Bryan Kohberger Admitted to Murder - Now He Wants to Take It Back

Summary

---

Crime Weekly – Episode Summary

Episode Title: Bryan Kohberger Admitted to Murder – Now He Wants to Take It Back
Release Date: August 5, 2026
Hosts: Stephanie Harlowe & Derrick Levasseur

---

Main Theme

This episode of Crime Weekly News delves into the latest legal maneuver by Bryan Kohberger, the convicted perpetrator in the University of Idaho murders, who is now attempting to withdraw his guilty plea. Hosts Stephanie and Derrick analyze the legal basis for his move, the response from the legal community and media, and examine new developments from a defense-hired expert turned prosecution advocate. The overarching question: Is there any legitimacy to Kohberger’s attempt, what are the real implications for the victims’ families, and does the new expert revelation change anything?

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Kohberger’s Push to Withdraw Guilty Plea

• Kohberger is seeking to retract his guilty plea, which had spared him the death penalty but sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder of four students.
• Legal Grounds Cited:
  • Claims his attorneys pressured or coerced him.
  • Alleges he didn’t fully understand exculpatory evidence or prison conditions.
  • Argues plea was not "knowing and voluntary" ([06:27] Stephanie).
• Legal Reality:
  • It’s extremely difficult to reverse a guilty plea post-sentencing without showing a serious constitutional flaw.
  • Derrick cites the rarity of such reversals and doubts Kohberger’s claims have legal merit:

    “I don't think there's a chance in hell that this works. Right. He wasn't under duress.” ([06:14] Derrick)

• The distinction between pre- and post-sentencing withdrawal is highlighted – after sentencing, simply regretting the plea is not sufficient.

2. Media Misattribution & Public Reaction

• Derrick recounts a video he posted expressing nuanced support for reopening the case (not for Kohberger, but for the chance of a death penalty on conviction), which was misrepresented by media outlets (In Touch Weekly, Yahoo).
• Headlines suggested he was “thrilled Kohberger wants a new trial,” leaving out his condemnation of Kohberger and the hope it would result in harsher justice ([04:45] Derrick).
• Notable quote, reflecting how a headline can misconstrue the intent:

  “For me to be attached…to have my face next to that idiot, it sucks.” ([05:10] Derrick)

• Crime Weekly’s community swiftly defended Derrick in comment sections, illustrating the importance of context in media soundbites.

3. Analysis of Alleged ‘Exculpatory’ Evidence

• Kohberger’s main cited evidence centers on hair/debris from victim Ethan Chapin’s hand, suggesting another perpetrator.
• Stephanie breaks down the forensic examination:
  • FBI found the debris not microscopically consistent with Kohberger, but also not with any unknown attacker.
  • Defense expert concluded it was consistent with the victim’s own hair ([09:04] Stephanie).
  • Stephanie’s take:

    “In plain English, the hair appeared to be Ethan's hair, not hair from some unidentified attacker.” ([10:00] Stephanie)

• Both hosts see no exonerating value in this evidence.

4. Litmus Test for Public Perception

• Derrick reflects on people doubting Kohberger’s guilt:

  “I'm going to use Bryan Kohberger's case as a litmus test…If you don't think Bryan Kohberger killed these kids, we're probably not going to agree on a lot of things.” ([11:33] Derrick)

• The improbability of an alternate perpetrator or complex frame-up is lampooned by both ([12:14] onward), with Stephanie citing the mass of physical and circumstantial evidence:
  • DNA, knife sheath purchase, cell phone data, eyewitness testimony, “weird pattern of behavior” ([13:14] Stephanie).

5. The Revelatory Role of Expert Witness Cy Ray

• New development: Cy Ray, a digital forensics expert originally hired by Kohberger’s defense, has now publicly stated he believes Kohberger is guilty and claims to have found even more damning evidence in cell phone/location records—details allegedly missed by prosecutors.
• Cy Ray claims:
  • Kohberger’s phone repeatedly located near the King Road house at key times.
  • Phone data overlaps with victim Madison’s, suggesting possible stalking and a non-random target ([18:00] Stephanie).
• However, his current claim contradicts his official expert report for the defense, which denied such associations—raising questions about expert impartiality and credibility ([22:01] Stephanie).

6. Expert Witness Ethics & Motivations

• Derrick and Stephanie discuss the problematic nature of such a drastic reversal:
  • Derrick:

    “I find it hard to believe that this information he's conveying now, he didn't know originally, and he chose to omit those facts, which, if that's the case, that's not how it's supposed to be done.” ([22:01] Derrick)

  • They speculate whether Ray’s motivation is moral conscience, professional fallout, or self-promotion.

7. Motive Speculation & Victim-Focused Discussion

• The ongoing mystery of motive—was Madison the target?—remains, with Cy Ray’s claims potentially filling in gaps, but hosts remain skeptical about unverified new “evidence.”
• Derrick references possible clues from recent documentaries and autopsy findings ([26:44] Derrick).
• Both emphasize that justice for the victims and the wishes of their families should steer the conversation around any potential new trial or sentencing outcomes.

