The Idaho Murders | The Case Against Bryan Kohberger

A recent episode of the popular podcast "Hidden Killers" invited renowned FBI special agent and former Chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program, Robin Dreeke, to weigh in on a controversial case and its convoluted defense strategies. Host Tony Brueski led the discussion on the defense's claims of evidence planting, procedural errors, and elusive alibis.

 

There was a considerable focus on the defense attorney’s tactics of "pulling things out of the air," a statement Dreeke concurred with, "It'll be great when things are finally unsealed and the gag order's off so we can actually see what's going on. She's doing a fantastic job, she's doing her job as best as she can."

 

Dreeke inferred that the defense attorney’s strategy of spreading "seeds of doubt" could be viewed as a desperate attempt to sway public opinion in their favor. Online sleuths have been digging through every nuance of the case. Dreeke expressed skepticism regarding a legitimate alibi or any evidence that could divert blame away from the accused, "We'd hear about it," he said.

 

Brueski questioned whether these unsubstantiated claims could potentially undermine the defense’s credibility in the long run. He likened it to the "boy who cried wolf" scenario, posing the question of whether this strategy could backfire if the defense is seen as spreading baseless information.

 

Dreeke offered an interesting perspective, arguing that the defense attorney, with her vast experience and thorough knowledge of jury behavior, wouldn't recklessly undermine her own credibility. He opined, "I always err on the side of it was very thoughtful, it had a lot of intention behind it."

 

The discussion then veered towards the complexities of gag orders and the games being played with public knowledge. Both Brueski and Dreeke surmised that more evidence exists than what the public is currently privy to, pointing to the possibility of a "treasure trove" of information yet to be revealed. "My assumption would be that there's more DNA and there are more things behind the scenes that we'll find out once this thing gets underway," Brueski said.

 

Dreeke agreed, crediting the defense attorney for maximizing the restrictions imposed by the gag order, planting seeds of distrust using information already in the public domain. This raises further intrigue and doubt, giving the defense an edge until the gag order is lifted.

An interesting point was the prosecution's request for information about the alibi. Brueski considered this indicative of the prosecution's complete lack of knowledge about any alibi, highlighting the defense's desperate tactics. Dreeke concluded, "I'm hard-pressed to think she knows anything they don't know."

 

The conversation on "Hidden Killers" provided a comprehensive examination of a contentious defense strategy, offering unique insights into the nuances of courtroom tactics and the power of public perception. As the gag order lifts and more evidence comes to light, the true efficacy of these strategies will undoubtedly be put to the test.

Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj

The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

In a riveting episode of the podcast "Hidden Killers," host Tony Brueski delves deep into the controversial use of genetic genealogy DNA as evidence with guest Eric Faddis, a former felony prosecutor, and attorney. The conversation centered on the perplexing case of Brian Kohberger, a man at the heart of a quadruple murder investigation that leaves as many questions as answers.

 

Brueski initiated the discussion by pointing out the polarized perspectives on genealogical DNA, with some considering it "gold," while others view it as shaky at best. Addressing the matter, Faddis remarked, "So the genealogical alleged link between Kohberger's father and some biological material on the knife sheath... it's certainly something, but it's not as strong as having the defendant Brian Kohberger's DNA on there." The implication is clear: defense attorneys will likely scrutinize the validity of this DNA link, questioning its reliability and potentially the competence of the analysts involved.

 

Beyond the DNA, another intriguing detail emerged in Kohberger's defense: an admission of his habitual nighttime driving. While not a crime, Brueski found this detail potentially problematic, suggesting it might paint Kohberger in a suspicious light to jurors. Faddis concurred, noting, "There's something a bit ominous about it. Is it a crime? No... but is it something that colors the impression that the jury might get of Brian Kohberger in a negative way? You bet." To make matters more complex, a vehicle resembling Kohberger's was reportedly seen near the crime scene on the night of the murders.

 

The nighttime driving revelation seems inextricably tied to another piece of the puzzle: cell phone triangulation evidence. With Kohberger's admitted predilection for driving late, the defense may be setting the stage to challenge the accuracy of cell phone triangulation. Faddis weighed in on this strategy, asserting, "Like you said, the defense already knew that there's a cell phone triangulation that places Kohberger near the scene at certain times... is this alibi just a way to explain away all of that cell phone stuff?"

 

However, for Kohberger to convincingly present this alibi to the jury, he might have to testify personally, a move Faddis considers could be fraught with danger, especially given the high-stakes nature of a quadruple murder trial. He remarked, "That would subject him to some rather perilous cross-examination."

