261: Idaho 4 Update: Proof Bryan Kohberger Had No Ties to The Four Victims?!

Hey, true crime besties. Welcome back to an all new episode of Serialistly.

hey everybody welcome back to an all-new episode of Serialistly with me, your host, Annie E. Lees.
And we have got a lot to talk about today regarding the Idaho 4 case. Now, if you're brand new and you haven't checked out this podcast before, let me just break it down for you really quick.
But basically, what I like to do over here is talk with you guys about these true crime cases, but do so in a less clinical and sterile way. And what I mean by that is I want it to be just like we're having a conversation amongst friends, calling out the red flags, having a frank conversation, and just really kind of having the dialogue back and forth.
So even though I get it, you're not in the studio with me. The way I'm talking and the way I'm looking at the camera might as well be here because I feel like I am just talking to somebody who's sitting next to me.
So I don't know. Hopefully it comes across that way when you're listening to it as well.
But if I miss the mark, I guess don't tell me because it'll hurt my feelings. No, but anyway, there has been so much happening in the Idaho case and new updates almost weekly now at this point as we're gearing up for the trial in August.
And although I just did an update on this case a little over a week ago, there's now again more information. And I think that that was kind of to be expected, right? Because there have been so many different hearings going on.
We know that more information about the case itself is getting released and we're learning more about, it started with the 911 call, but then about the text message history, the Snapchat, the Amazon history. I mean, we constantly are learning things.
So I would guess that we probably will be having updates like this weekly or bi-weekly until the trial starts in August. That's just my guess because again, more information just keeps coming out.
And the reason we have an update today is because there was a hearing this last week that was a very, very long hearing, and there was a lot of new information given out in this hearing. I mean, the defense and the state just continues to really battle it out with one another, and experts are now saying that there is concrete evidence, digital proof, that shows that Brian Koberger had zero connection to any of the victims.
And that's huge because what everybody's been wondering for the last couple of years at this point is who was the target? What was the motive? Did he meet them at the Mad Greek restaurant or first notice them there? Did he follow one of them on Instagram? And they're now going into great detail about that, all the way into like Venmo receipts. So I'm going to talk to you guys all about that.
There's, of course, more information now too about the Amazon histories and if that's going to be allowed into trial, what words we are going to expect to hear or not hear, certain terminology, and I'll discuss that as well. So we have quite a bit to go over.
And I want to know from you guys in the comments where you currently stand with this case. I feel like for the last couple of years, the majority of people out there, although cloaked in innocence until proven guilty, I understand that, but I will say the majority of people out there definitely thought, you know, Brian Koberger is the guy.
He's going to be found guilty. It's him.
It's him. It's him.
Well, there have over the last, I would call it what, eight to 10 months, been more people coming out saying, no, no, no, he's innocent. He's not only being framed, he's being set up.
There was a second person involved, which also in my last video, you know, we talked about that, where the defense brought up that there was a second person in question back then, or like a person of interest, I should say. And so it seems like now it's more divided than it ever really has been.
A lot of people do believe that Brian is innocent. I even saw a comment in one of my last videos that they're dubbing themselves as ProBurgers because his last name is Coburger.
But I'm curious where you sit. And I've kept it real with you from the beginning, okay? I have thought in my gut that this is the guy, that they got their guy and there is just too much coincidence and inconsistencies and evidence that we have heard of to not be him, to just be casually explained away.
But I also am like hearing some of the stuff like what we'll be going over today to where I'm like, you know, it's circumstantial at best. Whether or not this is the guy, do they have enough to convict him? And that's a really scary place to be.
Not, I mean, scary for Brian, scary for the victim's family, scary for everybody, because if not Brian, or if not convicted, will these victims ever get justice? And I'm going to stop talking now. Let me just get into all this new information and break it down for you.
And like I said, let me know as we go in the comments what you think. So this week's court session in the Brian Koberger case was not your typical hearing.
