Loading summary
Transcript220 lines
- [00:00]
Anya Cain
Bombas makes the most comfortable socks, underwear and T shirts.
- [00:04]
Kevin Greenlee
Bombas are so absurdly comfortable you may throw out all your other clothes.
- [00:08]
Anya Cain
Sorry, do we legally have to say that?
- [00:10]
Kevin Greenlee
No, this is just how I talk. And I really love my Bombas.
- [00:13]
Anya Cain
They do feel that good. And they do good too.
- [00:15]
Unknown
One item purchased equals one item donated.
- [00:18]
Kevin Greenlee
To feel good and do good, go to bombas.com wondry and use code wondry for 20% off your first purchase. That's B O M B-A-Com wondry and use code Wondry at checkout.
- [00:31]
Unknown
Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can send money to kids quickly, set up chores automate allowance, and keep an eye on your kids spending with real time notifications. Kids learn to earn, save and spend wisely. And parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Try Greenlight Risk free today@greenlight.com Wondery today, the beverage aisle looks a lot different than it used to. America's beverage companies are working together. We're delivering the options everyone wants. In fact, nearly 60% of beverages Americans buy have zero sugar. You'll find more variety than ever, including more of your favorites now available with zero sugar. You'll also find more sizes and and clear calorie information on the front of every can, bottle and pack. We know when it comes to finding balance, the more choices, the better.
- [01:33]
Anya Cain
Content Warning this episode contains discussion of murder and violence.
- [01:38]
Kevin Greenlee
So last week there was a bunch of filings in the Idaho case. And by a bunch, that's a legal term for a whole lot. We're going to try to get through as much as we can in one episode, but I'm going to be honest with you, I don't see us getting through all this in one episode. So it's very likely we'll end up doing a second episode and some of the other filings later on this week because there's a lot to chew on here. And with that, let's get to it.
- [02:13]
Anya Cain
My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.
- [02:15]
Kevin Greenlee
And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.
- [02:18]
Anya Cain
And this is the Murder Sheet.
- [02:20]
Kevin Greenlee
We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases.
- [02:26]
Anya Cain
We're the Murder Sheet.
- [02:28]
Kevin Greenlee
And this is the University of Idaho, Amazon Orders and Eyebrows. So let's start with one of the bigger filings. I think we could all Agree that the most important eyewitness in this case is the young woman who lived at the house and had a brief encounter with the. The killer. And she described him. His face was largely covered, but she saw his eyes and particularly his eyebrows, which she described on numerous occasions as bushy. And as you may or may not recall, the defense filed a motion recently saying, well, we don't think that testimony should be allowed in. And so now the. The state has had an opportunity to reply to that. And what were their arguments? Well, let's talk about them. The first thing to note is that the state says that the defense wants to use the so called Manson Biggers test to evaluate whether or not this testimony should be included. That raises the obvious question, what is the Manson Biggers test?
- [04:42]
Anya Cain
You better not ask me what that is.
- [04:48]
Kevin Greenlee
So the Manson Biggers test is something that arose out of a couple of United States Supreme Court decisions where the issue was, you know, sometimes the police use methods to get identifications that can be overly suggestive. And when that happens and police use these questionable methods, you know, sometimes they still get good results, sometimes they don't get good results. What kind of test should we use to apply whether or not the value of the testimony is such that it should be admitted despite whatever the police might have done that is questionable? And so this is the Manson Biggers test. And I'll talk about the five prongs of the Manson Biggers test in a moment. But something just in my description there, something may have jumped out at you. Did something jump out at you, Anya?
- [05:43]
Anya Cain
No, not at all. Sorry.
- [05:48]
Kevin Greenlee
So if police are trying to steer a person to identify a particular person, then that usually happens after they've identified a suspect or perhaps have a suspect in custody.
- [06:04]
Anya Cain
Right.
- [06:05]
Kevin Greenlee
And that's when you use the Manson Biggers test. And in this case, the beginning of this filing goes into some detail about each time this witness gave a description of the killer and exactly what she said on each occasion. And the vast majority of these descriptions she gave occurred before the arrest of Mr. Colbert, perhaps before they even knew Kohberger's name or anything about him.
- [06:33]
Anya Cain
Okay, wow. So. So the state's a pretty big difference because it's a. There's the difference of if Bryan Kohberger is in lockup and they're thinking, we really need to get him, that that can motivate things in a different way and be more problematic than, we don't know who did this. We're just trying to figure it out.
- [06:50]
Kevin Greenlee
And so this test is only this Manson Briggs test. This is something that's only used if you are questioning the identification method by the police. And here the police were just saying, what did you see? Basically, and they weren't trying to steer her towards anyone at all. So the state says this test, it doesn't even apply.
- [07:12]
Anya Cain
Manson Briggs. Sounds like some kind of personality test for serial killers. I think it's Manson Biggers, right?
- [07:18]
Kevin Greenlee
It is Manson Biggers.
- [07:19]
Anya Cain
Sorry to call you out. I just didn't want people yelling at us about that.
- [07:23]
Kevin Greenlee
Did I say Briggs?
- [07:24]
Anya Cain
You said Briggs.
- [07:25]
Kevin Greenlee
Sorry about that.
- [07:25]
Anya Cain
Manson Briggs. But no, I mean, that's a really good point. So do we know for sure that Kohberger was not on the radar at this point?
- [07:34]
Kevin Greenlee
That's what they say in this filing. They go through her description, start almost immediately. Kohberger didn't even come on the radar until much later in the game.
- [07:45]
Anya Cain
Okay, so it just. That seems pretty self evident then.
- [07:50]
Kevin Greenlee
So then Manson Biggers, thank you for the correction. Doesn't seem to apply. But what lawyers do is they try to cover all bases. So the state goes on to say, well, even if Manson Biggers does apply, this should still be admitted because it would still pass each prong of the balancing test of Manson Biggers. So let's look at those different prongs. The first prong is did the witness in question have a good opportunity to view the suspect? And in this case, the witness says she was only about 3ft away from the killer. And so she was able to see him well enough, she could tell what he was wearing and that he was even holding something.
- [08:54]
Anya Cain
So, yeah, that's a. I mean, that's a pretty decent sighting. Obviously, the man is allegedly wearing a mask, so she's not able to get a lot of details about his face. But when we're just talking about basically running almost straight into this mysterious intruder, I mean, she had a pretty good witness sighting from that perspective.
- [09:17]
Kevin Greenlee
And then the second prong is, was the witness paying attention? What was the degree of attention, in other words? And in this particular case, again, she was only able to see his eyes and his nose. And so she was focused on that. She even said at one point, quote, that's all I could think about it. That's all I could think about. So it does seem to be pretty consistent that she was indeed paying close attention to that.
