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

Summary

The Murder Sheet: Episode Summary Episode Title: The University of Idaho Murders: On Schedule and Out of Third-Party Suspects
Release Date: June 30, 2025

Overview In this episode of The Murder Sheet, hosts Áine Cain, a journalist, and Kevin Greenlee, an attorney, delve into the high-profile case of the University of Idaho murders. This quadruple homicide, which occurred several years prior in Moscow, Idaho, resulted in the tragic deaths of Zanner Kernodle, Ethan Chapin, Kaylee Gonzalez, and Madison Mogan—all students at the University of Idaho. Brian Kohberger, a PhD student from Washington State University in Pullman, Washington, has been charged with these murders. The episode provides an in-depth analysis of recent legal developments, focusing on Judge Steven Hippler's rulings regarding trial scheduling and the admissibility of third-party suspects.

---

1. Case Introduction

Timestamp: [04:25]
Áine Cain introduces the case, outlining the victims and the accused, Brian Kohberger. The discussion sets the stage for a detailed examination of the legal maneuvers surrounding the trial.

---

2. Recent Legal Developments

a. Judge Hippler’s Orders on the Continuance

Timestamp: [06:02]
Kevin Greenlee explains that Judge Steven Hippler recently issued six opinions related to the case. The focus is primarily on two key aspects: the defense's motion to continue the trial and their request to introduce third-party suspects.

Notable Quote:
Kevin Greenlee remarks, “The court finds a continuance is not warranted as defendant has not made a showing that there is good cause to continue the trial.” [12:01]

b. Defense’s Motion to Continue

The defense sought to delay the trial, citing challenges in reviewing the extensive discovery materials, the need for further penalty phase preparation, and prejudicial pretrial publicity. Judge Hippler rejected this motion, citing insufficient evidence and past unsuccessful attempts by the defense to justify such delays.

Notable Quote:
Áine Cain comments, “Judge Hippler is very direct and frank... He goes into some detail and really explains his thinking.” [09:03]

c. Discovery Review Challenges

The defense argued that the volume of discovery, measured in terabytes, hampered their ability to review evidence comprehensively. However, the court dismissed these claims, highlighting the lack of specific evidence or relevant materials that the defense failed to review.

Notable Quote:
Kevin Greenlee states, “Without more, the court can only conclude the defense counsel is using the volume of discovery... as a tactic to delay the proceeding.” [22:14]

---

3. Mitigation Evidence Argument

Timestamp: [26:07]
The defense also requested additional time to investigate Brian Kohberger’s life history to present mitigation evidence—factors that might warrant a lesser punishment if convicted. Judge Hippler found this request unsubstantiated, noting that the defense had already conducted extensive investigations over the past two years, including interviews with family members, employment records, and psychological evaluations.

Notable Quote:
Kevin Greenlee explains, “The court observed the utter lack of any proof supporting defendants accusations of discovery violations by the state.” [12:01]

---

4. Pretrial Publicity Concerns

Timestamp: [36:02]
A significant portion of the episode examines the defense’s concern over pretrial publicity potentially biasing an impartial jury. The defense referenced the infamous Sam Sheppard case to draw parallels regarding media influence on trial fairness.

Notable Quote:
Kevin Greenlee notes, “The judge refers there to this incident in some kind of a store where a guy sees one of the people who would later be a victim... It’s all captured on surveillance camera.” [68:09]

a. Comparison to Sam Sheppard Case

The hosts discuss how pretrial media frenzy in Sam Sheppard’s case led to an unfair trial, ultimately resulting in a retrial and acquittal despite Sheppard's guilt. They emphasize that Judge Hippler is taking proactive measures to prevent a similar scenario by limiting media access and insulating witnesses.

Notable Quote:
Áine Cain reflects, “No trial is going to be perfect... but it’s a far cry to argue that this is the same thing as what happened in Sheppard.” [42:54]

---

5. Alternate Perpetrator Requests

Timestamp: [52:16]
The defense sought permission to introduce alternate perpetrators—four individuals posited as possible suspects aside from Kohberger. Judge Hippler denied this request, citing that the evidence against these individuals was purely speculative and lacked substantive connections to the crime scene.

Notable Quote:
Kevin Greenlee summarizes, “The evidence defendant has offered purporting to establish the four individuals as alternate perpetrators abjectly fails to meet the Meister standard.” [66:07]

a. Legal Standards for Third-Party Suspects

The discussion covers the State v. Meister standard, which requires that any third-party evidence must be relevant and not merely speculative. The defense failed to provide compelling evidence linking these individuals to the murders, resulting in the dismissal of their request.

Notable Quote:
Áine Cain emphasizes, “You can't just go in and say, well, you know, what do you know? Maybe this person did it. What do you think?” [60:11]

---

6. Scheduling Order Updates

Timestamp: [73:14]
The hosts review the amended scheduling order, noting the rescheduled dates for sealed proceedings, jury selection, and the estimated start of the trial. Jury voir dire is set to begin on August 4, 2025, with the trial anticipated to commence on August 18, 2025.

Notable Quote:
Áine Cain states, “That's August 4th, they're going to go as long as it takes. And then the estimated start time for the trial is going to be August 18th.” [73:14]

---

7. Future Coverage and Closing Remarks

Timestamp: [74:42]
Áine and Kevin discuss their plans for ongoing coverage of the trial, highlighting their upcoming book on the Delphi murders and their participation in upcoming true crime events like CrimeCon. They express their commitment to providing robust and insightful coverage despite scheduling overlaps and personal challenges.

Notable Quote:
Áine Cain shares, “Delphi provides us a roadmap for what I feel is a very dark and disturbing turn for true crime... And we need to all be aware of this as people who are in this space.” [84:19]

---

Conclusion This episode of The Murder Sheet offers a comprehensive analysis of the legal battles surrounding the University of Idaho murders case. By dissecting the recent rulings of Judge Hippler, the hosts shed light on the strategic defenses employed by Brian Kohberger’s legal team and the judiciary's response aimed at ensuring a fair trial. The discussion underscores the complexities of high-profile cases, the challenges posed by extensive discovery processes, and the critical role of managing pretrial publicity to maintain judicial impartiality.

For those interested in following the trial closely, Áine and Kevin commit to providing regular updates and in-depth coverage, ensuring that listeners remain informed about this pivotal case.

Notable Quotes for Reference:

• “The court finds a continuance is not warranted as defendant has not made a showing that there is good cause to continue the trial.” – Kevin Greenlee [12:01]
• “You can't just go in and say, well, you know, what do you know? Maybe this person did it. What do you think?” – Áine Cain [60:11]
• “Delphi provides us a roadmap for what I feel is a very dark and disturbing turn for true crime...” – Áine Cain [84:19]

---

Further Information For more detailed discussions and updates on this case and other true crime topics, tune into The Murder Sheet podcast weekly. You can also support the show through their Patreon or visit their merchandise site for exclusive content.

Transcript

[Anya Cain]

Want to have the time of your life while also supporting veterans, then our sponsor is definitely for you. We're talking about Hometown Hero.

[Kevin Greenlee]

This is a company that crafts premium hemp products from infused chocolates to gummies to drink mixes. Whatever floats your boat this summer and ships them out to you in discreet packages.

[Anya Cain]

And Hometown Hero also lives up to its name by giving back. See, Hometown Hero was founded in 2015 by US veteran Lucas Gilkey. The company donates a portion of its profits to nonprofits that support veterans.

[Kevin Greenlee]

We love a company that strives to support our veterans. Plus they are all about quality. You know, all of these products are made in the United States and tested in a third party lab to ensure top notch purity and safety.

[Anya Cain]

The hemp itself is all grown in Texas and Hometown Hero is actually based in Austin. So you know exactly what's going into your Hometown Hero products. Most of their products come from live rosin, which is a cannabis concentrate extract extracted using only heat and pressure, no solvents.

[Kevin Greenlee]

You're getting the plant's true essence.

[Anya Cain]

It's basically the cold pressed juice of cannabis.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And with that in mind, Hometown Hero has really got something for everyone to try. Even peanut butter chocolate squares.

[Anya Cain]

Reclaim your evening. Visit hometownhero.com and use code msheet to take 20% off your first purchase. That's hometownhero.com code msheet for 20% off your first purchase.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Having a hormonal imbalance can make you feel like you've landed in a baffling mystery story, only one with no ending.

[Anya Cain]

You feel bad, you feel off, and it feels like there's nothing you can do to fix it. It's unbelievably frustrating.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Well, our sponsor Happy Mammoth is on the case. They are a natural wellness brand that can help you maintain your own optimal hormone levels. They focus on products that lead to hormonal happiness as well as ones that improve your gut health.

[Anya Cain]

See, we all encounter hormone disruptors throughout the day in our food, in the air, and even in skincare products. All of that saps away at our quality of life. Frankly, fight back by taking Happy Mammoth's quick two minute quiz. They'll send you tailor made solutions and recommendations about products that can help you. I personally love taking their hormone Harmony supplements which are for women at all stages of life. Ever since I started taking them, I feel my gut health and random cravings have really improved.