It was like an all-day just legal face-off. I'm talking packed with jabs from the judge, heated back and forths between the attorneys, and really some important reveals about what might make it in front of a jury this summer in August.
And I want to start with one of the defense's biggest asks in this because they said they do not want the state, or any witnesses for that matter, throwing around words like psychopath or sociopath, which we know that those words have been used a lot in the media to describe Brian Koberger, or possibly describe him. So the defense is saying there is no medical diagnosis to back those terms up, or that kind of.
So calling him that or using that terminology during the trial, it would be wildly inappropriate. There is no argument made for which that would stand.
Yes, he could be called a murderer because he has been charged with that, but sociopath and psychopath, those are medical terms. That is what you are diagnosed with.
So since he has not been diagnosed with that, they're arguing he should not be called that or referred to that at all, which honestly, they're not wrong because words like that do hit different when they are said in court, when they are said in a formal setting where it's not casual, like me being like, oh my god, my ex-boyfriend, he was such a sociopath or something like that. But if you're in a court and if you hear the state or a witness say, he's a sociopath, he did this, he did that, I think there is a different level of heaviness that is attached to the words.
And that's just my opinion. And apparently, I guess not just my opinion, because the judge agreed and said, unless there is expert proof, those terms are off the table.
At least, correction, at least during the guilt phase. So unless it's backed by expert evidence, which at this point, it just doesn't exist, those terms cannot be said.
The defense also asked to limit the jury's exposure to some of the very brutal, very horrific crime scene photos, which, fair, some of the images are reportedly horrific. We know that at the scene, it was reported that just walking inside the door, you could smell the blood.
It was just, you know, for lack of a better term, a full bloodbath in that house, and that Zanna had such defensive wounds that a finger was almost hanging off of her. Like, we know that this was a truly barbaric and haunting scene.
But also, here's the thing, okay? The nature of the crime is horrific. It is.
So you're going to have horrific crime scene photos. That's just, unfortunately, the nature of the beast.
But they argued that these images would do more shock than actual informing of the jury. Now, the judge didn't make a blanket ruling on that particular situation, but the judge did acknowledge that some of these photos are especially disturbing and said, you know what, because we do think it's important that some of the images are shown, but we understand some of them are very, very graphic, they're going to be evaluated individually during the trial.
Now, my personal opinion is I wouldn't be shocked if a lot of those images still make their way into this trial because, again, the nature of the crime is horrific. There's no way to get around that.
So it's not that they would be showing horrific autopsy photos or things like that, maybe, but the crime scene photos itself, it's important to understand what went on in that King Road house, right? Now, here's something new that we heard a lot about in this hearing, and they were battling back and forth for quite some time. We finally have details on a previously unreleased traffic stop that involved Brian Koberger.
Now, this traffic stop happened two miles from the crime scene, and it started just before school started in August of 22 that year. So the prosecution wants to use this traffic stop video in the trial, which people are like, why? This was before the murders even took place.
But the reason they want to use this is because it shows Brian in the area, at night, in the car, just like they're alleging he was the night of the murders. However, the defense says that it's more prejudicial than actually helpful, pointing out that in this traffic stop footage, Brian is making these offhanded comments, you know, talking about seatbelts, questions about giving his phone number, kind of being like not resistant or abrasive with the cops, but kind of, to where if you're watching that, you could see, okay, this person's kind of coming off sketchy.
Like, why are they so resistant to the police? So I get why they're worried. I mean, anything that makes him look evasive, especially paired with the timeline, it's risky for the defense's case.
And they say that they fear that it could all be twisted into something way more sinister. But think about it.
I mean, if you're in a trial and you're seated on the jury and they're accusing somebody of a quadruple homicide and you see that they were stopped by in a traffic stop a couple months before the murder and you're watching that body cam footage and this person's like well why do you need my phone number or giving kind of like talking back a little bit about their seat belt or just kind of acting weird i think any of us and maybe i get maybe just me but i feel like most people would watch them and be like, why is he being so sketchy?