8. Justice, Suffering, and the Role of Punishment

• The hosts debate which is a worse fate for Kohberger: death penalty or life in a harsh prison environment.
  • Stephanie:

    “He seems very, very, very miserable in prison…I'd rather him suffer and sit in prison for the rest of his life...” ([28:38] Stephanie)

  • Derrick is more inclined to want a trial and possibly the death penalty, emphasizing closure and potential answers for families ([29:13] Derrick).

9. Victim Family Perspectives

• The family of victim Kaylee calls Kohberger a “narcissist,” highlighting the trauma of dragged-out proceedings and their conviction that the plea was not taken under duress ([33:14] Stephanie).

  “He chose not to leave his fate or the facts of the case to a jury. He never cried foul, never claimed he was uninformed or pressured, and never suggested there was problems with the discovery…” ([33:23] Stephanie quoting Kaylee's family)

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• [03:05] Derrick:
  “I, for one, am thrilled that Brian Coburger is trying to retract his confession…I think justice will finally be served.”
  [Later clarifies: his ‘thrill’ is for the possibility of a death penalty, not because he believes Kohberger is innocent.]

• [10:00] Stephanie:
  “In plain English, the hair appeared to be Ethan's hair, not hair from some unidentified attacker who wasn’t Bryan Kohberger. So really, there's nothing here…”

• [11:33] Derrick:
  “If you don't think Bryan Kohberger killed these kids, we're probably not going to agree on a lot of things.”

• [26:44] Derrick:
  “Bryan Kohberger is a monster. He's a killer. And I never agreed with the original deal, which was no trial, no death penalty.”

• [28:38] Stephanie:
  “He seems very, very, very miserable in prison…I would rather him suffer and sit in prison for the rest of his life…”

• [33:23] Stephanie (quoting victim’s family):
  “He chose not to leave his fate or the facts of the case to a jury. He never cried foul, never claimed he was uninformed or pressured, and never suggested there was problems with the discovery materials he and council had reviewed for two years…”

---

Key Segment Timestamps

• [01:18] Topic Introduction: Kohberger’s attempt to withdraw guilty plea.
• [03:05 - 05:10] Derrick’s video, media misattribution, and social response.
• [06:27 - 10:32] Analysis of withdrawal grounds and “exculpatory” evidence (forensic findings).
• [11:30 - 14:38] Public skepticism about Kohberger’s guilt, breakdown of evidence.
• [17:21 - 22:47] Cy Ray’s revelations, contradictions in expert testimony, and discussion on expert ethics.
• [26:44 - 28:38] Debating punishment, prison versus death penalty, impacts on families.
• [33:14 - 34:41] Victim family statements on Kohberger’s “narcissism” and legal tactics.
• [34:55–35:49] Closing reflections; appeal for listener thoughts.

---

Tone and Language

• Derrick maintains a direct, sometimes darkly humorous “cop’s candor,” expressing frustration with sensationalist media and defense tactics.
• Stephanie often brings measured skepticism, forensic clarity, and empathy for the victims and their families.
• The banter reflects deep frustration with conspiracy theories, internet “truthers,” and the circus surrounding high-profile cases, but also a commitment to fair analysis and respect for due process.

---

Episode Takeaways

• Kohberger’s attempt to withdraw his plea is viewed as desperate and likely to fail unless a major constitutional rights violation is proven—which, based on currently available evidence, the hosts do not see.
• Media spin remains a problem in shaping public perception, even for true crime professionals.
• Physical and circumstantial evidence against Kohberger is, in the hosts’ view, overwhelming and leaves little room for plausible doubt.
• The episode raises important issues about the ethics of expert witnesses and the possible consequences of experts reversing positions publically.
• Hosts solicit audience views, especially from those who may empathize with victim families, on the topic of punishment and justice.

---

For those who haven’t listened:
This episode offers a clear, candid breakdown of the legal maneuvers, forensic science, media narratives, and emotional toll around the Kohberger case—with a strong focus on justice for the victims and their families, and a skepticism for last-minute defense theatrics. The hosts’ dynamic—part resolute, part sardonic—ensures the discussion is both informed and engaging, even when navigating deeply upsetting subject matter.

Transcript

[A]

Back to School comes with surprises. Luckily, Uber Eats can help with the last minute ones because you can order school supplies for $5 or less.

[B]

Mom.

[A]

So when exploding science projects happen, don't panic. Get glue sticks and everything you need for Back to School today from brands like Staples on Uber eats. Order now ends 97. $5 or less before taxes and fees. Select items only. Availability varies. App for details.

[B]

Lots of places can expose you to identity theft.

[A]

Oh, no.

[B]

That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity, which is way more than anyone can do on their own. If we find anything suspicious, like new loans or changes to your financial accounts, we alert you right away, all through text, phone, email, or the LifeLock app. Get the alerts that could make all the difference. Save up to 30% your first [e-mail] podcast terms apply.

