'The King Road Killings': 911 Call Released

Hi there, 2020 listeners. This is Deborah Roberts, co-anchor of 2020.
Here's Kena Whitworth with a bonus episode of the King Road Killings. Hi, this is Debbie, your Blinds.com design consultant.
Oh, wow. A real person.
Yep. I am here to help you with everything from selecting the perfect window treatments to...
Well, I've got a complicated project. Oh, not a problem.
I can even schedule a professional measure and install. We can also send you samples, fast and free.
Hmm, I just might have to do more. Oh, okay.
So the first room we're looking at is for guests. Shop Blinds.com now and get up to 40% off with minimum purchase.
Blinds.com. Rules and restrictions may apply.
Hi, it's Kana Whitworth. Welcome to a bonus episode of the King Road Killings.
With Brian Koberger's trial just five months away, there's been a lot of secrecy surrounding the case. Some of that came to an end in recent days with the release of key court documents.
And now, for the first time, we heard the 911 call. It was made over seven hours after Kaylee Gonsalves, Madison Mogan, Zanna Karnodel, and Ethan Chapin were killed.
In this episode, we're going to play that call for you in full. This sudden flurry of information is in part because of the change of venue, which moved the location of the trial from Moscow, Idaho, where the murders took place, to Boise.
With that change came a new judge who was assigned to the case in November, Judge Stephen Hippler. And Hippler, seemingly, has lost patience with the way the case has been handled so far.

He said the case is infringed on the public's First Amendment right to know about the court's progress because the prosecution and defense have been trying to seal so much of the material that will be presented in court.

What we've learned in the past few days could change the way we see this whole case

and answer questions that have been brewing since the murders happened more than two years ago. In this episode, I'm going to talk with two people who've been following this case closely.
First, we'll speak with ABC News contributor Julie Scott. She's a journalist who's based in Moscow, Idaho.
And then I'll be joined by ABC News legal contributor Brian Buckmeyer to talk about the legal strategy that's been playing out behind closed doors. Julie, I want to jump right into this 911 call because it's never been heard publicly before.
And a reminder, this is the call that was made more than seven hours after the horrifying murders, and it was placed just before noon the following day. Thanks, Kena.
As you know, we've been following this for a long time, and what's been shrouded in secrecy has been what happened during those hours. We know from the probable cause affidavit that law enforcement thinks that the murders happened between 4 and 4.20, roughly.

But we didn't know is what happened after that. Yeah, and until now, that period of time has been a mystery.
But a new filing shows us that during the night, there were several instances where one of the surviving roommates tried to call and text their friends in the house, and then hours of silence. At 10.23 a.m., one of the surviving roommates texts Haley and Madison, saying, please answer, are you up? And it's not until 11.55 that 911 is called.

We're going to play that call for you now.

It's very chaotic and at times uncomfortable.

The whole thing is about four minutes long.

Can I not know a location of the emergency?

Hi, something is happening.

Something happened in our house. We don't know what.
What is the address of the emergency? 112. What is the rest of the address? Oh, Kings Road.
Okay. And is that a house or an apartment? It's a house.
Can you repeat the address to make sure that I have it right? I'll talk to you guys. We live at the White, so we're next to them.
I need someone to repeat the address for verification. The address? 1122 King Road.
And what's the phone number that you're calling from? What's your phone number? Ann, tell me exactly what's going on. One of the roommates has passed out and she was drunk last night and she's not waking up.
Okay. Oh, and they saw some man in their house last night.
Yeah. Hi, just a minute.
Can I argue with the patient? Okay, I need someone to keep the phone, stop passing it around. Can I just tell you what happened pretty much? What is going on currently? Is someone passed out right now?

I don't really know, but pretty much at 4 a.m.

Okay, I need to know what's going on right now if someone is passed out.

Can you find that out?

Yeah, I'll come.

Come on, but then you've got to go check.

But we have to.

Is it passed out? She's not waking up. Yeah.

Okay.

One moment.

I'm getting help started that way.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. 40 minutes.

So cute.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah. Okay, and how old is she? She's 20.
20, you said? Yes, 20. Okay.
Hello? Hello? Okay, I need someone to stop passing the phone around because I've talked to four different people. Sorry, they just gave me the phone.
Is she breathing? Hello? Is she breathing? No. Okay.
I can't talk to them. I need you to talk to them.

Hello?

Okay. I have already sent the ambulance and law enforcement.

Stay on the line. If there is a defibrillator available, send someone to get it now and tell me when you have it.

