The University of Idaho Murders: On Schedule and Out of Third-Party Suspects

[00:00:00] Summer is upon us, so that means breaking out new, lightweight, breathable pieces. Or if you're like me and lacking in that department, it means it's time to go shopping. The good news is you can get timeless, well-made garments and fashion pieces that won't go out of style. Just check out our sponsor, Quince. They have summer styles that will make you look great this summer without submerging your bank account in the deep end.

[00:00:23] Seriously, I'm about to go shopping there and I don't even know what to choose. They've got 100% European linen shorts and dresses from $30, luxe swimwear for the beach or pool, Italian leather platform sandals, and more. I will keep you all updated on what we get. Same. I am tempted by some of their European linen shirts. They are a nice style and look perfect for summer. Quince is a great place to try out new things in terms of fashion because you know the product will be quality and the style would not be good.

[00:00:53] Not go out of fashion. It's timeless. All Quince items are 50% to 80% less costly than those of their competitors. Plus, Murder Sheet listeners are going to get a great deal. Give your summer closet an upgrade with Quince. Go to Quince.com slash msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash msheet to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash msheet.

[00:01:21] Want to have the time of your life while also supporting veterans? Then our sponsor is definitely for you. We're talking about Hometown Hero. This is a company that crafts premium hemp products from infused chocolates to gummies to drink mixes, whatever floats your boat this summer, and ships them out to you in discreet packages.

[00:01:40] And Hometown Hero also lives up to its name by giving back. See, Hometown Hero was founded in 2015 by U.S. veteran Lucas Gilkey. The company donates a portion of its profits to nonprofits that support veterans. We love a company that strives to support our veterans. Plus, they are all about quality. You know all of these products are made in the United States and tested in a third-party lab to ensure top-notch purity and safety.

[00:02:07] The hemp itself is all grown in Texas, and Hometown Hero is actually based in Austin. So you know exactly what's going into your Hometown Hero products. Most of their products come from live rosin, which is a cannabis concentrate extracted using only heat and pressure. No solvents. You're getting the plant's true essence. It's basically the cold-pressed juice of cannabis. And with that in mind, Hometown Hero has really got something for everyone to try, even peanut butter chocolate squares.

[00:02:34] Reclaim your evening. Visit HometownHero.com and use code MSHEAT to take 20% off your first purchase. That's HometownHero.com, code MSHEAT for 20% off your first purchase. Boosting your own health makes you a bit like a detective. You've got to rule out possible leads and culprits and get to the truth. When it comes to feeling bad or off, one top suspect should always be hormone imbalance. Fortunately, we have a sponsor who can help you with that. Happy Mammoth.

[00:03:03] Happy Mammoth is a science-backed wellness company with a focus on gut health and hormone balance. They can help you combat all the typical hormonal disruptors. Food, air, skincare products. Their two-minute quiz will help you determine the best solutions for your needs. Their Hormone Harmony supplements have noticeably reduced my random cravings and helped my gut health. I really love that and would recommend them to anyone. For anyone dealing with menopause or perimenopause, it can help relieve those symptoms too.

[00:03:34] Think more energy, milder mood swings, and better sleep. Also, don't sleep on their prebiotic collagen protein powder. It tastes good with a mild vanilla flavor and I'm using it a lot to keep my skin healthy. For a limited time, you can get 15% off on your entire order at happymammoth.com. Just use the code MSHEAT at checkout. That's happymammoth.com and use the code MSHEAT for 15% off today. Content warning.

[00:04:03] This episode includes discussion of murder. So today we're going to be covering the University of Idaho murders case. This, of course, is the quadruple homicide that claimed the lives of Xana Kernodal, Ethan Chapin, Kaylee Gonsalves, and Madison Mogan in Moscow, Idaho, several years ago now. They were all students at the University of Idaho. The three girls were roommates and Ethan was Xana's boyfriend and staying over for the night.

[00:04:27] A man named Brian Koberger is charged with coming in and murdering them all with a knife. And he was a PhD student at nearby Washington State University in Pullman, Washington. So right now we have the state and Koberger's defense team duking it out and basically doing all these pre-trial filings to sort of dictate how this trial is going to go. And Koberger's team is led by Ann Taylor, a public defender.

[00:04:55] And the state is represented by Laetac County Prosecutor Bill Thompson and his team. And currently the judge on this is Judge Stephen Hippler. He is the one making decisions on these orders. So what happened recently is we got orders from Judge Hippler on two pretty important aspects of this case. One is the defense wanted a continuance. They wanted to push back the trial. So he ruled about whether that was going to be allowed or not.

[00:05:22] He also ruled about whether they were going to be able to bring in third-party suspects. So let's get into it. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet. And this is the University of Idaho murders on schedule and out of third-party suspects.

[00:06:35] Well, the other day, Judge Hippler released a variety of opinions relating to this case. I think he released maybe six. And you said, Kevin, I'll do four. You do two. And I thought, well, that sounds like a great deal until I realized that the ones you were doing were each two pages. And I have a 20-pager and a seven-pager. Well, you're the lawyer. So, I mean, you're qualified. I'm just a humble journalist. Well, considering the length of these things, let's get right to it.

[00:07:03] You suggested we start with the matter of the continuance. Judge Hippler very helpfully begins each of his rulings by just setting out what the main issues are and saying what his decision is. So, I'm going to read that part of it. And then we'll really go into some detail about what all of this means and what his reasoning was. Quote,

[00:08:17] End quote. So, lays it all out there. So, now let's get into it. Can I just say- Please do. I love his orders. I love Hitler's orders. I love- He's so direct and frank. And I've been very impressed with his handling so far. So, you know, that's just me. But I just wanted to interject that. But I just- I love reading these. There's a little bit of sass to some of them.

[00:08:43] I like it that he really, as we will see, he doesn't only just say, here's what the order is. He goes into some detail and really explains his thinking and gets into it, which I think is very helpful. And I think it's also very wonderful that he does this in such a high-profile case so that all the people who are following it really have a better understanding of why things are unfolding the way they are. And I think that's so important.

[00:09:14] Not all judges do that. No. And let's be clear. They don't have to. They don't have to do it. It's not their job to hold everybody's hands. I just think it's nice because I think it mitigates public misunderstandings. So- They all should do it, certainly. I'm often disappointed when they don't, including in cases we've covered.

[00:09:35] Yeah, but he seems to be striking a good balance between the kind of openness to allowing the public to see the process and explaining things very effectively while also putting a stop to some nonsense, as we'll talk about later. Let's get back to his order. Quote, Defendant has not demonstrated a continuance is warranted to review discovery. So let me stop there.

[00:09:58] So discovery, of course, is all of the materials that the prosecution and the state turns over to the defense. So all of the investigative work that they have done that pertains to this case that they've turned over. It's a huge amount. And Kohlberger and his team have said, we don't have enough time to go through all of this. We need more time. The trial needs to be delayed. That was their argument. Let's get back to Hitler's response. Quote,

[00:10:26] Defendant contends that the vast amount of discovery in this case renders it impossible for the defense team to review the necessary and relevant discovery in a manner that allows for it to be comprehensively integrated into his defense. He further argues, without any support or explanation, there are a myriad of issues that continue to arise from the state failing to comply with discovery and expert disclosure deadlines.

