Survivors' haunting texts in Idaho. Questions for a New York prosecutor. And a spring break mystery.

0:01Hey, good morning. Dateline's story meeting is getting underway. We're talking about losing my hour of light. I'm just talking to William, who's here watering the plants, and he is not happy with it. Me either. Our editorial team is catching up on the latest twists and turns in cases we've been watching around the country. I wonder, I mean, do we think she would ever talk? Would we be interested in that? Monica supposedly has her lover saying, she didn't do it, I did it. He thinks the family of the missing woman feels something happened to her, but they have no evidence of that yet. Welcome to Dateline True Crime Weekly.

0:34I'm Andrea Canning. It's March 13th, and here's what's on our docket. After a college student was murdered in a New York town over two decades ago, her family refused to stop looking for answers. This week, the trial of her accused killer finally began. Megan's family and the New York State Police say that one person really stood in the way. We've got our roundup of the latest crime headlines, A verdict in the third murder trial of Dana Chandler, the latest on the search for a college student who disappeared on spring break in the Dominican Republic, and an update from the prosecutor handling the Menendez brothers' case.

1:10He says the brothers haven't taken responsibility. Plus, expert witnesses in the courtroom. After Karen Reed's defense team came under fire recently for their use of expert witnesses, we wondered, what are the rules? NBC News legal analyst Danny Savalos breaks it down for us. Not only do they take money, they take a lot of money. But before all that, we're heading to Idaho, where we learned terrifying new details last week about the night four students were murdered in 2022. It's a case you know well by now. Four University of Idaho students stabbed to death in their beds in November of 2022. Brian Koberger, the man charged with their murders and who has pleaded not guilty, is set to go on trial in August.

1:55But many details in the case have been filed under seal, kept out of the public eye. Until last week, when Judge Stephen Hippler ordered more than a dozen filings be unsealed. And what those filings revealed are harrowing details from the night and morning after the murders, as told in real time by the two roommates who survived. Here to help us break down what we've learned is NBC News senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett. Hey, Laura. Always happy to be with you. Thank you for coming on. So this is pretty big. It hasn't been often in this case that we've gotten these sorts of documents unsealed.

2:30Any idea, first of all, why these court filings are being unsealed now? Yeah, so I think partly the background here is that there is a relatively new judge on the case who is acting a lot more expeditiously on everything and has a much different approach to sealing. Some judges are very lenient with sealing. Some judges really don't like it. Given that these two surviving roommates are likely going to be called to testify at trial, I'm sure the judge's position is all of this is going to come out pretty soon anyway. So there's really not the same urgency in keeping it secret. What are the big new things that we've learned from these motions being unsealed?

3:11The biggest revelations are the transcript of the 911 call and the text messages that are being sent between the two surviving roommates around four in the morning of the night that the students were killed and all of that we had never seen before. The text messages and phone calls really help give a timeline of what these surviving roommates experienced. It's very terrifying. Around 4.19 a.m., one of the roommates, Dylan Wardenson, is woken up and has presumably seen a stranger in the house. And the filing reveals that she calls her housemates out of fear and really to warn them, right? And she was clearly freaked out.

3:52You see her even say, I'm so freaked out right now. And then a few minutes later, according to the filing, Dylan, who is on the second floor, texts the other roommate, Bethany Funk, who is in the basement, about what she sees the stranger wearing. She says it's like a ski mask almost. It's also clear they're not quite sure what they saw. Yeah. You know, by all accounts, this was a party house, right? There's a lot of people coming in and out. And so I don't think it was that unusual for them to probably see someone that they didn't know in the house, but they were scared enough that it appears from their text messages that they hunker down together in the bedroom because you can see one saying the other, come here, run.

4:34And then you don't see them say anything until the next morning around 1030. They start texting their deceased roommates, not knowing, of course, that they had been killed, saying, please answer. And then they finally call 911. And so the unsealing of the transcript, the 911 call that was placed about the murders, that gives also a window into what happened the following morning. Yeah. So we knew they called 911, obviously, and we knew when they called, but we hadn't seen sort of the back and forth. And what becomes clear is at least one or possibly two other individuals and friends come over to the house.