Say that again. There's a police here right now.
Okay. If there is a defibrillator available, send someone to get it now and tell me when you have it.
Do you have a defibrillator? Yes, we have one. Are you talking to the officer? Yes.
Okay. I'm going to let you go since he's there with you and can help you.
Okay, thank you. Bye.
Okay. You can hear the agony in a lot of this call.
Julie, after listening to it, what are your thoughts? Hearing now the 911 call is truly astonishing and emotional, and it puts you back in that scene. It wasn't just the two surviving roommates on the phone with dispatch.
There were friends, and we knew that friends were called to come to the house. But what we're hearing is chaos and disbelief and screams.
You hear different people on the call and the dispatcher clearly getting frustrated and the dispatcher asking them to please go check. Go check and see if this person, what is happening right now? That's what the dispatcher wants to know.
What's happening right now? So she can alert police. And you hear that attempt to go check on their roommate, their friend.
And you hear faint, you can hear it in the background, the name. It's Xana.
She's not waking up. And they're trying to explain what happened or what they think they saw or heard.
Can I just tell you what happened, what I think happened? The dispatcher is asking them, who's ever on the phone, please go check. I need to know what the emergency is.
It's still unclear.

And who's ever on the phone at that time says, we have to go check. We have to.
And there's resistance. There's fear.
I don't want to, but we have to. it's it shakes me it it me.
It's one thing to read it. It's another to hear it.
In this moment, I'm reminded of a conversation I had a while ago with Kaylee Gonsalves' mom. And Christy told me that she really hoped the 911 call would never come out.
She didn't want to hear it. For whatever reason, all the details of this case, this is one of the hardest parts for her.
It's been incredibly unsettling. And now that it's been released, the family gave me a statement about it.
I'm going to read part of it for you. It says, it's raw, it's jagged, a searing, unvarnished truth that no camera could ever hope to capture.
Every breath, every cry, every tremor in the voice reveals a reality so cruel, so brutally honest, it cuts deeper than anything fiction could ever devise. It's all so unbelievable.
And the thing is, is that while we have a lot more questions than answers after this call was released, the audio of it, we do have a transcript of the call. We also have transcripts of these text messages now.
And so we sort of have an order of events here, Julie. And what does that really reveal? We have a timeline now with the verbatim of text messages coming back and forth between 4 and 4.30, roughly.
And it's the two surviving roommates discussing what one of the roommates saw. All we had was what was in the affidavit.
And that in itself, it shakes me. She opened her door three times during that time period.
She described seeing someone clad in black with bushy eyebrows. And when she saw that man, she then went and retreated to her room and locked the door.
And that's what we knew. Now we know that she was corresponding with the other roommate about those actual events.
I have this filing in front of me.

It starts to really give you the timeline here.

From 419 to 421, the surviving roommate on the second floor,

the one who told authority she saw someone clad in black in the home,

attempts to call not only the roommate on the first floor,

but also Zanna Kernodal,alves, and Madison Mogan. The filing says all of those calls are unanswered.
Then between 422 and 424, she texts back and forth with the surviving roommate on the first floor. And it starts with the roommate on the second floor saying, no one is answering.
I'm really confused. Then the roommate on the first floor sends a text message to the roommate on the second floor saying, yeah, dude, WTF.
Zanna was wearing all black. Next text is from the roommate on the second floor to the roommate on the first floor

saying, no, it's like a ski mask almost. Right.
So in the confusion, she's thinking, and we can go back to the probable cause affidavit, but she's thinking, what did I just see? Was that Xana? Or no, it can't be because there was someone in a ski mask. That's giving the first signs of a description of what the surviving roommate actually saw.
And then you really see the fear set in. And the roommate there on first floor saying, come to my room, run down here.
427, the roommate on the second floor again calls Kaylee Gonzalez and at 432, pleading with her over text message to answer her phone. I mean, it sends chills every time I look at that correspondence.
But we know at that point, most likely from the probable cause affidavit and the police reports that Kaylee is probably dead at that point. And as we learn about these text messages, we learn about the 911 call.
This is all after Koberger's lead attorney, Ann Taylor, has really tried to create some questions about the surviving roommate, about her credibility overall. And they even bring up this description of bushy eyebrows.
And right now, Koberger's defense team does not want her to be able to use that description in court. Which is really interesting.
Again, we're learning a lot of information that we never had. We didn't have a description of the surviving roommate's room.
But Koberger's team is saying that when police photographed the crime scene right after the killings, her room was found to have had many pictures of eyes with prominent eyebrows on the walls in a room, many of which, and this is a direct quote, many of which she had drawn. Some of the eyebrows are heavy.
They have volume. They're puffy or perhaps subjectively bushy.
And then there was artwork of human figures with an emphasis on the eyes and eyebrows. So in prior hearings, defense attorney Ann Taylor had said that the roommate had admitted she had too much to drink and could not remember.
And that is a direct quote. The defense is saying that the numerous stories that were given after the murders by the surviving roommate are inconsistent.
And what they're trying to paint here, and you can see what's happening, they are saying that the roommate was drunk, was in a dreamlike state, and they're saying that maybe this is what she saw was in her room. But the prosecution is saying that the surviving roommate was sufficiently consistent with the important points about the description of the man in black.
Well, right. And actually, in a recent filing, we heard Judge Hippler comment that this roommate had given many interviews and that they essentially told the same version of the same story.
He said that this roommate's own statements about her memory or the effects of alcohol were not enough to doubt her reliability. He also said that she was able to consistently articulate what she remembered.
But it's perhaps no surprise that we see the defense trying to throw doubt wherever they can. This is a death penalty case.
In fact, that's another development we learned in recent days. The defense has filed a motion to strike the death penalty, And they cited what they say is Koberger's autism spectrum disorder as the reason.
They're insinuating that Koberger's autism and the way that he acts could bias the jury. It's a really interesting argument.
Let's start first with the definition from the National Institutes of Health. Autism spectrum disorder is a neurological and developmental disorder that affects how