 

Amidst the discussion of alibis and DNA, one glaring gap remains in the case against Kohberger: motive. The podcast host and guest pondered over potential motives, including theories rooted in jealousy or social exclusion. However, as Faddis emphasized, while motive isn't strictly necessary for prosecution, it's often what jurors desire to hear. "They've got to provide the jury with some reason why the accused would commit such a heinous, egregious act."

 

Recent reports suggest potential social media interactions between Kohberger and the victims or their associates. Yet, these remain vague. Faddis underlined the importance of establishing a clear connection between Kohberger and the victims, warning of the dangers of leaving jurors with unanswered questions.

 

As the Kohberger trial looms, it promises to be a courtroom drama filled with forensic challenges, defense strategies, and the ever-present quest for a motive. And as always, the "Hidden Killers" podcast remains at the forefront of such discussions, shedding light on the intricate nuances of the criminal justice system.

Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj

The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

In a recent podcast episode, "Hidden Killers," psychotherapist and author Shavaun Scott joined host Tony Brueski to discuss the complex legal developments surrounding the ongoing Bryan Kohberger case. The defense team has made a bold move, filing a motion to dismiss the indictment based on their assertion that the grand jury was misled about the standard of proof necessary for indictment.

 

In their audacious motion, Kohberger's defense alleges that the grand jury was erroneously instructed with the standard of proof required for a presentment, which, they argue, should instead have been beyond a reasonable doubt. If true, they argue this would warrant the dismissal of the indictment. "It's connect the dots of this word to that word and this mean that," Brueski stated, reflecting the confusion of the legal labyrinth surrounding the case.

 

Scott agreed with Brueski's interpretation. "It sure strikes me as he's got some very bright, motivated attorneys working very hard to come up with anything and everything that they can," she said. "It sounds like a legal maneuver." This, she suggests, is a display of a legal team throwing everything at the wall, hoping something sticks.

 

The conversation took an interesting turn as they discussed the elusive alibi the defense is purportedly withholding. In response to the prosecution's motion to compel the defense to share information about the potential alibi, Kohberger's team has maintained their stance of non-disclosure. "It's anticipated. This evidence may be offered by way of cross-examination of witnesses produced by the state, as well as calling expert witnesses," the defense stated in a recent quote.

 

However, both Brueski and Scott doubted the validity of this so-called "alibi." Scott stated, "It's not an alibi... Yeah. It just sounds like a legal maneuver," reinforcing her skepticism about the strategy employed by Kohberger's defense.

 

Speculation about the defense's objectives shifted from mere acquittal to avoiding a death sentence, as Scott noted, "It's a rather desperate attempt to just do everything they possibly can to mitigate the damage, which is gonna be the death penalty if it goes that way."

 

Another hot topic was the defense's assertion that DNA evidence could have been planted at the crime scene. While such a claim certainly rouses curiosity, Scott clarified, "The reasonable doubt. What can we toss out there that may just get people thinking, maybe," indicating that this might simply be another strategy to influence potential jurors by instilling doubt in the prosecution's evidence.

 

Lastly, the pair discussed the significance of the apparent silence from Kohberger's family. In response to Brueski's query, Scott suggested that "the family is trying to do the right thing. They're trying to stay out of the limelight. They don't strike me as nutty people who are trying to do lots of interviews and get attention for themselves."

 

This nuanced conversation reveals the intricate and at times bewildering strategies unfolding in the Kohberger case. The defense's bold move to dismiss the indictment and their elusive alibi hint at a legal team prepared to exhaust all avenues to ensure their client's survival. Meanwhile, the prosecution appears equally determined to see justice served.

Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj

The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

In a riveting new episode of the podcast "Hidden Killers," host Tony Brueski delved deep into the intricacies of Bryan Kohberger’s alibi, the suspect linked to a series of murders. With guest Eric Faddis, a former felony prosecutor and attorney, the duo shed light on the defense strategy's complexities.

 

Kohberger's alibi, as discussed, centers around his nocturnal drives in the vicinity of the crime scenes. Brueski, with evident skepticism, remarked, "He just likes to drive around at night in the area. Well, surprised that's what the alibi ended up being." This peculiar justification, Brueski suggests, might be a "placeholder" - a temporary defense until more concrete facts can support it. Faddis expanded on this notion, likening it to tactics in civil practice where defense attorneys assert a position while keeping avenues open to introducing new defenses as more information becomes available.

 

Faddis noted, "They don't identify any witnesses who can support his version." The fact that a vehicle resembling Kohberger’s was reportedly seen near the quadruple murder site only adds to the convolution. He surmised, "It's almost like a placeholder a little bit."