[A]

Foreign. Hello, everybody. Welcome back to Crime Weekly News. I'm Stephanie Harlow.

[B]

And I'm Derek Levasseur.

[A]

So, Brian Coburger, that's who we're talking about today. Brian Coburger is now trying to do something that is incredibly difficult to pull off. He wants to withdraw the guilty plea that spared him from the death penalty and reopen the case against him. And since he filed this petition, a lot of people connected to the legal and investigative world have had something to say about it, including Derek. You, apparently.

[B]

Yeah, we were talking about it on our Patreon Live the other night, but unfortunately. Yeah, what, what, What Stephanie had just said. As far as him trying to retract his statement, I had a, an instant reaction to it. I was in my driveway, so I pulled out my phone and I recorded like this two minute video, posted it, not thinking anything was going to come of it because I was under the impression that that was going to be the general consensus from everybody. So we'll play that video and then we'll talk about it. I, for one, am thrilled that Brian Coburger is trying to retract his confession. And I think we should grant him a new trial. Is it a waste of time and a cost to the taxpayers? Absolutely. Is he more than likely going to be found guilty based on the abundant amount of evidence? Yep. But if he's found guilty, spoiler alert. He will. When the verdict comes out. There's no deal. No going to prison for the next 30, 40 years and living off the taxpayer's dime. Nope. It's the death penalty. No going back and saying, well, you know, now that I've been found guilty, I, I think because of the situation and because of how it all played out, I should still get to live out my life in prison after murdering these four innocent people. Sorry, we shouldn't have gave you that deal the first time. That's off the table. And yes, it's unfortunate that the victim's families are going to have to go through this whole ordeal and be traumatized again. But if I were the father of one of these children, and you told me that if I was willing to go through this trial, I could have the chance at the end of it to sit there and watch the person responsible be killed, sign me up. And so, yeah, I'm excited that Bryan Coburger's lack of self awareness and delusional optimism when it comes to his intelligence is going to allow us another opportunity to prove he's an idiot. And, yeah, it's gonna get him in trouble. And so, yeah, it sucks that we're gonna have to give this some more screen time, but when all said and done, if this happens, I think justice will finally be served. Yeah. So as you can see there, I, I set it up kind of like I was happy that he was trying to retract his statement, but then I go on to give context behind it where I basically say that once again, Brian's misunderstanding of his intelligence. Right. His. This delusional optimism when it comes to how smart he is, is going to get him in more trouble, just like it did for the murders. And my hope was that if they did grant him a new trial, at this point, the whole deal that he got the first time would be off the table and it would result in the death penalty. That's what I want. I, I believe without a doubt Bryan Kohberger is responsible for, for killing these four young people. And I thought that was pretty obvious.

[A]

But then, so you, the way you said it was, you're like, I'm glad he's trying to withdraw his confession. And then what happened? A certain quote, unquote news outlet.

[B]

Yeah. So shout out to Annie Elise, Annie, DMs me, the article from In Touch Weekly and Yahoo, who basically says all they put in the headline is, Big Brother Winner is thrilled that Brian's trying to get a new trial. And if you were just to read that headline, you would think, like, I'm a defender of Brian Coburger, which some

[A]

people in the comment section thought that before apparently getting the context.

[B]

I will say this, and I, I put out another video afterwards, but, you know, not that you guys need to do it, but it was so. It was so nice and heartwarming and surprising at the same time to. By the time I, I saw the article, I went there to defend myself and there were literally hundreds of comments on Facebook, on Instagram, every post you can think of. Wherever they put it, there were hundreds of you in the comments being like, that's not Derek. That's not what he said. This is clickbait. So thank you for that because you guys had my back 100%. And I even called in Touch Weekly and Yahoo Out. And I hate the fact that even before recording this episode, all I typed in was Brian Kohberger retraction just to see what the specifics were. And the Yahoo article with my face is the first thing that pops up. So for me to be attached to anyone, to have my face next to that idiot, it's. It sucks. But yeah, to get, to get to the whole why we're here, I, I don't think there's a chance in hell that this works. Right. He wasn't under duress.

[A]

Yeah, it's gonna be pretty difficult. So do. Should we talk about why he's saying yeah for sure. Okay, for sure.

[B]

And then we could talk about how it's not gonna work because there's even defense attorneys that we respect coming out saying like there's no shot.