[00:10:52] A continuance, he argues, is necessary for counsel to mount an effective defense. The court, however, rejected this same argument two months ago when defendants sought to strike the death penalty and impose discovery obligations upon the state. In its order, the court observed the utter lack of any proof supporting defendants' accusations of discovery violations by the state.

[00:11:15] More importantly, the court found defendants' complaints of being unable to meaningfully review discovery entirely unconvincing, pointing out that counsel struggled to articulate in any meaningful way what evidence, let alone relevant evidence, counsel had been unable to review over the past two-plus years, and why efforts to facilitate discovery review were not made long ago through this court and or the resource judge. End quote. Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.

[00:12:12] I think the defense team has wasted a lot of the court's time in the past with some of this kind of repetitive, oh, we're being unfairly treated regarding the discovery process. And then, well, not really, but, you know, got to say it. I get it. They've got to make arguments. I think they're kind of going into this to the point where it's irritating the actual judge. So I feel like without really seeming like to benefit them, I think they've made their record.

[00:12:39] I mean, there's a record of this and it can come up and appeal. Therefore, I feel like at some point, diminishing return on investment there. I mean, what do you think? Or do you think it's better to just keep going? Just go nuts. Obviously, there's limits. I don't think they've come close to crossing what the limits are. They're being aggressive. I think the judge seems to disagree. He seems to be wearing his patience thin. I'm not saying they're bad for this.

[00:13:10] I'm just saying strategically, I would imagine at some point, all right, we did what we came here to do. Let's move on. And, you know, I credit the defense team for making a lot of arguments and trying different avenues and whatnot. I just think at some point it's like, yeah, OK, there's not really a discovery issue. Like so many high profile defense teams we've seen in recent years, you're just complaining because the prosecution isn't coming up and like cutting up your food for you like you're a child. And that's not their job.

[00:13:40] So in reality, true discovery issues are a pretty big deal to the point where they can actually get a case just like thrown out. You know, it can totally torpedo a prosecution. So there's something to be taken seriously and scrutinized. But if there's nothing there, there's nothing there. Now, I think you have much better eyes than I do. I don't know if you want me to squint and try to read this footnote or if you can read it.

[00:14:08] But there's a footnote here that I think really adds some important context to a lot of this discussion. Yeah, I love this footnote. Again, this guy, I mean, this judge is, you know, he's on the ball and he's not really taking any guff. So I will read it. Bless you. Footnote number five.

[00:14:28] Defendants' continual reference to the number of terabytes of discovery produced in this case is not helpful without providing a meaningful explanation of what that data primarily consists of and its particular relevance and importance. Indeed, as was discussed at the April 9th, 2025 hearing in this case, it appears that most of those terabytes consist of extensive video surveillance from local businesses and residences that show nothing of significance.

[00:14:55] In fact, the state indicated that at the hearing that much of that discovery is completely irrelevant and stipulated that it is unaware of any braiding material in the video surveillance footage other than that specifically identified in motion practice. Given that the state has identified all its trial exhibits, the defense cannot be unaware of all the incriminating evidence in the discovery.

[00:15:18] Finally, it should be noted that it was defendant who early on demanded that the state provide all investigative materials, no matter how irrelevant or unhelpful. End quote. Couple things here. Do it. So, OK. Again, he's kind of, I think this is helpful because I think sometimes media and the public is overly credulous, especially when it comes to legal arguments. I have all these terabytes of discovery to go through.

[00:15:46] How can one human being do that? Wura, wura. OK. And it's all useless and it all doesn't actually help. And what the classic defense attorney retort to this would likely be, we don't know what's important. Maybe like one of our investigators will look and in the corner of the screen we'll see a glimmer of a blonde man or way in. But like, OK, but like, you know, let's live in reality. That doesn't that doesn't seem likely. It's mostly just basically useless video footage.

[00:16:13] So the relevant stuff that they actually have to go through that deals with what incriminates Brian Koberger is limited. Maybe there's a bit of a wider sphere of dealing with what could incriminate someone else or what they could twist into incriminating someone else. You know, so like they can. And that's fair. They need to go into that. But I guess it just they're overstating, as usual, the facts of this, which is, you know.

[00:16:37] And again, it's like it's self-inflicted because they're the ones you can opt for getting the discovery that's relevant. And they say give us everything. And listen, I give them credit for that. I think it makes sense to want to get everything in such an important case. Maybe it gives you more ideas. Maybe it gives you. But you have to be prepared that there's a the consequence of that is having to go through it all. So, you know, they've had this for two years.

[00:17:04] Or I mean, like, yeah, I mean, if most of it that they're not really that they're complaining about is just the surveillance footage, then I think they're kind of video files. Video files is anyone who's known. Is anyone who knows who's worked with digital stuff? Video files are huge. But, you know, it's like it's more it's you know, it's just. But this is why it's so important when you're looking at. And unfortunately, this should be applied to both sides.

[00:17:32] I think with some members of the public and especially the media, it often gets applied to the state only and not defense. State claims are taken like, OK, well, let's be skeptical of this, which is good. You should be. But then people like when the defense is saying we have thousands of terabytes and we're drowning. It's like, oh, yes, that is true. And it's like, no. I mean, you have to actually look. You have to wait because it could just be some sort of argument that's kind of meant to delay or get something. Don't be selectively skeptical. Just be skeptical.

[00:18:02] That's not skepticism. That's just that's just bias. You know, it's not. Yeah, it's partisanship. It's not if we're going to be skeptical to one side, let's be skeptical to both sides. And when people are complaining like this and the judge is not finding any wrongdoing by the state, that's significant. Because, again, these are things judges should take seriously. These are things that, you know, if there's true discovery issues that can derail a case. That's a that's a third rail when it gets down to it.

[00:18:30] And and if a judge is consistently being like, well, you're not proving that at all, then I think that's meaningful. I'm going to get back to Hitler's order. Quote, defendant, again, fails to identify any relevant discovery that his counsel has yet to review. He also fails to identify any steps his counsel has taken, particularly since the court's prior order, to aid in processing the yet unreviewed discovery. Excuse me.

[00:18:55] Moreover, he does not explain why he waited to seek a continuance until after discovery closed, expert disclosure deadlines passed and pre-trial conference occurred. If defense counsel was truly struggling with discovery review, this motion should have been made when the claim problem became apparent and certainly should have been brought prior to the expiration of discovery. All expert deadlines in the final pre-trial conference.

[00:19:20] Instead, defense counsel has robustly litigated this case, retaining approximately two dozen experts and a full mitigation team engaging in extensive motion practice and disclosing witnesses and exhibits lists with nary a whisper that a continuance would be sought. These actions belie his counsel's ongoing and ultimately empty discovery complaints.

[00:19:43] Without more, the court can only conclude the defense counsel is using the volume of discovery measured in terabytes as a tactic to delay the proceeding at the 11th hour simply for the sake of delay rather than a legitimate threat of prejudice to defend its substantial rights. End quote. Ouch. Ouch. A lot of this is just like reading this out loud. It's sort of like, yeah. I mean, this is pretty devastating for the defense. He's basically just accusing them of being not so honest. Saying it's a tactic.

[00:20:13] Maybe it's not a lie, but it's an attempt at manipulating, you know, which is, you know, I mean, you know, they gotta do it. I don't think this means that they are very confident in their case. I think if the defense is basically trying to stall at all costs, not for any real reason, just a stall, it's just that's not, that does not seem to embody confidence. What do you think? It's a fair point. I also love his use of the word belie.