[Kevin Greenlee]

For women who are in menopause or perimenopause, those hormone harmony supplements can help reduce mild mood swings and hot flashes, give you more energy and help you.

[Anya Cain]

Get to sleep for a limited time. You can get 15% off your entire first order@happy mammoth.com just use the code msheet at checkout. That's happymammoth.com and use the code msheet for 15% off today. Summer's starting to swelter and if you're like me, your wardrobe could use a warmup too, preferably without overheating your wallet.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Quince is a company that gets you luxury goods without the high prices. We're talking about clothing and accessories and other items that are well made, high quality and stylish. Good stuff that will last you for years to come. They're able to keep their prices low because they cut out the middleman, making their items cost 50 to 80% less than those of their competitors.

[Anya Cain]

I went shopping on Quince's website recently. I got their a hundred percent European linen button front dress in blue chambray stripe. I love this dress so much. It's lightweight, it's so comfortable and I really like the way I look in it. It's the kind of dress I know I'm going to be wearing all summer. I think it looks cute and it's just also super comfortable. When I'm in it, I feel like a stylish, sophisticated summer lady and that's kind of a rarity for me in summer dresses. So I'm very excited about this. You should check out their site and get something too. I also will say I got a little blue beret because Kevin insists that I wear more hats.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Quinn's also has other 100% European linen dresses and shorts from $30. They have swimwear that will make you feel fancy at the beach or pool, as well as footwear like Italian leather platform sandals and more.

[Anya Cain]

Give your summer closet an upgrade with quince. Go to quince.commsheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q U I N C E.commsheet to get free shipping and 365 day returns.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Quince.commsheet content warning this episode includes discussion of murder.

[Anya Cain]

So today we're going to be covering the University of Idaho murders case. This, of course, is the quadruple homicide that claimed the lives of Zanner Kernodle, Ethan Chapin, Kaylee Gonzalez and Madison Mogan in Moscow, Idaho, several years ago now. They were all students at the University of Idaho. Uh, the three girls were roommates and Ethan was Zanna's boyfriend and staying over for the night. A Man named Brian Coburger is charged with coming in and murdering them all with a knife. And he was a PhD student at nearby Washington State University in Pullman, Washington. So right now we have the state and Co Burger's defense team duking it out and basically doing all these pride pretrial filings to sort of dictate how this trial is going to go. And Co Burger's team is led by Ann Taylor, a public defender. And the state is represented by Lata County Prosecutor Bill Thompson and his team. And currently the judge on this is Judge Steven Hippler. He is the one making decisions on these orders. So what happened recently is we got orders from Judge Hippler on two pretty important aspects of this case. One is the defense wanted a continuance. They wanted to push back the trial. So he ruled about whether that was going to be allowed or not. He also ruled about whether they were going to be able to bring in third party suspects. So let's get into it. My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[Anya Cain]

And this is the Murder Sheet.

[Kevin Greenlee]

We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases.

[Anya Cain]

We're the Murder Sheet.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And this is the University of Idaho murders on schedule and out of third party suspects. Well, the other day, Judge Hippler released a variety of opinions relating to this case. I think he released maybe six. And you said, kevin, I'll do four, you do two. And I thought, well, that sounds like a great deal, until I realized that the ones you were doing reach two pages. And I have a 20 pager and a seven pager, so.

[Anya Cain]

Well, you're the lawyer, so I mean, you're qualified. I'm just a humble journalist.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Well, considering the length of these things, let's get right to it. You suggested we start with the matter of the continuance. Judge Hippler very helpfully begins each of his rulings by just setting out what the main issues are and saying what his decision is. So I'm going to read that part of it, and then we'll really go into some detail about what all of this means and what his reasoning was. Quote, before the court is defendant's motion to continue the trial in this matter. The basis for this motion is threefold. First, he asserts that the volume of discovery continues to pose a challenge to his counsel's ability to timely and meaningfully review all of it. Second, he asserts that there is penalty phase investigation and preparation that still needs to be done. Third, he asserts that recent and forthcoming publicity on the case is highly prejudicial. Maintaining the current trial setting under these circumstances, he argues, will render any conviction and sentence unconstitutional. The state responds, the defendant's motion is untimely and he has failed to show either good cause for continuing the trial or. Or prejudice that we result from maintaining the current trial setting. The court finds a continuance is not warranted as defendant has not made a showing that there is good cause to continue the trial. End quote. So lays it all out there. So now let's, let's get into it.

[Anya Cain]

Can I just say.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Please do.

[Anya Cain]

I love his orders. I love Hippler's orders. I love. He's so direct and frank and I've been very impressed with his handling so far. So, you know, that's just me. But I just wanted to interject that. But I just, I love reading these. There's a little bit of sass to some of them.

[Kevin Greenlee]

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

[Anya Cain]

Exactly. And I think that's so important.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Not all judges do that.

[Anya Cain]

Not all. And let's be clear, they don't have to. They don't have to do it. It's not their job to hold everybody's hands. I just think it's nice because I think it mitigates public misunderstandings.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So they all should do it. Certainly I'm often disappointed when they don't. Including in cases we've covered.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. But he seems to be striking a good balance between the kind of openness to allowing the public to see the process while. And explaining things very effectively, while also putting a stop to some nonsense as we'll talk about later.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Let's get back to his order. Quote, defendant has not demonstrated a continuance is warranted to review discovery. So let me, let me stop there. So discovery, of course, is all the materials that the prosecution and the state turns over to the defense. So all of the investigative work that they have done that pertains to this case that they've turned over, it's a huge amount. And Kohberger and his team have said, we don't have enough Time to go through all of this. We need more time. The trial needs to be delayed. That was their argument. Let's get back to Hitler's response. Defendant contends that the vast amount of discovery in this case renders it impossible for the defense team to review the necessary and relevant discovery in a manner that allows for it to be comprehensively integrated into his defense. He further argues, without any support or explanation, that there are a myriad of issues that continue to arise from the state failing to comply with discovery and expert disclosure deadlines. A continuance, he argues, is necessary for counsel to mount an effective defense. The court, however, rejected this same argument two months ago when defendants sought to strike the death penalty and impose discovery obligations upon the state. In this order, the court observed the utter lack of any proof supporting defendants accusations of discovery violations by the state. More importantly, the court found defendants complaints of being unable to. To meaningfully review discovery entirely unconvincing. Pointing out that counsel struggled to articulate in any meaningful way what evidence, let alone relevant evidence, counsel had been unable to review over the past two plus years and why efforts to facilitate discovery review were not made long ago through this court and, or the resource judge.

[Anya Cain]

Ouch. And that, that's, that's painful. I mean, that's gotta be painful to the fence. I mean, he's basically. I mean, this is pretty harsh.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah. He's saying, first of all, you haven't made any case to support what you're saying. Second of all, you tried this argument a couple of months ago. I didn't buy it. Then what are you doing? You've had two years.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. I mean, frankly, I think that's justified. I feel like this defense team has wasted a lot of the court's time in the past with some of this kind of repetitive, oh, we're being unfairly treated regarding the discovery process. And then. Well, not really, but, you know, gotta say it. I get. They've gotta, they've gotta make arguments. I think they're kind of going into this to the point where it's irritating the actual judge. So I feel like without really seeming like to benefit them, I think they've made their record. I mean, there's a record of this and it can come up in a piece. Heel. Therefore, I, I feel like at some point diminishing return on investment there. I mean, what do you think? Or do you think it's better to just keep going? Just go, go nuts?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Obviously there's limits. I don't think they've come across close to crossing what the limits are. They're being aggressive.

[Anya Cain]

I think the judges seems to disagree. He seems to be wearing his patience thin. I'm not saying they're bad for this. I'm just saying strategically, I would imagine at some point, all right, we did what we came here to do. Let's move on. And, you know, I credit the defense team for making a lot of arguments and trying different avenues and whatnot. I just think at some point it's like, yeah, okay, there's not really a discovery issue like so many high profile defense teams we've seen in recent years. You're just complaining because the prosecution isn't coming up and, like, cutting up your food for you like you're a child. And that's not their job. So in reality, true discovery issues are a pretty big deal to the point where they could actually get a case thrown out. It can totally torpedo a prosecution. So there's something to be taken seriously and scrutinized. But if there's nothing there, there's nothing there.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Exactly. Now, I think you have much better eyes than I do. I don't know if you want me to squint and try to read this footnote or if you can read it, but there's a footnote here that I think really adds some important context to a lot of this discussion.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, I love this footnote. Again, this guy, I mean, this judge is, you know, it's. He's on the ball and he's not really taking any guff. So I will read it.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Bless you.