Why is he, like, asking so many questions?

Why is he so nervous?

Especially given that the stop was near the home, right?

So while I get both sides of the argument, I think I get the defense.

I get why they're worried and why they say I think this could be twisted and turned into something more sinister as far as like his behavioral issues, his attitude, his entitlement possibly, whatever they say that it's going to be twisted into. But I also understand the state wanting to bring it in because I understand them wanting to be like, look, he was near the house.
This is him in the car. This is him at night.
Almost so it's like you can visualize what they're alleging he did that night as well, right? So ultimately, the judge hasn't ruled on it, so stay tuned, but that was a big point of contention. And now I want to talk about the eyebrows, the bushy eyebrows, because as we know, one of the surviving roommates' description of the man that she saw in the house those early morning hours included the exact words, bushy eyebrows, which prosecutors are linking to that selfie that Brian Koberger took six hours after the murders, the one where he's in the bathroom taking it and they're trying to enter that selfie into evidence being like, look, here are the bushy eyebrows.
Here's what she described. However, the defense is now questioning if Dylan is even reliable, citing she was really heavily drinking that day.
She started with morning mimosas. She moved on to White Claws.
She then moved on to this homemade Borg, which I honestly am too old to know what that is. I had to research it, but it kind of sounds like it's like a rum jungle, like vodka punch where you just like pour a bunch of things into it.
And like, I don't know what you call it. Dealer's choice, something like that.
But basically citing like, look, she had been drinking all day, also into the night. Here's all the things that she had been drinking.
Clearly, she doesn't know what she saw. She was wasted.
She could have seen anything. Like they're trying to just put her reliability into question here.
They also say that she never even brought up the eyebrows on her own, that the police did. So really, they're questioning whether she actually even recalled those details herself ever, or if the investigators fed her that

information. Which, if they fed her that information, that's a big problem.
And I have seen, from after

my last video, I've seen some different takes out there and different accounts for this, where

Dylan apparently drew the sketch of the guy before police said anything about the balaclava mask that he was wearing, so that that happened before they told her anything about a mask. I don't know what the exact timeline was of when she first mentioned bushy eyebrows and then it, you know, took flight, but the defense is saying, look, not only was she drunk, but we also think that the detectives spoon fed her this information about bushy eyebrows which i don't know why they would do that because how would they even know what kind of guy they were looking for at the time i don't know but anyway the defense is arguing it however prosecutors are firing back saying no no no dylan gave the description of him multiple times even before b Koberger was ever even arrested so personally I think that it might be a toss-up I mean jurors might empathize with a scared drunk college girl college student but I think they also might equally doubt the clarity of her memory recalling maybe their own time when they used to party that sometimes sometimes, you know, not only is your vision impaired, but your memory's impaired.
I think it could go either way. There's been no decision yet, but it's clear that both sides are definitely gearing up for a battle over Dylan's credibility.
Then there's also the topic of Brian Koberger's autism that has been brought up, and we've talked about this a little bit before, I think a little bit in our last video. His defense team wants to ensure that it cannot be used against him if the trial reaches the sentencing phase.
They say that they're worried that the prosecution is going to use his social awkwardness as some kind of ammo, saying they're worried that the state could twist, you know, his social behaviors such as awkward eye contact or how he stands in rooms or something like that and twist that into something more menacing or even sinister. Almost like, well, you see how he's acting, you see how he's behaving, you see how he's fidgeting or how he won't make eye contact, when really that's a direct reflection of the autism is what they're saying.
Which I honestly think that they do have a point in this. Nobody's social awkwardness or social behaviors that are out of their control should be used against them, not unless it directly ties to a crime or something that they did, which I also got to say, if the prosecution is planning to use somebody's autism against them, not as reasoning for something they've done or haven't done, but rather using their behaviors as a factor in it, That's kind of gross to me, and I don't know that the prosecution would do that, but I guess the defense is trying to get ahead of it.
And when the defense brought this up, the prosecution did flat out say they have no intention of using autism as an aggravating factor. And frankly, when they said that, they also said they have, quote, this is a direct quote, much better arguments for the death penalty if it does get that far.
Specifically, they said they have even more aggravating factors, which I think that that shows how confident they are in their case. I really do.
Because if they're like, we're not even bringing that up. You have no need to worry.
We have way more evidence, way more aggravating factors if it gets to the death penalty phase. Like, that to me shows they're not even concerned at all, and that the autism diagnosis and his behaviors with that aren't even on their radar of bringing it in.
But I guess we'll see. Now, in a more personal turn in this hearing, Brian Koberger's lawyers asked the court to let his family attend the trial.
And I gotta say, this was one of the more emotional moments of this hearing because the prosecution has included some of his relatives on their witness list. And like any trial, if a relative, a friend, whomever it is, is on a witness list, that means that they would be barred from sitting in the trial until after they testify because they don't want anything to taint their testimony.
If they see something or hear something from another testimony ahead of theirs, like you basically are removed until you testify, then you can sit in on the balance just to keep it pure and keep it clean. But the defense is calling it out, saying they feel like listing all of these relatives as a witness is actually just a tactic, a strategic move to isolate Brian Koberger even further,

