Emily and Shane are recapping the most intriguing cases from this month's true crime lineup.
From Bryan Kohberger to the 16 children found in their “house of horrors”, they’re giving you the latest updates.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hi, guys, Welcome to Legally Brunette. I'll be your host today,
Emily Simpson with today. Welcome to our end of the
month recap, where we're going to talk about some of
our favorite cases that we went over this month. But
first of all, we're going to start with Brian Coberger,
who that's the Idaho murder college student case. We originally
(00:22):
weren't going to talk about him in the end of
month recap, but because there's been so much new information
coming up about him and we have done several episodes
on the Idaho murders in the past, that we thought
we would start with Brian Coberger. So he is a
former criminology PhD student who was arrested back in December
of twenty twenty two for the stabbing murders of four
(00:44):
University of Idaho students Ethan Shapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogan,
and Kaylee Gonsalves. They were killed in their off campus
home in Moscow, Idaho. This is back in November of
twenty twenty two. Brian Coberger was apprehended at his parents'
home in Pennsylvania after investigators linked him to the crime
(01:04):
through DNA evidence. And cell phone data. He had been
studying at nearby Washington State University at the time of
the murders. After lengthy legal proceedings, Coburger pleaded guilty in
twenty twenty five and was sentenced to life in prison
without the possibility of parole. He avoided the death penalty.
Now there's been new information that's just come out that
(01:27):
he is seeking to take back his guilty plea. Did
you see this?
Speaker 2 (01:31):
I only saw the headline that said he was it
was being considered. Is there any more details?
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Well, I don't think it's being considered. It's just he
has made a I guess emotion if you will, that
he wants to rescind his guilty plea. So we're going
to get into that. About a year after Brian Coberger
pleaded guilty to the twenty twenty two murders of four
University of Idaho students, he is now seeking to withdraw
(01:59):
that plea. He changed his plea just one month before
jury's selection was set to begin by and he did
this to avoid the death penalty, and he received a
sentence of life without parole. When Judge Stephen Hipler directly
asked whether he was pleading guilty because he was guilty.
Coberger answered yes in open court. Now, in this new
(02:21):
filing that he submitted, this is him submitting on his behalf.
I don't believe he's represented by counsel because the motion
or the affidavit that he is that he's filed seeking
to take back his guilty plea is handwritten in his
own handwriting.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Okay, so it's not.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
It doesn't look as if he's represented by counsel that's
putting this out there.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Okay, all right, unless he unless he just did that
on his own, without counsel's advice, like you, he submitted
it or something.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
That's what I'm saying. I think he just I think he.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
He might still be represented. He just probably submitted this
on his own.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
Cober.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
He submitted this filing on Monday, and is claiming that
his attorneys provided ineffective assistance and that his plea was
not made knowingly or voluntarily, and that it was secured
through what he describes as false promises and misinformation. Specifically,
he alleges that his legal team withheld potentially exculpatory evidence
(03:24):
during plea discussions assured him the plea didn't need to
be truthful despite his insistence of his innocence, and made
promises about privileges that he would receive in prison, including contact,
visits and freedom of movement, that were never honored. He
also claims they painted a misleading picture of what life
on death row would look like compared to his actual life.
(03:49):
Since I've read before that he's having problems in prison,
I think he was under the assumption. No, I think
he was under the assumption that it wasn't going to
be as challenging for him. I think he thought that
he was going to, you know, be able to freely
move about and basically have some type of nice life
(04:12):
life behind bars. And I think him wanting to rescind
this plea deal is because he's very unhappy with his.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
New home.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Right, he says in this handwritten plea, my actual innocence
is my truth, and the plea, hinged on by false
promises and blatant dis information, must be withdrawn. This is
a statement. Oh, he also did an interview with The
New York Times. So once he submitted this new this
new filing on his behalf, he did do an interview
(04:44):
with the New York Times, and that was a statement
that he gave them Coberger has signed a questionnaire. Oh also,
this was interesting, I read this, so before he can enter,
Remember he didn't. He was all set to go to
trial and there were jury selections going on, and then
all of a sudden, it was the news came out
that he pled guilty so that he could avoid trial,
(05:05):
and he also avoided the des sentence at the same time. Yeah,
in order for him to plead guilty in open court,
they made him and I'm sure this is with any plead,
they make sure that you're voluntarily pleading guilty. So he
had to go through a lengthy questionnaire and answer all
the questions of basically like is this you know what
I mean? Like are you answering this freely? Do you understand?
Speaker 3 (05:27):
Do you know this?