[00:20:43] That's fun. He's a fun writer. You know, I mean, like, again, we don't, it's not, it's not necessarily criticism of the defense here. I think they have a really tough case and they also have to deal with the fact that he's facing possible execution. So, I mean, it's like the stakes couldn't be higher for them. Imagine there seems to be an element of like stall, do everything we can to stall, throw a lot of stuff at the wall.

[00:21:11] And, you know, that's a tactic, you know? I mean, it's just, it's something you can do. And, you know, we can, we can acknowledge that and say that there's nothing necessarily like we need to be mad about about that as the public. But we also don't need to like swallow everything they're giving us whole without really kind of analyzing it in kind of a critical fashion. Does that make sense?

[00:21:37] Because too often I feel in true crime it's like, oh, the state is bad or the defense is bad. And I think it should be more of like no one's necessarily bad here. I mean, I don't like it when people are lying, right? I don't feel like some of this necessarily rises quite to that level. But, I mean, it's enough for the judge at least to seem, I mean, he seems ticked off in this order. Am I misreading that? You didn't seem happy. He seems to basically be like, okay, enough of the nonsense. Like, stop the madness.

[00:22:09] Like, and I can understand why. I think some of what they've done has been dubious. I think some of what this defense team has done in terms of like having, I mean, that Cy Ray affidavit I think was a low point for me where they're essentially like, oh, Cy Ray thinks that Ashley Jennings is doing some evil misdeeds and cackling to herself. And it's like, okay. Like, and then like that kind of falls apart on its face. A lot of this stuff falls apart in this face.

[00:22:35] So I certainly don't feel like they're necessarily like stooping to the level of some other high profile defense teams that we've seen who have like, you know, like deputized YouTubers to help them. Like, I don't think they're doing anything like that bad. I just think like a lot of their arguments are weak to the point of like, they've got to know that this is not a good argument. So their next argument involves mitigation.

[00:23:04] So I want to talk about that very briefly. Mitigation. These are things that would be presented if and when Brian Kohlberger is convicted and faces sentencing. His defense team would present some mitigation evidence to basically say, here's why he deserves a lesser punishment. These are things you should consider.

[00:23:29] So this mitigation evidence that they're going to be talking about really only comes into play if he is convicted. Now, the fact that they're talking about it now and bringing it up before the trial, that doesn't necessarily mean that they expect a conviction. You shouldn't read that into it.

[00:23:50] I know if you go into a hospital to have like a minor surgical procedure, there'll be people there prepared to, oh, if he stops breathing, we're going to do this and this and this. And that's basically the equivalent of what's happening here. Good lawyers, you prepare for all eventualities. So even if you have confidence in your case, you want to be prepared in case things go differently than you expect. Does that make sense? That makes sense.

[00:24:17] I would think that they were totally delusional if they expect an acquittal, though. They face a pretty steep hill in this case. Yeah. That doesn't mean they can't get one. It's just I think that that would be in this specific case unlikely. And of course, we say that. It can happen, though. We say that based on what we know.

[00:24:39] And it's entirely possible the defense team has some incredible evidence that they can pull out of their hat. There's going to change how everything looks to everybody about this case. That's extremely true. You can get a defense team or anyone, you know, just on either side where things can go in an unexpected way during trial. Things can look really clear cut before trial.

[00:25:03] And that's why with people like Brian Koberger, what we tend to talk about is this case against him is really strong. This is a strong case against this man. But we don't say, oh, we think he's guilty because at this point we haven't seen the trial. So the jury is not just out. The jury hasn't been selected yet. So let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's not get over our skis. Let's just say we think it's a strong case against him and we're open minded and we all should be open minded going in.

[00:25:32] But that also doesn't mean we need to. Sometimes people take open minded as let's just cling to the fact he must be innocent and feel that he must be framed if we hear any good evidence against him. Like that's not open mindedness. That's just partisanship. And I think that's stupid. But I think in this case, let's just let's just say what we know now, I would be surprised about an outright acquittal. But at the same time, we don't know what the defense is going to do at trial.

[00:25:58] And maybe they have some really good bombshells that they can throw out there and throw everything off. So, again, their second argument, which, as we know, was rejected by the judge, the defense team says we need more time in order to do an investigation into Kohlberger's life history so we can come up with more of this mitigation evidence.

[00:26:21] And Hitler points out they've actually hired a mitigation team to do that work a couple of years ago. And he thinks what they have already done satisfies the guidelines of what they need to do. And I'm going to read from this order what he says about that.

[00:26:45] The investigation defendant experts have undertaken over the past two plus years far exceeds that in a row and, in fact, readily appears to satisfy the relevant ABA guidelines cited by defendant.

[00:26:57] It includes, but is not limited to, defendant's KPhD education records, including coursework, interviews, and correspondence, defendant's mental health and medical records, records related to a childhood car accident, defendant's employment records, mental health education and employment records of defendant's sisters, mental health records of defendant's parents, father's military records and social security records, court records from multiple generations.

[00:27:27] Of co-worker family, paternal side, VA records and death certificates from maternal and paternal uncles, multiple interviews with defendant and each immediate family member, interview of two of defendant's fourth grade teachers, former boxing coach and psychologist who evaluated defendant in 2005. Interviews with multiple members of defendant's extended family on maternal and paternal side, interviews with defendant's professor and advisor at DeSales University, interviews of defendant's former co-worker,

[00:27:57] interviews of at least one family friend, letters in jail calls between defendant and his families. So, in quote, that's a pretty good list. That's a, I would say that's a comprehensive list. So it's really unclear what else they feel they need to do. You know, I kind of relate to this defense team a little bit and maybe this is why, and this kind of just came together for me. Uh-oh.

[00:28:23] You know how when I'm researching, I always feel Kevin is better at research than I am. And that's, I actually go deeper in research, I think, than you do. But you have a better sense of what's truly important and what we need to dig into and what we need to highlight. Whereas I'm the person who goes spiraling because I see a footnote and then suddenly I'm like researching like 1600s Portuguese ships or something. And it's like, how did I get here? This isn't what I needed. I'm like, I'm so far afield.

[00:28:52] But it's like what I'm hoping for is some sort of like holy grail of, you know, wild stuff that if I just keep searching, maybe I'll find it. I don't know what I'm looking for, but I don't want to miss anything. And maybe I'll miss something if I don't read this extra thing. And that's what they seem to be doing. It's like, oh, we don't know what we don't know. So therefore, we have to just do so much and like we're never going to be satisfied. And I think, you know, that's not a good reason to delay things.

[00:29:20] Is that I mean, how do you see it? You know how I am with research. I do indeed. And let's move on. Boo. Whatever. Sorry. You're an excellent researcher. Well, I get too turned around. But I think I think they're kind of just like hoping that they find something that's like really good for them. But there's no indication that it exists or what it even is. Yeah.

[00:29:50] And actually, it gets a bit confusing, frankly, because in this order, there are not only occasional words blanked out. There are big sections blanked out or redacted. And so sometimes it's actually hard to follow what it is that they are talking about that they expect or hope or suspect they might find.

[00:30:16] From what we do have, it seems that the defense has some speculations or suspicions about something that might help in mitigation. They have no real evidence, just a hunch that some more time might help. I'm going to read a few quotes here. Quote, as notice is noted, a continuance of trial. Is not warranted to chase down mere speculation.