5:11They go look and they find Zanna Kernodle's body and they say to the 911 operator, something has happened in our house. We don't know what, but you have to come over here because something has happened. And they say she's not waking up. And you think like, gosh, they've been stabbed. What a horrific scene they must have seen there. But it's interesting. They don't say that on the 911 tape. And it's just, is it the shock? Was it too overwhelming? Could they not tell right away? It's unclear what's going on there. But they don't mention any blood on the 911 call, which I thought was curious. But again, it's hard to know.

5:45Is it they're so overwhelmed in the moment or they didn't see? Another filing that was unsealed last week was one from the defense team. They've previously tried to get the death penalty taken off the table for Koberger unsuccessfully. But they are trying again, and this time with a different argument. They are saying that a psychological evaluation shows Koberger has autism spectrum disorder. and that subjecting him to the death penalty would be cruel and unusual punishment? The judge has not yet resolved that motion, so it's going to be interesting to see how he handles it. But given his posture on the other death penalty motions, I think it's going to be an uphill battle for the defense team, also because the state of Idaho does not use mental difference or disability or illness as a way of changing the culpability of somebody's mental state when it comes to a case like this.

6:39And so it's not, at least so far, been grounds to get the death penalty stricken in Idaho. Another big motion from the defense, they're asking to limit the use of some words in trial, words that could be key in a murder case. Yeah, they want to limit the use of the word murderer, which you can imagine a prosecutor is going to fight that because they were going to use that in closing as an opening. They also want to limit the use of the word psychopath and sociopath, which in my mind are like medical definitions that actually have specific meanings. And so I'm not sure that the prosecutors would have intended to use those terms anyway.

7:16And then they also want to keep out the phrase bushy eyebrows, which is going to be a big fight. The surviving roommates, at least one of them, reported to authorities that she saw a masked man with bushy eyebrows. That's going to become an important fact, I think, later on at trial, as that's sort of the only person who's still living that's going to be able to ID Brian Koberger in some way. Now, of course, bushy eyebrows, it's not like a tattoo or a birthmark or something. There's lots of people who have bushy eyebrows, and I'm sure he's going to say that's not enough to ID him. But that's really all authorities have for someone spotting him in the house.

7:54And so there's going to be a fight about that. Do you expect these motions to possibly get approved or when can we expect another ruling given that the judge is moving quickly? I would think in at least the next few weeks or so, because so much of this just has to get wrapped up to keep the trial date, which the judge intends to keep at least so far. And it seems like, you know, August is a while out from right now, but these these things have a way of taking a while. And so I would imagine the judge is going to get all of this wrapped up pretty soon. Fascinating case and very scary and sad case as well.

8:26Laura, thank you for breaking this all down for us as we inch closer and closer to trial. Anytime. Coming up, as a murder trial begins in a more than 20-year-old cold case, the victim's family says the local prosecutor has some explaining to do.

8:48On March 13, 2003, 20-year-old Megan McDonald did what any college student might do on a Thursday night. She went to a friend's house to watch TV. She stopped by a birthday party. But the next day, her family and friends couldn't reach her. And her body was later found on a dirt path in Orange County, New York. The cause of death? Blunt forced trauma with multiple fractures to her skull. In April 2023, there was finally an arrest in the case. Here's our affiliate, NBC4 New York. State police revealing this afternoon that DNA evidence linked the alleged killer to the crime scene. McDonald's family telling us that they've been waiting for this day for 20 years.

9:28And this week, the trial of Meghan's alleged killer finally began. But Meghan's family wants to know what took so long. And they aren't the only ones. In a startling turn of events, New York State police investigators are also pointing the finger at a man they say stood in the way of justice. And that is the local district attorney. Dateline Digital producer Veronica Mazzaca is here to bring us up to speed. Veronica, welcome back to the podcast. Thanks for having me. Yeah, so let's just start with, tell us about Megan McDonald. Who was she? Yeah, absolutely. She, you know, was a student at SUNY Orange Community College.