- [09:49]
Anya Cain
Yeah. Can I also just say 1. Can I just jump in with my like PSA for all these episodes we do. I still see so much suspicion directed at the roommates for not calling 911 right away. And I just, like, I'm just begging people, let's just have some empathy for a situation. We're all true crime people. We're paranoid about stuff. If we saw a guy in this situation, maybe we would have called the police right away. But when you're in college and you have a house with multiple roommates and there's some weird guy around, the thing that my mind would go to is, oh, somebody was entertaining a gentleman friend. Okay. There was a gentleman caller. Is he. Is it weird he's wearing a mask? Yes. But I don't know. People. Sometimes people do when it's cold out. I don't. I guess I would just, like, not. Your mind wouldn't necessarily go to. Everyone has been murdered.
- [10:40]
Kevin Greenlee
Yeah. That's very important. And right now, you and I certainly would call someone because we live alone.
- [10:47]
Anya Cain
Yeah. If there's a masked man in our house and it's not Kevin, something ain't right. And we're probably gonna get murdered. But I think if. If they're, you know. But if you're in a house with multiple people, you might be like, well, someone hooked up with a weird dude. And do you want to be the person at 4am to have the police kick down your door? Like, there's a. There's a level of, like, socialization here, especially with, like, young people, young girls. You know, there's an idea that, like, you know, you don't want to be embarrassed. You don't want to be the person who, like, has the SWAT team breaking down your door. Cause someone, like, had a hookup that decided to wear a ski mask. Cause that's what he does, you know, like, that's. That's not. I could understand being in that situation. It's late at night or early in the morning, rather, and just being kind of concerned, but not enough to take action on it. And I imagine that's something that people, you know, that these roommates may regret or they've certainly gotten hounded for it. But I don't think it. I think we need to kind of open our minds to people doing things differently than us because of different circumstances, different ages, different levels of experience, different levels of concern. And we need to be open to that. Like, not. Maybe. Maybe the right thing to do in this situation would be to call 911 right away. Right. But hindsight is 20 20. These are very young people. These are people living in a group situation. These are people in college where people might be coming and going. And to me, it just kind of gets into like, people are not always going to behave in the way that we find perfect.
- [12:18]
Kevin Greenlee
And really, the only person whose behavior really merits criticism that night is the killer. Is the murderer.
- [12:23]
Anya Cain
Yeah.
- [12:23]
Kevin Greenlee
And I think it's also worth noting that even if these witnesses had called 911 immediately, it wouldn't have changed a thing.
- [12:31]
Anya Cain
I think in true crime there's some people who tend to be like heat seeking missiles. But for, like blaming people other than the killer, it's like, okay, so someone brutally murdered four people, but who else can we kind of criticize here? It's like, I don't understand the impulse there.
- [12:48]
Kevin Greenlee
I think I do. I think part of it is murder and crime is scary and we do not want to think we could be vulnerable to it. And so if we look at something happened that was bad and terrible, we don't want to think that could happen to us. And so we like to think, oh, maybe one of the victims did something wrong and brought it on themselves, and I won't make that mistake, therefore I'm safe. And so I think that is part of the impulse people have when they victim blame.
- [13:24]
Anya Cain
I also think there's an element of. We've all been raised on the classic Law and Order, the classic csi. Our brains are polluted by fictional depictions of criminal investigations and cases that are super fun to watch and enjoyable, but really kind of tend to make us overemphasize the idea of the twist in a Law and Order episode. Just from what I mean, I, I watch that show religiously at times. It's one of those things where it's never the obvious suspect. In, in, in life, it's often the, it's usually the obvious suspect. But that's boring television. You want to have it be like, oh, we all thought it was this creepy guy, but it was actually the victim's husband. Ooh, he had a motive we didn't know about. Now we're switching things up. And I think people kind of, I think that seeps into the culture and it seeps into how people, people who watch those shows are often people who are interested in true crime. And then it can make them expect more from a case. But you have to go where the evidence is based. Unlike with fiction. In fiction you could just make it up to make it as cool or interesting as possible with this stuff. You know, I kind of feel in the Law and Order episode there would be some twist with the roommates, and people are almost expecting that. So they're like, well, they're picking apart everything they're doing and saying, and I think that's not helpful when we're talking about nonfiction, in my opinion. And I understand it because it's like, you know, that's how we're kind of experiencing it as a story. But we just have to remember that it's really, it's real life. And we're talking about these young women, and I see people tearing them apart online. And I just, I don't think that's okay. I think we can redirect some of that concern, maybe with conversations with people we know in college or young people, and saying, hey, if you get that uneasy feeling, listen to your instincts, maybe get help right away, even if it might be embarrassing later. I think that can be a helpful conversation. Maybe we can redirect it into that. But I don't think we need to kind of like say they're suspicious because they didn't do what I would do.
- [15:15]
Kevin Greenlee
Right. So to get back to this test, the next prong is the accuracy of the description. And I'm going to read directly from the document. Quote, Coburger matches DM's descriptions. Male, white, skinny, athletic build, a few inches taller than dm, not someone she knew, and had bushy eyebrows, end quote. They also write, quote, the state intends to introduce a photograph of Brian Kohberger taken from his phone on November 13, 2022, only hours after the homicides at 10:31am Whether or not Brian Kohberger can be described as having bushy eyebrows is a factual determination to be decided by the jury. So that's why you've probably seen some of the news coverage, this selfie of Bryan Kohberger, and it is going to be introduced by the state so the jury can say, okay, this is how Kohberger looked on the day of the murders. Does he have bushy eyebrows in this picture or does he not? Does he match this description or does he not? Was there anything else you wanted to say about that selfie?
- [16:26]
Anya Cain
Let's talk about one of our favorite people who also happens to do one of our favorite podcasts. Obviously, I'm talking about Jason Blair and his show, the Silver Linings Handbook.
- [16:37]
Kevin Greenlee
You probably recognize Jason's name because we've been on his show and he's been on ours to talk about true crime, ethics and the media. He's always got thoughtful insights to share, plus he's got all kinds of ideas on how to make true crime a more respectful and compassionate space.
- [16:53]
Anya Cain
The Silver Linings Handbook is a weekly podcast that's totally interview centric, so you get to hear Jason's in depth conversations with all kinds of inspiring people. You'll hear discussions about well being, mental health, the law and the criminal justice system, true crime, religion and marginalized communities, and just about everything in between. For all you true Crime fans, he's had on the hosts of the Prosecutors, the Consult and yours truly, Jason is.
- [17:18]
Kevin Greenlee
A wonderful person with a seemingly endless well of compassion and empathy for others that serves him quite well as an interviewer. We were really gripped by his recent conversations with the daughter of a murdered police detective, the sister of a missing native woman in Montana, and Gabby Petito's father. These were all humanistic and in depth talks that got to the heart of topics like grief, advocacy and abuse.
- [17:42]
Anya Cain
We've always enjoyed our conversations with Jason on the Silver Linings Handbook and behind the scenes. Getting to listen to his show is a bit like dropping by for one of those talks.
- [17:51]
Kevin Greenlee
Subscribe to the Silver Linings Handbook Wherever you listen to podcasts.