[00:30:44] The potential evidence exists for the defendant has not set forth a plan for continued investigation, how much time it will take. What his team expects the investigation will reveal, why it is necessary to uphold his constitutional rights, and why these matters are only now being raised with the court. Additionally, assuming guilt is found, the penalty phase of the case would not begin until late October or early November.

[00:31:09] Thus, there remains significant time for the team to continue their investigation and to supplement expert disclosures if needed. And here's another one. Quote, again, not one of defendants blank experts who have had the same information blank has identified has submitted a declaration stating that they may change their diagnoses based on further investigation blank.

[00:31:34] Rather, it is based on blank speculation that further investigation might change blank. Such speculation is not grounds for a continuance blank. So, yeah, it's kind of hard to follow. What do you make of all that? I don't know what to make of it. And I don't really want to speculate because it's definitely a little bit confusing. So, yeah, it's not clear what they have, what they think they might find.

[00:31:59] It doesn't sound like they have a plan for how they might get this additional information. So, yeah, it doesn't feel like they really made a strong case there. No, not at all. But that's just me saying that with, again, a lot of stuff was blanked out of this one. Yeah, I don't. I mean, it's really, it's hard to say. Next, Hitler moves on to their final argument, which involves pretrial publicity.

[00:32:28] Quote, defendant next seeks a continuance due to recent inflammatory pretrial publicity. On May 9th, 2025, approximately three months before trial is set to begin, Dateline NBC aired a two-hour episode about this case. The episode included details and materials about the case, which, if true, are not publicly available and which promote a narrative of guilt.

[00:32:53] Defendant also advises that on July 9th, 2025, Amazon Prime Video is planning to release a four-part docuseries about the homicides. And on July 14th, 2025, crime author James Patterson is set to release a book he wrote about the same. Defendant contends that his media coverage so close to trial threatens his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury, which can only be ameliorated by a continuance.

[00:33:22] In addition, defendant argues that a continuance is necessary to investigate the source of the leaks to the media and impose accountability. The court does not agree that either argument compels a continuance. So, end quote. That's, he's setting the stage here, that's what he is going to be discussing. And we've talked about some of these issues on the show.

[00:33:46] And certainly, as someone interested in media and leaks, this is the part I was most interested to read. Yeah, because you want to know what is the fallout going to be. Yes. And then I thought it was interesting because at this point, Hitler brings up a case which most of you are probably familiar with in some form or another.

[00:34:11] And this is the Sam Shepard murder case, which in this case is thought to have been the inspiration for The Fugitive, both the TV series and the movie with Harrison Ford. And it is a case that is remembered primarily in the legal system for the effects that pretrial publicity had on it.

[00:34:36] But Sam Shepard was tried and convicted of his wife's murder. The pretrial publicity and uncontrolled atmosphere was so bad and so crazy that the courts later found he did not get a fair trial. So, ultimately, he got a new trial and he was acquitted.

[00:34:57] And I just want to quickly say here that unlike the character in the show, The Fugitive, Dr. Sam Shepard was actually guilty of the murder. Yes. No doubt about that. Classic innocence fraud. And I don't know if people would be interested in hearing us discuss like a 70-year-old case. But if you are... When has that ever stopped us before, baby?

[00:35:20] But if you're actually interested in hearing a multi-part episode, a series on the Shepard case and why he's guilty, let us know. Now, with all of that said, let's talk about some of the stuff that happened in the pretrial stage with Dr. Shepard and his case. I'm going to be reading here from the order by Hitler. Quote,

[00:36:25] Nice. Nice. at which both Chief Prosecutor Mann and Judge Blithen were candidates for judgeships.

[00:36:51] The court found that there was no doubt that this deluge of publicity reached at least some of the jury, given that when the jury was questioned for the only time, two jurors admitted in open court to hearing the highly inflammatory charge that a prison inmate claimed Shepard was the father of her illegitimate child. Nevertheless, the trial judge rejected requests by defense counsel

[00:37:18] for the jurors to be asked whether they had read or heard specific prejudicial comments about the case. Further, the jurors were subjected to newspaper, radio, and television coverage of the trial while not taking part in the proceedings and were allowed to go their separate ways outside of the courtroom without adequate directions not to read or listen to anything concerning the case. End quote. I think that's enough. We got it. Yeah, it was a mess, in other words.

[00:37:47] So, yeah, even as someone who, as I said, I think this man was guilty of killing his wife, he did not get a fair trial in that circumstance. No, that's a circus. That's a ridiculous mess. But he was guilty. But that, that's just terrible. And what Judge Hippler is pointing out is not only the court system as a whole,

[00:38:13] but I, in this case, am really trying to follow measures that were not followed in that case. And I'm going to read what he writes. Quote, This court is employing the measures recommended in Shepard to protect a defendant from prejudicial pretrial publicity. To wit, One, limiting the number of reporters in the courtroom during trial. Two, insulating prospective witnesses from interviews with the media about their prospective testimony.

[00:38:41] And three, making an effort to control the release of leads, information, and gossip to the press by police officers, witness, and the counsel for both sides to avoid the disclosure of inaccurate and or inadmissible information to the public. End quote. So he's saying, yeah, prejudicial pretrial publicity can be bad. We're really trying hard not to do that here and to protect Kohlberger's rights. No trial is going to be perfect.

[00:39:11] And especially no trial with such intense media scrutiny ahead of time. But, I mean, it's a far cry to argue that this is the same thing as what happened in Shepard. I mean, like, no. And also, you know, we have free press in this country. We have First Amendment rights.

[00:39:30] So there's a certain extent of, like, if the media is acting wild and, you know, feasting upon this case and, you know, that's not necessarily anyone else's problem. I would say that the concern here for me was that the possibility that somebody went from the prosecution side or, I guess, the defense side. But I always felt it might be more of the prosecution side. Or at least I should say maybe not Kohlberger's team. Maybe prosecution side's wrong. Could be law enforcement.

[00:39:58] I know at least one of the families of the victims hired an attorney and had, you know, had investigators. So it could be any number of possibilities about the leak. I just got the sense it wasn't defense-sided because my sense was that the Dateline episode was having that guilt narrative. And, like, oh, isn't this guy creepy kind of sort of thing. So, you know, I mean, that's the concern. It's not what the media is doing so much as it is.

[00:40:24] Is the state benefiting from that or playing into it purposely, I guess I should say? Yeah, that's a great point. And Hitler also says basically it boils down to whether or not you can get an impartial jury. Yeah. And he believes that you can.

[00:40:44] He says if you have a carefully crafted jury selection process, there is no reason to think that you can't get an impartial jury with, he says, a searching and robust voir dire. And I agree with that. And what he's saying, too, is, well, I mean, I don't know. Do you want to read any more of this? Yeah. Go ahead. He also makes the point that in terms of publicity, things aren't going to get better. No.

[00:41:12] Quote, here there is no assurance that the pretrial publicity will fade with time. The murders occurred over two and one half years ago. The circumstances of the murders were provocative. Four college students in a small Idaho college town were brutally stabbed to death by an unknown perpetrator. It was an immediate media sensation and garnered widespread attention that not only continues to persist, but continues to grow.