[Anya Cain]

Footnote number five. Defendants continual reference to the number of terabytes of discovery produced in this case is not helpful without providing a meaningful explanation of what that data primarily consists of and its particular relevance and importance. Indeed, as was discussed at the April 9, 2025 hearing, in this case, it appears that most of those terabytes consist of extensive video surveillance from local businesses and residences that show nothing of significance. In fact, the State indicated that at the hearing that much of that discovery is completely irrelevant and stipulated that it is unaware of any Brady material in the video surveillance footage other than that specifically identified in motion practice. Given that the State has identified all its trial exhibits, the defense cannot be unaware of all the incriminating evidence in the discovery. Finally, it should be noted that it was defendant who early on demanded that the State provide all investigative materials, no matter how irrelevant or unhelpful. End quote. Couple things here.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Do it.

[Anya Cain]

So, okay, again, he's kind of. I think this is helpful because I think sometimes media and the public is overly credulous especially when it comes to legal arguments.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I have all these terabytes of discovery to go through. How can one human being do that?

[Anya Cain]

We're a wura. Okay. And it's all useless and it all doesn't actually help. And what the classic defense attorney retort to this would likely be. We don't know what's important. Maybe like one of our investigators will look and in the corner of the screen we'll see a glimmer of a blonde man. Or wait, but like, okay, but like you know, let's live in reality. That doesn't, that doesn't seem likely. It's mostly just basically useless video footage. So the relevant stuff that they actually have to go through that deals with what incriminates Brian Coburger is limited. Maybe there's a bit of a wider sphere of dealing with what could incriminate someone else or what they could twist into incriminating someone else. You know, so like they can. And that's fair. They need to go into that. Um, but I, I guess it, it just, they're overstating as usual the facts of this which is, you know, like. And again it's like it's self inflicted because they're the ones you can opt for getting the discovery that's relevant. And they say give us everything. And listen, I give them credit for that. I think it makes sense to want to get everything in such an important case. Maybe it gives you more ideas, maybe it gives you. But you have to be prepared that there's a. The consequence of that is having to go through it all. So you know, they've had this for two years or I mean like, yeah, I mean like if most of it that they're not really. That they're complaining about is just the surveillance footage, then I think they're kind of.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Because video files is. Anyone who's known is anyone who knows who's worked with digital stuff. Video files are huge.

[Anya Cain]

But you know, it's like it's, it's more, it's, you know, it's just. But this is why it's so important when you're looking at. And unfortunately this should be applied to both sides. I think with some members of the public and especially the media, it often gets applies to the state only and not defense. State claims are taken like okay, well let's be skeptical of this. Which is good, you should be. But then people like when the defense is saying we have thousands of terabytes and we're drowning, it's like ah yes, that is true. And it's like, no, I mean, you have to actually look, you have to wait because it could just be some sort of argument that's kind of meant to delay or get something.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Don't be selectively skeptical. Just be skeptical.

[Anya Cain]

That's not skepticism. That's just, that's just bias. You know, that's partisanship. Yeah, it's partisanship. It's not, if we're going to be skeptical to one side, let's be skeptical to both sides. And when people are complaining like this and the judge is not finding any wrongdoing by the state, that's significance. Because again, these are things judges should take seriously. These are things that, you know, if there's true discovery issues that can derail a case, that's a, that's a third rail. When, when it gets down to it. And, and if a judge is consistently being like, well, you're not proving that at all, then I, I think that's meaningful as true crime people. We all know that scary things can and do happen all the time, frankly, when you're least expecting it. Feeling safe at home is very important to Kevin and I. But in this day and age, I need more than just a good lock. I need a security company that makes it their mission to protect me and my family.

[Kevin Greenlee]

That's why we love our longtime sponsor, SimpliSafe. We have used SimpliSafe for years, and that is because they are a company that you and I trust.

[Anya Cain]

They're not like other reactive security systems that only take action after a break in. Their new active Guard Outdoor Protection helps stop break ins before they even happen. Think about that. No trauma from the violation of having your space invaded. SimpliSafe is proactive and can prevent the break in from even occurring.

[Kevin Greenlee]

We've had to deal with threats and scary situations of our own as we've reported on criminal cases. So having Simplisafe protect our home allows us so much peace of mind. And we're not alone. Over 4 million Americans trust Simplisafe.

[Anya Cain]

Simplisafe is flexible and has options for everyone. Their monitoring plans start around $1 a day. They have no contracts or hidden fees. Unlike some of their main competitors, they're great for renters and homeowners alike.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Visit simplisafe.commsheet to claim 50% off a new system with a professional monitoring plan and get your first month free. That's simplisafe.com msheet there's no safe like SimpliSafe.

[C]

You know how we all have that one friend who's always investigating better ways to help you manage your finances well. Meet Experian, your trusty bff. And by that I mean big financial Friend. The Experian app is like having a BFF who's an expert financial profiler ready to crack the case on your finances and help you take control like a pro. Count on Experian to help prevent your finances from reaching a gruesome outcome. This big financial friend can help you find ways to save, check your FICO score, match it with credit cards, and discover other brilliant solutions to sort out your financial mysteries. Bet your other BFFs can't do all that. And since this big financial friend is right on your phone, it's closer than any accomplice you'll ever have. Just download the Experian app and get started for free. Because honestly, the only mystery you should be solving is knowing where your finances are headed. Results will vary. Credit offers, approvals and reward programs Based on FICO Score 8 model and subject to lender terms Offers not available in all states. See experian.com for details.

[D]

This new year, why not let Audible expand your life by listening? Explore over 1 million audiobooks, podcasts and exclusive Audible originals that'll inspire and motivate you. Tap into your well being with advice and insight from leading professionals and experts on better health, relationships, career, finance, investing and more. Maybe you want to kick a bad habit or start a good one. If you're interested in learning how to master your emotions and hearing scientifically backed advice for using your emotions as a tool, may I suggest Shift by psychologist and bestseller author Dr. Ethan Kross? Trust me, listening on Audible can help you reach the goals you set for yourself. Start listening today when you sign up for a free 30 day trial at audible.com wondery that's audible.com wondery I'm going.

[Kevin Greenlee]

To get back to Hipler's order. Defendant again fails to identify any relevant discovery that his counsel has yet to review. He also fails to identify any steps his counsel has taken, particularly since the court's prior order to aid in processing the yet unreviewed discovery. Excuse me. Moreover, he does not explain why he waited to seek continuance until after discovery closed and expert disclosure deadlines passed and pretrial conference occurred. If defense counsel was truly struggling with discovery review, this motion should have been made when the claim problem became apparent and certainly should have been brought prior to the expiration of discovery, all expert deadlines, and the final pretrial conference. Instead, defense counsel has robustly litigated this case, retaining approximately two dozen experts and a full mitigation team, engaging in extensive motion practice and disclosing witnesses and exhibits, lists with nary a whisper that a continuance would be sought. These actions belie his counsel's ongoing and ultimately empty discovery complaints. Without more, the court can only conclude the defense counsel is using the volume of discovery measured in terabytes as a tactic to delay the proceeding of the 11th hour simply for the sake of delay rather than a legitimate threat of prejudice to defendant's substantial rights. End quote.

[Anya Cain]

Ouch. A lot of this is just like reading this out loud. It's sort of like, yeah, I mean, this is pretty devastating for the defense. He's basically just accusing them of being not so honest, saying it's a tactic. Maybe it's not a lie, but it's a. It's a. It's a. It's an attempt at manipulating, you know, which is, you know, I mean, you know, they gotta. They gotta do it. I don't think this means that they are very confident in their case. I. I think if the defense is basically trying to stall at all costs. Not for any real reason, just a stall. It's just. That's not. They. That. That does not seem to embody confidence. What do you think?

[Kevin Greenlee]

It's a fair point.

[Anya Cain]

I also love his use of the word belie. That's fun. He's. He's a fun writer. Um, but, you know, I mean, like, again, we, like, we don't. It's not, it's not necessarily criticism of the defense here. I think they have a really tough case, and they also have to deal with the fact that he's facing possible execution. So, I mean, it's. It's like the stakes couldn't be higher for them. Imagine there, There seems to be an element of, like, stall. Do everything we can to stall. Throw a lot of stuff at the wall. And, you know, that that's a tactic. You know, I mean, it's just. It's. It's something you can do. And, you know, we. We can. We can acknowledge that and say that there's nothing necessarily, like, we need to be mad about. About that as the public, but we also don't need to, like, swallow everything they're giving us whole without really kind of.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Right.

[Anya Cain]

Analyzing it in kind of a critical fashion. Does that make sense? Too often, I feel in true crime, it's like, oh, the state is bad or the defense is bad. And I think it should be more of, like, no one's necessarily bad here. I Mean, I don't like it when people are lying. Right. I don't feel like some of this necessarily rises quite to that level. But, I mean, it's enough for the judge at least to see me. I mean, he seems ticked off in this order. Am I. Am I misreading that?

[Kevin Greenlee]

He doesn't seem happy.