that they don't need these relatives or people listed as witnesses, that they're doing this

intentionally because they don't want Brian to have any sort of support in the courtroom.

And the defense even emphasized that, yeah, his parents have shown unwavering support,

but they also can't afford to fly back and forth from the East Coast, even though they do want to be there. They do want to support him.
So they're saying, like, look, they just want to be there for their son. And the judge is actually siding with the defense here, telling prosecutors, you know, you need to adjust the order of your witnesses so that you can allow the family to be present for more of the trial.
And by that, he means, okay, if these witnesses were set to go last, say, then obviously they wouldn't be able to sit through the majority of the duration of the trial. So the judge is saying, reshuffle it up, bring them in first, so then they can be there for the balance of the trial.
But a lot of people are torn on this. A lot of people are saying, like, no, he doesn't need to have the support in the courtroom.
He's an alleged quadruple murderer, like, but then other people are saying, no, it doesn't matter until you have been found guilty of something you absolutely deserve support in the courtroom of your family, your friends, whomever wants to go. So, I don't know.
Where do you sit on that? Now, we also know that one of the most talked about pieces of evidence in this case has been Brian Koberger's Amazon activity. And we are getting a little bit more information about this because prosecutors are saying that Brian used a gift card that was bought with his own debit card to purchase the K-Bar knife and that that purchase was made months before the murders.
So just to track that one more time, that'd be like me right now using my debit card to buy a Visa gift card than to use that Visa gift card on Amazon to buy something. But it all traces back to Brian.
However, the defense is pushing back on this, saying, you know, clicks on a website do not prove intent to buy. Algorithms can always suggest or even auto-load items into somebody's shopping cart online, which, that's true.
I mean, happens to me all the time. Every time I go on Amazon, it's like, here is what you looked at last or here's suggested items for you.
Sometimes on other platforms, it actually will add things to your cart too. So I get where that argument might hold a little bit of water, but the prosecution says, no, we're not guessing here.
We have records. We have timestamps.
We have linked accounts. We have devices.
It's all there. A digital paper trail.
It's not guesswork. And honestly, it's not just about what he bought.
It's about when he bought it, how he bought it, and how everything else just starts to connect with it. Why are you buying something with a gift card that you bought with a debit card unless you're trying to hide it? Like, things like that.
And the state plans to walk the jury through all of this, the entire digital trail they say they have. Now, during this hearing, we also circled back to Brian Koberger's claimed alibi.

As you may remember, Brian's team says that he was just driving around, alone, stargazing.

Something that he allegedly did often to, quote, look at the stars.

Totally normal, right? Said no one ever who has tried to prove an alibi in court.