people interact with others, communicate, learn, and behave.

The defense hired their own expert to assess Brian Koberger's ASD, and they say that Brian

Koberger has many of the traits that line up with autism spectrum disorder. That his range of facial expressions is limited and his expressions are sometimes incongruent with what is happening around him.
He has these intense periods where he's staring or what they say is an intense gaze. And you've been in court.
You've sat very close to Brian Koberger. I have sat very close to Brian Koberger.
He has certain demeanors that stand out. For anybody that's been following this case, you have heard descriptions of what Brian Koberger was like generally.

If you've listened to our podcast, we were able to speak with some people who were part of his graduate program at Washington State University. And the descriptions about his behavior are is that he's a bit of a loner all the time.
He was a bit of an outcast. He was a bit awkward.
And his lawyers say flat out, it's no surprise that Koberger came across as socially awkward. His lawyers writing that an impairment like that is a hallmark of his disability.
And they think that will work against him in the court of law. And according to his lawyers, the neuropsychologist that evaluated Koberger found that his autism spectrum disorder had a significant impact on his life.
Not only on his life, but on this case. The defense team is saying that he does not think the same.
That it's difficult at times because of this ASD.

All right, thanks, Julie,

as always for your insight

there on the ground in Moscow.

Thank you, Kena.

We'll be right back

after a short break.

Rapper Sean Diddy Combs was a kingmaker. He had wealth, fame, We'll be right back.
I'm Brian Buckmeyer, an ABC News legal contributor. As Diddy heads to trial, we trace his remarkable rise and fall and what could be next.
Listen to Bad Rap, The Case Against Diddy, a new series from ABC Audio. Listen now, wherever you get your podcasts.
On April 11th, the amateur arrives in IMAX. I want to find and kill the people who murdered my wife.
Critics rave The Amateur is a tense, unpredictable ride. You're just not a killer, Charlie.
Train me. That constantly finds new and inventive ways to up the stakes.
The first one you kill, you let the other ones know you're coming. I want them all.
Academy Award winner Rami Malek. And Academy Award nominee Lawrence Fishburne.
The Amateur. Rated PG-13.
Maybe inappropriate for children under 13. Only in theaters and IMAX April 11th.
Get tickets now. We're going to talk now about DNA in these recent filings.
Prosecutors say Koberger's DNA was found on the knife sheath underneath Maddie, and that has been the linchpin in this case. As a reminder, Koberger was arrested at his parents' home in Pennsylvania after a six-week manhunt.
Authorities used investigative genetic genealogy from the knife sheath DNA to link Koberger to the crime. But what these newly released documents show us is more information about other DNA evidence.
We've known that three other unidentified male profiles were found inside the home on King Road, but now we know where those samples were found. One was found in blood on a handrail between the first and second floor, the other on a glove outside the home.
And in these new filings, there is mention of an unknown mixture of DNA underneath Maddie's fingernails. Three separate profiles are present, according to the defense.
It's a lot, but I want to narrow in on the DNA samples found under her fingernails, because the documents also show that the defense is trying to limit testimony related to that three-person mixture. So we take this question to ABC News legal contributor Brian Buckmeyer.
Because why would the defense want to exclude that information if the results don't seem to point directly to Koberger? The easy answer, and again, I'll just say I'm a former public defender, so I'm more aligned with what Ann Taylor does in this case. And so maybe my bias comes out in talking about this case to some degree.
But the easy answer is when the DNA helps you, you want it in. When the DNA doesn't help you, you want it out.
So I've done this exact argument in Brooklyn. Let me explain it.
And I think after explaining it, you and your listeners will completely understand where the defense is going with this, right? So let's take a gun, for example. I touch it, you touch it, Julie touches it.
They would not be able to distinguish my DNA from your DNA from Julie's DNA because so many contributors were on it. They would say it's inconclusive.
Another reason why they might not say it's conclusive or it's inconclusive is they can only test, and this is specific to New York, if there are 20, and the way they measure DNA is picograms, if there are 20 picograms of that sample. So for whatever reason, when I touch an object, my skin cells don't flake off at the same rate that yours do, for example, Kena, and I only drop 10 picograms of DNA, but you drop 30.
There'd be male DNA on that object, but they would call that inconclusive. And what the defense is arguing here is if you can't say whether or not Brian Kovarger is under these fingernails, what's the relevance of that information? All you're able to say is a human being is under this person's fingernails, and that's not relevant.
That's not helping the jury, and that information should not be presented. Now, they took that information and took it to another lab.
And again, I'm talking specifically to New York can only calculate 20 picograms and four or less people, but there are other labs around the country that have more sensitive instruments. So they can detect less than 20 picograms.
They can detect if four or more people have touched an object. So from my understanding is they went to another lab that has more sensitive instruments.
And when they ran it through that instruments, they were able to say that Brian Coburg is excluded because in a case where someone has brutally murdered four individuals, you would suspect that there would be defensive wounds on that individual, and the victim would have scratched that person. And so if Brian Koberger's DNA is not under their fingernails, they've got a pretty decent argument there.
Does that independent lab result get presented to the jury? And is that something his defense team paid to do?