10:05I've spoken with her sister, Karen, and her brother-in-law, James, and they both describe her as warm, loving, compassionate. You know, she was the life of the party, big, bright smile. So Veronica, what do we know about the last day of Megan's life? Yeah, so Megan was actually a waitress. She was working a shift and then she spent the evening hanging out with friends. And then the following day, she was scheduled to work again at that cafe at about noon. And then so her family and friends really knew something was wrong when she didn't show up for work. Investigators learned that Megan had stopped by a birthday party that Thursday night, but she didn't go inside.

10:48Yeah, so it was a birthday party for someone's 21st, and she had driven by the party before she went to go hang out with her friend and watch the TV show Friends. And she had said to two people that she didn't want to go inside because there was someone there named Edward Hawley, who she did not want to see. Megan had dated Holly, and according to conversations and information that's come out from the investigation, he owed her money, and she had also tried to cut off the relationship in the days before she died. So it sounds like things weren't great between the two of them, but Megan did end up going back to that birthday party, and then this ends up being the last time she's seen alive, right?

11:33Yes. So according to investigators, Megan had told some friends that she was going to be looking for marijuana, and she had planned to actually ask Holly for some on her way back home. We know Megan's body was found on a dirt path, and her car was found parked in an apartment complex nearby. But Veronica, do we know what happened when she left the birthday party? Did anyone see anything? Some witnesses say that they saw someone driving her car through the parking lot the night that investigators say she was killed and that it was being followed closely by a dark colored Honda Civic that had a noticeably loud sound system, which Holly's mother had a purple Honda Civic hatchback registered to her.

12:21And Holly was known to drive that during the time frame of the murder. So Holly was interviewed by police all those years ago, and at some point, the investigation hit a wall, but they took another look at him. Holly, kind of the statements that he had been making to police through the years, they realized that there were inconsistencies. So Edward Holly became the prime suspect, but investigators also say Holly wasn't the only one at the scene of the murder, right? So they believe that he was in the backseat of her car and that there was someone else also in the car who they refer to as suspect number two.

12:58Suspect number two is someone that actually died many years ago, but he had come forward to a defense attorney and said he had details about the night of Megan's murder and he wanted to take a plea deal. Why didn't that go anywhere? You know, I'm not sure why that didn't go anywhere at the time. All right. So Edward Hawley was indicted in January 2024. He has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder charges. And his defense says the prosecution's looking in the wrong place, that they should really be looking at a different ex-boyfriend. So we'll learn a lot more over the coming weeks at trial.

13:40But one really important thing looming over all of this is Megan's family. Her family says the case against Holly should have been made years ago. They want answers. Why did this take so long? So Megan's family and, you know, the New York State Police say that one person really stood in the way of getting these answers sooner. And they say that person was the Orange County District Attorney David Hoovler. Did he feel like there was not enough to go after Holly? That is something that he has said previously. Obviously, he felt there wasn't enough to bring the case before a grand jury. But Hoovler is the person who was the defense attorney that suspect number two had come to back in 2008 before Hoovler was the district attorney.

14:26When Hoovler became the DA, he did have an opportunity to recuse himself from the case at the time, but he did not. So the New York State Police, there was an internal report that found that as DA, he deliberately tampered with the investigation. And he has made statements to NBC News about this. He did say, quote, any suggestion that I or anyone in my office did anything to tamper with or in some fashion compromise the investigation into Ms. McDonald's death is inaccurate, unfair and offensive. He remains the DA, but he has recused himself from this case. And two special prosecutors have been appointed who are outside Hoovler's office to try the case.

15:12Megan's mom was on the stand earlier this week. This must be just so hard for them on so many levels. Yeah, so Megan's family has been holding steady over the last 20 plus years. you know, they obviously are still reeling from the pain of losing Megan. But they did say that they trust the legal system to hold the person responsible for Megan's murder accountable. Veronica, thank you so much. This is such a sad story that the family has had to deal with this for this long. We'll see what happens. Thank you. Up next, it's time for Dateline Roundup. We'll have the latest on the Menendez brothers' efforts to get out of prison.