But I get it. You need some sort of alibi, so why not throw stargazing into the mix? Across state lines? In the middle of the night? Sure.
And that's just my personal opinion. So the alibi comes up again.
And his team is now introducing a cell phone expert who's trying to back up that claim. The expert says that they can confirm some movement, but that the phone was off during the murders.

So since his phone was allegedly off at the time of the murders, it still is a little bit shaky. But they're saying we can confirm some movement.
That's when he was out there stargazing and driving around. But we can't confirm his whole alibi because then his phone turned off, which the prosecution, of course, is saying, well, yeah, his phone turned off because he went and committed a quadruple murder.
Now, because of this whole like phone expert coming in and the alibi and it being kind of a partial alibi, that's actually exactly what the prosecution is calling it, a partial alibi, which Idaho law doesn't apparently recognize. Under Idaho law, an alibi needs to be more than a vague statement and partial cooperation.
And as of now, Brian doesn't have a solid witness to vouch for his whereabouts that night. Not at all.
So unless he himself testifies, that alibi might not even go anywhere. And speaking of, I don't know if Brian's going to testify.
I'm curious to know what you guys think. My gut? I don't know.
My gut tells me no, but the more I think about it, maybe. Maybe.
I don't know. Now, to make things even messier, which I don't even know if that's possible, because this hearing was already so much back and forth, just watching everybody, like, argue with each other, but the defense started accusing prosecutors of hiding key cell data.
Now, the judge called them out on this almost immediately, warning them, you know, you can't just throw around these kind of accusations without having solid concrete proof. Doing that is not going to fly in this courtroom.
So like, figure it out, get your evidence, or, you know, zip it. He basically said, don't make serious accusations unless you can prove them.
And frankly, he looked pretty annoyed that this even had to be addressed. Just my take, but definitely did.
So finally, we have to talk about one more thing in this hearing, and it's the question that still haunts the case. And honestly, it's the question that's on all of our minds, right? What was the motive here? Is there any known connection between Brian Koberger and the victims, any of the victims? Why did he do this? What would have made him do this? Now, his defense team has long said, no, first of all, he didn't do this, but he had no connection to the victims.
He had no motive in this. There was no reason.
And so far, experts have combed through phones, computers, financial records, social media accounts, and nothing has turned up. No link, no contact, no relationship, zero.
And even the judge confirmed that after digging through phones, computers, financials, social media, there's nothing. No known link.
Not a DM, not a Venmo, not a class together, nothing. And that is huge because without a motive, you have to rely entirely on circumstantial evidence.
Also maybe a little bit on behavior and interpretation, but circumstantial evidence. That could truly go either way in front of a jury.
I mean, yes, you do still have the DNA that was left behind on the sheath button, but all of the other evidence that people are talking about, aside from that one tiny speck of DNA, is circumstantial. And remember, I cited this at the beginning of the episode, but there were those rumors in the beginning about Brian following Maddie on Instagram or maybe being in her DMs or trying to hang out.
There were rumors that he saw, I think it was Maddie and Xana, at Mad Greek restaurant because it was a vegan restaurant and that he frequented and like became fixated or obsessed with her. But they're saying now that there is no known link, that they have scraped

everything and have not found any sort of connection. Now, I do want to say this, and for

those of you who are following the case, please correct me and school me in the comments, but I do

vaguely remember Kaylee's father, Steve Gonsalves, saying something like there was a connection or