So yes and yes. So yes, it would be presented to the jury if the defense felt it necessary to put on their own case.
And I would suspect that they would.

So why is his defense team then arguing that none of this should be admitted as opposed to arguing,

we want to make sure that we can let the jury know our independent lab cleared him in this instance. So for two reasons, um, one is you want to get multiple bites at the apple.
Let's say this, let's say I say, Kena, I want to be on your podcast for a number of reasons. I dress really well.
I'm a defense attorney and I know like the strategy behind this. Is my strongest argument probably that I know the strategy of another public defender? Yeah, but I'm also going to have those other two arguments because maybe you're going to go, Brian, I want Brian on because I like his suits and I don't know which argument's really going to win.
So I just throw everyone out. And that's what every defense attorney does.
The other reason is you're not just arguing to the judge in front of you. You're also arguing to the appellate judge.
Because at some point in time, if Brian Koberger is found guilty, you cannot raise arguments on appeal that you did not raise at trial. And you don't know who that appellate judge is going to be.
It's those two reasons why you throw everything at a judge. The dressing well is definitely a better argument for TV than for audio.
But for anyone listening, the man can dress. Okay, so we can't talk about these documents, though, without talking about the judge that is overseeing this case.
Judge Hitler. He's moving this along rapidly.
It's very different from the approach of Judge John Judge in Moscow.

Judge Hitler has expressed frustration about the secrecy involving the case. Here's what he had to say during a hearing in January.
I am, as I told the parties yesterday, particularly sensitive about closing things when we don't need to. And I think that there has been to date a over caution in asking that I seal things by stipulation that perhaps don't need to be sealed.
There's been so much that we don't know, which is part of the reason why these filings have been so explosive, because this is some of the information that the public, that the journalists, and frankly, the families have been waiting so long to hear. So what do you think about this general commitment here to transparency on a case that the nation is watching? I think this judge saw, as we all did, how, and I'm not trying to speak poorly of Judge John Judge or anyone else who's on the case prior to.
I think it's a difference of opinion, difference of style. But I think this new judge saw how the families, the media, just the case in general, the public saw how the information was rolling out and said, okay, we need a new change of course.
We need one that will still uphold Brian Koberger's constitutional rights to a fair and impartial trial, but also inform those who are most interested in this case and have a vested interest in the facts as they come out. And so I think that's the balance that this new judge is trying to strike.
Obviously, the stakes of this case are huge. We know that Koberger's defense team has tried to strike the death penalty before.
That being said, they have not brought up the claim that their client has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. This is new information to the judge and to the public.
So why bring it up now, seemingly so late in the game? So again, I'm not a defense attorney on this team, but I can only theorize why. One main reason could be they didn't have the information.
Maybe Brian Koberger wasn't evaluated. Maybe the report by whoever evaluated him wasn't done.
when you evaluate an individual, especially one who's incarcerated, you've got to cut through

