooner? Why didn't you act? Could it be that your story doesn't make sense and therefore there's a real story hiding behind it that

[00:20:29] we're going to really dig into? My personal opinion is that people are horrible online at extending empathy. And oftentimes there's stuff that happens and everyone's outraged. It's like, well, what would you have done? Because we all don't know what we would have done

[00:20:46] because we weren't in the same situation. And maybe extending some grace could be helpful. But in my view, a young woman who is annoyed by her roommates making noises and then sees a guy

[00:20:58] in her house, you would probably assume that he was either hanging out or hooking up with one of your friends. You're not going to call the police on that. You might have a creepy experience

[00:21:10] with a guy and not immediately call the police. That's possible. In fact, women do it every day. Not everything necessitates a full red alert. Something can make you instinctively uncomfortable or creeped out or kind of be shocked because you didn't expect someone to be there.

[00:21:27] But that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to kick down all of your roommates' doors. It just doesn't. And acting like it's somehow suspicious, I think is quite unfair and feels bad faith at this point. It's like, let's pile on this young woman because she didn't do everything

[00:21:42] perfectly. You know what? In many situations where we're confronted with something that we don't expect, we're not going to behave perfectly. I mean, you all want to think that we're going to be the ones to kick down the doors, tackle the killer, run after it, call 911 immediately.

[00:21:58] But we all can't know that we would do that. And I think throwing stones at someone for not doing everything that we think they should is not fair. It's Monday morning quarterbacking. And I just don't find her story particularly suspicious. This just seems like something

[00:22:12] that could happen. I find her story very compelling. Everybody's in and out of a house. People might be coming in to chat with people, do other things. You might run into someone you

[00:22:24] don't know that's not a big deal in college. No. It's not like if Kevin and I were in our house and suddenly someone else is there. This is a college environment. People are in and out

[00:22:35] of a house. You don't know exactly what all your roommates are doing at every moment. Obviously, there's no way of saying I had a creepy interaction with a guy in a hallway, therefore everyone else in the house is dead. That's a ridiculous place to jump. So...

[00:22:48] Dr. Jonah Ranford I agree with you 100% on all of that. Do you think there's an issue that it's really in terms of an eyewitness sighting? I believe his face was covered by a mask. Dr. Michelle Beck Yes. Dr. Jonah Ranford

[00:23:02] So is there an issue like maybe she wouldn't be able to 100% say, this is the person I saw? Dr. Michelle Beck See, that I think is the more realistic and more... I think that's worth talking about

[00:23:14] because I think that is actually a hindrance for the prosecution. This is not a direct sighting. This is not someone who ran smack dab into Brian Koberger and is like, this is his face.

[00:23:25] Half of his face is covered up seemingly. He's got a mask on. Maybe she recognizes the eyebrows, maybe the frame, the build, all that. But it's not as good as somebody who is

[00:23:35] just sort of not covered up and you can see their face. It's just not. So the defense can say like, it could have been another guy because other guys might have similar attributes, but you did

[00:23:46] not see his whole face. So I think that could be beneficial for the defense and therefore harmful to the prosecution. That's nothing to do with DM or... That's not her fault. It's just the way

[00:23:56] the killer was, but I think that could be again an obstacle. So the next thing, do you want to talk about this? Dr. Michael McKeown The next one is DNA. And let's be honest with ourselves. DNA is complicated and it's very,

[00:24:18] very hard. And I think a lot of us can sometimes be guilty of basically just accepting the conclusions without really understanding them. If you made me try to explain something about DNA, you've made a serious error. It's really, really complicated. And so

[00:24:45] maybe it's going to be difficult to get the jury to understand. Dr. Anneke Vandenbroek We've had on the Coast to Coast founders and the Ignite DNA founders, and these women all founded different DNA investigation services. They do investigative genetic genealogy

[00:25:00] to identify does, identify perpetrators. And they come on the show, they're wonderful. They explain things in common sense English. It's still complicated for me. I still have to stop and think, oh, wait, what does that mean? Just because that's not the way my mind works. So

[00:25:17] if we're having that and we're kind of immersed in it, then I imagine it's going to be really important to explain it to the jury correctly and to explain it in a way that they truly understand what's going on. Because- Dr. Michael McKeown

[00:25:28] And keep in mind, the defense will probably try to find experts, perhaps podcasters, who will come up and say, oh, this DNA doesn't say what they think it does. Dr. Anneke Vandenbroek Yeah. Defense attorneys can always get expert witnesses to essentially back up whatever

[00:25:42] they're saying. I mean, within reason, but for the most part, they can. And one big thing that's happened about the DNA is it's not just a question about the DNA on the knife sheath, because that's

[00:25:53] where it was. The murder weapon had a knife sheath, which was then left by one of the bodies. But the defense has made so many filings claiming, oh, we're not getting everything because we didn't get the whole investigative genetic genealogy tree that was used to find him.