[Anya Cain]

He seems to basically be like, okay, enough of the nonsense. Like, stop the madness. Like, and I can understand why. I think some of what they've done has been dubious. I think some of what this defense team has done in terms of, like, having, I mean, that sire affidavit, I think was a low point for me, where they're essentially like, oh, Cy Ray thinks that Ashley Jennings is doing some evil misdeeds and cackling to herself. And it's like, okay, like. And then like, that kind of falls apart on its face. A lot of this stuff falls apart in this face. So I certainly don't feel like they're necessarily, like, stooping to the level of some other high profile defense teams that we've seen who have, like, you know, like, deputized YouTubers to help them. Like, I don't think they're doing anything like that bad. I just think, like, a lot of their arguments are weak to the point of, like, they've got to know that this is not a good argument.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So their next argument involves mitigation. So I want to talk about that very briefly. Mitigation. These are things that would be presented if and when Bryan Kohberger is convicted and faces sentencing. His defense team would present some mitigation evidence to basically say, here's why he deserves a lesser punishment. These are things you should consider. So this mitigation evidence that they're going to be talking about really only comes into play if he is convicted. Now, the fact that they're talking about it now and bringing it up before the trial, that doesn't necessarily mean that they expect a conviction. You shouldn't read that into it. I know if you go into a hospital to have a minor surgical procedure, there'll be people there prepared to, oh, if he stops breathing, we're going to do this and this and this. And that's basically the equivalent of what's happening here. Good lawyers, you prepare for all eventualities. So even if you have confidence in your case, you want to be prepared in case things go differently than you expect. Does that make sense?

[Anya Cain]

That makes sense. I would think that they were totally delusional. If they expect an acquittal, though, they.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Face a pretty steep hill in this case.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. And that doesn't mean they can't get one. It's just, I think that that would be, in this specific case, unlikely.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And of course we say that can happen, though. We say that based on what we know and is entirely possible. The defense team has some incredible evidence that they can pull out of their hat that is going to change how everything looks to everybody about this case.

[Anya Cain]

That's, that's extremely true. You can get a defense team or anyone, you know, just on either side where things can go in an unexpected way during trial. Things can look really clear cut before trial. And, and that's why with people like Bryan Kohberger, what we tend to talk about is this case against him is really strong. This is a strong case against this man. But we don't say, oh, we think he's guilty, because at this point we haven't seen the trial. So the jury's not just out. The, the jury hasn't been selected yet. So let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's not get over our skis. Let's just say we think it's a strong case against him and we're open minded and we all should be open minded going in. But that also doesn't mean we need to. Sometimes people take open minded as, let's just cling to the fact he must be innocent and feel that he must be framed if we hear any good evidence against him. Like, that's not open mindedness, that's just partisanship. And I think that's stupid. But I think in this case, let's just, let's just say what we know. Now, I would be surprised about an outright acquittal, but at the same time, we don't know what the defense is going to do at trial. And maybe they have some really good bombshells that they can throw out there and throw everything off.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So again, their second argument, which as we know was rejected by the judge, the defense team says we need more time in order to do an investigation into Kohberger's life history so we can come up with more of this mitigation evidence. And Hitler points out that they've actually hired a mitigation team to do that work a couple of years ago. And he thinks what they have already done satisfies the guidelines of what they need to do. And I'm going to read from this order what he says about that. Quote, the investigation defendant experts have undertaken over the past two plus years far exceeds that in Roe and in fact readily appears to satisfy the Relevant ABA guidelines cited by Defendant. It includes, but is not limited to defendant's KPHD education records, including coursework, interviews and correspondence. Defendant's mental health and medical records records related to a childhood car accident. Defendants employment records. Mental health education and employment records of defendant sisters Mental health records of defendants parents father's military records and Social Security records. Court records from multiple generations of co worker family paternal side VA records and death certificates for maternal and paternal uncles. Multiple interviews with defendant in each immediate family member. Interview of two of defendant's fourth grade teachers. Former boxing coach and psychologist who evaluated defendant in 2005. Interviews with multiple members of defendant's extended family on maternal and paternal side. Interviews with defendant's professor and advisor at DeSales University. Interviews of defendant's former co worker, Interviews of at least one family friend, letters in jail, calls between defendant and his families. So end quote. That's a pretty good list.

[Anya Cain]

That's a. I would say that's a comprehensive list.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So it's really unclear what else they feel they need to do.

[Anya Cain]

You know, I, I kind of relate to this defense team a little bit and maybe this is why. And this kind of just came together for me, you know, how when I'm researching I always feel Kevin is better at research than I am and that's. I actually go deeper in research, I think, than you do. But you have a better sense of what's truly important and what we need to dig into and what we need to highlight. Whereas I'm the person who goes spiraling because I see a footnote and then suddenly I'm like researching like 1600 Portuguese ships or something and it's like, how did I get here? This, like, this isn't what I needed. I'm like, I'm so far afield and. But it's like what I'm hoping for is some sort of like holy grail of, you know, wild stuff that if I just keep searching, maybe I'll find it. I don't know what I'm looking for, but I don't want to miss anything. And maybe, maybe I'll something if I don't read this extra thing and that that's what they seem to be doing. It's like, oh man, like we don't know what we don't know. So therefore we have to just do so much and like we're never going to be satisfied. And I think, you know, that's not a good reason to delay things. Is, is that, I mean, how do you see it? You know, how I am with research I do indeed.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And let's move on.

[Anya Cain]

Boo. Whatever. Sorry. My.

[Kevin Greenlee]

You're an excellent researcher.

[Anya Cain]

I. Well, I'd get too. I get too turned around, but I think. I think they're kind of just like hoping that they find something that's like, really good for them, but there's no indication that it exists or what it even is.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah. And actually it gets a bit confusing, frankly, because in this order, there are not only occasional words, but blanked out. There are big sections blanked out or redacted. And so sometimes it's actually hard to follow what it is that they are talking about that they expect or hope or suspect they might find. From what we do have, it seems that the defense has some speculations or suspicions about something that might help in mitigation. They have no real evidence. Just a hunch that some more time might help. I'm going to read a few quotes here. Quote, as noted, a continuance of trial is not warranted to chase down mere speculation. The potential evidence exists. Further, defendant has not set forth a plan for continued investigation. How much time it will take, what his team expects. The investigation will reveal why it is necessary to uphold his constitutional rights and why these matters are only now being raised with the court. Additionally, assuming guilt is found, the penalty phase of the case would not begin until late October or early November. Thus, there remains significant time for the team to continue their investigation and to supplement expert disclosures if needed. And here's another one. Quote, again, not one of defendants blank. Experts who've had the same information blank has identified has submitted a declaration stating that they may change their diagnoses based on further investigation. Blank, rather, is based on blank speculation that further investigation might change. Blank. Such speculation is not grounds for a continuance. Blank. So, yeah, it's kind of hard to follow. What do you make of all that?

[Anya Cain]

I. I don't know what to make of it and I don't really want to speculate because it's. It's definitely a little bit confusing.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So, yeah, it's not clear what they have. It's what they think they might find. It doesn't sound like they have a plan for how they might get this additional information. So. Yeah, it doesn't feel like they really made a strong case there.

[Anya Cain]

No, not at all.

[Kevin Greenlee]

But that's just me saying that with. Again, a lot of stuff was blanked out of this one.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, I. I don't. I mean, it's really. It's hard to say.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Next, Hitler moves on to their final argument, which involves Pretrial publicity. Quote, Defendant next seeks a continuance due to recent inflammatory pretrial publicity. On May 9, 2025, approximately three months before trial is set to begin, Dateline NBC aired a two hour episode about this case. The episode included details and materials about the case which if true, are not publicly available and which promote a narrative of guilt. Defendant also advises that on July 9, 2025, Amazon Prime Video is planning to release a four part docuseries about the homicides. And on July 14, 2025, crime author James Patterson is set to release a book he wrote about the same. Defendant contends that his media coverage so close to trial threatens his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury which can only be ameliorated by a continuance. In addition, defendant argues that a continuance is necessary to investigate the source of the leaks to the media and impose accountability. The court does not agree that either argument compels a continuance. So end quote. That's, he's setting the stage here. That's what he is going to be discussing. And we, we've talked about some of these issues on the show and certainly is someone interested in media and leaks. This, this is the part I was most interested to read.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, because you want to know what is the fallout going to be.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes. And then I thought it was interesting because at this point Hitler brings up a case which most of you are probably familiar with in some form or another. And this is the Sam Shepard murder case, which in this case is thought to have been the inspiration for the Fugitive, both the TV series and the movie with Harrison Ford. And it is a case that is remembered primarily in the legal system for the effects that pretrial publicity had on it. Sam Sheppard was tried and convicted of his wife's murder. The pretrial publicity and uncontrolled atmosphere was so bad and so crazy that the courts later found he did not get a fair trial. So ultimately he got a new trial and he was acquitted. And I just want to quickly say here that unlike the character in the show, the Fugitive, Dr. Sam Sheppard was actually guilty of the murder. Yes, no doubt about that.