- [17:57]
Unknown
Some things make zero sense. Like how when you bring your umbrella it doesn't rain, but when you don't bring one it pours. But zero sugar and full flavor. Welch's made that make sense with new Welch's Zero Sugar. All that passion fruit, Concord grape, strawberry or tropical punch goodness with none of the sugar, you've got to sip it to get it. New Welch's Zero Sugar is available in a variety of flavors and sizes, including the 64 ounce multi serve bottle which is perfect for serving and sharing with the whole family. Welch's can't make everything make sense, but a zero sugar drink that's still full of fruit flavor, they made that make sense. Try Welch's Zero Sugar today. Available in stores now.
- [18:42]
Anya Cain
Well, you know, I don't. You have to understand like in, in crime cases, the media. I think it's interesting that a lot of the media reports have centered the selfie and the reason for that is just, it's interesting. You know, people like to look at images of other people. You know, I remember when I was at Insider, if I popped in the thumbnail a picture of like a tree or a location, those stories would always do worse than if I popped in a picture of some people talking. People, we're humans, we're social animals. We want to see the faces. So when we say, ooh, there's a selfie, then kind of everyone gets really interested in that and that's understandable. That's just how we're programmed. And the media gets really interested in that because they know you're going to click on that you know, I don't know the context of him taking the selfie, obviously. I mean, he's innocent until proven guilty. I've seen people say it's a creepy selfie. It's weird, but I don't know. I mean, I'm not going to necessarily, like, judge it, but I think it certainly. And I, And I speak. I speak as somebody with insane eyebrows myself. This is not a criticism. I'm part of that community. I'm part of the crazy eyebrows community. But I'd say he does have. He does have big, bushy eyebrows. So, I mean, it's certainly. It's certainly in this image. And so it certainly backs up that he would have had that, you know, that day. He didn't. He hadn't had them, you know, restyled or they haven't grown out recently. They're, you know, they're. They're big. And again, not a. Not a criticism, because if you've ever run into me, probably been like, wow, that's crazy eyebrows.
- [20:12]
Kevin Greenlee
But so, again, the only reason the picture is being introduced is this is what he looked like right after the crime. Does the jury think this is consistent with the description that the. The witness saw?
- [20:24]
Anya Cain
Yeah, and I think what. What people then, though? I think what people. I think people like to go beyond that, because you're exactly right. That's the. That's exactly why this is coming up. But people like to kind of be like, like, why is he taking a selfie? Like, you know, at this time? Like, is he commemorating a crime if they think he's guilty? Or, like, what's going on here? And, And I think, you know, I think that's fair. I think there's, like, a level of. Of speculation conversation that can certainly happen about that in a responsible way. But I think it is important to stress that it's not the prosecution being like, isn't this creepy? It's just more of like, look, this is what his eyebrows literally looked like on this date.
- [21:01]
Kevin Greenlee
The next prong of this test, Manson Biggers, is how certain is the witness? And in this case, I read directly from the document, DM texted BF a description immediately after her observation. She was interviewed on five separate occasions, and she provided grand jury testimony. Dm, without fail, gave the same description, which in and of itself indicates her level of certainty. On November 17, 2023, she relayed to investigators she was suffering from trauma and was unsure of what is real or not. DM admitted many times she was probably still intoxicated, saying, I don't know if I was still drunk, probably was. I don't know for sure. I was really asleep. I, like, woke up out of nowhere and I was obviously probably still a little bit drunk. I just woke up. I don't remember fully. Admittedly, DM made statements such as, I believe I was very drunk. I don't know how much of this was real. I don't know if my mind was doing what. I don't know any of it. Like, half the stuff, I don't know if it's a dream or not. I just have no clue. But the investigators told DM they only wanted DM to focus on what she knew was true. That's the most important. DM agreed. After this, DM provided the same descriptions with absolutely no variants. DM also made it clear the eyebrows are the feature she most clearly remembered. It is evident by the degree of detail she provided about the events leading up during and after the crimes that she provided reliable descriptions, end quote. So to me, that does sound, first of all, very consistent, very reliable. But at the same time, it does offer up some reasonable cross examine, cross examination errors.
- [22:50]
Anya Cain
100%. I mean, the defense can certainly look at this and say, well, you're drunk, you're tired, you don't know what's going on. They can certainly do something with that. But at the same time, I think it shows a level of candor if she. I mean, like, the worst thing you can, like if you have someone who's almost like too pushy about things or like, no, I saw it. Exactly. And I know exactly what I like. This is somebody who seems like they're admitting the issues. I'm, you know, that they're drunk, tired, whatever. I think that's, like, candid.
- [23:19]
Kevin Greenlee
Yeah, I would be very troubled if she wasn't open about those things.
- [23:23]
Anya Cain
Yeah, yeah, exactly. And also the drinking also explains the behavior more because, you know, I mean, if we people who've been drunk in college and late at night you're coming back, something weird happens, maybe your reaction isn't as on the ball as it would have been otherwise, or if it happened during the day, or if you were not intoxicated at the time, you know, there might be more of an inclination to just be like, well, I hope that's okay. And then, you know, and most of the time it probably would be in this situation. Unfortunately, it wasn't. So, you know, I think people think about the last time you were young, drunk and in a situation and think if that version of yourself would react perfectly to a mysterious situation like this. I think we just have to engage with some empathy here.
- [24:12]
Kevin Greenlee
And the last thing to consider in this balancing test is the length of time between the crime and the identification. And quote, while there are multiple consistent descriptions, it was not possible for DM to provide an identification because the male was completely covered with only nose and eyes visible. End quotes so basically, this test is largely designed to apply to actual identifications made by witnesses. And this prong doesn't even apply because she didn't even make an identification. She just said, I remember these eyebrows.
- [24:49]
Anya Cain
She's not going to get up there and say, I saw BRIAN COBURN WORKER she's going to get up there and say, I saw a man with this description with bushy eyebrows. And that's what I remember. I was drunk at the time. But you know, I, I, that's the detail that stuck out to me and that's what I continue to remember. She that that makes a huge difference. We saw in the Delphi murders trial, none of the eyewitnesses said that they saw Richard Allen. None of them identified Richard Allen. They all said they saw Bridge guy. So there's a difference, there's a difference there. And, and then, you know, if the prosecution in this case can prove that Bryan Kohberger was there through DNA on the knife sheath and other evidence, you know, she doesn't need to necessarily identify him.
- [25:27]
Kevin Greenlee
And so the state argues, and I think rather persuasively, that first of all, this test doesn't even apply. But even if it does apply, her testimony should still come in. So that's my read. What's your read on it?
- [25:39]
Anya Cain
Yeah, that seems pretty reasonable. I mean, it seems like it obviously should come in. And I can certainly, I think the defense may have some leeway to kind of go after some of her, her statements. But you know, at the same time, I, I, unless the jury, I think the jury can probably, I mean, it kind of, I guess it depends on the jurors, but I, I think it's pretty reasonable to say you can be some level of intoxicated and still remember certain things, especially specific details. I think it'd be more of a problem if she was saying I literally saw this specific guy, but she's just giving a general description of someone who he happens to match.
