The University of Idaho Murders: Bryan Kohberger Tries to Get the Indictment Thrown Out

[00:00:00] Content Warning This episode contains discussion of murder. It's been a while since we did an episode dedicated solely to the University of Idaho Murders, so it seems time for us to talk about that. This quadruple homicide of course included victims Ethan

[00:00:17] Chapin, Kelly Gonsalves, Madison Mogan and Zana Kernodal. These are four young University of Idaho students living in Moscow, Idaho who are in their home where the three girls lived and where Ethan Chapin was staying with his girlfriend Zana Kernodal. They're murdered overnight by an assailant

[00:00:40] and ultimately a PhD student named Bryan Kohberger who was across the border in Washington University is arrested for the case. So what we've been seeing unspool over time is the judicial process where he is being accused of these murders and we are going towards a trial. So recently,

[00:01:06] Kohberger's team tried to make the move to dismiss the indictment against him. We're going to talk about that and we're going to talk about what ended up happening with that. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist and I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney and this is the

[00:01:23] murder sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're the murder sheet and this is the University of Idaho Murders. Bryan Kohberger tries to get the indictment thrown out. So on December 15th, a number

[00:02:27] of filings came in on this subject and spoiler alert, Kohberger's gambit did not pay off. The indictment has not been dismissed. And to be realistic, there was very little chance that it

[00:02:41] ever would have been but there's a cliche we often use on the show. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take and it's just diligence on the part of a defense attorney to try all of the available avenues they can to try to help their client.

[00:03:00] Yeah, this is one problem I see with tea leaf reading in the true crime space sometimes. I feel like I've seen comments at different times or heard chatter where this happened in court, therefore we should assume this. I'm not talking about this specific situation but there's a

[00:03:18] limit to that because if you were to look at them attempting to get the indictment thrown out, you'd be like, wow, the fact they're doing that means it's really a weak probable cause and

[00:03:29] like it's all falling apart. No, the defense attorneys are simply doing their jobs and you have to try for that. So in this case, the exploit that they were taking was issues with the grand jury instructions regarding his indictment. So that's the sort of portal they saw open

[00:03:52] that they tried to rush towards. So let me see if I understand. So he basically, Brian Colburger is facing charges because a grand jury handed down an indictment and so his defense team is alleging that the instructions given to that grand jury were in some way flawed

[00:04:11] and that in fact they were so flawed that that renders any indictment they handed down moot. That's correct. Specifically the flaw with the grand jury instructions according to Colburger's team was that they were told you need probable cause rather than you need beyond a reasonable

[00:04:29] doubt. Now probable causes is a lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. You have to jump over a higher hurdle to get to beyond a reasonable doubt. Probable cause is what you need when you want to search someone's residence or when you want

[00:04:46] to arrest someone beyond a reasonable doubt is when you want to convict a person of a crime. And so the consequences of having your house searched or even being arrested are not nearly

[00:05:01] as severe as the consequences of being convicted of a crime. So it makes sense that being convicted of a crime needs to be as difficult as possible. Absolutely and so Colburger is arguing

[00:05:18] this needs to be dismissed because they did the wrong standard and it sounds like there's no dispute that they were going for a probable cause standard here but what Idaho, what the state is arguing is that it's totally fine to do probable cause for an indictment and that's

[00:05:37] completely that's settled. You know, that's what we do in Idaho so there's kind of a acknowledgement that that's what happened but basically saying that's what we always do. So they're saying basically there wasn't any error here this is just standard operating

[00:05:53] procedure. That's correct. So if that's the case why was the defense even trying to make an issue out of it? They were pulling things out of the Idaho Constitution so it seems like they were at least hopeful that they could make some sort of legal argument here that

[00:06:10] maybe we should do things a little bit differently. And I will say though that in his response to this, I'll read a little bit from the order denying motion to dismiss indictment for inaccurate instructions to grand jury that Judge John Judge filed on December 15th

[00:06:31] because he kind of takes Koberger's team to task a little bit I would say about some of their interpretations. That's interesting. Koberger first relies on the Idaho Constitution and the plain language of the statute for his argument. Article one section eight of the Idaho

[00:06:48] Constitution in part states that no person shall be held to answer for any felony or criminal offense of any grade unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury or on information of the public prosecutor after a commitment by a magistrate. This language obviously does not