 

A key legal point was addressed: if this alibi does evolve or change, will the defense be required to disclose the additional details before the trial? "Different jurisdictions have different rules on this," Faddis explained. However, if an alibi is presented, witnesses and basic facts underlying that alibi usually must be disclosed. The principle behind this is to prevent a "trial by ambush," ensuring both defense and prosecution are well-prepared.

 

Yet, the lingering question remains: Why was there a delay in the announcement of this alibi? Brueski postulated that it might be a legal tactic: file a potential alibi by the deadline and then refine it based on unfolding information. This is supported by Faddis' theory, suggesting that the defense might be "slow playing while they're sort of scrambling to try and find something to support it."

 

The discourse then shifted to a fascinating angle – Kohberger’s academic background in criminology. Given his expertise, would this knowledge be beneficial to his defense or prove detrimental? The host mused, "Why would he do something like this when he already knows how these things work?"

 

Analyzing this angle, Faddis posited that Kohberger's background could be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, his criminology knowledge would undoubtedly aid in structuring a robust defense. Conversely, the prosecution might argue that Kohberger's in-depth understanding allowed him to cover his tracks carefully.

 

"You know, the reason we can't find the murder weapon, for example, is because the defendant who did this is schooled in criminology," Faddis stated, elucidating how the prosecution might approach Kohberger's expertise.

 

In conclusion, the episode underscored the multifaceted legal strategies at play and the profound impact of Kohberger's background on his defense. As the trial looms, only time will tell if this nighttime drive alibi stands firm or is a legal placeholder.

Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj

The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

In the latest episode of the popular true-crime podcast "Hidden Killers," hosted by Tony Brueski, an insightful discussion was held with former Prosecutor and attorney Laurie Gilbertson concerning the recent legal tactics employed by Ann Taylor, the defense attorney for the infamous Kohberger case.

 

Recently, Taylor filed a motion seeking to have Kohberger's indictment dismissed on the grounds that the grand jury was erroneously instructed on the standard of proof required for the indictment. Taylor argued that the jury should have been informed that the proof required would be "beyond a reasonable doubt," not the standard for presentment, which she claims was the standard used.

 

According to Gilbertson, however, Taylor's move is flawed. Gilbertson accused Taylor of damaging her credibility before the court by making this filing. "She knows what the standard is and what the correct standard is and the correct way to instruct a grand jury. These are formalities and she knows it," Gilbertson emphasized.

 

Moreover, Gilbertson highlighted the absurdity of Taylor admitting in the motion that "all of modern jurisprudence" is against her client. "If you gotta put a sentence like that in, you know that you're making some crazy claim," Gilbertson remarked. She argued that this desperate strategy only highlights the lack of a solid defense for Kohberger.

 

The podcast hosts also criticized Taylor for what they described as 'throwing random elements' into the case. They noted how Taylor suggested that evidence such as DNA and the sheath could have been planted, drawing parallels with tactics used during the O.J. Simpson case. Furthermore, Taylor's late filing of an alibi defense, without providing adequate information to the prosecution, was highlighted as a questionable strategy.

 

Gilbertson was equally critical of these tactics, describing the alibi defense as a desperate attempt to create doubt without substance. "In order for there to be a fair trial, you forfeit the right to use an alibi if you do not provide the information about it to the prosecution within the statutory time," Gilbertson stated.

 

The former Prosecutor also criticized Taylor's alleged disregard of a gag order, which prevents attorneys from discussing case details outside the court. The hosts and Gilbertson observed that Taylor seems to bypass this order by using court filings to make public insinuations. They suggested this might be an attempt to influence potential jurors, a tactic reminiscent of a political campaign.

 

"What it seems to me here over everything she's filed over the past, I guess, week or so, is playing games a bit with the system," Gilbertson opined. Despite all these maneuvers, the hosts and Gilbertson remain skeptical of their ultimate effectiveness.

 

In conclusion, the "Hidden Killers" episode offered a critical perspective on Taylor's handling of the Kohberger case. Gilbertson's expert legal insight revealed questionable tactics, potentially damaging Taylor's credibility. However, whether these tactics will sway the course of the case remains to be seen. As Brueski concluded, "We'll see."

Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj

The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Bryan Kohberger's, 'I like to drive at night' defense may seem weak to most. But he's not the only one who has offered an alibi that makes little to no sense. Here's a look at some of the other dumbest alibis in history. 