- [26:16]
Kevin Greenlee
And near the end, the state writes, dm's description is clear, it is not confusing and therefore will not confuse a jury. The fact that this description may or may not implicate defendant is not a reason to keep this fact from the jury's consideration. It is reasonable to believe the jury will convict the defendant based or, pardon me, it is not reasonable to believe the jury will convict the defendant based on the status of his kempt or unkempt eyebrows. While this fact is prejudicial, relevant evidence tends to be. It is not unfair.
- [26:50]
Anya Cain
So, I mean, is this basically like, yeah, if. If we just rounded up some random guy who happened to have big eyebrows, you know, but like, no, this evidence against him specifically like that this isn't the case against him in so many.
- [27:04]
Kevin Greenlee
Criminal cases, it's like an accumulation of small details and eventually they stack up. This is something that could be added to that pile. No one in their right mind would ever believe Coburger is guilty of quadruple homicide just based on his eyebrows.
- [27:25]
Anya Cain
Yeah.
- [27:26]
Kevin Greenlee
Is that fair to say?
- [27:26]
Anya Cain
Well, I mean, I agree that's not a reasonable thing. It's that that implicates him along with a bunch of other stuff.
- [27:37]
Kevin Greenlee
Shall we move on?
- [27:38]
Anya Cain
Yep.
- [27:39]
Kevin Greenlee
So the next issue is the Amazon click activity. And this you will probably recall, the defense doesn't want the state to bring in evidence about what Cobricker was doing on Amazon. And as we discussed this motion, we will discuss some of the stuff that he was doing on Amazon that the defense is concerned about the jury hearing about. But I thought it's interesting to discuss the state's response to one of the arguments. So there is a rule in courts has slightly different name, sometimes in different jurisdictions, but basically it's like the rule of completeness, which means that if you're going to admit a statement, you have to admit all of the statement because otherwise it might be misleading and confuse a jury. A silly example would be if Anya said, kevin is out of town this weekend, I need to look for someone to kill. That sounds bad, but what if she says, what if the complete statement is I need to look for somebody to kill some time with? That's a ridiculous example. But it does illustrate how if you have a statement from a witness or any kind of a statement, and if you're just cherry picking it and you're selectively editing it, it's very easy to create false impressions.
- [29:14]
Anya Cain
Yes.
- [29:15]
Kevin Greenlee
So that is why we have this rule in courts that if you're going to use a statement, then you're going to have to use all of it. So one of the defense's arguments is, well, business records aren't those statements too. And so therefore, if you want to talk about anything he did on Amazon, you have to talk about every single thing he did on Amazon. Oh, gosh you're rolling your eyes. What do you think is the problem with that argument, if any?
- [29:44]
Anya Cain
I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Just sounds kind of stupid if you have a, I mean, in this case, what's significant about Amazon is that the, the idea that he bought a knife, a knife that might match the, the sheath found at the crime scene.
- [29:58]
Kevin Greenlee
So not only that, but after the murders, he looked for another similar knife and sheath.
- [30:05]
Anya Cain
Right.
- [30:05]
Kevin Greenlee
So, like, why would you look for a knife and sheath? Oh, maybe you lost the one you had.
- [30:10]
Anya Cain
That's relevant. We don't need to know about the textbooks he purchased months earlier or whatever, or even around the same time. I mean, that's not, just doesn't seem relevant. But I don't know, I'm not a.
- [30:18]
Kevin Greenlee
Lawyer, so that's basically it. And also the rule, I said this rule of completeness applies to statements. A statement is defined as, quote, an oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct if the person intended it as an assertion, end quote. That doesn't really sound like browsing on Amazon.
- [30:40]
Anya Cain
No, no, it doesn't.
- [30:42]
Kevin Greenlee
It doesn't really seem to fit the definition.
- [30:46]
Anya Cain
It's a real stretch. But, I mean, I get why they're trying, it seems important for the defense to try to remove some of this evidence around Amazon because, frankly, it's damning. So, I mean, I, I, I commend the defense team for trying here. I think we have to look at things in this context. As, you know, the defense is trying their best to get stuff thrown out that would be bad for their client, and that's their job.
- [31:14]
Kevin Greenlee
That's exactly what we would expect. And so again, it was a purchase of a K bar knife with sheath before the murders. And then he had click activity indicating a search for a knife with sheath after the murders.
- [31:26]
Anya Cain
Wow. So like replacing the murder.
- [31:30]
Kevin Greenlee
Yeah, or at least contemplating it. And so is Anya notes. It wouldn't really seem to be a useful expenditure of the court's time or the jury's time to indicate everything else he looked on at on Amazon during that timeframe.
- [31:49]
Anya Cain
What's the goal in that situation with lawyers? Is it just kind of trying to do like a shiny look over here? Oh, and then he also bought this, like, to bore them to death before they get to the point where it's, like, relevant.
- [32:00]
Kevin Greenlee
That could arguably be it. Also, I think if you're a defense lawyer and there's evidence you don't want to get in, you are going to make absolutely every argument you can think of to get it thrown out.
- [32:17]
Anya Cain
Yeah.
- [32:17]
Kevin Greenlee
And if you're going to make including this evidence to be this difficult and say, oh, even the original subpoena didn't cover enough stuff. It was too narrow. We need to look at everything you did. You're just trying to cast doubt on the evidence and get it removed because it's damaging to your client.
- [32:35]
Anya Cain
Dilute it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Makes sense. And again, that's their jobs. They're. They're supposed to be basically trying to make it, you know, do everything they can for their client.
- [32:48]
Kevin Greenlee
Exactly what we would expect. The state goes on to note that Brian Kohberger's Amazon.com click activity is relevant and admissible. Quote, under Idaho. Under Idaho Rule of Evidence 401, evidence is relevant if it has the tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and the fact of consequences in determining the action. Defendant appears to argue that the evidence of defendant's Amazon click activity is not relevant. That is not the case. A K bar knife sheath with a USMC logo was found next to one of the victims. The defendant's DNA was found on the KBAR knife sheath found unseen. Applying the test for relevancy. First, Kohberger's click activity, which shows a purchase of a K bar knife and sheath before the homicide, makes it more probable that it would be without the evidence that the KA bar sheath found at the crime scene was Brian Kohberger's. Second, Kohberger's clique activity after the homicide makes it more probable than it would be without the evidence. The Kohberger had a reason to search for a K bar knife and sheath after the homicides. End quote.
- [33:56]
Anya Cain
Yeah.
- [33:57]
Kevin Greenlee
So it seems very relevant. It really seems to add to the stack of circumstantial evidence against Mr. Kohberger.
- [34:08]
Anya Cain
Fair. Yeah. I mean, that's pretty accurate. So I guess the next filing.