[A]

Yeah. So Brian said, his legal team, I guess. And Brian said in the post conviction filing that his attorneys pressured or coerced him into accepting the plea. Now understand this plea, several life sentences. The only really thing that the plea did was prevent him from getting the death penalty. So he said his attorneys pressured or coerced him into accepting it. He didn't fully understand alleged exculpatory evidence before pleading guilty. We'll talk about that in a second. He received misinformation or false promises about what his prison conditions would be because we know Brian's been whining about how bad prison is since he's been in there. Cuz prison was supposed to be this, you know, like what like this, this huge milk and honey. What are you talk. Talking about? And, and the circumstances meant his guilty plea was not truly knowing and voluntary because he wasn't, he wasn't fully understanding how bad prison was going to be and he didn't fully understand this alleged exculpatory evidence and his attorneys pressured or coused him into accepting the deal. Now obviously like Derek said, this is going to be a difficult, an uphill battle, it's been called because there's, there's a lot of moving pieces, but specifically there's an important distinction between withdrawing a guilty plea before sentencing and then trying to withdraw it after sentencing. Right. So the basic point is that a defendant generally cannot accept a plea, receive the agreed upon outcome, and then try to reverse course after seeing the consequences. So at this stage, Brian Coburg would need to establish a serious constitutional or legal defect in the plea process. Not merely just like, like, I really didn't want to do this. Actually, I changed my mind now that I saw how bad prison is. And that's pretty much what he's saying. Now, as far as the exculpatory evidence goes, that would be if I'm looking at the claims he's making, the potential alleged exculpatory evidence would be the only constitutional kind of thing I could see besides Brian just saying, I don't like it in prison and my attorneys made me feel like I had to do this. So what is this potentially exculpatory evidence that Kohberger and his legal team are referring to? It seems to be primarily this hair or hair like debris recovered from Ethan's hand. And even that, I think that the description is a little misleading because in his handwritten post conviction petition, Coburger says his attorneys failed to tell him about this exculpatory discovery received during the plea negotiations that specifically quote, clumps of hair found in Ethan Chapin's hands, end quote. His argument appears to be that hair clutched in Ethan's hand could have come from an attacker rather than from Brian Coburger. And he says that knowing about it might have affected his decision to plead guilty. But what do the actual forensic records reportedly say? Because the official FBI report did not apparently describe the material as this dramatic clumps of hair. It described debris recovered from Ethan's right hand and additional debris recovered from Zanna's left hand. So the FBI then microscopically examined that debris to determine whether it contained hairs consistent with Brian Coburger's head hair sample. It reportedly found none that were microscopically consistent with Brian Coburger's hair. And I guess that sounds potentially significant at first, but it doesn't necessarily mean another person's hair was found. It only means that the examined debris did not contain hair that microscopically resembled Bryan Coburger's. And then the the defense apparently even had this debris tested further. DNA and hair expert retained by Brian Coburg's own defense team, her name is Ruth Ballard, reportedly examined hair recovered from Ethan's hand and concluded that it was, quote, morphologically consistent with Decident Chapin's own reference hair. So in plain English, the hair appeared to be Ethan's hair, not hair from some unidentified attacker who, who wasn't Bryan Kohberger. So really, there's nothing here. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing here that could be possibly used as, like, Bryan Kohberger had an unconstitutional plea deal to reverse this in the end.

[B]

I completely agree, and I might get some shit for this, but that's fine. One thing that's happened since this whole article came out was I've had some not so nice, but also some respectful messages and DMS where, you know, I'm smart enough to realize what people are doing where they're like, oh, you know, I'm totally defending you. Although I will say, you know, I'm not so sure he did it, you know, and I'm gonna, I'm gonna put this out there right now.

[A]

There's so many people out there that feel this way like this.

[B]

I'm not speaking for you, Stephanie. You can agree to dis or disagree on this. But I, I think from this point forward, I'm going to use Bryan Coburger's case as a litmus test when I'm talking to some people that I don't know to gauge how much stake I should put into their. Their opinions. Because if you don't think Bryan Kohberger killed these kids, we're probably not going to agree on a lot of things.

[A]

What's the alternate theory if not Bryan Kohberger? Like, what is when they say, I disagree, he's the fall guy for who.

[B]

That's my point. Who is Brian Kohberger and these victims to never take anything away from them because their lives mattered. Obviously you're going to do this like, CI level operation where you're going to frame this no name dude who nobody cares about.

[A]

So they're, so they're saying it wasn't just another person, it was another person or persons who then did all this trouble. And like, sophisticated methods to frame, framed

[B]

Ryan Coburger for killing these four young kids who are college students who, you know, didn't hold documents to like, CIA secrets. Like, what are we doing this?

[A]

That's really what's happening. Because I don't, I can't get into these people's minds who, who genuinely think this.

[B]

So I was politely responding to some of them and I, you. I'm, you know, I'm. It's. It's possible. Derek Levasseur. That's my whole thing, like I said, with everything, the only. And I don't even believe in this. But some people were like, oh, I don't think he did it alone. And I would argue that point, as far as the absence of evidence is not evidence. There is no evidence indicating there was another person there. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Right. We have video surveillance. We have cell phone data. We have eyewitness testimony from Dylan, who some people still believe that they could be involved, which is ridiculous.

[A]

We have a weird pattern of behavior where you always take your phone when you leave. But all of a sudden, on this day, when you're just out driving for a fun time, at the exact same time the murders are happening.