[00:07:05] define the standard of proof for the grand jury but Koberger claims the language of Idaho Code section 19 to 1107 does. Here's the entire statute. The grand jury ought to find an indictment when all the evidence before them taken together if unexplained or uncontradicted

[00:07:22] would in their judgment warrant a conviction by a trial jury. Again, this statutory language does not state that the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The legal standard of proof for a criminal jury trial. However, Koberger asserts that warrant conviction means that to

[00:07:37] find an indictment a grand jury must find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. First of all, the word warrant carries many definitions. For example, the plain language of warrant means justification for an action, grounds. Also other examples are consistent

[00:07:52] justification for an action or belief, grounds, something that provides assurance or confirmation a guarantee proof to provide adequate grounds for justify, synonym of justify to demonstrate sufficient legal reason for an action taken synonym of warrant. Black's law dictionary also

[00:08:09] defines warrant to justify the conduct warrants a presumption of negligence. These definitions have not significantly changed for over 100 years. Thus the plain language of the word warrant easily means that after hearing the evidence a grand jury would in their judgment

[00:08:24] be justified to send the accused to a trial by jury. Koberger seems to miss this additional language of the statute by a jury trial. The additional language provides the broader context of warranted conviction by a trial jury, not a grand jury. One definition of

[00:08:40] probable cause is reasonable ground for belief in the existence of facts, warranting the proceeds complained of. This is precisely what grand juries are charged to determine. The grand jury is not a trial jury. Its function is to screen whether or not there are sufficient evidence to proceed

[00:08:56] to trial. The grand jury is baked into our United States Constitution Amendment 5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury and our Idaho Constitution Article 1 Section 8, C-Language

[00:09:12] Above. And the procedures of the grand jury have evolved over the years. Does that sound like the judge basically being like, you guys were interpreting this completely wrong? Yeah. I mean the fact that he's pulling out some dictionary definitions. He's schooling them. I mean they had to try.

[00:09:31] Well, it's not unreasonable to try. I don't know if that you have to try everything. Maybe you don't have to try everything. Maybe sometimes you should not try things because it just ends up looking kind of stupid.

[00:09:43] And if you try things that literally have absolutely no reason of success and you try things that end up getting a judge to start citing dictionary definitions actually, you do run the risk of alienating the judge. So there is a line to walk there. You want to be

[00:10:01] diligent. You want to try everything you can that's reasonable, but if you go too far. This seems like it was in a gray area of reasonability to me. I can understand why they

[00:10:12] tried it, but it really seemed to be getting into let's play around with language. It seemed to be getting into the kind of legalese nonsense that people hate when lawyers do.

[00:10:24] So no offense, Kevin. And to the point where it's like I think I've grown to understand more of those methods and strategies from talking with you and from covering some of these cases. So I'm more sympathetic to that now than I was maybe a few years ago,

[00:10:43] but this is borderline. That's a generous term in this because he's indicating like this is completely settled law. You're doing a lot to misinterpret one word and read an entirely different meaning into something that is settled law. And so that when people say, oh, well,

[00:11:06] the defense attorneys wouldn't try this, they have to be completely truthful and accurate and everything. They can stretch. I mean, that's what we're seeing here. This is a frigging stretch and that can maybe pay off sometimes, but in other cases it just gets slapped

[00:11:20] down. I mean, prosecutors can stretch too. In some cases you might say, well, they're overcharging this person. It's a stretch to charge them with this. So both sides can be guilty of that,

[00:11:30] but in this case, I think it's the Ann Taylor defense team that is guilty of it. In fairness, judge does acknowledge that there might be some ambiguity in some of this. So I

[00:11:47] think he's acknowledging maybe why they went for this. Even if there is some ambiguity to Idaho Code section 19 through 1107, the case law in Idaho seems to be settled on the standard of proof for a grand jury to approve an indictment. While there is not an abundance

[00:12:03] of early appellate cases directly addressing the standard of proof for indictment, the available cases consistently reference the standard to be probable cause. In Gasper versus District Court of the 7th Judicial District in and for Canyon County,