- [34:18]
Kevin Greenlee
So the next filing is defendant's response to state's motion in eliminating regarding neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence. So this applies not just to autism, but also to obsessive compulsive disorder or ocd.
- [34:42]
Anya Cain
Okay, so there's. That's. Those are two diagnoses that Bryan Kohberger has.
- [34:48]
Kevin Greenlee
Yes. And the defense, as we've discussed before, they are concerned that when the jurors are seated, they will be looking at Mr. Kohlberger and they will be passing judgment on him based upon how he reacts physically to certain things.
- [35:12]
Anya Cain
Okay.
- [35:14]
Kevin Greenlee
And so because of this, they want to have an expert testify not just to autism spectrum disorder, but Also to obsessive compulsive disorder. And they also claim that Mr. Kohlberger has developmental coordination disorder. And the defense feels we need to get this evidence in so the jury, when they look at him, they can evaluate it. So, okay, here's the complicating factor regarding autism is autism is generally regarded as a, as a mental condition, like a neurological condition. And there are certain rules for mental health testimony. Namely, you don't really get to testify about a person's mental health issues unless those mental health issues are relevant to the commission of the crime. So if a person has a mental disorder or a mental condition that in no way impacts the crime with which they are charged with, then why even talk about it in court? It's not relevant. Does that make sense?
- [36:28]
Anya Cain
So what would be an example of a condition that would impact a crime? Would that be something where someone is suffering from delusions and that prompted them to act in the way? Then can you talk about it or.
- [36:44]
Kevin Greenlee
Yeah, if it's directly relevant. If I believe I need to kill aliens and I have some sort of mental disorder that I believe I'm the only person that can identify aliens, I'm going around shooting these aliens, and that'd be like schizophrenia or something. I don't know. Yeah, by all means, testify about that. That's fine.
- [37:04]
Anya Cain
Well, okay. I'm actually going to come on the defense side on this one. I don't know what the court rules are. Again, not a lawyer, but I, I do feel that I think there's a, a benefit for this for jurors who may not be familiar with people who may have some of these things. Like, I, I, I, I don't think I, I, I think this would be, I think this would be fair to, to have someone come up and say autistic people tend to do this. And so if you're seeing that, it's not him being like, suspicious, it's just he has autism. That's it, or he has OCD or whatever. I, I don't, I don't have a problem with that. I think that would actually be, I think that would make things a bit more equitable for people in, in the, you know, with, with people who are neurodivergent, you know, people who are neuro atypical. Bring in someone to say, hey, let's take that off the table. He's not making eye contact. That's kind of what he does, you know, that, that, that, that shouldn't go into your reflection either way. So I understand that the law is what it is. But I tend to think things like that might be helpful going forward as, you know, just to raise awareness that people may have different reactions and that that shouldn't. Let's look at the evidence, and let's not look at his body language. We shouldn't be doing that. You know, people are human. People look for things like that when they're evaluating someone. I understand that that's. I think a lot of people have that instinct. I'm sure if I was in a jury and I was seeing someone behave in a way that I found odd, I. I mean, I would try not to let that dictate what I was going to do. But we're human, and we're picking up these. These cues or social cues or lack thereof. But I think having an expert come in and say, let's set that aside would be helpful and would be fair to people in this situation. Fair to autistic people, More fair to people with ocd. With ocd. I thought that was interesting about the gloves. Did you?
- [38:59]
Kevin Greenlee
Well, let's get to that.
- [39:00]
Anya Cain
Oh, yeah, we'll get that.
- [39:00]
Kevin Greenlee
Let's first talk about autism.
- [39:02]
Anya Cain
I'm jumping ahead.
- [39:03]
Kevin Greenlee
So you don't think. If the judge or whoever in jury instructions told the jury, don't base your decision based on how Mr. Kohberger appears or how he behaves in court, just base it on the testimony and the admissible evidence. You don't think that's good enough?
- [39:21]
Anya Cain
No, because my. If he doesn't say something about autism or ocd, I'm just gonna be like, well, that guy's just a weirdo. So, yeah, I'm gonna, like, you know, like, why would he be acting like that in court? Whereas if I'm coming into it with the context of he has these things, he's been diagnosed with autism, he's been diagnosed with ocd. It just fills it. I mean, it just fills in the context a little bit more, and it maybe makes me look at specific behaviors in a different light. You know, if he. If he's. If he's doing something that really looks bad to a neurotypical person, if I'm informed, then that that is a direct result of him having OCD or autism, then I can. I think that helps me set it aside more than a general statement from a judge. If I'm. If I'm a juror who's. Who. Especially a juror who's not familiar with the. Like, you might get a jury where, you know, people have people they're related to with autism or ocd. And they might be able to kind of be like, okay, actually, that's not really that big a deal. That's what my brother or cousin or whatever does. But if you don't have that or, you know, as we've heard, you know, when you met, you know, someone with autism, you've met one person with autism, you met one autistic person. So it's. It's a situation where, I don't know, just. I think. I think more information is helpful. And it's also not. What they're saying here is. It's not about saying in this situation, well, you know, people with autism or autistic people or people with OCD are more violent. It's just saying, like, this would explain the behavior in court. Is that fair to say?
- [40:58]
Kevin Greenlee
That's their argument.
- [41:00]
Anya Cain
Do you agree with it or do you disagree?
- [41:02]
Kevin Greenlee
Well, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.
- [41:05]
Anya Cain
The rare murder sheet strife on air.
- [41:10]
Kevin Greenlee
I feel that if something is not relevant, there's really no reason to present it in front of the jury. And if you want to say, oh, there's these things in this person's background that makes them different in some way that you need to hear, where does that stop?
- [41:30]
Anya Cain
Right.
- [41:33]
Kevin Greenlee
You know, members of the jury, you need to have an expert to come in and hear this person testify. If Kevin seemed a little upset today, it's because he had car trouble. You know, where does it stop?
- [41:47]
Anya Cain
I mean, I think with a mental health diagnosis, I think if you have a actual diagnosis from a medical professional, I think that's where it could stop.
- [42:01]
Kevin Greenlee
And I also think it's interesting that one of the things they talk about is that a person with autism might have a lack of remorse. And why would that be relevant if you're saying your client is innocent?
- [42:16]
Anya Cain
Oh, man. Yeah.
- [42:18]
Kevin Greenlee
And the prosecution actually points that out.
- [42:21]
Anya Cain
So there's that, too, giving away the game here.
- [42:24]
Kevin Greenlee
So, to me, a lot of these things would be relevant more in a sentencing hearing that's.
- [42:31]
Anya Cain
That's fair. But my question is, can you explain that's not. I think some people might be like, oh, gotcha with the defense on that one. Why. Why would they. Why would they kind of allude to something like that at this date when they're still saying he's factually innocent? Like, why. Why. Can you explain why you'd want to do that?
- [42:48]
Kevin Greenlee
You cover all your bases, right? Yeah. Basically, you want to preserve things in the record for possible appeals. You just want to cover everything.