15:54and new information about the college student missing in the Caribbean. The last known person to see her on the beach that night was a 24-year-old from Iowa. Does his story add up? Plus, we're taking a look at expert witnesses. We'll do a deep dive into their role in the courtroom and why Karen Reed's defense team is in hot water.

16:26Welcome back to the show. For this week's Roundup, we've asked Dateline producer Sergey Ivonen to join us. Hey, Sergey. Hi, Andrea. Good to see you. You too. So the case getting the most attention this week, as it has for almost six months now, is Lyle and Eric Menendez, who are still fighting to get out of prison. They have been incarcerated for almost 30 years since being convicted for killing their parents back in 1989. We have a new DA in town, Sergei, as of last year, and he was going to make some decisions. So what is the latest on the brothers? Yeah, last October, the former L.A. County DA filed a motion asking the court to consider resentencing the brothers.

17:07But then a new DA was elected, and his name is Nathan Hockman. And Monday, he gave a press conference. He's asking the court to reverse what the previous DA did. He wants to withdraw the motion asking for the brothers' resentencing and said that at a hearing scheduled for late next week. He will argue that the brothers should not be made eligible for parole. This is a big blow for the brothers. You know, they were finally getting some traction. What do we know about what he sees differently? Why this big reversal, different beliefs? Right. Well, this DA came out and said, look, we might be amenable to resentencing, but he says the brothers haven't taken responsibility.

17:47If the Menendez brothers at some point, unequivocally, sincerely, and fully accept complete responsibility for all their criminal actions, acknowledge that the self-defense defense was phony, and their parents weren't going to kill them the night of August 20th when they murdered them in cold blood. The district attorney's office will reconsider whether or not we would want to go forward with a resentencing motion. So the Menendez brothers had a reaction through their lawyer who spoke to the Today Show. Have you spoken to Lyle and Eric since this happened and what's their reaction? I had already prepared him for it.

18:33I mean, this DA had made up his mind. Their lawyer said the DA is showboating and grandstanding and trying to confuse the issue and put the ball back in the governor's court. This DA re-traumatizes the family repeatedly. He's almost serially abusing them with his lies. Their extended family put out a statement saying the DA has blinders on the fact that Eric and Lyle were repeatedly abused, feared for their lives, and have atoned for their actions. And another twist is that the only family member, Kitty's brother, who for a long time opposed their release, he died last week. So, right. As things stand today, all the people affected are united in wanting Lyle and Eric out.

19:21Okay, let's talk about a trial that we've been watching closely. Dana Chandler's third prosecution on charges of killing her ex-husband and his girlfriend. This is happening in Kansas. This is a story that you've been working on, Sergey. Tell us what the latest is there. Well, yes, this is the case where the defendant chose to represent herself, called herself as a witness for the defense and spoke for days. So proceedings took longer than anyone expected. The first trial, the jury convicted her. That conviction was thrown out by the Kansas Supreme Court. The second one was a hung jury. And now we have this third jury that did come to a resolution.

20:02We, the jury, find Dana Chandler guilty of murder in the first degree. It's charged in count one. Verdict form count two. We, the jury, find Dana Chandler guilty of murder in the first degree as charging count two. Okay. The reaction in the courtroom was actually pretty anticlimactic, I would say. Dana turned to her family and her supporters before she was handcuffed and walked out. Her face said as though she had anticipated that outcome. Yeah, this has been a long saga. We'll see if it's actually truly over. I suspect it's not the last we've heard of Dana Chandler. Exactly. Finally, last week, a 20-year-old pre-med student from Northern Virginia, Sudik Shah Konanki, was reported missing by her friends.

20:48The group of six women were at a resort in the Dominican Republic for spring break. And, Sergei, the first reporting was that she went out for a walk on the beach and didn't come back. new information keeps coming out as this story picks up traction. What we know is like the whole group of them went to the beach. They were there at 4 in the morning, as, you know, students are known to do. And then they left her there with a guy, they say, who had been partying with them earlier that night. There's still a massive search on for her. They're looking for her in the water, on land, helicopters, drones.