[00:12:17] the plaintiff, the defendant in the lower court, claimed that the indictment should be dismissed on the grounds of various alleged errors in the proceedings of the grand jury. Court denied the claims is insufficient and not prejudicial to the plaintiff. We've been

[00:12:30] charged with a second degree murder. Related to this case, the plaintiff for some reason challenged the instructions given to the grand jury, part of which stated, you are not compelled to go under public trial and open court before a trial jury

[00:12:43] unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence. The court recognized that the charge, the grand jury, had no bearing on the plaintiff's complaint because the charge was to the plaintiff's advantage. However, we observed that the charge complained of though erroneous is more favorable to

[00:12:59] the one accused before a grand jury than would be a charge embodying the statute, citing Idaho Code section 19-1107. The language remains the same today. The charge as given calls for a greater degree of proof to justify an indictment that the statute requires. While this

[00:13:16] may be dicta, it does acknowledge the Supreme Court's view of the standard of proof for an indictment. A more recent and more definite acknowledgement of the standard of proof for an indictment is expressed in State v. Edmondson. Supreme Court states clearly the

[00:13:30] purpose of the grand jury, including the standard of proof. The grand jury is an accusing body and not a trial court. Its functions are investigative and charging. The purpose of both a grand jury proceeding and a preliminary hearing is to determine probable cause. And again,

[00:13:46] the purpose of a grand jury proceeding is to determine whether sufficient probable cause exists to bind the defendant over for trial. The determination of guilt and innocence is saved for a later day. As long as the grand jury has received legally sufficient evidence,

[00:13:59] which in and of itself supports the finding of probable cause, it is not for an appellate court to set aside the indictment. And finally, without even considering the evidence used to find probable cause, we note that the prosecutor directed the grand jury that it

[00:14:14] should not indict unless all the elements of an alleged crime are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a much higher standard than is required by Idaho law. That's pretty devastating for their argument. All of that is just again, hammering. It's probable cause. It's probable

[00:14:32] cause. It's probable cause. One thing that jumped out at me from that is I always wonder what legal terms people are familiar with and what legal terms they're not familiar with, because it's very confusing to hear discussions where words are thrown out that you don't understand

[00:14:55] through no fault of your own just because you didn't go to law school. So I'm curious there was a line in there or something to the effect of, oh, this wasn't an opinion, it might be dicta. Do people know what dicta means?

[00:15:07] I don't know what dicta means. I was going to ask you because I was like that flying over my head over here. I don't even know if I said it right. Not the former coach of the Chicago Bears. They're dragging him into this mess.

[00:15:23] Dicta is language used in a judicial opinion by a judge that isn't necessary to reach the judge's final decision. It's just something they throw in. Dicta is like a little flourish.

[00:15:40] Yeah, basically what you do in a judicial opinion is you make it, you make your decision and you explain the reasoning that leads to that decision. That's basically all you need to do. But oftentimes people when they're writing opinions will include other things either for color

[00:16:02] or just to be interesting. If I happen to be writing a judicial opinion about baseball of all things and I casually mentioned in the course of the opinion as I'm explaining my reasoning, the Chicago Cubs are a great team. And then I'm on a Supreme Court situation.

[00:16:22] I'm on a court of appeal situation. I'm sending my opinion around the fact that other justices might sign on to that opinion. Doesn't necessarily mean that they agree with me

[00:16:34] that the Cubs are a great team. And when the opinion is issued, it's not going to be seen as being held by the court that the Cubs are a great team. It's just something that's thrown

[00:16:45] in there. You're just freestyling. What's important is the final decision and the reasoning used to meet it. And what can be complicated and confusing sometimes is it's not always clear what is dicta and what's not. How does one determine that? You just have to analyze it

[00:17:04] and say, is this line here in this opinion? Is it necessary to explain the reasoning? Okay. Does that make any sense? It does make sense. It does make sense. And can things get complicated when there's disagreement over what's dicta and what's not?

[00:17:22] Yeah. Is it dangerous to include it therefore or? I don't know if it's dangerous to include it. Kevin's saying that we have to all rule that the Cubs are the best team of all time with some committed Mets fans on this bench.