- [42:56]
Anya Cain
It's thorough. It's not like Accidentally putting something I just like, because I. You know, it sounds horrible, but it makes sense in a legal context.
- [43:03]
Kevin Greenlee
And they're also making the argument that autism is not a neurological. Is not a mental disorder, is a physical thing, because there may be physical components to it.
- [43:14]
Anya Cain
Right.
- [43:14]
Kevin Greenlee
So that's the argument they make about autism. The arguments they make about OCD and developmental coordination disorder are a little bit different, and I think those arguments are a little bit stronger. Okay, you alluded to one of the OCD things.
- [43:34]
Anya Cain
Well, yeah.
- [43:35]
Kevin Greenlee
Can you talk about that?
- [43:36]
Anya Cain
The OCD thing struck me as having more to do with the actual crime. And so what I'm specifically talking about is this. The defense says, quote, by way of specific example, the state has continued to claim that Mr. Kohberger was wearing gloves on the night of his arrest and placing trash in baggies. State asserts that this demonstrates that he had consciousness of guilt and was trying to either hide his DNA or engage in cleaning of his car. This is highly prejudicial and misleading. Mr. Kohberger frequently wears gloves to avoid germs on surfaces. He was not cleaning his car on the night of his arrest. He was awake at night, as is typical for him, and he was cleaning his bathroom. End quote. So what they're saying here is you're saying, whoa, he's wearing gloves. It's like he's trying to make sure he doesn't leave any DNA. No, he actually normally does that because of his OCD diagnosis. That influences his behavior around being concerned about germs. So that's a normal part of his behavior. It doesn't mean anything. It's normal for him. Maybe abnormal for other people, but not for him. So that. That is pretty. That is relevant.
- [44:41]
Kevin Greenlee
So, yeah. So if the state introduces that to the jury, then that would open the door to bring in the defense to be able to say, no, you're misreading it. Here's what was actually going on. That seems pretty relevant to me.
- [44:54]
Anya Cain
Yeah, that seems highly relevant.
- [44:56]
Kevin Greenlee
And there's something similar with the developmental coordination disorder that they claim Mr. Kohberger has. They're saying essentially that he was in, not because of the disorder, he was not in good enough of a shape to actually commit the four homicides in such a short time. And that also, if you have a physical condition that you believe makes it impossible for you to do one of the elements of a crime, that obviously seems relevant to be able to bring up.
- [45:27]
Anya Cain
Yeah, I think that's certainly relevant for them to argue. I mean, I'm a little skeptical about that one. Just because, you know, going after a bunch of, you know, frankly, sleepy victims with a knife. I don't, I don't know. I don't know if you have to be a, you know, hyper coordinated athlete to do that when you're the one who's armed and they're not, but, you know, and you're ambushing them. But I, I, I think, but I think that's relevant for them to bring up. Certainly.
- [45:55]
Kevin Greenlee
I think it's relevant to bring up. I'm not sure how compelling it is.
- [45:57]
Anya Cain
It's not in my opinion. But, but maybe a jury would disagree.
- [46:01]
Kevin Greenlee
I tend to think that that raises to the issue that maybe a jury.
- [46:05]
Anya Cain
Should be able to consider it 100% and, you know, and maybe getting more information on what this developmental coordination disorder looks like for Kohberger, how it manifests itself, would be helpful for the jury to hear.
- [46:16]
Kevin Greenlee
So autism came up in another filing refer in which aggravating factors and mitigating factors are discussed. Anya, can you remind us, what are aggravating and mitigating factors in general and how are they used in sentencing?
- [46:31]
Anya Cain
So I'm gonna put it in the layman's terms as best I can, because that's all I can do because I'm not a lawyer. I think you're the classic layperson. Classic layperson. What does that mean? Geez, Kevin. So aggravating factors are basically something that makes a crime worse. So if I, if, if you murder someone and you're really cruel about it and you kill someone before you kill that victim, oftentimes that would be an aggravating factor, because it's like, not only did you kill them, but you made them hear other people being killed. They knew it was coming. It was horrifying.
- [47:11]
Kevin Greenlee
Well, let me give an example that's not so disturbing.
- [47:14]
Anya Cain
I'm sorry, I'm sorry. What is our podcast called again? It's called the Murder Sheet. People know what they're getting into here.
- [47:20]
Kevin Greenlee
Let's say Anya is found guilty of the crime of stealing cereal.
- [47:24]
Anya Cain
Oh, my God.
- [47:25]
Kevin Greenlee
And she is going to be sentenced. And so the judge would have to consider aggravating or mitigating factors. Let's say in the course of her serial theft, she pulls a gun on the clerk and scares the clerk. That would be an aggravating factor which would make her crime worse and make her deserving of a stronger sentence. That, let's say, is a mitigating factor. Let's say Anya didn't use a gun. And let's say Anya only Stole the cereal because she had a starving child at home and she's not a career criminal. Those are things that maybe you'd look at and say, okay, you're not so bad. Yeah, you don't deserve such a tough sentence.
- [48:06]
Anya Cain
You seem like a nice lady. Yeah. So it's mitigating makes the crime better, for lack of a better word.
- [48:12]
Kevin Greenlee
So that would make the sentence less extreme.
- [48:15]
Anya Cain
Yes.
- [48:15]
Kevin Greenlee
And an aggravating factor makes the crime worse, for lack of a better word, which would make the sentence more extreme. And so in this filing, they're talking about whether or not autism should be used or the symptoms of autism should be used as an aggravating factor when they're considering whether or not to sentence Mr. Kohlberger to death. So, again, this particular document seems to presuppose that he's going to be found guilty. Don't think of it that way. They're covering all their bases.
- [48:50]
Anya Cain
Yeah. Which makes sense for defense attorneys to do so.
- [48:57]
Kevin Greenlee
The defendant had asked the court to prohibit the state from using autism or any symptom of autism as an aggravating factor. So the state is responding. And the state says. The state has no plans to rely on defendants autism as an aggravating factor in the penalty phase of the trial. However, the law is clear that the state can argue against and rebut defendant's alleged autism diagnosis to the extent defendant relies on his autism diagnosis as a mitigating factor. End quote. So that's a bit of a word salad. So what it basically means is the state is saying, hey, we're not going to go into sentencing and say, Kohberger deserves a harder sentence because he has autism. We're not going to do that, but we want to have the right. If the defense goes in there and says, hey, Kohberger deserves a lesser sentence because he has autism, then we, as the state, want to have the right to challenge that.
- [50:04]
Anya Cain
Okay.
- [50:05]
Kevin Greenlee
We want to say, well, maybe he doesn't even have autism at all. And even if he does, that shouldn't be considered a factor.
- [50:11]
Anya Cain
Wasn't he diagnosed with autism?
- [50:17]
Kevin Greenlee
The state refers to it as his alleged autism diagnosis.
- [50:21]
Anya Cain
Interesting.