[B]

Turn off your phone.

[A]

You choose to turn off your phone. Yeah.

[B]

Oh, there's so much. We could sit here and spend 45

[A]

minutes for that one. Does someone go to Brazil, Ryan Coburger, and say, I suggest you take a nice long drive today and make sure your phone's turned off when you do?

[B]

Yeah, you have God, you have the, the, the knife sheath purchase. You have the DNA at the house. You have a potential footprint. Wasn't there like a van style footprint scene? I thought there was something there as well. You have eyewitness testimony from Dylan describing an individual that matches Coburger's description. You have video surveillance. You have cell phone data. You know, I'm not saying this is the strongest case I've ever seen.

[A]

I have his guilty plea.

[B]

Oh, I didn't even get there yet. All right. I'm not even saying this is the strongest case that I've ever seen. Also have his own admission. Right. After months of conferencing with his own defense attorneys. Right. Reviewing what was there and deciding after all of it that the best course of action was to take a guilty plea. It's crazy. It's crazy to think that there are still people who believe he's just an innocent guy who was framed for this. But listen, I like debate. I like never just considering the first theory as the most plausible. I like the dissension where we can come in and have a respectful conversation about it. But at this point, with everything we know, I think that debate is over.

[A]

Well, actually, Derek, I may have something for those people who still wonder, oh, is Bryan Kohberger innocent? Could it have been him? I have something and someone who's come out just. It just broke today as we're filming this on Monday, August 3rd. So let's take a quick break and then we'll be right back and we'll talk about it. This episode is brought to you by Smalls and Derek. I have another cat food fact for you.

[B]

Okay, I'm ready. I feel like I'm becoming a cat food expert against my will here. But you know what? I'm in for the ride.

[A]

Falser fact. Some cats are eating food with so much filler that it's basically closer to a granola bar than what a tiny carnivore is actually supposed to eat.

[B]

Okay, I'm going to be honest. I may have some background in some of these questions because I do them on detective perspective. But I'm going to say that's a fact. Although I don't like it, it is a fact.

[A]

And I don't like it either. Cats are obligate carnivores, which means they need real meat to stay healthy. But a lot traditional cat food is made with cheap meat byproducts, fillers, and artificial ingredients. So basically, big pet food saves money and you pay the price. And your cat also pays the price.

[B]

Yeah, and cats aren't exactly known for quietly accepting disappointment. Let's be honest. We both had cats. We know they, they let their feelings

[A]

be known, usually by staring at you like you've personally betrayed them. But that is where Smalls comes in. Smalls makes fresh human grade food specifically to help cats thrive. Their fresh recipes are over 80% animal protein with 0 fillers. And 80 of cat. Parents notice better digestion, softer fur, and more energy.

[B]

Yeah, and that makes a lot of sense. If the food has more of what the cats actually need, you, you would hope that they would feel better.

[A]

Right. And Smalls is made with protein packed preservative free human grade ingredients. The kind of ingredients you'd find in your own fridge and it's delivered right to your door.

[B]

Yeah, which is nice because cats already require enough emotional labor, so the food should be the easy part.

[A]

And another thing I like about Smalls is that it can help with the less glamorous side of cat ownership too. They have more digestible nutrients. That can mean less junk coming out the other end.

[B]

Yeah, we're talking about the litter box.

[A]

We are. Carefully. But yes, less stinky poops. And honestly, if you have a cat that is not a small selling point, Smalls is a really great option if you want to feed your cat fresh high protein food with zero fillers. So stop serving your little carnivore a bowl of processed shortcuts for a limited time. Because you are a crime weekly listener and viewer. You can get 60% off your first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life. When you head to Smalls. Dot Com Crime Weekly. Now, you better hope that if you don't plan on trying, Smalls, your cat's not listening to what you're listening to right now. Because the second they hear Free Treats for life, they're gonna be. They're gonna be, like, looking at you like, why are you not taking advantage of this?

[B]

Oh, did you like your couch? Watch this.

[A]

Yeah, Free treats. Free treats. Click it so one last time. That's 60 off your first order, plus free shipping and retreats for life when you head to smalls.com crimeweekly okay, so today I read this article, and I'm like, what? This is kind of crazy. So the article focused on this person, Cy Ray. Cy Ray is a digital forensics and geolocation expert who was actually originally hired by Brian Coburger's defense team. Okay, so an expert witness for Brian Coburger. You understand what I'm saying? An expert witness for Brian Coburger. So now Cy Ray says he's completely convinced that Bryan Kohberger committed the University of Idaho murders, like everybody should be. And Cy believes that Coburg should receive a new trial where prosecutors again seek the death penalty. So Cy says, what? Basically, Derek said, I hope he gets a new trial. Yeah, I hope he gets a new trial so he can get the death penalty this time, because the audacity of this idiot. All right, so Cy Ray says investigators fail to recognize highly incriminating information in Brian Coburger's phone and location data. So now Cy Ray is saying not only am I gonna come and throw this dude under the bus who I was a defense expert for, but I'm gonna tell you that I found stuff that even the prosecution missed. Okay, this is. This is really. It's getting. It's getting good here. So according to Ray, Coburger's phone produced several estimated location points that landed directly on or extremely close to the King Roadhouse before the murders. We kind of knew this. Although the estimated radius was about 25 meters, Ray believes that when those locations are considered alongside Brian Coburger's movements before and afterward, they suggest he had previously been inside or immediately around the house. And Brian's phone repeatedly appeared in the same general locations as Madison's phone, leading Ray to believe Maddie was the primary target. So those alleged collisions included a party in Pullman during the first week of school and a store near King Road residence. Okay, so we have Brian Coburger's phone now in two locations before the murders. Where Maddie's phone is.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