Speaker 1 (05:28):
Do you understand this? And he had to go through
and answer all these questions on a questionnaire so that
he could exhibit that he was openly and willingly admitting.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
To his guilty. Right stress.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Under Idaho law, withdrawing a guilty plea becomes significantly harder
once a sentence has already been handed down.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
That's really tough. It's like, yeah, oh wait I didn't, okay,
wait I didn't do it. I'm going to change my story.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
Yeah, sorry, I'm just kidding.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
I just signed that because I thought I was going
to get to freely move about and have good meals
and you know, be able to do whatever I wanted.
And it's not really happening that way.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
I'd like to go back to I didn't kill anyone. Yeah,
can we come back to that.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Prior to sentencing. The Idaho Rule of Criminal Procedure this
is thirty three c uses a lenient, fair and just
reason standard, but post sentencing, the bar rises to manifest injustice,
which is a much higher threshold. In order to meet
that standard, Coberger would need to demonstrate that his plea
was not entered voluntarily. So this is the standard of
(06:31):
him being able to rescind this plea.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Right. He has to.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
Prove that the plea was not entered voluntarily and that
he wasn't properly informed of the consequences or that he
otherwise lacked informed consent. And also he has to prove
that he had ineffective legal counsel at the time as well.
So he has like a huge threshold to be able.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
To Yeah, that's a good luck to him.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Yeah, So anyway I want to read.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
And it's likely if the courts followed the regular procedures.
I mean, they do all that. They ask them all
the questions, they have them know what the penalties that
he's facing. They have them know everything and know all
his rights, so that way someone doesn't come back and
then say, oh, I didn't know right. So they do
do all that a lot. I've seen it. So if
they followed the procedures to ensure that he was aware
(07:25):
of everything before accepting or before pleading guilty, he's got
a tough road to battle.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
I do have a copy of his actual handwritten filing.
He says council's failure to inform petitioner of exculpatory discovery
received during plea discussions, namely clumps of unknown hair found
in Ethan Chapin's hands, as well as a failure of
further inquiry, that's interesting. I don't know if that's true,
but I do know that there was a book that
came out recently that seems to lean towards Brian Koberger
(07:58):
being innocent. So I don't know that unknown hair. I
believe that might have been part of the book, but
I don't know if this if he read the book,
or if this is something he learned after the fact.
Petitioner was convinced that actual guilt was not an important
factor in considering plea acceptance, death row was eminence and
advise to lie. He claims that they told him to lie,
that he had been saying all along he was innocent,
(08:20):
but he just lied and said that he was guilty.
And then a gross misrepresentation of and promises regarding what
a life sentence would immediately afford petitioner, and a gross
misrepresentation of death row in Idaho, including an elaborate fabricated
story of council's horrific experience touring an actual eight y
eight death row cell, all communicated to petitioner and his
(08:42):
family through counsel, thus constituting threats and promises made to
induce a plea agreement. So basically, he's saying that they
told him that death row was horrible, which would be
a possibility if he goes to trial, and that he
would be in an eight y eight death row cell.
And I guess he's claiming that they misrepresented did and
scared him to death. And basically he just said, okay, fine,
(09:03):
I'll plead guilty so that I can avoid death row.
It's this my interpretation of what he's saying. All right,
So we'll keep following Brian Coberger and see what happens
with that case.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
America Gay that was pursuing criminal justice as masters. Yes,
so all of a sudden he doesn't know what he's
up against.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
That's true. That's a good point.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
All right.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Let's move on.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Another case that we did this month was the sixteen
children in the House of whoorors And, Ohio. This happened
back in late June twenty twenty six. There were sixteen
children ages eighteen months to eighteen years that were discovered
living in horrible conditions inside that small home in Hampden, Ohio.
They were largely confined to a single twelve by twelve room,
(09:53):
which is bigger than that we just talked about. The
cell that you would have on death row is eight
by eight. They were surrounded by filth and human feces
and had none of them were enrolled in school. Four
parents were arrested and charged with child in daygermant. That
was Gary the father, Christina the mother. Gary Sider's seventy three,
who is the grandfather Christina Siders sixty six, who is
(10:14):
the grandmother. Gary Siders the second, who is thirty six,
and the dad, well, allegedly the dad. I guess we
still haven't done I don't know if we've done DNA
testing on a last kid. You don't do any DNA testing.
And Elizabeth Siders the mother thirty three. Here's some updates
on this case since we did the last episode. Elizabeth
and Gary Siders are both being held at Southeastern Ohio
(10:38):
Regional Jail on three hundred thousands dollar bond, each facing
sixteen counts of child neglect. Gary the second, this is
the dad. His booking sheet noted that he was under
the influence of alcohol and or drugs at the time
that he was booked, and Elizabeth's booking sheet revealed that
she is not currently pregnant. A gag order is now
(10:58):
in place, restricting law enforcement and orneys from commenting on
the case. Why do you think there's a gag order now?