- [50:22]
Kevin Greenlee
Okay, so does that make sense? The state is saying, we're not going to use this as an aggravating factor.
- [50:28]
Anya Cain
Yeah. Why would it be an aggravating factor? I wouldn't even understand that. Okay, but they're saying we're not doing that. We have no plans of doing that.
- [50:34]
Kevin Greenlee
But if you try to use it as a mitigating factor, we might challenge it.
- [50:38]
Anya Cain
Yeah, makes sense.
- [50:39]
Kevin Greenlee
Including up to. Including whether or not he has autism at all.
- [50:42]
Anya Cain
I'll be interested to. It'll be interesting to see what happens there. So, next one. Autism. What. What autism state.
- [50:58]
Kevin Greenlee
Anya is. I. I made the notes for this. I think Anya is going to do the notes for the next episode. This is. My notes are.
- [51:06]
Anya Cain
Oh, you're saying this isn't okay. This is an autism.
- [51:08]
Kevin Greenlee
This is. This, this is a. In the category of autism. And the document we are discussing was.
- [51:14]
Anya Cain
Filed by the state, the state's response to defendant's motion to strike death penalty re Autism spectrum disorder.
- [51:20]
Kevin Greenlee
So, so as a refresher, the defense said Mr. Kohberger should not even be considered for the death penalty because he has autism and that it would shock the conscience and shock community standards to impose the death penalty on someone who has autism. We discussed that a few weeks ago. And so now this is the state's response to that motion. Does that make sense?
- [51:50]
Anya Cain
Yes.
- [51:53]
Kevin Greenlee
So they are arguing in response to let's rule out the death penalty. And the state claims that in order to make that sort of argument, you need to show that there is a consensus that executing people with autism is wrong or would shock the conscience. And they say the defense didn't meet that burden. They say that the cases the defense cites are about other matters. And in one case, they do cite a case of someone with autism challenging his sentence, but he's not challenging it on the basis of his autism. And the state is basically saying that the only credible reason to challenge the capital punishment in such cases it would be if there's intellectual disability.
- [52:47]
Anya Cain
Yeah, that would be that. That fundamentally comes up a lot in death penalty cases. The idea of executing people with intellectual disabilities. Or there's like a. A concern over that. That's kind of what usually comes up. It's people with, you know, like autistic people. It's a spectrum. And also there can be disability, intellectual disability, components to that where that. That's. But not everyone with ASD has an intellectual disability.
- [53:20]
Kevin Greenlee
Yeah, I'm going to read.
- [53:21]
Anya Cain
And obviously Kohberger doesn't. He's a PhD student, for crying out loud.
- [53:26]
Kevin Greenlee
Yeah, that's a great point. And I was actually going to read some direct language here, but instead, I will paraphrase it. The state notes that the Idaho Supreme Court and Idaho law, they prohibit the death penalty in cases of mental disability if the person is. Basically, if they have an intellectual disability, you need to have proof of three an intelligent quotient or IQ of 70 or below, significant limitations in adaptive functioning. In at least two of the 10 areas listed, and three is the onset of the Defender's IQ of 70 or below and the onset of his or her significant limitations in adaptive functioning. Both must have occurred before the offender turned age of 18. And as you note, there's no plausible argument here that Kohberger is intellectually challenged.
- [54:23]
Anya Cain
No.
- [54:24]
Kevin Greenlee
He's a PhD student, obviously had a.
- [54:27]
Anya Cain
Lot of academic success. That doesn't mean that he hasn't struggled in other areas. Obviously, that's not what we're saying. Or that his diagnoses or alleged diagnoses or whatever haven't. Haven't had an impact, a meaningful impact on his life or how he does things or social limitations. But as far as the definition of what this means for the law, that he obviously doesn't fulfill that.
- [54:52]
Kevin Greenlee
And I want to read another point they make in here, which is similar to a point that was earlier raised in our discussion by the classic layperson, Anya Cain.
- [55:05]
Anya Cain
Don't call me. Why is that?
- [55:08]
Kevin Greenlee
Autism spectrum disorder is not susceptible to defendant's categorical approach. This court should reject defendant's attempt to group together all individuals with any form of ASD for purposes of determining whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits imposition of the death penalty. End quote. As Anya said earlier, if you meet one person with autism, you've met one person with autism. It's called autism Spectrum disorder for a reason. There's really a wide variety of elements to the disorder and how it manifests itself. And so it would not make sense to say that everybody who has this condition should be put into this one box and treated exactly the same in courts.
- [55:56]
Anya Cain
Right.
- [55:59]
Kevin Greenlee
Does that make sense?
- [56:00]
Anya Cain
Yeah, I mean, I can see the argument. And are we on to the next portion?
- [56:07]
Kevin Greenlee
Or actually, should we. I guess we have a little bit of time left.
- [56:12]
Anya Cain
Right. We've got a little bit of time.
- [56:15]
Kevin Greenlee
The next one is there is a motion from the defense concerning immediate family members in the courtroom. I think the most interesting thing about this to me is. Well, let me read it to you directly. Quote, Mr. Kohberger respectfully requests that the court's guidance outline proper courtroom decorum, which will discourage spectators from wearing T shirts, for example, T shirts with a picture of the victim on them and the words in memory of. Or T shirts about shooting Mr. Kohlberger or about the passage of Idaho's firing squad legislation. Buttons or other apparel with words, photos, or artwork that can be observed by the jurors. Since jurors. Since such conduct poses a coercive threat to the jury's ability to Remain impartial, end quote. So he's saying that in some earlier proceedings, some members of the family who understandably are quite upset with Mr. Kohberger and who are really looking forward to seeing Mr. Kohberger get what they see as his just desserts, they're wearing T shirts like in memory of my relative who passed away, or a T shirt would seem to be advocating for Mr. Kohberger to receive the death penalty. And Mr. Kohberger and his counselor are saying those sorts of things could be seen as sending a message to the jury and shouldn't be allowed. I'm inclined to be sensitive to that argument. What do you think?
- [57:56]
Anya Cain
I'm. From the perspective of the family members who. I believe it was Kaylee Gonsalves's family who lost this bright, beautiful young woman in a horrific attack for no reason. Their anger is completely valid, their rage is valid. And it would not be my place to say, oh, how could they do this? But from the perspective of this just being a fair trial, having things go as smoothly as possible, having Coburger's rights respected, having the jury, you know, not be seeing that, I think it's appropriate for that to not be allowed in this setting, you know, that, that, that does not seem the, the place for it. And ultimately this is, this is. I mean, I think sometimes victims, families run into this with, with the legal system. It's like it can be a frustrating and traumatic in its own way, experience and, and not necessarily the place where they're, they get that, I don't know, like closure's the wrong word, but they get that kind of outlet for all the feelings that they have about this. It can be very cold and kind of professional and clinical almost. And it's like, you know, I think maybe, maybe wearing T shirts like that to like a, a memorial or a rally or, you know, media appearances afterwards, that. That might be the, the outlet for that versus in court where the jury can see it.