Thank you. are following the case, please correct me and school me in the comments.
But I do vaguely remember Kaylee's father, Steve Gonsalves, saying something like there was a connection or there was like a quote about Brian saying, you know, he didn't need to go upstairs, almost like who he was looking for was downstairs. Or maybe it was the opposite.
Maybe it was he didn't need to go downstairs. I can't remember exactly.
I don't remember the details off the top of my head. Let me know if you do.
Again, it's just a vague memory. But I do recall there being something said early on, maybe like a year and a half ago or a year ago, where there was something said about there being a target.
And it's been my long suspected belief that there was a target. I believe Maddie was the target, which perhaps I'm wrong and, you know, prove me wrong with the digital evidence, you know.
We're going to find out during trial, obviously. But that kind of just raises a bunch more questions, right? If there was no target, if there was no connection, would he have really just picked a random house and a random victim? If he was casing the house as the state state is suggesting he was, remember all of the cell phone pings in the months leading up to the murder, you know, a couple dozen times or whatever, if he was casing the house, wouldn't he know it was a party house and that multiple people were coming and going and staying to where if he was going to just pick a random house and a random target to like get a thrill kill, why would he pick that house when there's such a risk of multiple people being in there? Was he watching them? Was he preying on them? Did he never have any known connection, but he had seen them somewhere? And then like, it's hard to get the digital footprint and he followed them? I don't know.
But that worries me a little bit. Not in the sense if he's innocent, but like, which again, personally, I don't think he is.
But if they get Dylan's identification thrown out, or the jury doesn't believe it because they're citing how wasted she was, if he says he has an alibi, even though it's like a bullshit alibi, in my opinion, stargazing. but then if they say there's no connection to these victims there's no reason he would want to kill them he would didn't do this we have no murder weapon there was no blood found at his apartment there was no connection to these victims.
There's no reason he would want to kill them. He didn't do this.
We have no murder weapon. There was no blood found at his apartment.
There was no personal identification of anybody that he kept as like a trophy. There's no connection.
There's nothing like, can you really, on a jury, convict somebody without any reasonable doubt? I don't know. I don't know.
What do you think? Now again, what they said was no known connection. So that doesn't necessarily take that there was a connection off the table and that they just don't know about it yet or that maybe there wasn't a digital footprint to back it up.
But I don't know. It's getting interesting.
It's getting very interesting, especially if you watched my last update where we talked about the seven minutes that the defense is claiming changes everything in this case. So this case is only getting more intense the closer we get to trial.
And if this hearing is any indication, we are in for months of new information, new twists, and more questions, if I'm being honest. So like I said, I'm going to keep you guys updated as these updates happen, it seems like, weekly.
So if you're not subscribed, subscribe now so that you don't miss any of those updates, and we'll see where this goes. What do you guys think? Do you sit in the camp of thinking Brian Kober is the guy, they got their guy, he's guilty? Do you sit in what they're calling themselves the Pro Burgers, thinking he's innocent or that he's been framed and that there's somebody else involved? Or do you now kind of sit in this other bucket of, I think Brian's the guy, but I'm worried about the evidence and I'm worried about a rock-solid conviction? The state feels very, very confident.
And again, we don't know all of the information they have because of the gag order that had been put in place.

We're just now getting bits and pieces of it.

But they seem to be very confident and rock solid in this.

But there are certain things that give me a little pause.

But then again, I say that and I think back to, okay, if they can prove the phone pings, if they can prove the purchase history,

all these things that are too coincidental to be explained away any other way or be explained as a coincidence. Like, there is a lot of strength in that case.
I don't know. I don't know.
I still believe in my heart of hearts. He's the guy.
But I also am at a point now too where I'm like, you know what? Let's sit back. Let's hear all the evidence.
Let's see what's going on. Like, will we be proven wrong? Or will there not be enough evidence? I don't know.
Thank you guys so much for tuning in to another episode of Serialistly with me. Don't forget, if you do not want to miss any of these updates and these random episodes that I release outside of the normal release schedule, take a quick second, whatever podcast app you're listening on, go to the corner, press follow, follow the show.
It's totally free, but that way you will not miss any time I push these out. All right, guys.
Other than that, I will be back with you tomorrow with Headline Highlights where we are talking about everything under the sun in the true crime world going on this week. And there is a lot.
We also have more updates with Lori Vallow, with Karen Reed, with some breaking cases. So check back for that tomorrow.
All right. Thanks again, guys.
And until the next one, be nice. Don't kill people.
And don't join any cults. Just get a divorce.

All the things. All right.
Bye. Thank you.