the red tape of, hey, I need an expert to go and sit down and talk with my client. So it's a red tape of getting that done.
The other thing, too, could just be strategy. Maybe they think this is one of their stronger arguments and they wanted to kind of leave it on the last doorstep of this case, kind of like the final push.
In 2002, there was a Supreme Court case called Atkins v. Virginia.
And in that Supreme Court case, it basically said, the United States of America cannot put people who have severe disability to death. So that just became the law of the land.
And that snowballed into making different arguments, a lot of them, which we are seeing here now. There are five main arguments in this 28-page motion.
The first three, I would say, could be categorized as he has ASD, and because of that, he is not culpable enough, like not guilty enough to be executed. Executing people with ASD falls in line with that kind of idea that we can't do this.
The Supreme Court says we can't do it. The fourth argument is a very unique one.
I haven't seen it and very interesting, but everyone has the right in what's going to be a bifurcated case. And what I mean by bifurcated is first the jury will decide guilt or innocence, and then the jury will decide the sentencing as to whether or not he gets put to death.
I don't think Brian Koberger's going to testify at the guilt phase to decide whether or not he's guilty or not. Maybe he will, but if I'm a betting man, I say no.
But if he found guilty, I definitely think it would behoove him or be in his interest to testify at that sentencing phase. And that's what the defense is talking about here, that if he was to take that opportunity to testify in that sentencing phase, to fight for his life, his mannerisms in the way his affect is, people will look at him and be like, that looks like a cold-blooded killer.
That's gonna take away his right to be able to defend himself. And that's why the death penalty should not be there.
I think they bolster that argument in the fifth and final argument of this motion of saying, look, the media is already doing it. We're looking at him in these pictures and we're looking at social media and the way people describe him as this menacing figure.
It's already happening. And that's going to taint the jury.
That's going to happen again when he testifies in the sentencing phase. And because of that, ASD should rule out the death penalty.
And just sort of lastly, and generally from a defense attorney standpoint, you don't think that some of this throwing everything at the wall is being done to avoid being accused of being ineffective counsel? No, I think what it is, is you have a public defender, a person who went to law school and chose to pick a profession where they feel they are representing individuals that but for them would not have the form of representation that Ann Taylor is giving, which I still think is amazing. And they're trying to save someone's life.
And so if you were in the mindset of I am doing the righteous work of a public defender and trying to save someone's life, you throw everything at the wall to try to do so. And I think that's what Ann Taylor is doing.
I think say what you want about Brian Koberger, but if you were sitting in his seat, you would want a person to throw everything at the wall to save your life. Well, Brian, as always, we appreciate your analysis on the legality of all of this, but also your commitment to this story.

Thank you for being here with us.

Absolutely. My pleasure.

As a reminder, a not guilty plea has been entered on Koberger's behalf.

We've recently learned from a filing by the prosecution that Koberger's defense team plans to argue that their client's DNA on the knife sheath does not prove he was ever in the home. The filing suggests the defense will argue the knife sheath itself could have been planted by the real perpetrator.
Koberger remains the only suspect in the case. One other update before we go.
Idaho's governor, Brad Little, just signed a bill to make Idaho the only state in the country where firing squad is the main means of execution. This will go into effect in July of 2026.
And that does it for this bonus episode of King Road Killings. And I have to say, we're two years into this story, and I feel like we've just gotten started.
So be sure to subscribe to the King Road Killings to hear season two, Brian Koberger on trial. We'll be bringing you episodes twice a week on the trial.
So follow and listen wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by Madeline Wood with help from Sasha Pesnik, Josh Margolin, Sasha Eslanian, Trevor Hastings, and Jenna Harrison.
Laura Mayer is the executive producer of ABC Audio. Hey, I'm Brad Milkey.
You may know me as the host of A. Transcription by CastingWords unpack the biggest true crime story that everyone is talking about.
ABC's got some unique access here, so I'll talk to the reporters and producers who have followed these cases for months, sometimes years. We're bringing the latest developments and the larger context on the true crime stories you've been hearing about.
Follow the crime scene for special access to the people who know these stories best. On April 8th, the final season of The Handmaid's Tale arrives.
This is the beginning of the end. And the revolution...
What's happening? Rebellion. ...begins.
How many bodies are you going to throw in the fire? When is enough enough? When there's no one left to fight. Where is June Osbourne? Rise up and fight for your freedom.

The Hulu original series, The Handmaid's Tale.

Final season premieres April 8th, streaming on Hulu.