[00:41:39] Eighteen months ago, defendant moved for a change of venue from Latow County due in part to the extensive inflammatory pretrial publicity and allegations made about Mr. Koberger to the public that that by the media that would be inadmissible at trial. He argued that Latow County was not large enough to avoid the bias caused by the pervasive prejudicial publicity. Defendant's motion was granted, and as a result, the trial date was continued by approximately 10 weeks.

[00:42:07] Those additional 10 weeks have not resulted in fading media attention. It has only given the media more time and opportunity to provide coverage to a public audience which is clamoring for answers.

[00:42:20] The longer the public is made to sit and wait for the facts to come out at trial, the more time there is for inflammatory speculative stories, movies, and books to circulate, and more time for prior ones to be rebroadcast, purchased, viewed, and consumed by the public. Proceeding with trial as scheduled will likely avoid negative consequences from future publicity. End quote. He's absolutely right about this. Time is not on the defense's side.

[00:42:49] Yes, there's just going to be more and more publicity. And with more publicity, there's more of a chance that it's prejudicial. Which I guess they want because then that, you know, makes it easier for them down the road with appeals, you know. I mean, on some level, it kind of benefits them to, like, get it delayed and be like, oh, wait, actually, this was worse. But, you know, it's not a good reason to delay. And he's absolutely right. This is not going to get better. This is absolutely not going to get better.

[00:43:16] And then he talks about the leak. He says that the fact that there is an investigation into the source of the leak is not a good reason to delay the trial. He says basically right now it's just speculation about what the source of the leak is.

[00:43:39] He also raises, I think, the great point that what if, in theory, the information was leaked by the FBI? That's a federal agency. This is a state court investigating it. So who knows what they'll ever be able to find in that area. Right. So. Do you find it interesting the fact that he raises the FBI? You asked the question. What do you think? I think that's interesting. Yeah.

[00:44:09] I mean, how do I say this? I don't want to sound controversial. You. Well. There's often tensions between local and federal law enforcement. I guess I'll just say that and state and federal law enforcement. And I think there can be the perception that the FBI in particular is not a team player in certain instances. But let's put a huge asterisk on this. The FBI is not a monolith.

[00:44:39] The FBI is not like one guy who's always one way. There are different field offices. There are different divisions within the FBI. There's, you know, for example, the cast team that's that's comes up in terms of the cell phone analysis records like that's its own entity and that'll come in and help law enforcement. So I think the FBI can be perceived as being helpful to local and state law enforcement because they have resources that they can provide.

[00:45:08] I think even when we talk to local or state law enforcement officers who do have a problem with the FBI as a whole because they feel they come in and are not team players. Most of those people that we speak to who have that kind of feeling have at least one or two FBI agents that they love working with and praise specifically. So it's really not a monolith. But I am just saying that it just caught my eye that he said that. I don't think we should look at that as tea leaves or any sort of.

[00:45:38] You know, anything other than he's giving an example of how this could be beyond their control. But I think some people will look at it as tea leaves. Yeah. And maybe we'll never know. And he says we can have all this speculation about who leaked it and why. But we can't change course based on mere speculation built on speculation and assumption. I'm going to tell you this. I would be as people who reported on a case that was very high profile in a similar way.

[00:46:05] I would be shocked if this came from anyone really directly connected with the prosecution team or anyone directly connected with like the the relevant local and state law enforcement offices. I would be shocked. It feels like maybe people with. We're more on the outer rings of this. But I also don't think it's the defense team. So, I mean, I don't know. We'll see. And we may never see. I guess that's important to know. We may never see. We may never know. Yeah.

[00:46:35] We may never know, especially, you know, with the, you know, the FBI. If it is if it is like doesn't have to be the FBI, but if it's a if it's a federal agency, if it is someone more connected with one of the families. Could be a very different outcome from if it's connected closer. So. Yeah, it's interesting, but it's it's troubling.

[00:46:58] It's troubling because even if it's not directly, even if it's not someone who's directly like as involved as local or, you know, prosecutors or whatnot. It's still like it's a flagrant betrayal of the trust in the integrity of the investigation. Just from the standpoint of like. You shouldn't be doing that. Come on. It's not it's not hard. It's very disturbing to me that that leak never should have happened. Yeah.

[00:47:26] And I like again, I'll be you know, I will be shocked if it was someone really close. But the fact that happened at all and the fact that it was someone who may have had the trust of, you know, having this information. It's it's wrong. And like I hope it gets exposed. I really do, because I'd like some answers. And we've criticized defense teams who have tried to try things in the public court of public opinion, which I think is totally inappropriate and just huge red flag for me and just sleazy.

[00:47:55] It's it's worse if the state does it. It's worse if the state does it, because the state already has the advantage of all these investigative powers and it can take your freedom away. So when the state is doing something, even if it's like, you know, a couple of people removed from the center of the power here, it's it's still like that just leaves it makes me really uncomfortable and upset. So motion. Pardon me. Motion to continue. Denied.

[00:48:24] Uh, so that that finishes my 20 pager. Why don't we move on to my seven pager? Then we do your two pagers. Okay. And my seven pager is alternative perpetrators. This is the defense wanted to basically be able to say, oh, it wasn't Kohlberger. It was this alternate perpetrator or is this alternate perpetrator. Sometimes we call them third party suspects. And the absolute first point we should make here.

[00:48:53] This is the point we've made before is the defendant in these cases doesn't have an obligation to like put on his deer stalker cap and get out a magnifying glass and go out and investigate the case and prove someone else did it. No. No. The only burden lies with the state. The state is the one that has to prove. Guilt. You don't have to prove your innocence. You don't have to prove someone else did this.

[00:49:20] And you do not have to in the course of your trial say, oh, it was somebody else. They did it, not me. And here's the evidence. You don't have to do that. You can in some cases if you have relevant evidence, but you can be acquitted without presenting evidence that someone else did it. Is that fair to say? Yeah, it's fair to say.

[00:49:40] And I would argue unless you have a really good case against someone else, it's extremely risky to do this because the jury is going to be looking at is your story plausible or is the state's story plausible? And honestly, a lot of times the state's story is more plausible and they're going to go with that. So third party is a risk. If it's a really good one and you've got a great narrative and you've got a great alternate suspect and there's evidence there, I think it can be a huge win, too, for the defense. I mean, it just depends on what they're presenting.

[00:50:09] But obviously we saw in Delphi that the third party Odinist defense fell apart and was terrible. So, I mean, a lot of them can feel like that where it's like. You really think a jury is going to buy that versus anything else? Like, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. So now I guess we get to find out how did Koberger's third party arguments go? Why don't you read the judge's introduction to this? These are the introductions where he identifies the relevant issues. Sure.

[00:50:39] And shows how he rules. Introduction. Quote, introduction. The state previously moved in limine seeking to preclude defendant from offering or arguing alternative perpetrator evidence without first satisfying the applicable evidentiary standards. In accordance with the court's subsequent order on the motion, defendant filed his offers of proof and evidence in support, identifying four individuals as potential alternate perpetrators.

[00:51:05] The state objects to the presentation of this evidence at trial, arguing it fails to satisfy the standard under state versus Meister. A defendant conceded at oral argument that at this point, his proffer is not sufficient to pursue an alternate perpetrator theory at the outset of trial, but requests latitude in cross-examination of the state's witnesses to try to establish additional evidence to satisfy the Meister standard.