[00:17:36] Don't get me talking about 1969. It could be a little confusing, not necessarily terribly confusing, but it can be a little confusing. And also it can often be seen as being potentially helpful. Let's say in my opinion about baseball, I'm trying to analyze how we should handle something

[00:18:03] about professional baseball teams. And maybe in the opinion, I say something like, well, you know, football is also a professional sporting league. I wonder if some of these things might apply to football. People then when a football case comes up, could say, oh, this baseball case, they say

[00:18:25] it might apply here too. Maybe we should look at that so it could open up avenues. I see. Yeah. And the reason I bizarrely used a baseball comparison is I was, as you were talking, I tuned out a little bit after you said dicta.

[00:18:42] So because I was trying to think of a good example. And I'm remembering and these all these details might not be correct. But there was a case involving baseball players free agency when or whether baseball players allowed to leave one team and go in another and so on.

[00:19:04] It actually reached the Supreme Court and the decision that was handed down in that case. Again, this may not be completely accurate. It started off by saying like something like there have been many great players in baseball and it started listing players.

[00:19:23] You know, Kurt Flood so and so, so and so, this guy, this guy, this guy. And almost is a joke when the other justices said, well, you know, you need to include a player from this team too. For my favorite team.

[00:19:37] So the first justice who was right in the opinion said, okay, put in another player. And obviously a list of great baseball players does not have anything to do with the reasoning

[00:19:48] used to reach the decision in that case. And I believe the story of that decision and that incident I may have gotten it years ago from the book The Brethren by Bob Woodward and Scott

[00:20:00] Armstrong. What's that about? It's about the inner workings of the Supreme Court in the 1970s. Oh, there you go. Brethren. Well, that's all that's very interesting. And I appreciate you flagging it because I had no idea what dicta meant. Sounded Latin sounded fancy.

[00:20:16] So in other words, it's not binding what people what courts put in a case is dicta is not legally binding, but is potentially persuasive. If the comment the judge makes is not necessary to reach the conclusion of the case, but it's still somehow related to the case.

[00:20:33] It's just not off the wall like my baseball examples. Then lower court judges can still look at it and say, well, that makes sense. It is persuasive. I don't have to follow it exactly, but it is persuasive because it wasn't this opinion. I really rambled there.

[00:20:47] No, it's good. It's I feel like I'm learning stuff. So I appreciate it. Now, let's get to the conclusion of this portion and then we'll talk about the other mode that the defense used to try to get this indictment dismissed. But

[00:21:01] the arguments from the defense for a beyond reasonable doubt standard for the grand jury were historically interesting and creative, but do not overturn Idaho court's interpretation of the statute, the case law, and the criminal rules specifically rule six through 6.8

[00:21:17] ICR that the standard for the grand jury to indict is probable cause. Therefore, the court denies Coburger's motion to dismiss the indictment based on his claims of inaccurate instructions to the grand jury in order to warrant an indictment. So ordered this 15th day of

[00:21:31] December 2023, John C. Judge, District Judge. Okay. So they got shot down on that front, but they had another trick up their sleeve. They were going for a motion to dismiss indictment based on the grounds of a bias grand jury and admissible evidence, lack of sufficient

[00:21:57] evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. Before we get into this side, what did you make of him calling it interesting and creative? That sounded like a teacher being like, oh, you tried. Yeah. That's not necessarily what you want to hear. You want to hear like,

[00:22:14] oh, that was really persuasive. It was thrilling. That was a neat try, guys. Yeah. Geez. I'll get into this as a pretty short filing by the judge. This is actually slightly

[00:22:30] the actual decision. The order part is only like a page and a quarter. So I'll just read it. On August 23, 2023, Coburger filed a motion to dismiss indictment on grounds of bias grand jury in admissible evidence, lack of sufficient evidence and prosecutorial misconduct in withholding

[00:22:49] exculpatory evidence. On September 14, 2023, the state filed an objection to defend in second motion to dismiss indictment. On September 20, 2023, Coburger filed a reply to state's objection. A hearing on the motion was held on October 26th.

[00:23:05] Coburger was represented by Ann Taylor, Jay Logston and Elisa Masseth. The state was represented by William W. Thompson Jr., Ashley Jennings, Jeff Nye and Ingrid Beatty. This hearing was closed to the public and media cameras to protect the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings. The decision will

[00:23:22] also be sealed. However, the results of that decision are addressed in this public order for the public's benefit. Coburger has failed to successfully challenge the indictment on grounds of juror bias, lack of sufficient admissible evidence or prosecutorial misconduct.