Okay. Which is making Cy Ray say, hey, I think that this shows Brian Coburger was stalking Maddie, which if you'll remember, we've never been given a motive. Right.

[B]

Because yeah, there's been a lot of speculation about stalking.

[A]

All that good stuff, a lot of speculation. And it was like, what, what brought him there was this completely random. Did he just pick a house? What's going on? But now Sai Ray, who was the location expert and like the phone expert and stuff, he says, listen, this is what I saw that I don't think the prosecution picked up on. Now the most important part of the article that I read is that C. Ray's current statements appear to contradict the written export report that he prepared for Brian Coburger's defense in January of 2025. I say, interesting, but not surprising because you and I have talked many about how these expert witnesses, although, yes, I think they know their shit, I think they know exactly what they're doing. But also they're being paid to put forth a certain narrative that supports who's paying them.

[B]

And by the way, that falls on both sides. We're not the same defense or prosecution. And the way it works is it's they give their opinion before they're hired. So, so prosecution, defense made me bring in five experts. Three of them may say not what they're looking for, so those guys don't get hired. And then the one that says what they want them to say, that's the person they go with. Which I get it, I get because that's what they supposedly believe as well. So they're looking for people who are like minded. But yeah, it's interesting how after the fact, someone who was originally hired because of their quote unquote findings, now that they weren't needed at trial, has a difference of opinion in their own statement from what they said earlier year, which

[A]

it doesn't make him look good, right?

[B]

Makes him look not great.

[A]

It doesn't. But also does it kind of make him look good where he's like, yeah, like I did the wrong thing. But now that this dude is actually like not even settling with the deal he got, which is less than he deserves because he deserves a death penalty. Like now I, I morally feel like I have an obligation to step forward and say something even though it makes me look like my expert testimony can be bought and paid for.

[B]

Sure. I think it, I think it makes him look really bad because there's, there's not. I, he could come out and defend himself against this, but I find it hard to believe that this Information he's conveying now, he didn't know originally, and he chose to omit those facts, which, if that's the case, that's. That's not how it's supposed to be done.

[A]

Well, in the report that he prepared for Brian's defense in January 2025, Ray said that the geolocation data did not show an association between Brian and the victims or their residences. He said he could not identify a period when Brian's phone was in the same specific area as any victim's phone. And he said he found no evidence that Brian had stalked the victims or conducted surveillance at the King Roadhouse. So basically the exact opposite of what he is saying.

[B]

Yeah, that's. This isn't just a new caveat. This is like a completely different opinion.

[A]

It is the exact, like, take everything you said and make it as far opposite as you could make it. And that is what is.

[B]

Now, this would be the equivalent to them being like, okay, first give us your opinion if you were hired for the defense. Now give us your opinion. Opinion if you were hired for the prosecuting attorney. Yeah, that's literally what he did.

[A]

Yeah, well, he'll never.

[B]

By the way, spoiler alert. He'll never get. If this does go to trial, his testimony in this case and probably others, not gonna. Not gonna be. This is always gonna be used against him. Now if he did it, knowing that respect.

[A]

Now, I, I mean, I feel like you'd have to know it. We know it. He's in that community.

[B]

Right. And maybe. But like to your point, he's saying, I know this doesn't make me look great, but I want to do it because it, it's going to clear my conscience. And if that's true, I gotta give him credit.

[A]

That's got it. That's the only.

[B]

I agree.

[A]

That's the only reason he could be doing it. Right. Unless he's like, I really want to destroy my career and my reputation today.

[B]

Yeah, no, you're right. He's. He's. I'm hoping he's smart enough to know this is not going to be looked at in a positive light for most people.