[00:51:29] Court concludes that at this time, defendant's alternate perpetrator proffer is inadmissible under Meister as it is irrelevant and or excluded by IRE 403. However, this does not foreclose defendant from cross-examining law enforcement regarding the reasonableness of its investigation and its follow-up on plausible leads. End quote. Couple of things here. In limine, so that's emotion in limine.

[00:51:56] Emotion in limine, boiling it down in layperson's language is one of the sides filing a motion to try to get the other side not to be able to bring something up. So if I'm tired of Kevin constantly bringing up my serial theft, I can file a motion in limine asking him to stop bringing that up. And I would deny it. So you think you're the judge? Yes. Well, you purchased me a gavel, so I think that flies in the face of what you're saying here.

[00:52:25] I also purchased myself a law degree. Kevin. Case closed. Oh, no. Overruled. Anyways, so that's one thing. And then two is proffer. Can you talk about a proffer? What is that? Proffer, we heard about that in Delphi, too. I guess just want to go over that again. Offering evidence. So here's what we got, folks. Here's what we got.

[00:52:53] Now, it's really important to mention here that none of the four individuals that they named are going to be named here because this is all redacted. So, yeah, we don't even know who they are. We don't know who they are. Yeah. We have a little bit of information about them, which we will share. But we don't know who they are. Nope. Meister. They talk about Meister. That was a case where a person was convicted of murder in Idaho. He'd wanted to include evidence of an alternate perpetrator.

[00:53:21] It didn't meet the standard that Idaho used at the time. As I say, this man was convicted. He appeals. The court says, well, maybe the standards are a bit too high. Let's make it easier for people in Idaho to include evidence of third party perpetrators. And so he got a new trial, was allowed to include some of that evidence, and he was convicted again. Aw. Congrats. You tried.

[00:53:48] So under the new rules, I'm going to read a little bit from the order. Quote, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

[00:54:10] Idaho rule of evidence 403 governs the exclusion of relevant evidence and permits a court to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. End quote.

[00:54:34] So basically, you don't want to include evidence that doesn't have anything to do with the trial or will just confuse the jury or waste time. That makes sense. Quote, Meister offered the following guidance on applying these rules and determining whether proffered alternative perpetrator evidence is relevant and admissible.

[00:54:59] If the defendant proffers evidence which merely tends to mislead the jury that another person committed the crime or the evidence is not relevant because it does not tend to make the defendant's involvement more probable or less probable, then it is within the court's discretion to find the evidence inadmissible. Mere inferences that another person could have committed the crime will likely not be relevant and if relevant will still be subject to the limitation provisions.

[00:55:29] A defendant has no right to present irrelevant evidence and even if evidence is relevant, it may be excluded in certain cases. End quote. So that's what the standard is. So basically, that's the filter through which or the lens through which we should look at this evidence that the defense in this case wants to offer.

[00:55:50] And to be clear, and just for my own clarification, this was set up to be to make it easier for people to bring in third party. Yeah, Meister. So it was like, oh, actually, let's simplify and make this easier and set it up in a way that's fair to people. So it's almost like about broadening how you can bring it in. Yes. So, okay. And I just want to repeat one line from what I just read.

[00:56:18] Quote, mere inferences that another person could have committed the crime will likely not be relevant. End quote. Yeah. You can't just go in and say, well, you know, what do you know? Maybe this person did it. What do you think? Yeah, this isn't a Reddit message board. Here's the thing. This is where true crime has, I think, badly served the public. You know, we can all speculate endlessly about anyone doing anything, right? But at the end of the day, you have to use your common sense.

[00:56:47] We don't, you know, we don't need to just eject our common sense and just go based on, well, it's also possible that aliens exist and they zap down and they did it and then they left. No. I mean, like, could that have happened? Sure. Sure. Do we have any evidence that that happened? No. And it's a crazy way to think. We don't need to do it. You know, like, we can just, like, go based on the evidence. I'm advocating for people in true crime general.

[00:57:15] And this is the fault of creators, in my opinion, more so than the public, because it's just like that sets the tone. What people are putting out there sets the tone. And also people are like, you know, speculating. Speculation is all fine and good. We all speculate. We all speculate on unsolved cases. That's fine. But that is not worth anything compared to looking at evidence. So, I mean, I feel like, I don't know.

[00:57:40] I feel like we've, as a community, we've prioritized just baseless speculation at times over anything else. And that's led people to think that open-minded is the same thing as empty-minded, meaning that they'll just believe anything because feasibly it could have happened.

[00:57:57] You know, when I, if I'm in, let's see, if I'm in a, if I'm driving along the highway and I see a car crash and I see, you know, two cars outside my window and there's people standing around looking unhappy, you know, do I think, okay, there was just a fender bender. And they've both pulled over and are exchanging insurance information.

[00:58:21] Or do I think this is, this was set up by the CIA to trick me into thinking that there was a fender bender so that then that changes my behavior later in the day so that they can, you know, get me. I mean, like, you know what I mean? Like, like, could that be feasibly happening? I guess. But is, is that a, is that a likely event? No. Like, go with some, I mean, does that, I mean, like, now I sound insane. So what's going on? You scared me a little bit.

[00:58:51] But you know what I mean? Like, it's like anything could happen. Anything could really be happening at any time. We don't, like, you, like, unless you really dig into it, we're kind of, there's like certain things you kind of accept. And then maybe if you dig into it, you find the reality was different. And that's what a trial is for. We need more than speculation. We need something concrete. I think that's a point that often gets lost.

[00:59:16] And I think another issue is people think that beyond a reasonable doubt is, like, beyond absolutely all doubt. That's not it. They really misread that. People also, yeah, people think, and also I think people have gone from thinking that to thinking beyond a reasonable doubt is just, like, cling to any possible shred of innocence no matter what. Because I've made it my personality to think that there's a conspiracy here.

[00:59:42] I really think we're moving in a dangerous direction in true crime. It's really important to counteract that. And you can counteract that without saying, oh, everybody's guilty, you know, until proven innocent. That's not what you do. You just say, what? Use your common sense. Everyone has, you know, God-given common sense. And we need to just bring that back and hear out different theories and different approaches and go with what makes sense. I'm going to get back to this order. Quote,

[01:00:42] Three of the individuals were each socially connected to one or more of the victims, interacted with one or more of the victims at social events in the hours prior to the homicide, lived within walking distance of the crime scene, and were familiar with the layout of the victims' homes from prior social events. While perhaps this evidence could suggest an opportunity to commit the crime, which no doubt is an opportunity shared by dozens of others in the victim's social circles,

[01:01:08] there is no compelling evidence that any of them had a motive to kill the victims, much less physically harm them or a means to do so. Further, there is no evidence connecting them to the crime scene. They have each cooperated with law enforcement, providing DNA samples, fingerprints, and allowing searches as requested. Notably, lab testing has excluded their DNA from samples taken from the crime scene in victims.

[01:01:36] The fourth individual did not know the victims, but had a passing connection to one of them while noticing her shopping at a store approximately five weeks prior to the homicides. He followed her briefly out the exit of the store while considering approaching her to talk. He turned away before ever speaking to her. The event was captured on a surveillance camera. This individual subsequently cooperated with law enforcement, providing his phone number and a DNA sample.