[Anya Cain]

Classic innocence fraud.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And I don't know if people are would be interested in hearing us Discuss like a 70 year old case, but if you are, let us know when.

[Anya Cain]

Has that ever stopped us before, babe.

[Kevin Greenlee]

But if you're actually interested in hearing a multi part episode, a series on the shepherd case and why he's guilty, let us know now. With all of that said, let's Talk about some of the stuff that happened in the pre trial stage with Dr. Shepherd and his case. I'm going to be reading here from the order by. In shepherd, news reporters extensively covered the story of Sam Shepard, who was accused of bludgeoning his pregnant wife to death. The court examined the extensive media fanfare surrounding the case, noting Sheppard was not granted a change of venue to a locale away from where the publicity originated, nor was his jury sequestered. For months, the virulent publicity about Sheppard and the murder had made the case notorious. Charges and counter charges were aired in the news media besides those for which Sheppard was called to trial. In addition, only three months before trial, Sheppard was examined for more than five hours without counsel during a three day inquest which ended in a public brawl. The inquest was televised live from a high school gymnasium seating hundreds of people. Furthermore, the trial began two weeks before a hotly contested election at which Both Chief Prosecutor McMahon and Judge Blithan were candidates for judgeships. The court found that there was no doubt that this deluge of publicity reached at least some of the jury, given that when the jury was questioned for the only time, two jurors admitted in open court to hearing the highly inflammatory charge that a prison inmate claimed Sheppard was the father of her illegitimate child. Nevertheless, the trial judge rejected requests by defense counsel for the jurors to be asked whether they had read or heard specific prejudicial comments about the case. Further, the jurors were subjected to newspaper, radio and television coverage of the trial while not taking part in the proceedings, and were allowed to go their separate ways outside of the courtroom without adequate directions not to read or listen to anything concerning the case. End quote. I think that's enough.

[Anya Cain]

You got it? Yeah. It was a mess, in other words.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So, yeah, even as someone who, as I said, I think this man was guilty of killing his wife, he did not get a fair trial in that circumstance.

[Anya Cain]

No, that's a circus. That's not even, that's, that's a ridiculous mess. But he was guilty.

[Kevin Greenlee]

But that, that's just terrible. And what Judge Hippler is pointing out is not only the court system as a whole, but I, in this case, am really trying to follow measures that were not followed in that case. And I'm going to read what he writes. This court is employing the measures recommended in shepherd to protect a defendant from prejudicial, pretrial publicity, to wit, 1, limiting the number of reporters in the courtroom during trial. Two, insulating prospective witnesses from interviews with the media about their prospective testimony, and three, making an effort to control the release of leads, information and gossip to the press by police officers, witnesses, and the counsel for both sides to avoid the disclosure of inaccurate and or inadmissible information to the public. End quote. So he's saying, yeah, prejudicial, pretrial publicity can be bad. We're really trying hard not to do that here and to protect Coburger's rights.

[Anya Cain]

No trial is going to be perfect and, and especially no trial with such intense media scrutiny ahead of time. But I mean, it's a far cry to argue that this is the same thing as what happened in Shepherd. I mean, like, no. And also, you know, we have free press in this country. We have First Amendment rights. So there's a certain extent of, like, if the media is acting wild and, you know, feasting upon this case and, you know, that's not necessarily anyone else's problem. I would say that the concern here for me was that the possibility that somebody went from the prosecution side, or I guess the defense side, but I always felt might be more of the prosecution side, or at least I should say maybe not CO Burger's team. Maybe prosecution side's wrong. Could be law enforcement. I know at least one of the families of the victims hired an attorney and had, you know, had, had investigators. So it could be any number of possibilities about the leak. I just got the sense it wasn't defense sided because I. My sense was that the Dateline episode was having that guilt narrative and like, oh, isn't this guy creepy? Kind of sort of thing. So, you know, I mean, that's the concern. It's not what the media is doing so much as it is. Is the state benefiting from that or playing into it purposely? I guess I should say.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, that's a great point. And Hippler also says basically it boils down to whether or not you can get an impartial jury.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And he believes that you can. He says if you have a carefully crafted jury selection process, there is no reason to think that you can't get an impartial jury with, he says, a searching and robust for our deer. And I agree with that.

[Anya Cain]

And, and what he's saying too is, well, I mean, I don't know. Do you want to read any more of this?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, go ahead. He also makes the point that in terms of publicity, things aren't going to get better. No quote here. There is no assurance that the pretrial publicity will fade with time. The murders occurred over two and one half years ago. The Circumstances of the murders were provocative. Four college students in a small Idaho college town were brutally stabbed to death by an unknown perpetrator. It was an immediate media sensation and garnered widespread attention that not only continues to persist, but continues to grow. 18 months ago, defendant moved for a change of venue from Lato county due in part to the extensive inflammatory pretrial publicity and allegations made about Mr. Kohberger to the public by the media that would be inadmissible at trial. He argued that Lato county was not large enough to avoid the bias caused by the pervasive prejudicial publicity. Defendant's motion was granted, and as a result, the trial date was continued by approximately 10 weeks. Those additional 10 weeks have not resulted in fading media attention. It has only given the media more time and opportunity to provide coverage to a public audience which is clamoring for answers. The longer the public is made to sit and wait for the facts to come out at trial, the more time there is for inflammatory speculative stories, movies and books to circulate and more time for prior ones to be rebroadcast, purchased, viewed, and consumed by the public. Proceeding with trial as scheduled will likely avoid negative consequences from future publicity. End quote.

[Anya Cain]

He's absolutely right about this. Time is not on the defensive side.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes, there's just going to be more and more publicity. And with more publicity, there's more of a chance that it's prejudicial, which I.

[Anya Cain]

Guess they want, because then that, you know, makes it easier for them down the road with appeals. You know, I mean, on some level, it kind of benefits them to, like, get, get it delayed and be like, oh, wait, actually, this was worse. But, you know, I, I, it's not a good reason to delay. And he's absolutely right. This is not going to get better. This is absolutely not going to get better.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And then he talks about the, the leak. He says that the fact that there is an investigation into the source of the leak is not a good reason to delay the trial. He says basically, right now it's just speculation about what the source of the leak is. He also raises, I think, the great point that what if, in theory, the information was leaked by the FBI, that's a federal agency, this is a state court investigating it, so who knows what they'll ever be able to find in that area? Right.

[Anya Cain]

So do you find it interesting, the fact that he raises the FBI, you.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Asked the question, what do you think?

[Anya Cain]

I think that's interesting, yeah. I mean, how do I say this? I don't want to sound Controversial, you. Well, there's often tensions between local and federal law enforcement, I guess I'll just say that. And state and federal law enforcement. And I think there can be the perception that the FBI in particular is not, not a team player in certain instances. But let's put a huge asterisk on this. The FBI is not a monolith. The FBI is not like one guy who's always one way. There are different field offices. There are different divisions within the FBI. There's, you know, for example, the cast team that's. That's comes up in terms of the cell phone analysis records, like that's its own entity and that'll come in and help law enforcement. So I think the FBI can be perceived as being helpful to local and state law enforcement because they have resources that they can provide. I think even when we talk to local or state law enforcement officers who do have a problem with the FBI as a whole because they feel they come in and are not team players, most of those people that we speak to who have that kind of feeling have at least one or two FBI agents that they love working with and praise specifically. So it's really not a monolith. But I am just saying that. It just caught my eye that he said that. I don't think we should look at that as tea leaves or any sort of, you know, anything other than he's just giving an example of how this could be beyond their control. But I think some people will look at it as tea leaves.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah. And maybe we'll never know. And he says we can have all this speculation about who leaked it and why, but we can't change course based on mere speculation built on speculation and assumption.

[Anya Cain]

I'm going to tell you this. I would be as people who reported on a case that was very high profile in a similar way, I would be shocked if this came from anyone really directly connected with the prosecution team or anyone directly connected with, like, the, the relevant local and state law enforcement offices. I would be shocked. It feels like maybe people with. Were more on the outer rings of this. But I also don't think it's the defense team. So, I mean, I don't know. We'll see. And we may never see. I guess that's important to know. We may never see.

[Kevin Greenlee]

We may never know.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, we may never know. Especially, you know, with the, you know, the FBI, if it is, if it is, like, doesn't have to be the FBI, but if it's a. If it's a federal agency, if it is someone more Connected with one of the families could be a very different outcome from if it's connected closer. So, yeah, it's interesting, but it's, it's troubling. It's troubling because even if it's not directly, even if it's not someone who's directly, like, as involved as local or, you know, prosecutors or whatnot, it's still like, it's a flagrant betrayal of the trust and the integrity of the investigation. Just from the standpoint of, like, you shouldn't be doing that. Come on. It's not even, it's not hard.