[A]

Now, there's a few things that I want to go over about this because it's interesting and I have a few kind of, I don't know, just. Just observations. But let's take a quick break. We'll be right back and then we'll finish up. Okay. So remember that Sire said, hey, I found this stuff. Prosecutors missed it. Now, prosecutors we know had alleged that Brian's Phone connected to cellular towers near the King Road house roughly a dozen times before the murders and again the morning afterward. We know they said that. However, investigators have publicly said they still do not why Brian selected that particular house, whether one particular victim was the intended target or what his motive was. And obviously Brian's not saying, so we don't know. But Cyray, he's saying Maddie was the target. And investigators simply overlooked the evidence supporting that conclusion, which seems difficult to believe that investigators and prosecutors overlooked that evidence because they, we, we do know that the prosecutors themselves have never publicly presented this specific phone overlap or collision that sy' Ray is now describing. So I guess I want to know, like, is it true? Or. Because that's where I'm struggling. Like, how did prosecutors and law enforcement not see that? Because it seems pretty significant. And Cy Ray, we know that he looked at all this data because he was going to, to be the defense expert witness for the phone and the location and stuff like that. So is, is he just saying this to like, get his name around? Is that app, Is that actually true? Like, does that exist in the data? This just came out today.

[B]

So the, this is Monday the, the

[A]

3rd of August 3rd of August. So prosecutors could come out and be like, we don't even know where he's seeing this evidence. Or they could come out and be like, yeah, oh snap, we did overlook this evidence, but it's kind of odd that he is very aware of this. But they are not, or maybe they are and they didn't see it until too late. So they didn't want to say, like, we missed this evidence. But are they going to come out now and admit to missing the evidence? Or is this a ploy to kind of make it look like maybe the, the prosecution didn't do a thorough job of the investigation and the presentation of evidence because if they missed this, then what else did they miss? I'm trying to kind of think of what the motive is because like you said, this is going to destroy his career as an expert witness and that's probably how he makes his living to some extent. So I'm curious as to what's going to come from that because it's weird.

[B]

I don't know what his, his motive or agenda is, and I'm going to continue to focus on the victims. Right. And I don't think it's a new theory. A lot of people have concluded for different reasons that, that Maddie was the primary target. One of the biggest things being the autopsies, right? With, with Maddie's Death. They describe it as clean. Right. It was quick. I'm not going to go into the details here, but it appears that Maddie was still asleep when she was attacked. Where With Kaylee, who was in the same bed with her. It was much more vicious and that's. That shows a sign of struggle. Maybe she tried to intervene when. When Maddie was being attacked. There's a lot of theories surrounding that. And I will say, although I didn't watch the whole thing, I did see clips from the Coburger Netflix documentary thing and they do give a theory as far as how the chain of events occurred in the house. And I do think it's. It's very plausible the way they lay that out, if you want to go check that out, as far as it starting upstairs and then working its way down. But overall it doesn't change the. The main premise here is that Bryan Kohberger is a monster. He's a killer. And I never agreed with the original deal, which was no trial, no death penalty. And at the end of the day, all that really matters is how the families feel. If they were okay with that, if they didn't want to have to go through that trial and sit there and have to experience all of that and this was good enough for them, then it's good enough for me. But I said in my video that if there's any world where one of the parents didn't like this agreement and were willing to sit through the trial because the outcome could have been watching Bryan Kohberger be killed, then we should give that to them, the families, I mean, where if they want that and they're okay to go through this, grant him a trial. I truly think it's gonna be the end of him. And maybe, as some people have suggested, that's what he wants. He wants to be put to death.

[A]

So that's my perception on.

[B]

A lot of people are with you

[A]

and this is what I feel. I don't want him to get a new trial. I don't want him to get the death penal. He seems very, very, very miserable in prison.

[B]

You. You might be right.

[A]

He seems like he genuinely hates it to the point where he might be doing this because he's like, I'd rather die than live another day in this hell hole. Cuz I thought it was going to be better than this. I would rather him suffer and sit in prison for the rest of his life or try to figure out some botched way that he can do himself in where it'll fail and he'll be in Pain. And he'll suffer.

[B]

Yeah. And then he'll be there and, you know, I guess I'll pose this question. I already know your answer, but I'll pose this question to the audience because for me, I, I would want the new trial because I think maybe there's a small chance, although not likely, we get more of the why, which we still don't really have. So maybe through the evidence that's put on at trial, we get a better understanding, like this evidence from Psy, where we maybe have more of an indication of what the motive was here. Because I'm sure the parents are still some of them wondering, like, why them, why this night, what happened, what triggered it? Do I think Brian's going to give them those answers? Absolutely not. He's claiming that he's innocent. But my question to all of you is, if you were a parent of one of these children, would you want it just to stay as is? Like Stephanie, where. And I think a lot of you are going to feel this way, where he clearly is miserable and just have him spend the rest of his life in prison, which is probably going to be a long time. He's young, right. He's going to be there for what, 40, 50, maybe 60 years. Long time, with our luck. 60 years.

[A]

Maybe he's got good genetics, you know, Maybe.

[B]

Yeah, maybe. Or would you want to sit through the trial, run the risk that he could get off? But if he's found guilty, death penalty, and you get within probably 20 to 30 years, you get the opportunity to sit there and watch the person who killed your. Your baby be. Killed himself, and you get to sit there through that. I don't know. I personally would want the latter. I'd want to see him in prison for the next 20, 30 years on death row, being miserable, and then I would love to know that that day he knows he's going to die, he's going to get his last meal, all of these things. And I know, and deep down, because he's a coward, he's going to be petrified.