[00:26:11] I think most people in IGG that we've talked to said that's nonsense. That's like saying that, you know, if somebody calls in a tip saying someone's burying a body in their backyard, and then the police officers come and apprehend them while they're doing so,

[00:26:25] that's like basically you're targeting the person who called rather than the actual evidence. So a DNA tree, a genetic genealogy tree gets them to a name, which then they can use to test that

[00:26:40] person's DNA and run it against the perpetrator's DNA. If it matches, then your problem isn't the tree. Does that make sense? That makes perfect sense. I hope I did that right. But I think,

[00:26:51] you know, so if you can explain that and explain that the defense is making a hay over nothing about the discovery, then you're good. But I think because it's complicated, you need to make

[00:27:04] sure you're clearing that hurdle. Do you want to go into the next thing? The narrative? Sure. There's the possibility that the prosecution will lose out on the narrative around this case, and people will come to believe that a codebooker was framed. I think there's something interesting

[00:27:26] we're seeing in a lot of cases around the country where people look at the evidence against someone, and they've already previously decided this person is definitely innocent. And so they look at the evidence that proves that the person is in fact guilty, and they think, well, obviously,

[00:27:47] since I know they're innocent, all this evidence must be fabricated, and that proves that there's actually a conspiracy. And the conspiracy is faking evidence against my favorite defendant. And the fact that the evidence suggesting that my favorite defendant is innocent,

[00:28:05] the fact that that evidence is so compelling, that just shows you how good the conspiracy is. And I've basically seen some people out there saying basically that in terms of codebooker, that codebooker is an innocent man, and all the evidence is fabricated.

[00:28:21] Yeah, the DNA must have been planted. It's like, okay. I think this is a nuance here. I think some people are outright cranks. I think other people question everything. I think it's good to question everything. But I think when we're basically not questioning things,

[00:28:37] when we're just deciding that everything is a conspiracy, that's cranked them. Yes. And it's very unfortunate because it's affecting a lot of different cases. And it's not critical thinking. It's like a lack of critical thinking. It's like dressed up to look like critical

[00:28:52] thinking, but it's actually sometimes extreme cynicism is the same thing as being stupid. If you're just saying, well, I can't trust anything you say or you say or you say, or this all must be a conspiracy. At a certain point, you're just nuts. I'm sorry. I don't feel

[00:29:09] like being diplomatic about this anymore is helpful. And then the problem is that that can influence the media coverage that can enter the bloodstream with jury pools that can enter the bloodstream with just normal commentators who are just trying to get information and are getting

[00:29:26] bad information or bad analysis. It's led to name calling, harassment, misinformation. I personally believe that there's probably a set number of these cranks that are now just kind of nomadic and traveling between cases. They're in Idaho, then they're coming to Indiana for Delphi,

[00:29:47] they're Karen Reed. It's not good. I think that these people are going to seriously damage the genre and make everyone interested in true crime look like a bunch of nuts ourselves, unless we can kind of maybe oust them to some degree. But that's not going to happen anytime

[00:30:03] soon. I watch a lot of crime shows, therefore I'm an expert and my hunch tells me that it's really aliens. Not helpful. We've seen a lot of that in Idaho. One thing that gives me some comfort is

[00:30:20] one good barometer is actually Reddit, even though I really try to avoid going on there whenever possible because there's so much just junk on there. But it seems like the original subreddit seemed to be pretty evenhanded. I'm not seeing a ton of conspiracies there,

[00:30:38] but there are specific subreddits that have popped up to cater to the cranks and the fact that those exist at all is troubling. There's also just a lot of very weird people thirsting over Koberger himself, like he's my internet boyfriend. I support him if he wants to kill

[00:30:59] people. It's creepy, Kevin. It's bad out there on the internet. That's not a newsflash. But I feel like it's gotten worse. So those were kind of the big issues I found about Koberger's prosecution at this point. Mostly things that could be a problem if certain things happen.

[00:31:27] The fact that you identified these things as problems, I think underscores for me how strong the case is. I agree. There's other things out there where people are speculating about like,

[00:31:37] oh, the prosecution must have lied about this or that or this is going to be bad for them. There could be things that happen that are true obstacles for the prosecution so that could come

[00:31:50] up later. But I really tried to stick with things that were more about the basic facts of the case because that's where I would prefer to operate at this point. Makes a lot of sense. Well, thanks for listening. Tomorrow we're going to be doing

[00:32:06] the defense side and obstacles facing them. I'll be here for that. Yes, you will. You better. I've got no choice. Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning

[00:32:24] one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail dot com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities. If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murder

[00:32:48] sheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murder sheet. We very much appreciate any support. Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee,

[00:33:06] who composed the music for The Murder Sheet and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com. If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join The Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research

[00:33:23] and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.