[01:02:04] As with the other alleged alternative perpetrators, lab reports excluded his DNA from the samples taken from the crime scene and victims, and there is no evidence connecting him to the crime scene." So there's, that does seem to be nothing but speculation. Yeah, it's nothing. There really doesn't seem much there at all. Is that your reaction? Yeah, I mean, that's certainly what it sounds like.

[01:02:33] And can I just say, like, you know, again, to bring it back to Delphi, because that's our frame of reference, but as we do more of these cases, we have more and more data points to build off of. You know, Judge Frances Gull in the Delphi case, people were acting like it was so unprecedented and wild that she denied the defense's motion to bring in third party suspects on that case. Like, it was like this, like, aberration, the pearl clutching going on by not only, like, devoted Internet cranks,

[01:03:03] but even, like, run-of-the-mill journalists that I heard, because they don't understand that. They don't understand that there are, like, standards, and you can't just, like, do whatever. You can't just, like, you know, if you're the defense team, you can't just say, hey, guys, if I make this backflip, he goes free, right? You know, like, you can't, like, there are rules. Like, there are things that you're supposed to do. The amount of pearl clutching going on over that. Hopefully this makes people understand that, like, it's commonplace to have standards of evidence

[01:03:29] and have rules of evidence and to have rules about what can come in and what can't come in, not only for the state, but for the defense, too, and that denying bringing in third-party suspects is not unusual, and it's not some aberration, and it's not some, like, unfair, oh, they were hamstrung. It's just the normal course of events. If you can't get to the point where there's evidentiary value there, it's not going to come in, and that's it. It doesn't mean anyone's biased or unfair.

[01:03:58] It's just the nature of the event. So, again, I felt that Judge Gull was very unfairly criticized about that. And I felt like, I mean, hopefully this makes people understand who might be following both cases who may have felt that way. You know, it's pretty, you know, it's pretty well-trod territory. It's not like just people, you know, judges doing whatever. Is that fair to say? That's fair to say.

[01:04:25] And I wanted to make one more point before we move on to the next section of the order. The judge refers there to this incident in some kind of a store where a guy sees one of the people who would later be a victim, finds them attractive, is thinking about talking to them and following them, and then decides not to. And this is all captured on surveillance camera. This gives us some idea of the real scope of this investigation. Yes.

[01:04:53] That they're going, they're collecting all of this footage from different stores, trying to find the victims and who might have interacted with them on surveillance footage. So what a massive investigation this obviously was. Obviously, a ton of time, resources, energy were put into this, and they really left no stone unturned. But just because there happens to be a random guy who tried to, like, maybe chat up one of the girls that is under one of the stones doesn't mean that that's relevant.

[01:05:22] A lot of people think about you, you think about yourself going through your daily life, right? You go to your work or you're at home with the kids and you step outside. Anyone could see something or interact with somebody in a way that could be relevant to an important case down the line, right? Or even a minor case, right? So we're all living our lives and we all have the possibility of coming up against something that's like a huge force that sort of spins beyond our control and just we're caught up in that.

[01:05:51] So I always would encourage people, have some empathy for people that happens too. Because, you know, like this kid who was just talking to one of these girls, like that minor interaction that didn't even happen, that he didn't work up the courage or whatnot, you know, in a different case with possibly a worse judge, that could have, that one minor interaction could have gotten his name posted everywhere and people saying he's a murderer.

[01:06:19] Think about that for a minute, but think about that if that's your son or if that's someone you care about or it happened to you. That's not fair. So there is an importance and there is a significant benefit to having a framework that allows for a defendant's rights to be defended without infringing on everyone else's rights and dragging them into a mess and basically allowing some nonsensical narrative

[01:06:44] that truly only benefits, you know, the lowest of the low and true crime to kind of be spun out. Let me read a bit more of this orator, quote, presentation of the proffered alternate perpetrator evidence would pose a great threat of confusing the issues because it would force the state to defend against a nebulous allegation that perhaps these individuals were involved. This foray would lead the jury astray, turning his focus away from whether defendant,

[01:07:14] the only person whose actions are on trial, committed the charged crimes. It also presents a threat of unfair prejudice as it would invite the jury to blame unrepresented persons for a heinous crime when there was not a scintilla of competent evidence connecting them to the crime. Finally, it would do nothing more than waste the precious time of the jury and the court in what is already a scheduled three-month trial.

[01:07:48] Nonetheless, the court's ruling does not preclude defendant from confronting and cross-examining the state's law enforcement witnesses regarding the thoroughness of the investigation, particularly in following up and ruling out leads generally. End quote. So he's saying, no, there's not even a scintilla of evidence against these people. You're just going to smear them. They don't have people in court to defend them. It's just a waste of time.

[01:08:15] You can still ask general questions of law enforcement about ruling out specific leads. Just don't mention these people unless you come up with a better reason first. That's exactly right. And it's this kind of thoughtfulness and this sort of also explaining it all is what endears Judge Hitler to me. He's obviously making some very competent and common sense rulings here, in my opinion. But in addition to that, he's explaining why.

[01:08:42] And that's helpful because, you know, too often the reasonable and intelligent and, you know, people at the heart of these cases cede ground to people who just say whatever. Because saying whatever gets you a huge audience. So I think it's good to not cede that ground and to explain why you're doing things. So people can't act like it's some mysterious aberration.

[01:09:09] And how could anyone not allow for a guy who approached a woman in a store and then didn't even talk to her? I mean, isn't that highly relevant? You know, versus like, you know, the guy with DNA in the room. But okay. So that's the end of my seven pagers. So I think it's time for your quartet of two pages. Let's get to what's really important here, folks. So obviously, first we got the defendant's 22. Oh, gosh, I can't even. Let me just read this to you and then we'll move on.

[01:09:40] Okay. The defendant's 24th supplemental request for discovery. Enough said, right? Yeah. The motion to seal exhibit with defendant's 24th supplemental request for discovery. Enough said, right? The amended scheduling order. I will read this. So, quote, The court's prior scheduling order is amended as follows. One, sealed proceedings with the court and council will take place July 28th, 2025 through August 1st, 2025.

[01:10:08] Jury two, jury voir dire will commence on August 4th, 2025 rather than July 30th, 2025 and continue until a jury is seated. Three, it is estimated that the trial itself beginning with opening statements will commence on August 18th, 2025 and continue until completed. It is so ordered, Stephen J. Hippler. So moving things back a few days, but now we know when jury selection will take place.

[01:10:35] So August 4th, they're going to go as long as it takes. And then the estimated start time for the trial is going to be August 18th. So that's what we have to look forward to in this case. And then the last one is order sealing exhibit to defendant's 24th supplemental request for discovery. So you had to do all the heavy lifting this time. So we're already done with yours. We are already done with mine.

[01:10:58] I do want to say here, though, Kevin, you know, people have asked us, what are our plans in terms of covering Idaho? And obviously, you know, we have our book on the Delphi case comes out on August 26th. So that complicates matters. We'll be doing things around that. We'll be doing events. We will be doing signings. We will be talking to book clubs. You know, if you have any interest in that, shoot us an email, murdersheet at gmail dot com.

[01:11:26] But that does mean that, you know, we can't go to Idaho, you know, in person. The good news is the trial is going to be broadcast. So I think we're going to have regular coverage of the trial. It's not going to be every day. I imagine we'll cover other stuff, too. Yeah, I don't I don't we're not going to it's not going to be like we're camped out there again because also, you know, haven't really recovered from the first time we did that. So we'll be checking in regularly about what's going on with the trial.