[00:23:36] Coburger was indicted by an impartial grand jury who had sufficient admissible evidence to find probable cause to believe Coburger had committed the crimes alleged by the state. Further, the state did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct in presenting their case to the jury. Dated this

[00:23:50] 15th day of December 2023, John C. Judge, District Judge. So we don't get a lot of information here about why the judge made this finding because the grand jury element. Why is

[00:24:02] that supposed to be so secretive? There's a lot of reasons for why stuff before a grand jury is secret. The most obvious answer is it often includes confidential information about witnesses, identities and what they might testify to. It's also testimony that is not challenged by

[00:24:25] someone from the opposing party. It's one thing when you have someone offer testimony in a public setting in court because both sides get a chance to cross-examination, but that doesn't happen in a grand jury setting. Okay. So this is, we're not going to really know much about why

[00:24:46] this happened, I suppose. But again, he's shooting them down on all counts. We do get less legal reasoning as to why for that reason. What do you make of the defense side accusing the prosecution side of prosecutorial misconduct? Is that a tool that is frequently

[00:25:07] used? Is that something that is more of an extreme move? I'm just curious. It's not totally unheard of. A lot of attorneys view criminal trials to an extent like professional wrestling, and they're just playing roles. You have to make somebody a villain and defense

[00:25:32] attorneys really have limited options into who the villains might be. And if you're believing, if you want to argue that your client is innocent and shouldn't be charged, there's only a limited

[00:25:48] number of ways you can make that argument. And one is the prosecutors have really screwed this up. That makes sense. So tool in the arsenal here. But I'm going to say this, we've seen these two

[00:26:02] attempts to dismiss the indictment get failed. They failed. And that's not surprising to me. I think the evidence that's stacked up against Brian Koberger is pretty overwhelming. And I think I'll be interested if they keep on sticking to the strategy going forward,

[00:26:28] as opposed to maybe trying to make a plea deal. Yeah, it will be interesting. At least now, they seem to be taking the idea that their client is actually factually innocent of

[00:26:39] these crimes. Yeah, again, the evidence, it's a it's a bad it there's a lot of bad facts in here for Koberger is not a good. Yeah, this is not a good situation for him or their team to be in,

[00:26:55] frankly. Now, I wanted to bring up some other news items in this case. There's been a lot of back and forth about the house where these kids were murdered. Back in October 31, 2023,

[00:27:12] Fox News specifically reporter Adam Saves came out with a piece about how the FBI FBI agents were returning to the crime scene to look for more evidence and compile compile that. I guess, I'm assuming make sure that they have everything or that they've mapped everything out

[00:27:33] appropriately. But the house itself is actually slated to be destroyed on, I believe, December 28th. And there's been a lot of online outcry about that. People are saying that you shouldn't do that until after the trial is over because it might be evidence lost, things like that.

[00:27:58] I know that Zana Crenotal's mother is even weighed in saying she doesn't want to destroy it. I can understand the emotional impact of that and the and the fear over losing something. Personally, I don't understand this if the evidence should have been gathered by now and

[00:28:16] everything should have been mapped out on both sides. We know that recently, the defense team also showed up at the site to again go over it one more time before it's destroyed. I don't really understand. Is there a reason why it has to be destroyed now?

[00:28:33] I actually don't know. So you're saying maybe leave until after trial? I don't think it would be necessarily damaging to the case to go ahead and destroy it. I don't think it matters at all. But I would also, I'd like to see it kept until

[00:28:49] after the trial because there's always the possibility of things coming up and there's always a possibility of something being relevant later that we don't know about now. And maybe the odds of that are long. Maybe it won't happen, but what's the harm in keeping

[00:29:07] it up for what another three or four months or a year however long it is? I mean, personally, I feel like if they didn't get specific evidence now then I don't even know what would be admissible or what could be argued. Well, maybe that was planted later.