21:25Investigators have said They're looking at surveillance footage from the moment that, you know, those students landed last week. You know, the State Department, the FBI, the DEA, they're all involved in this. But an interesting thing is that her friends, you know, her friends who stayed on the beach and partied, they did not say anything. They didn't report her missing until 4 p.m. I know her local sheriff from Virginia has been very vocal about this as well. And he has named a person of interest. As of now, this has not been declared a criminal investigation. But do investigators think foul play was involved?

21:59The last person seen with her was a 24-year-old from Iowa who was a guest at the resort as well. And according to the police, he told three different stories. So on Monday, the sheriff in Virginia filed an Interpol alert. It's a worldwide police alert for a missing person. Yeah, let's hope that the family gets answers soon. Thank you so much, Sergei, for bringing us Roundup this week. My pleasure. For our final story, we're getting to the bottom of a legal question that recently stopped one of Karen Reed's pretrial hearings in its tracks. As you all know, Karen Reed is the Massachusetts woman being retried in April on charges she murdered her police officer boyfriend, John O 'Keefe, an accusation she vehemently denies.

22:45But this week, we're not talking about what Karen did or didn't do. We're talking about her defense team. As we told you on the podcast a few weeks ago, the prosecution has accused Reed's lawyers of being misleading about their use of expert witnesses. We've covered lots of trials here at Dateline that feature expert witnesses, so this made us wonder what the rules actually are. Here to break it down for us is NBC legal analyst and a criminal defense attorney himself, Danny Savalos. Hey, Danny. Hey, thanks for having me. So to start, I mean, I know this feels like a fairly obvious question, but it's really important.

23:20Why are expert witnesses called to testify during trials? Expert witnesses serve a very specific function. If the subject of their testimony is going to be outside the knowledge of your ordinary juror, then you may be permitted to call an expert witness in that area. I think some people are surprised to learn that some of these experts take money to testify. Not only do they take money, they take a lot of money. If you have the world's foremost expert on fingerprints, DNA, any of these hyper-technical issues, this is somebody that's going to be expensive. And the other important point is that the other side is not only permitted to usually discover that, but also you can bet they're going to raise that in their cross-examination.

24:10Just as a matter of course, it's something we always do. Isn't it true that you were paid over$100 ,000 for your testimony? And that's true, but it's often justified. And so it brings up that challenge for the juror. Of course, the prosecution is only going to put someone on the stand who agrees with the narrative that they're painting. And the defense is only going to put someone on the stand who agrees with the narrative they're painting. And having talked to jurors a lot after some of these trials, you'll hear them say, well, they canceled each other out. So it's tricky. Yeah, you're talking about a phenomenon we call battle of the experts.

24:49You know, we think of something like science as immutable or unchallengeable. And yet, it's not too hard to go out and find two experts who will take dramatically different positions on either side. Now, is that only because they're being paid? No, not necessarily. I mean, you can cherry pick your area of expertise to fit what you need in your trial. But yes, you're absolutely right. As you've seen, all too often you'll have experts take the stand and completely contradict each other and leave it for the jury to decide who they like the best. And a lot of times on Dateline we hear that term junk science where this expert will present something and then the opposing attorneys will say, hey, this is junk.

25:34You're exactly right. So there are limitations on expert testimony. I mean, you can't just make up an area of science that serves your purpose and then say you're entitled to call an expert to testify about that area. So the judge acts as a gatekeeper before the jury ever hears that testimony to determine that this is a legitimate area, whether it be scientific, technical, whatever the case may be. It's got to meet at least a minimum standard before a judge allows any old expert to come in and start testifying to a jury. So that brings us to the Karen Reed case. Can you break down for us what the judge's issue was exactly with the defense and these experts?

26:15This is a very unusual situation. This controversy involves accident reconstruction experts. The defense didn't actually hire these experts. The defense used these experts after they had already been retained by a federal agency conducting its own investigation. What's alleged is that the defense team said to the court and to the prosecution, we have had limited access to these guys. We're basically taking them as we find them. We're barely talking to them. We haven't paid them anything. Well, now it seems that the defense may have possibly violated their obligation to disclose information about the level of, let's say, coziness that the defense had with these experts.