[Kevin Greenlee]

It's very disturbing to me that that leak never should have happened.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. And like, again, I, I'll be, you know, I would be shocked if it was someone really close, but the fact that it happened at all and the fact that it was someone who may have had the trust of, you know, having this information, it's. It's wrong. And, and like, I, I hope it gets exposed, I really do, because I'd like some answers. And we've criticized defense teams who have tried to try things in the public court of public opinion, which I think is totally inappropriate and just huge red flag for me and just sleazy. It's. It's worse if the state doesn't. It's worse if the state does it because the state already has the advantage of all these investigative powers and it can take your freedom away. So when the state is doing something, even if it's like, you know, a couple of people removed from the center of the power here, it's. It's still like, that just leaves. It makes me really uncomfortable and upset.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So motion. Pardon me. Motion to continue. Denied. So that, that finishes my 20 pager. When we move on to my seven pager, then we do your two pagers.

[Anya Cain]

Okay.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And my seven pager is alternative perpetrators. This is. The defense wanted to basically be able to say, oh, it wasn't Coburger, it was this alternate perpetrator or this alternate perpetrat. Sometimes we call them third party suspects. And the absolute first point we should make here, this is the point we've made before, is the defendant in these cases doesn't have an obligation to like, put on his deer stalker cap and get out a magnifying glass and go out and investigate the case and prove someone else did it.

[Anya Cain]

No, the only the burden lies with the state.

[Kevin Greenlee]

The state is the one that has to prove guilt. You don't have to prove your innocence. You don't have to prove someone else did this. And you do not have to in the course of your trial say, oh, it was somebody else, they did it, not me. And here's the evidence. You don't have to do that. You can in some cases if you have relevant evidence, but you can be acquitted without presenting evidence that someone else did it. Is that fair to say?

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, it's fair to say. And I would argue unless you have a really good case against someone else, it's extremely risky to do this because the jury's going to be looking at is your story plausible or is the state story plausible? And honestly, a lot of times the state story is more plausible and they're going to go with that. So third party is a risk if it's a really good one and you've got a great narrative and you got a great alternate suspect and there's evidence there. I think it can be a huge win too for the defense. I mean, it just depends on what they're presenting. But obviously we saw in Delphi that the third party Odinist defense fell apart and was terrible. So, I mean, a lot of them can feel like that where it's like, you really think a jury's gonna buy that versus anything else? Like, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. So now I guess we get to find out. How did Kohberger's third party arguments go?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Why don't you read the judge's introduction to this? These are the introd. He identifies the relevant issues.

[Anya Cain]

Sure.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And shows how he rules.

[Anya Cain]

Introduction. Quote, introduction. The State previously moved in limine seeking to preclude defendant from offering or arguing alternative perpetrator evidence without first satisfying the applicable evidentiary standards. In accordance with the State. The court's subsequent order on the motion, Defendant filed his offers of proof and evidence in support identifying four individuals as potential alternate perpetrators. State objects to the presentation of this evidence at trial, arguing it fails to satisfy the standard under State vs Meister. Defendant conceded at oral argument that at this point his proffer is not sufficient to pursue an alternate perpetrator theory at the outset of trial, but requests latitude in cross examination of the State's witnesses to try to establish additional evidence to satisfy the Meister standard. Court concludes that at this time Defendants alternate perpetrator proffer is inadmissible under Meister as it is irrelevant and or excluded by ire 403. However, this does not foreclose defendant from cross examining law enforcement regarding the reasonableness of its investigation and its follow up on plausible leads. End quote. Couple of things here in Limine So that's emotion and limone. Emotion and limine. Boiling it down in layperson's language. Is one of the sides filing a motion to try to get the other side not to be able to bring something up. So if I'm tired of Kevin constantly bringing up my serial theft, I can file a motion in limine asking him to stop bringing that up.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And I would deny it.

[Anya Cain]

So you're the. You think you're the judge?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes.

[Anya Cain]

Well, you purchased me a gavel, so I. I think that flies in the face of what you're saying.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I also purchased myself a law degree.

[Anya Cain]

Kevin.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Case closed, I think.

[Anya Cain]

Oh, no. Overruled. Anyways, so that's one thing, and then two is proffer. Can you talk about a proffer? What is. What is that proffer? We heard about that in Delphi, too, I guess. Just want to go over that again.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Offering evidence.

[Anya Cain]

So here's what we got, folks.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Here's what we got.

[Anya Cain]

Now, it's really important and mention here that none of the four individuals that they named are going to be named here because this was all redacted.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So. Yeah, we don't even know who they are.

[Anya Cain]

We don't know who they are.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, we have a little bit of information about them which we will share, but we don't know who they are.

[Anya Cain]

Nope.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Meister. They talk about meister. That was a case where a person was convicted of murder in Idaho. He'd wanted to include evidence of an alternate perpetrator. It didn't meet the standard that Idaho used at the time. As I say, this man was convicted, he appeals. The court says, well, maybe the standards are a bit too high. Let's make it easier for people in Idaho to include evidence of third party perpetrators. And so he got a new trial, was allowed to include some of that evidence, and he was convicted again.

[Anya Cain]

Aw, congrats. You tried.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So under the new rules, I'm going to read a little bit from the order. Quote, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Idaho Rule of Evidence 403 governs the exclusion of relevant evidence and permits a court to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. So, so basically, you don't want to include evidence that is doesn't have anything to do with the trial. Or will just confuse the jury or waste time.

[Anya Cain]

That makes sense.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Quote, Meister offered the following guidance on applying these rules in determining whether proffered alternative perpetrator evidence is relevant and admissible. If the defendant proffers evidence which merely leads, which merely tends to mislead the jury that another person committed the crime, or the evidence is not relevant because it does not tend to make the defendant's involvement more probable or less probable, then it is within the court's discretion to find the evidence inadmissible. Mere inferences that another person could have committed the crime will likely not be relevant, and if relevant, will still be subject to the limitation provisions. A defendant has no right to present irrelevant evidence. And even if evidence is irrelevant, it may be excluded in certain cases, end quote. So that's what the standard is. So basically, that's the filter through which or the lens through which we should look at this evidence that the defense in this case wants to offer.

[Anya Cain]

And to be clear, and just for my own clarification, this was set up to be. To make it easier for people to bring in third party.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, Meister.

[Anya Cain]

So it was like. It was like, oh, actually, let's simplify and make this easier and set it up in a way that's, like, fair to people. So it's almost, like, about broadening how you can bring it in.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes. So, okay, And I just want to repeat one line from what I just read. Quote, mere inferences that another person could have committed the crime will likely not be relevant. End quote.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah.

[Kevin Greenlee]

You can't just go in and say, well, you know, what do you know? Maybe this person did it. What do you think?

[Anya Cain]

This isn't a Reddit message board. Here's the thing. This is what. This is where true crime has, I think, badly served the public. You know, we can all speculate endlessly about anyone doing anything, right? But at the end of the day, you have to use your common sense. We don't, you know, we don't need to just eject our common sense and just go based on. Well, it's also possible that aliens exist and they zap down and they did it and then they left. No, I mean, like, could that have happened? Sure. Do we have any evidence that that happened? No. And it's a crazy way to think. We don't need to do it. You know, like, we can just, like, go based on the evidence. I'm advocating for people in true crime general, and this is the fault of creators, in my opinion, more so than the public, because it's just like that sets the tone. What people are putting out there sets the tone. And also people are like, you know, speculating. Speculation is all fine and good. We all speculate. We all speculate on unsolved cases, that's fine. But that, that is not worth anything compared to looking at evidence. So I mean, I, I feel like, I don't know, I, I feel like we've, we've as a community, we've prioritized just baseless speculation at times over anything else. And that's led people to think that open minded is the same thing as empty minded, meaning that they'll just believe anything because feasibly it could have happened. You know, when, when I, If I'm in, let's see, if I'm in a. If I'm driving along the highway and I see a car crash and I see, you know, two, two cars outside my window and there's people standing around looking unhappy, you know, do I think, okay, there was just a fender bender and they've both pulled over and are exchanging insurance information or do I think this is, this was set up by the CIA to trick me into thinking that there was a fender bender so that then that changes my behavior later in the day so that they can, you know, get me. I mean, like, you know what I mean? Like, like could that be feasibly happening? I guess. But is, is that a, is that a likely event? No, like go, what's. I mean, does that. I feel like now I sound insane, so what's going on? You scared me a little bit, but you know what I mean? Like, it's like anything could happen. Anything could really be happening at any time. We don't like you, like unless you really dig into it. We're kind of, there's like certain things you kind of accept and then maybe if you dig into it, you find the reality was different. And that's what a trial is for.

[Kevin Greenlee]

We need more than speculation. We need something concrete. I think that's a point that often gets lost. And I think another issue is people think that beyond a reasonable doubt is like beyond absolutely all doubt. They really misread that.