[00:29:22] But why the rush? I mean, if it's someone's property they might just be looking to get rid of it given what happened there. I can understand that. And to be very clear, both the prosecution and the defense in this case

[00:29:36] have said that they don't care that is being demolished. So I think they should be, I think they should be, if one side was saying no, no, no, don't do it, then I think I'd be more

[00:29:45] sympathetic. Here's another element of this that has been filed in this recent slay defiling. Actually, this was filed yesterday on December 21st, 2023. This is from the Laetaw County Prosecuting Attorney, specifically his office, but specifically senior deputy prosecuting attorney

[00:30:13] Ashley Jennings. And this gives us a sense of what might happen next in this case. And maybe when we can expect some things timing wise, although obviously it's undetermined. Which comes now the state of Idaho buying through the Laetaw County Prosecuting Attorney and

[00:30:28] respectfully moves the court for scheduling order addressing without limitation the following. One, scheduling a jury trial to run for approximately six weeks, including penalty phase. The state proposes that the court scheduled trial for the summer of 2024 and that the trial

[00:30:43] dates avoid times when Moscow High School in our area universities are in session. As the court is aware, Moscow High School is directly adjacent to the courthouse premises and already the significantly increased amount of media and other vehicles related to this

[00:30:57] case is strained available parking as well as the safety and convenience for pedestrians, including students. Court is also aware that when the local universities are in session, it is not infrequent for area lodging to become unavailable due to university related activities

[00:31:11] such as sporting events, graduation, etc. The state also requests that the court set a daily trial schedule of 8 30am to approximately 3pm. For a trial of this length, it is appropriate to afford jurors some amount of time to tend to their personal affairs.

[00:31:25] Additionally, having more time in the afternoon allows for bread or preparation by the parties and allows for reasonable opportunities and time for the court and council to address any motions or other matters that routinely arise during the course of jury trials.

[00:31:38] In the state's experience, this type of daily trial schedule is typically appreciated by jurors as well as the court staff and council. 2. Deadlines for completion of discovery for both state and defense. 3. Deadlines for both parties to make expert disclosures

[00:31:52] pursuant to ICR 16B7 and C4. 4. Deadlines for filings of pretrial motions and responses and replies there too, including but not limited to. Motions in liminae, motions related to the death penalty, and any motions under ICR 12B. 5. Deadlines for jury questionnaire proposals.

[00:32:12] 6. Deadlines for proposed jury instructions. 7. Deadlines for proposed witnesses pursuant to ICR 16B6 and C3. 8. Deadlines for rule 404B notices. 9. Dates for pretrial motions to be heard. 10. Any other matters to facilitate the orderly progress of this case in trial. The state notes that in this court's August 22nd, 2023

[00:32:36] scheduling order, the court set a date certain for sentencing disclosures, including witnesses, exhibits, expert reports, and any other evidence. The state requests that the court allow the parties further opportunity to supplement their disclosures following receipt and review

[00:32:50] of the opposing party's initial disclosures. The court's August 22nd, 2023 scheduling order also directed the submission of trial exhibits and names of witnesses. The state again requests that the court afford the parties the opportunity to supplement those responses

[00:33:04] after they have had the opportunity to review and consider the initial submissions of the other party. In its August 22nd, 2023 scheduling order, the court afforded the defendant an additional opportunity to provide notice of alibi in accordance with court rule and statute.

[00:33:19] The state submits that the defendant has already been afforded this opportunity and the court heard argument on the motions relating to such. The state submits the opportunity for the defendant to disclose an alibi and notify the state of the same, has passed and asked that

[00:33:33] the court not reopen this issue. If it would help in identifying dates and scheduling, the state would recommend that the court scheduled a status conference on the record for the purpose of scheduling. Respectfully submitted this 21st day of December 2023,

[00:33:47] Ashley Jennings, senior deputy prosecuting attorney. This strikes me as the state saying, let's get this show on the road. I read it exact same way. Like, let's get on with this. They're thinking strategically about when the best time to have this trial would be

[00:34:01] they're proposing the summer that makes a lot of sense to me given that it's a college town and it's right next to a high school. Well, one thing we can certainly expect is that in

[00:34:11] the weeks and months to come, there'll be further developments in this case as we move closer and closer to trial and we will try to keep an eye on them and keep you all updated.

[00:34:21] Thanks so much for listening to the murder sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murder sheet at gmail.com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:34:42] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com. We very much appreciate any support.

[00:35:05] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee 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.

[00:35:23] We mostly focus our time on research 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.