[01:11:56] It's not going to be every day. But we do plan to have regular coverage and we're going to try to make it as robust and helpful for you as possible. So we're going to be doing other cases, too. You can anticipate that we will be covering the trial and we hope to cover it robustly and keep up with it. It just may not be every day, but it won't be every day. No, it's not going to be every day. But it's it's it's going to be hopefully like kind of getting to what what we feel is important in the coverage. And we really appreciate everyone who's been so kind.

[01:12:26] And we've gotten a lot of really nice feedback and discussions with some of you about our Idaho coverage. We really appreciate that. And if you're not interested in Idaho, as I say, we will continue to offer episodes on other cases as well. Yeah, it's it'll be a balance. But it's we're not we're not we're not not planning to cover it. We are planning to cover the trial. It's just maybe not the same way we covered the Delphi trial. But, you know, again, part of that is just timing. It's just we we have the book coming out like right then when it's happening.

[01:12:55] So what's what's the name of that book?

[01:13:25] I forgot. As I said, we're talking to book clubs where we're talking to everybody. If you have any interest in talking to us about the case for a book club or if you have a show or whatnot, please shoot us an email at murdersheet at gmail dot com. I think it's a really important story, to be honest, because I think. Delphi. Delphi. To a certain extent and other cases, but certainly Delphi.

[01:13:48] Delphi provides us a road map for what I feel is a very dark and disturbing turn for true crime that's happened in the last couple of years. And I think we need to all be aware of this as people who are in this space, either as listeners or viewers or as content creators or as journalists or as anyone, anyone who's commenting, anyone who's kind of in this. We're all in this together.

[01:14:11] And we we need to understand the what what I feel is going wrong here in order for us to try to correct it and try to make this a better space for everybody. And then also, in addition to the T-shirts we've been selling through our own site, we have another site where it's going to have like a bigger selection of designs and stuff. Where is that site? So that site is The Murder Sheet at.

[01:14:39] So it's going to be TheMurdersheet.dashery.com. So that's T-H-E-M-U-R-D-E-R-S-H-E-E-T dot D-A-S-H-E-R-Y dot com. So wider variety. Wider variety. They got mugs, if you're interested. They've got we're going to start adding new designs there. I think they already put together one in like wild design of me stealing cereal, but we're going to probably add more to that.

[01:15:08] So if you have humiliating ideas for situations, we can put Anya in on T-shirts or mugs. Or Kevin. You know what? Let's let's share. Let's spread the wealth here a little bit, folks. What can Kevin be doing that's ridiculous on some of these merchandise? And and again, we're hoping to add more styles, more fits, women's fit, things like that. But right now, we you know, we this opens this up in terms of more inclusive sizing options.

[01:15:35] So it really has a large degree of options that we didn't have previously. So we're really excited about that. Well, no, we're really excited about that. An extra large degree of options. Yeah. OK, thank you. And I believe I believe last but certainly not least, we're going to CrimeCon and there's a promo code. Yes, you believe we're going to CrimeCon. Of course, we're going to CrimeCon. We're really excited for this.

[01:16:02] For anyone who's going to CrimeCon, please come say hi to us. We're going to be, you know, hopefully being able to sign some copies of the book and selling some additional T-shirts. But even if you just want to come say hi, come say hi. We'd love to see you. We really enjoy meeting folks who listen to the show. And it's an honor to get to go to CrimeCon this year. We're really excited. We've never been there before. So we're a little nervous. I've been there. Oh, you were there. Right. You were. Kevin was at the inaugural CrimeCon in Indianapolis.

[01:16:32] I've never been in my life. And I've heard great things. I've heard great things from victims' families who find it a very helpful event. It can be very cathartic. So I'm thrilled. And if you want to come, you can actually get a discount. So if you use code MURDERSHEET, you can get 10% off your standard badge. So MURDERSHEET, and that's for 10% off your standard badge. Please feel free to use that. It's a nice discount.

[01:17:02] Plus it lets them know that some people are there for us. So that's kind of nice. They won't be immediately regretting their decision to invite us. So we love that. But no, but seriously, we're really thrilled and honored and excited. And we're going to get to see some of our favorite podcasters. And we're going to get to see some of you guys. And that's really, really cool. So come and say hi. And we'll be standing there. And we always look awkward. So sometimes people don't want to approach us. But you should.

[01:17:31] That's just how we look. We can't help it. Oh, man. Is there anything else we wanted to say? I think that's it. Awesome. All right. Well, you guys take care and be safe. Bye. 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 murdersheet at gmail.com.

[01:17:56] If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities. If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet.

[01:18:25] We very much appreciate any support. 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. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much.

[01:18:52] 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. So we want to shout out one of our wonderful sponsors right now, and that sponsor is Happy Mammoth. This is a wonderful natural wellness brand. We've been using it, and it's been terrific. They're a great solution if you feel like you might be dealing with some hormone disruptors. I mean, that kind of happens to everyone.

[01:19:22] It's in the air, it's in the food, it's in lots of different products. So it's really reduced your cravings. Yeah, for me, it's I mean, I get kind of nuts about my cravings. Sometimes I will, you know, suddenly really want Macintosh apples, which aren't even in season and various other things. We all know I've been stealing a lot of cereal recently or allegedly, I should say. And so to kind of help beat that, I've been using their Hormone Harmony supplement. It's just a supplement.

[01:19:47] You take it a couple of times, you know, a couple of doses, and I feel like it's boosted my gut health, to be honest. It's also something that women who are in perimenopause or menopause, they can use it, and it's going to reduce your hot flashes. You're going to have more energy, get to sleep better. So it's really good for women of all ages. But for me, the gut health element of it has been really special. So if you're interested, for a limited time, you can get 15% off your entire first order at happymammoth.com. Just use the code MSHEAT at checkout.

[01:20:16] That's happymammoth.com, and use the code MSHEAT for 15% off today. I think you and I, Kevin, are people who always like to support a company that's giving back to the community in some key way and supporting a cause that we care about. Is that fair to say? That's very fair to say. One cause that we care about is supporting veterans. Veterans, people who have served our country, people who have served in the military, they deserve all the support they can get when they come back and when they're adjusting to society and dealing with things like trauma, right? Right.

[01:20:45] Well, one company that's based in Austin, Texas, is Hometown Hero, and they're doing just that. They're founded by a U.S. veteran, and he understood first and foremost how trauma can affect veterans. So a portion of their profits actually goes into causes that support veterans and groups that are supporting veterans. So when you're buying one of their premium hemp products, you're actually giving back to veterans. We think that's awesome. A lot of their products have this live rosin in it. This is a cannabis concentrate that's extracted using heat and pressure.

[01:21:13] That means you're getting very pure, very good cannabis in your hemp product that you're getting from them. They ship all throughout the country. It's very discreet packaging. It goes right to your door. And you can really experiment with them because they have something for people with all sorts of levels of THC experience. They have infused chocolates. They have gummies. They've got tinctures. They've got inhalables. Basically, whatever you want to try, it's a great thing for you and for even your dog.

[01:21:42] I think they have some CBD products for dogs. So it's something to really kind of check out and see if you're interested. Reclaim your evening. Visit hometownhero.com and use code MSHEAT to take 20% off your first purchase. That's hometownhero.com, code MSHEAT, for 20% off your first purchase.