[A]

If he could stay on death row for like 50, 60 years, and then when he's an old, feeble, stupid man who has just become completely demented because he's been tortured in prison for the past like six decades, then he gets a death penalty, you'd be. I would go for that. Yeah. Because there are, there are fates worse than death. And I think Brian Coburger is living in it right now.

[B]

He might experience some of that. I, I agree with you there, by the way. He's 31 now. He, when this happened.

[A]

That's a rough 31, Brian.

[B]

He was 28. However, let me throw a wrinkle at you.

[A]

You.

[B]

If I could tell you that within 20 years he would get the death penalty, but because Idaho was one of the few states that still have the firing squad, would that change your opinion?

[A]

As long as he's like, 65 and up, I want, I want enough time of him to hate prison.

[B]

Well, at that point, he would be,

[A]

he would be, you know, he's being tortured in prison. Like, there's people coming at him.

[B]

He's in for a rough go.

[A]

Yeah, there's people coming at him like he's a very, like, soft boy. Okay. And he's in there with hardened criminals who hate him, who have children, who hate him. And I think he's afraid for his life every single day, which makes me extremely happy. So, yeah, firing squad. But like a slow, like maybe one in the leg, then maybe one in the, the shoulder, then maybe, you know, like, oh, that one grazed his thigh, you know, maybe like, like, yeah, light them up, you know, but slowly. I'm sorry, I feel like that's really aggressive.

[B]

But I think a lot of people,

[A]

you ask me as a parent of one of these kids, that's how I would feel as a parent of one of these kids.

[B]

Like, I'm looking forward to hearing their opinion. I, I, I don't know if they've spoke publicly yet.

[A]

Yeah, they have. They've, you know, they, they, I think I saw that they called him a narcissist. Like that. The fact that he's continuing to keep this going. It was five days ago. A narcissist. A victim's family blasts Kohberger for challenging Idaho murder conviction. The family of one of the victims has said has hit out after it emerged he was challenging the conviction. The family of Kaylee said that Kohlberger was a narcissist who appeared to have changed his, his position. Quote, he chose not to leave his fate or the facts of the case to a jury. He never cried foul, never claimed he was uninformed or pressured, and never suggested there was problems with the discovery materials he and council had reviewed for two years that should have been challenged.

[B]

Yeah, this was a very thought out confession. As far as the agreement that he made.

[A]

Yeah, we know it took forever.

[B]

He had all the counsel, he knew

[A]

all the facts, and he was a criminology student, by the way, who thought he was smarter than everybody else. So it's not like he was a

[B]

Completely and clearly he's continuing to prove he's not. Cuz this is. If he doesn't want death, he's about to open up a can of worms. If this happens, which I don't think it will, you know, overall we're thinking of the family, all the friends, everyone connected to Zanna, Ethan, Matty and Kaylee. They're the real victims here. They're the ones that deserve to decide whether or not this is even considered. Although hearing from some prominent defense attorneys online, one of them, Bob Motta from Defense Diaries, he didn't say it specifically, so I don't want to misquote him, but I saw something on X where this article came out and he was like, good luck with that. And he's someone who always, as a defense attorney sees the other side of things and him and I don't always agree, but that's what I like about him. He speaks his mind and he's a smart guy. So I think this is not even going to have a chance of going to trial. This is, there's no way this is going to get overturned. But I do want to hear your opinions on it. Guys, what do you think of all this? Not necessarily whether Brian's guilty or not, but if you are a parent of one of these victims, how would you feel about this? What would you like to see happen? We want to hear your opinions, your thoughts on this one. It sucks that we're giving Brian any more, any more limelight, I guess because in a way I think that's what he wants.

[A]

I don't think he wants it. I think he just really hates prison.

[B]

Yeah, that too, that too. But I, I, I despise this guy. And for me there's no doubt in my mind that, that he did it. I'll even go as far as saying he did it alone. And so he's right where he needs to be. They got the right guy. They did a great job with this investigation. I don't agree with certain things that the school did, but that's a different story for a different day. They got the right guy. The evidence supports that. Maybe the best case is like you said, just putting him in prison and letting him be miserable for the next 60 years. We definitely want to hear your thoughts. We will be back later this week with Chandler Halderson Part 3. Also, I did mention we talked about this a little bit on Patreon. A lot of you guys have been signing up. We have our Patreon membership, we have our YouTube membership. We also have our Crime Weekly, plus membership on Apple. If you're interested in any of those things and you want to get deeper into the conversations that we're having here or hear about them before anybody else does, because we're doing the Lives once a month, you can go check out their links. They're right in the description box below. Until then, please everyone stay safe out there, and we will see you later this week.

[A]

Bye.