- [59:26]
Kevin Greenlee
Yeah, I don't even see a problem with them wearing T shirts like that in proceedings where. In pre trial proceedings where there's not a jury.
- [59:34]
Anya Cain
Yeah, yeah.
- [59:35]
Kevin Greenlee
But I would really be concerned that this would fundament the fairness of such a proceeding. And the worst thing that would happen would be if he is convicted and then it's found that there is something unfair. We need to do it again.
- [59:55]
Anya Cain
Yeah. I think the defense is absolutely correct to ask for this for their client. I think the court would be correct to not allow it.
- [60:03]
Kevin Greenlee
And if he is found guilty, certainly the family members will have an opportunity to share their feelings with victim impact statements during the sentencing process.
- [60:12]
Anya Cain
But, but just because we're agreeing with the defense does not mean we're condemning them for doing this. Because again, I mean, think about the rage anyone would feel if something like this happened. I mean, it's, it's horrible. And, you know, you want to have that outlet. You want to, you want to be able to express those feelings. And I think, I hope they'll be able to. It's just probably not in that setting.
- [60:31]
Kevin Greenlee
Right. So I think that's it. There's a few more I have notes for. And then I think you're going to do some notes on others. And we would do another episode on some of these other. A lot of filings.
- [60:41]
Anya Cain
A lot of filings. A lot of filings all at once. But, but it's interesting and it's, you know, it's kind of interesting to see the case. I think this is, you know, I think as far as everyone's kind of going back and forth, we're seeing some interesting arguments on both sides. People are, people are making different points where, I mean, I'll be curious to see if it goes to trial on time, you know, or if this is going to get delayed more or are all the parties kind of ready to go at this point. And, yeah, I mean, it's one of those cases that certainly has attract a level, attracted a level of kind of, kind of nutty opinions online to a certain extent. But from the perspective of what the parties are doing, a lot of it makes sense.
- [61:27]
Kevin Greenlee
Yes.
- [61:29]
Anya Cain
So are we done?
- [61:31]
Kevin Greenlee
Yeah, we're done for now. We'll be back later in the week to talk about the other filings.
- [61:34]
Anya Cain
All right, thanks everyone for listening.
- [61:36]
Kevin Greenlee
Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us@murdersheetmail.com if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.
- [61:56]
Anya Cain
If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www. Buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.
- [62:20]
Kevin Greenlee
Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder sheet and who you can find on the web@kevintg.com if you're looking to talk with.
- [62:31]
Anya Cain
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. 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.
- [62:52]
Kevin Greenlee
So, Anya, before we let people go, I wanted to talk again about the Silver Linings Handbook, and more specifically, I want to talk about Jason Blair, because certainly there have been times when something happens, we don't know what to do. We're just out here rubbing two sticks together, and we need to turn to somebody for advice. I'm sure everybody's had that experience. We need to turn to somebody for advice. And one of the people we turn to most often is Jason Blair. And he's always been there for us. He's always willing to give you time. He's always willing to give you great advice. And so now what's wonderful is that everybody within the sound of my voice has access to his insights and his compassion and his advice, because you can find all of that on his podcast.
- [63:42]
Anya Cain
Yeah, this podcast is a bit like being able to sort of sit down and sort of hear some interesting insights. I always feel inspired by it. But he's had on some really incredible guests recently, and they've had just such, like, heartbreaking, real conversations with people like Jim Schmidt, who. His daughter, Gabby Petito, was murdered. Jim just came across just as such a real and empathetic and wonderful human being. He was even given one of Jason's friends kind of told him recently about some abuse she had suffered. Jim was giving advice. I mean, it was really incredible. I'm thinking of Kimberly Loring. Her sister went missing in Montana. It's another case involving a native woman. So raising awareness about that, talking to the woman who lost her father, who was a Los Angeles Police Department detective. He was murdered so he couldn't testify at a robbery trial. Just, like, awful stuff. But ultimately, really focusing on the compassion and allowing people the space to tell their stories. I think Jason shines as an interviewer because he has that natural empathy and curiosity, too. Whenever I'm thinking of a question like, oh, I hope they get into this, like, he's asking it two seconds later. So it's a really enjoyable listening experience. And I feel like whenever we listen to it, you and I end up, like, discussing some deep stuff like religion or, you know, what we. What kind of, like, positivity we want to share with the world. So I think if you're. If you're looking for that and you're looking to have those kind of thought provoking conversations in your life. This is the show for you 100%. So I would just say that if you're interested, subscribe to the silver linings handbook wherever you listen to podcasts.
- [65:16]
Kevin Greenlee
Can we talk a little bit before we go about quints, A great new sponsor for us? I think in one of the ads that we've already done for them, we talked about the compliments I'm getting on my jacket. I know you're a very modest woman, but can we talk about the compliments you're getting on the quince products you wear?
- [65:35]
Anya Cain
Yeah, I've got two of their Mongolian cashmere sweaters. They're a brand that just does this sort of luxurious products, but without the crazy costs. Really. Well, they are. They give you Italian leather handbags. They do like European linen sheets. You have a really cool suede jacket. And I really like the way I look in my sweaters. I like the way you look in your bomber jacket. It looks super cool.
- [66:01]
Kevin Greenlee
You've gotten a lot of compliments when you go out wearing these sweaters.
- [66:03]
Anya Cain
I think I have, yeah.
- [66:05]
Kevin Greenlee
And deservedly so.
- [66:06]
Anya Cain
Also, like, I'm one of those people. My skin is very like, you know, like I. I kind of sensitive. So when it comes to wearing sweaters, like, you know, sometimes something's too scratchy, like, it really bothers me. These are so soft. They're just like very delicate and soft and make it. They're wearing them is lovely because they're super comfortable. You're not. You're not. It's not one of those things where you're like, you buy it and it looks great, but it doesn't feel that great. They look great. They feel great. Yeah. I really love them. And you got, you know, your cool jacket. I mean, that's a little bit of a. You're. You're the guy who like, wears the same thing all the time. So this is a bit of a. A gamble for you, a bit of a risk. You got something a bit different.
- [66:42]
Kevin Greenlee
I do wash my clothes.
- [66:43]
Anya Cain
I know you wash your clothes, but I mean, you're filthy.
- [66:47]
Kevin Greenlee
You made me sound awful, so. No, I wash my clothes.
- [66:50]
Anya Cain
But you don't really.
- [66:51]
Kevin Greenlee
I launder them.
- [66:52]
Anya Cain
You don't really experiment with fashion that much is what I'm saying. So this is a little bit out of the norm for you, but I think you really like it and it looks good.
- [66:59]
Kevin Greenlee
Thank you. Great products, incredible prices. Com.
- [67:04]
Anya Cain
There you go. So you can go to quince.com msheet and right now they're offering 365 day returns plus free shipping on your order. So that's quince.commsheet that's q u I n c e com msh e e t.