The "Twinkie Defense" (Dan White, 1978)

Description: The 1978 murders of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk shook the nation. The man responsible, Dan White, was a former San Francisco Board of Supervisors member. At his trial, the defense attorney presented a unique argument suggesting that White's consumption of junk food, particularly Twinkies, was symptomatic of his severe depression. This was not to argue that the Twinkies caused his actions, but rather to highlight his compromised mental state. The media latched onto this defense aspect and dubbed it the "Twinkie defense," a name stuck in popular culture. While the defense itself might seem trivial or laughable, its implications were anything but. Using this argument of diminished capacity, White was convicted of voluntary manslaughter instead of first-degree murder. The public's reaction was strong, leading to the White Night riots in San Francisco. The case and its outcome had a lasting impact on legal discussions about responsibility, mental health, and how they're addressed in the courtroom.

The "Dog Ate My Homework" Defense (Andrew Zieleniewski, 1993)

Description: Andrew Zieleniewski's defense during his murder trial in the UK was reminiscent of an oft-used childhood excuse: that his dog had consumed his homework, and he was at home during the crime's occurrence, trying to retrieve it. This alibi might seem almost humorous in its simplicity, but its utilization in a serious criminal trial underscores the lengths to which individuals might go to establish innocence. Despite the peculiar nature of the excuse, it didn't hold up in court. The jury dismissed his claim, and Zieleniewski was convicted. The case serves as a testament to the intricate and sometimes bizarre narratives defendants might weave to escape justice.

The "Television Hypnosis" Alibi (Simon MacMillan, 1990s)

Description: Simon MacMillan, accused of theft, presented one of the most unusual alibis: he claimed he was under the spell of a TV hypnosis show during his crime. While not a murder case, it remains noteworthy for its audacity. MacMillan's defense hinged on the idea that television could induce a state of suggestibility so profound that one could commit crimes without being aware. In a world where concerns about media's influence have always been rife, MacMillan's defense pushed the boundaries of these fears. However, courts, grounded in scientific reasoning, didn't give credence to this narrative, further reinforcing the necessity for evidence-based defenses.

The "Sleepwalking Killer" (Kenneth Parks, 1987)

Description: Kenneth Parks' case is remarkable in legal annals. Parks had a well-documented history of sleep disorders. One fateful night, he drove 20 kilometers to his in-laws' home, assaulted both, and killed his mother-in-law. He then drove to a police station, and confessed, but with a twist: he claimed he had done all of this while sleepwalking. Medical experts supported his claims, pointing to a rare form of sleep disorder. The jury faced a moral and legal dilemma: can someone be held responsible for actions committed in a state they have no control over or recall of? Ultimately, Parks was acquitted, leading to global discussions about sleep disorders, legal responsibility, and where the two intersect.

The "Werewolf Defense" (Bill Ramsey, 1980s)

Description: Bill Ramsey's claims were perhaps more fitting for a horror movie script than a courtroom. During the 1980s in the UK, after a series of violent incidents, Ramsey proclaimed that he occasionally transformed into a werewolf, losing control during these episodes. Sporadic and unpredictable violent outbursts backed his claims, but no concrete evidence supported the supernatural aspect of his assertions. In 1989, after much public attention and media coverage, Ramsey underwent an exorcism, believed by some to rid him of his "werewolf spirit." While his claims were never used as a formal defense in court, they added a chapter to the annals of bizarre explanations for violent behavior.

Each of these cases not only underscores the complexities of the human psyche and the lengths individuals might go to distance themselves from their actions but also challenges legal systems worldwide to consider and adapt to ever-evolving narratives of responsibility.

Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj

The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Welcome to the "Week In Review," where we delve into the true stories behind this week's headlines. Your host, Tony Brueski, joins hands with a rotating roster of guests, sharing their insights and analysis on a collection of intriguing, perplexing, and often chilling stories that made the news.

   

 This is not your average news recap. With the sharp investigative lens of Tony and his guests, the show uncovers layers beneath the headlines, offering a comprehensive perspective that traditional news can often miss. From high-profile criminal trials to in-depth examinations of ongoing investigations, this podcast takes listeners on a fascinating journey through the world of true crime and current events.

   

 Each episode navigates through multiple stories, illuminating their details with factual reporting, expert commentary, and engaging conversation. Tony and his guests discuss each case's nuances, complexities, and human elements, delivering a multi-dimensional understanding to their audience.

   

 Whether you are a dedicated follower of true crime or an everyday listener interested in the stories shaping our world, the "Week In Review" brings you the perfect balance of intrigue, information, and intelligent conversation. Expect thoughtful analysis, informed opinions, and thought-provoking discussions beyond the 24-hour news cycle.