[Anya Cain]

People also, yeah, people think. And also I think people have gone from thinking that to thinking beyond a reasonable doubt is just like cling to any possible shred of innocence, no matter what. Because I've made it my personality to think that there's a conspiracy here. I really think we're moving in a dangerous direction. In true crime. It's really important to counteract that. And you can, you can Counteract that without saying, oh, everybody's guilty, you know, until proven innocent. That's not what you do. You just, you just say what? Use your common sense. Everyone has, you know, God given common sense. And we need to just bring that back and hear out different theories and different approaches and go with what makes sense.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And we'll get back to this Order. Quote. The evidence defendant has offered purporting to establish the four individuals as alternate perpetrators abjectly fails to meet the Meister standard. Namely, the evidence is entirely irrelevant. Nothing links these individuals to the homicides or otherwise gives rise to a reasonable inference that they committed the crime. Indeed, it would take nothing short of rank speculation by the jury to make such a finding. Three of the individuals were each socially connected to one or more of the victims, interacted with one or more of the victims at social events in the hours prior to the homicide, lived within walking distance of the crime scene, and were familiar with the layout of the victims homes from prior social events. While perhaps this evidence could suggest an opportunity to commit the crime, which no doubt is an opportunity shared by dozens of others in the victims social circles, there is no compelling evidence that any of them had a motive to kill the victims, much less physically harm them or a means to do so. Further, there is no evidence connecting them to the crime scene. They have each cooperated with law enforcement, providing DNA samples, fingerprints and allowing searches as requested. Notably, lab testing has excluded their DNA from samples taken from the crime scene in victims. The fourth individual did not know the victims, but had a passing connection to one of them. While noticing her shopping at a store approximately five weeks prior to the homicides, he followed her briefly out the exit of the store while considering approaching her to talk. He turned away before ever speaking to her. The event was captured on a surveillance camera. This individual subsequently cooperated with law enforcement, providing his phone number and a DNA sample. As with the other alleged alternative perpetrators, lab reports excluded his DNA from the samples taken from the crime scene and victims. And there's no evidence connecting him to the crime scene. End quote. So there's. That does seem to be nothing but speculation.

[Anya Cain]

It's nothing.

[Kevin Greenlee]

There really doesn't seem much there at all. Is that your reaction?

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, I mean that's certainly what it sounds like. And can I just say like, you know, again to bring it back to Delphi, because that's our frame of reference. But as we do more of these cases, we have more and more data points to build off of. You know, Judge Frances Gull in the Delphi case, people were acting like she, it was so unprecedented and wild that she denied the defense's motion to bring in third party suspects on that case. Like it was like this like aberration, the pearl clutching going on by not only like devoted Internet cranks, but even like run of the mill journalists that I heard, because they don't understand that. They don't understand that there are like standards and you can't just like do whatever. You can't just like, you know, if you're the defense team, you can't just say, hey guys, if I, if I make this backflip, he goes free. Right? You know, like you can't, like, like there are rules, like there are things that you're supposed to do. The amount of pearl clutching going on over that, hopefully this makes people understand that like it's commonplace to have standards of evidence and have rules of evidence and to have rules about what can come in and what can't come in. Not only for the state, but for the defense too. And that denying bringing in third party suspects is not unusual. And it's not some aberration and it's not some like unfair. Oh, they were hamstrung. It's just the normal course of events. If you can't get to the point where there's evidentiary value there, it's not going to come in. And that's it. It doesn't mean anyone's biased or unfair. It's just the nature of the event. So again, I felt that Judge Gull was very unfairly criticized about that. And I, I felt like, I mean, hopefully this makes people understand who might be following both cases, who may have felt that way. You know, it's, it's pretty, you know, this, it's pretty well trod territory. It's not like just people, you know, judges doing whatever. Is that fair to say?

[Kevin Greenlee]

That's fair to say. And I wanted to make one more point before we move on to the next section of the order. The judge refers there to this incident in some kind of a store where a guy sees one of the people who would later be a victim, finds them attractive, is thinking about talking to them and following them, and then decides not to. And this is all captured on surveillance camera. This gives us some idea of the real scope of this investigation. Yes, that they're going, they're collecting all of this footage from different stores trying to find the victims and who might have interacted with them on surveillance footage. So what a massive investigation. This obviously was obviously a ton of.

[Anya Cain]

Time, resources, energy were put into this and they really left no stone unturned. But just because there happens to be a random guy who tried to like maybe chat up one of the girls that is under one of the stones, doesn't mean that that's relevant. A lot of people think about you. You think about yourself going through your daily life, right? You go to your work or you're at home with the kids and you step outside. Anyone could see something or interact with somebody in a way that could be relevant to an important case down the line, right. Or even a minor case, right. So we're all living our lives and we all the possibility of coming up against something that's like a huge force that sort of spins beyond our control and, and just we're caught up in that. So I, I always would encourage people have some empathy for people that happens to. Because, you know, like this kid who was just talking to one of these girls, like that minor interaction that didn't even happen. That did. He didn't work up the courage or whatnot. You know, in, in a different case with possibly a worse judge that could have. That one minor interaction could have gotten his name posted everywhere and people saying he's a murderer. Think about that for a minute. But think about that. If that's your son or if it's someone you care about or have happened to you, that's not fair. So it, there is an importance and, and is there is a significant benefit to having a framework that allows for a defendant's rights to be defended without infringing on everyone else's rights and dragging them into a mess and basically allowing some nonsensical narrative that truly only benefits, you know, the lowest of the low and true crime to kind of be spun out.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Let me read a bit more of this. Order quote Presentation of the proffered alternate perpetrator evidence would pose a great threat of confusing the issues because it would force the state to defend against a nebulous allegation that perhaps these individuals were involved. This foray would lead the jury astray, turning its focus away from whether the defendant, the only person whose actions are on trial, committed the charged crimes. It also presents a threat of unfair prejudice as it would invite the jury to blame unrepresented persons for a heinous crime when there is not a scintilla of competent evidence connecting them to the crime. Finally, it would do nothing more than waste the precious time of the jury and the court in what is already a scheduled three month trial. Nonetheless, the court's ruling does not preclude defendant from confronting and cross examining the state's law enforcement for submit. Let me try that again.

[Anya Cain]

Take two.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Nonetheless, the court's ruling does not preclude defendant from confronting and cross examining the state's law enforcement witnesses regarding the thoroughness of the investigation, particularly in following up and ruling out leads generally. End quote. So he's saying, no, there's not even a scintilla of evidence against these people. You're just going to smear them. They don't have people in court to defend them. It's just a waste of time. You can still ask general questions of law enforcement about ruling out specific leads. Just don't mention these people unless you come up with a better reason first.

[Anya Cain]

That's exactly right. And it's this kind of thoughtfulness and this sort of also explaining it all is what endears Judge Hippler to me. He's obviously making some very competent and common sense rulings here, in my opinion. But in addition to that, he's explaining why. And that's helpful because, you know, too often the reasonable and intelligent and, you know, people at the heart of these cases seed ground to people who just say whatever. Because saying whatever gets you a huge audience. So I think it's, it's good to not see that ground and said to explain why you're doing things so people can't act like it's some mysterious aberration. And how could anyone not allow for a guy who approached a woman in a store and then didn't even talk to her? I mean, isn't that highly relevant, you know, versus, like, you know, the guy with DNA in the room?

[Kevin Greenlee]

But okay, so that's the end of my seven pagers. So I think it's time for your quartet of two pages.

[Anya Cain]

Let's get to what's really important here, folks. So obviously first we got the defendant's 22. Oh, gosh, I can't even. Let me just read this to you and then we'll move on.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Okay.

[Anya Cain]

The defendant's 24th supplemental request for discovery. Enough said, right?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah.

[Anya Cain]

The defend the motion to seal exhibit with defendant's 24th supplemental request for discovery. Enough said. Right. The amended scheduling order. I will read this. So quote, the court's prior scheduling order is amended as follows. 1. Sealed proceedings with the Court and Council will take place July 28, 2025 through August 1, 2025. Jury. 2. Jury voir dire will commence on August 4, 2025, rather than July 30, 2025, and continue until a jury is seated. 3. It is estimated that the trial itself, beginning with opening statements, will commence on August 18, 2028, 2025, and continue until completed. It is so ordered. Stephen J. Hipler. So moving things back a few days, but now we know when jury selection will take place. So August 4th, they're going to go as long as it takes. And then the estimated start time for the trial is going to be August 18th. So that's what we have to look forward to in this case. And then the last one is order sealing exhibit to defendants 24 supplemental requests for discovery. So you had to do all the heavy lifting this time.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So we're already done with yours.

[Anya Cain]

We are already done with mine. I do want to say here, though, Kevin, you know, people have asked us what are our plans in terms of covering Idaho? And obviously, you know, we have our book on the Delphi case comes out on August 26th. So that complicates matters. We'll be doing things around that. We'll be doing events, we will be doing signings. We will be talking to book clubs. You know, if you have any interest in that, shoot us an email. Murder sheetgmail.com. but that does mean that, you know, we, we can't go to Idaho, you know, in person. The good news is the trial is going to be broadcast.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So, so I think we're going to have regular coverage of the, of the trial. It's not going to be every day. I imagine we'll cover other stuff, too.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, I, I don't. I don't. We're not going to. It's not going to be like we're, we're camped out there again because also, you know, haven't really recovered from the first time we did that.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So we'll be checking in regularly about what's going on with the trial. It's not going to be every day.

[Anya Cain]

But we do plan to have regular coverage, and we're going to try to make it as robust and helpful for you as possible. So.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And we're going to be doing other cases, too.

[Anya Cain]

You can anticipate that we will be covering the trial, and we hope to cover it robustly and keep up with it. It just may not be every day.

[Kevin Greenlee]

But it won't be every day.

[Anya Cain]

No, it's not going to be every day, but it's going to be hopefully, like, kind of getting to what, what we feel is important in the coverage. And we really appreciate everyone who's been so kind, and we've gotten a lot of really nice feedback and discussions with some of you about our Idaho coverage. We really appreciate that.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And if you're not interested in Idaho, as I say, we will continue to offer episodes on other cases as well.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, it's, it'll be a balance, but it's, we're not, we're not, we're not not planning to cover it. We are planning to cover the trial. It just maybe not the same way we covered the Delphi trial. But, you know, again, part of that is just timing. It's just we, we have the book coming out like right then when it's happening.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So what's, what's the name of that book?

[Anya Cain]

I forgot. No, the name of the book is, of course, Shadow of the Bridge. It's going to be an in depth, behind the scenes look at the Delphi murders. You're going to, I think it answers a lot of people. I think we'll answer a lot of people's questions. It's getting, it gets into some pretty wild new stuff, in my opinion. And it's deeply reported and it's just about the case and what happened to Abby Williams and Libby German, these two young girls in Delphi, Indiana. Again, as I said, we're talking to book clubs. We're talking to everybody. If you have any interest in talking to us about the case for a book club or if you have a show or whatnot, please shoot us an [e-mail] I think it's a really important story, to be honest, because I think Delphi to a certain extent and other cases, but certainly Delphi, Delphi provides us a roadmap for what I feel is a very dark and disturbing turn for true crime that's happened in the last couple years. And I think we need to all be aware of this as people who are in this space, either as listeners or viewers or as content creators or as journalists or as anyone, anyone who's commenting, anyone who's kind of in this, we're all in this together. And we need to understand what I feel is going wrong here in order for us to try to correct it and try to make this a better space for everybody.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And then also, in addition to the T shirts we've been selling through our own site, we have another site where it's going to have like a bigger selection of designs and stuff. Where's that site?

[Anya Cain]

So that site is the murder sheet at. So it's going to be the murder sheet.dashery.com so that's t H E M U R d e r s h E-E-T.d a s H-E-R-Y.com so.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So wider variety.

[Anya Cain]

Wider variety. They got mugs, if you're interested. They've got. We're going to start adding new designs there. I think they already put together one in, like, wild design of me stealing cereal. But we're going to probably add more to that.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So if you have humiliating ideas for situations where we can put Anya in on T shirts or mugs or.

[Anya Cain]

Kevin, you know what? Let's. Let's share. Let's spread the wealth here a little bit, folks. What can Kevin be doing that's ridiculous on some of these merchandise? And again, we're hoping to add more styles, more fits, women's fit, things like that. But right now, this opens this up in terms of more inclusive sizing options. So really has a large degree of options that we didn't have previously. So we're really excited about that. Well, no, we're really excited about extra.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Large degree of options.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. Okay, thank you.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And I believe, last but certainly not least, we're going to CrimeCon. And there's a promo code.

[Anya Cain]

Yes, I believe we're going to CrimeCon. Of course we're going to Crime Con. We're really excited for this. For anyone who's going to crimecon, please come say hi to us. We're gonna be, you know, hopefully being able to sign some copies of the book and selling some additional T shirts. But even if you just wanna come say hi, come say hi. We'd love to see you. We really enjoy meeting folks who listen to the show and it's an honor to get to go to CrimeCon this year. We're really excited. We've never been there before, so we're a little nervous.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I've been there.

[Anya Cain]

Oh, you were there, right? You were. Kevin was at the inaugural CrimeCon in Indianapolis. I've never been in my life and I've heard great things. I've heard great things from victims families who find it a very helpful event. It can be very cathartic. So I'm thrilled. And let's. If you want to come, you can actually get a discount. So if you use code murder sheet, you can get 10% off your standard badge. So murder sheet, and that's for 10% off your standard badge. Please feel free to use that. It's a nice discount. Plus it lets them know that some people are there for us. So that's kind of nice that they won't be immediately regretting their decision to invite us. So we love that. But. No, but seriously, we're really, we're really thrilled and honored and excited and we're going to get to see some of our favorite podcasters and we're going to get to see some of you guys, and that's really, really cool. So come and say hi and we'll be standing there and we always look awkward, so sometimes people don't want to approach us. But you should. That's just how we look. We can't help it. Oh man. Is there anything else we wanted to say?

[Kevin Greenlee]

I think that's it.

[Anya Cain]

Awesome. All right, well, you guys take care and be safe. Bye.

[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 [e-mail] if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[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.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the [e-mail] if you're looking to talk with.

[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. We're obsessed with our Quint's pieces. Is that fair to say?

[Kevin Greenlee]

That's fair to say.

[Anya Cain]

What is Quint's?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Quint is a company. It lets you get really high quality clothing for very affordable prices.

[Anya Cain]

They do that because they basically cut out the middleman. You're just getting cut him right out. Yeah, they're getting it from the artisans. They're giving it to you. It's wonderful. It's going to be 50 to 80% less than those of their competitors and you're just going to get some wonderful things. We recently went shopping to get some summer styles. We'd previously gotten some winter styles, but we wanted to update. So we went on quints and we both got something. Let's talk about what we got. I got this wonderful a hundred percent European linen dress. It's a button front dress and it's in blue chambry stripe. I love this dress. I'm picky about dresses cause, like, I feel like I have a weird shaped body and sometimes they cut me off in a weird way. This one just fits like a dream. I love the way it fits. It is very much a classic sort of style. So I'm not worried about it going out of style in like two minutes and then I'm looking foolish. It just looks like something I can wear for years and years. I know I'm going to be wearing this dress a lot this summer.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I got a great shirt. I can't paint word pictures like you do, but I'm very happy with the shirt. I've gotten compliments on the shirt. It's a comfortable shirt.

[Anya Cain]

For anyone who is interested in learning more about the products that we purchased, he got a hundred percent European linen utility shirt in martini olive. So I think it looks really cute. I think that you look very cute in it. So I love it.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And keep watching our Facebook page because we will probably, if I convince her, take a picture of Anya wearing her dress and her beret.

[Anya Cain]

Oh, I got a beret too, because Kevin insists on me buying new hats. So I got a little blue beret. And yeah, I, I just really. Quince is one of those brands. I just love working with them because it's just stuff that I love to kind of come back to and keep buying because I love what they're doing, I love how ethical they are and I know that they're going to get me quality pieces fast. And with their wonderful return policy, you can try on different things. Make sure the sizing's right for you. And it's just a great deal for Murder Sheet listeners. So give your summer closet an upgrade with quinte. Go to quinte.com msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q U-N-E.com msheet to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com msheet you know, Anya, we are.

[Kevin Greenlee]

In this true crime space. It's such a difficult place to be in sometimes. And one of the reasons is because you're talking about cases that people have a real emotional involvement in. And so if you reach a conclusion that some people don't like online, they're going to like start attacking you and even threatening you.

[Anya Cain]

Yes.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And I know when that first started happening to us, it was really, really unsettling and difficult. And I know one thing that really helped us feel better and safer to continue on with the show was simplisafe.

[Anya Cain]

Simplisafe has been a company we've trusted for years. We've used them for years to protect our home. And one of the reasons is they just give us that peace of mind. As Kevin said, we're no strangers to controversy. And sometimes that can mean getting threats or getting basically hit veiled threats where people say they're gonna come hurt you because they disagree with what you're saying about a case. And so with Simplisafe, we're able to kind of keep the murder sheet train chugging along and not worry about that too much because we know that they are so proactive about how they keep homes secure. This is a company, I mean, their new active guard, outdoor protection, that's there to stop break ins before they happen. They're not just letting you know about, oh, this bad thing happened. They're trying to prevent it from even happening so you don't have to go through that trauma. They have live monitoring agents on hand 247 to possibly detect suspicious activity around the property. They have cameras. And also, one thing I like about them is they're flexible. They know that different people have different needs. They know that if you're a renter, you can't necessarily set up the same amount of equipment and it can't be on the walls permanently as you could do if you're a homeowner. So they're great for renters, they're great for homeowners. No contracts, no hidden fees. Visit simplisafe.com msheet to claim 50% off a new system with a professional monitoring plan and get your first month free. That's simplisafe.com msheet there's no safe like Simplisafe.