Want to listen to ALL our Podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for 3 days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj

Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

The latest on Chad & Lori Daybell, The Long Island Serial Killer, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Welcome to the "Week In Review," where we delve into the true stories behind this week's headlines. Your host, Tony Brueski, joins hands with a rotating roster of guests, sharing their insights and analysis on a collection of intriguing, perplexing, and often chilling stories that made the news.

   

 This is not your average news recap. With the sharp investigative lens of Tony and his guests, the show uncovers layers beneath the headlines, offering a comprehensive perspective that traditional news can often miss. From high-profile criminal trials to in-depth examinations of ongoing investigations, this podcast takes listeners on a fascinating journey through the world of true crime and current events.

   

 Each episode navigates through multiple stories, illuminating their details with factual reporting, expert commentary, and engaging conversation. Tony and his guests discuss each case's nuances, complexities, and human elements, delivering a multi-dimensional understanding to their audience.

   

 Whether you are a dedicated follower of true crime or an everyday listener interested in the stories shaping our world, the "Week In Review" brings you the perfect balance of intrigue, information, and intelligent conversation. Expect thoughtful analysis, informed opinions, and thought-provoking discussions beyond the 24-hour news cycle.

Want to listen to ALL our Podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for 3 days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj

Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

The latest on Chad & Lori Daybell, The Long Island Serial Killer, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Welcome to the "Week In Review," where we delve into the true stories behind this week's headlines. Your host, Tony Brueski, joins hands with a rotating roster of guests, sharing their insights and analysis on a collection of intriguing, perplexing, and often chilling stories that made the news.

   

 This is not your average news recap. With the sharp investigative lens of Tony and his guests, the show uncovers layers beneath the headlines, offering a comprehensive perspective that traditional news can often miss. From high-profile criminal trials to in-depth examinations of ongoing investigations, this podcast takes listeners on a fascinating journey through the world of true crime and current events.

   

 Each episode navigates through multiple stories, illuminating their details with factual reporting, expert commentary, and engaging conversation. Tony and his guests discuss each case's nuances, complexities, and human elements, delivering a multi-dimensional understanding to their audience.

   

 Whether you are a dedicated follower of true crime or an everyday listener interested in the stories shaping our world, the "Week In Review" brings you the perfect balance of intrigue, information, and intelligent conversation. Expect thoughtful analysis, informed opinions, and thought-provoking discussions beyond the 24-hour news cycle.

Want to listen to ALL our Podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for 3 days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj

Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

The latest on Chad & Lori Daybell, The Long Island Serial Killer, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

On a recent episode of "Hidden Killers," a popular podcast exploring intricate legal and criminal issues, Deborah Aherns, a former public defender and professor of law at Seattle U School of Law, discussed the controversial trial of Bryan Kohberger. Kohberger's case has gripped public attention due to bold assertions of planted DNA and intricate alibi strategies.

 

 The defendant, Kohberger, implicated in a grave crime, is attempting to establish an alibi by cross-examining witnesses presented by the state. Aherns describes this approach as "trying to undermine the State's case by asking the jurors if they are really confident beyond a reasonable doubt that Kohberger is the guilty party."

 

 Despite the compelling evidence against Kohberger, which includes phone records and GPS triangulation suggestive of his presence at the scene of the crime, his defense team is attempting to exploit the circumstantial nature of this evidence. The prosecution's case is built on cell site location information and video evidence of Kohberger's car at various locations. However, the defense is countering by questioning the infallibility of these types of evidence.

 

 Aherns detailed, "The direct evidence that you have is the DNA. The circumstantial evidence is the cell site location information that places him leaving, returning, and disconnects his phone during the time the events would have taken place." Kohberger's defense argues that the evidence does not definitively place him at the crime scene, as cell phone disconnection could be accidental, and his travels could be coincidental.

 

 Aherns further delved into the complexities of the case, suggesting that the defense might not be as focused on proving Kohberger's innocence as it is on cultivating sufficient doubt to spare his life. Given the severity of the charges, it appears the defense aims to sway the jury from leaning toward the death penalty.

 

 Additionally, Aherns alluded to potential negotiation tactics, with the defense possibly using pretrial processes as a lengthy negotiation stage, trying to convince the state to remove the death penalty from the table in exchange for a guilty plea. This tactic, according to Aherns, is often used in cases involving the death penalty due to the high costs and burdens on communities associated with such cases.

 

 When asked about the trial's progression, Aherns acknowledged the likelihood of delays, citing the onerous nature of jury selection in death penalty cases, and the need for both prosecution and defense to be fully prepared. Therefore, she wouldn't be surprised if the trial, assuming it happens, starts at a later date than the current October 2nd schedule.

Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj

The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com