Because everybody was commenting on it, The attorneys were talking
and they were doing press content. It's on the attorneys
and law enforcement, so they can't talk about.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
The case now.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Maybe it has to do with miners and stuff, so
it was just easier to have a blanket like gag
order instead of monitoring everything that's being said.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
Gary, this is the father. Gary's attorney has filed emotion
requesting a mental competency evaluation to determine if he's fit
to stand trial. Additionally, Gary the second, who is the
dad or allegedly is the dad, faces separate misdemeanor public
and decency charges tied to four incidents in May, though
he has yet to enter a plea. And this other
(11:46):
separate case. That's can you imagine four separate indecent exposure charges?
That means he's just out there like like pulling his
pants down in front of people.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
That's only four times he's been caught.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Right, four times he's been caught. That means he's probably
doing it all the time. So and he has children, oh,
on a daily basis, Elizabeth Siders attorney, he.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Doesn't wear a belt, he has elastic pants.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Probably, well, you would have to to get four at
least four in decent charges in decent.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
Saw a body cam vide the other day. It was
like this hotel, like this guy that is like sixty.
He looked young, and he looked fit and everything. He
gets in the jacuzzie of the spa. I shouldn't say
Jauzie JACUZI you know it's the last name. I know,
it's a last name spa in the hot spa. And
apparently he takes his his little swim trunks off in
(12:37):
the hot top underneath. Yeah, and then he floats up
to the top on his back, you know. Yeah, he
closes himself and the girls get out and run. Teenage
girls and I'm not making light of it is bad.
But then the young girls reports to the mom. The
mom reports to the police, like they're adamant, like this
is wrong, and we saw what we saw and it
(12:59):
was deliberate, so good because they're trying to prevent it
from becoming a bigger issue.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
Right.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
But when he approached the guy, he's just like, oh,
there was air bubbles in my swim trunks and so
I just took my pants. I didn't No one could
see anything. There's there's bubbles everywhere. You can't see like
that was his defense was, you can't see my penis,
it's underwater.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
But it wasn't.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
They they did, and he was denying and then he
was apologizing and he does it's more comfortable if he
just takes his pants off and then but get this.
Then it was female cops, so they were happy to
bust this creep, right, And there were some male cops
there too, and they're happy to bust them two. But
those female cops wanted to go tell the mom and
the adult kids what he was being arrested for. They
(13:45):
were very happy to report because they were like, you
want to tell them, let's go, let's go tell. Let's
go tell us. They like knock on the door and
they're like, yeah, your husband is being arrested for indecent
exposure of blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
They were embarrassed, Oh, I didn't understand what you were
saying earlier.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
They were happy to go tell.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
His wife, his family, his family, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Because they were kind of like, let's go tell, let's
go tell he's being arrested. Usually they're like, you know,
you can go to the station figure it out. Yeah,
this screeps on vacation with his wife. Yeah, and he
chooses to go to the hot tub.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
With teenage girls in it and take his pants off
and then float to the top right with.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
His ding dong up in the air.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
Yes, this is Gary Siders probably doesn't even wear pants
at this point, how do you get four indecent?
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Well, how is he not? Yea?
Speaker 3 (14:30):
How was he still charges? Yeah, I have.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
I have been in a public indecency situation. It was
at Target and your pants fall off.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
No, it was not me. I saw a man.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
A man pulled up next to me in the parking
lot and I was getting at an suv. I think
I drove Escalade at the time, so it was up high.
And when I looked over my shoulder to back out
of the space at Target, the car next to me
he was. He had his pants off and he was,
you know, doing his thing in the car. And I
(15:03):
went in and told security or whatever, because I thought,
I don't know, some kids going to like walk next
to him or near him or something. Anyway, there's some creepy,
weird people out there. They're in Ohio. Carrie Siders is
in Ohio, and there's some of them are at Target
in the parking lot. Be careful in the parking lot
or Walmart. Elizabeth Sider's attorney, Tommy Stoley, is pushing back
(15:26):
on the characterization that the children are almost feral, a
description that was used by the Ohio attorney General Andy
Wilson following the June thirtieth raid at their home. We've
already debunked to the myth that these kids were almost feral.
He pointed out that the older children had active social
media pages and that these kids could talk. They spoke
(15:47):
when the police came in. Her attorney also added that
he's uncertain Wilson was ever present at the scene. The attorney.
Her attorney paints a different picture and provides detail that
if we're talking about feral children, those are children who
do not understand the world. If the kids can speak,
(16:07):
I think that changes the analysis. I don't know, you're
talking about sixteen kids cramped into a twelve by twelve
room in the middle of nowhere that don't go to
school and are living with bugs and feces.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
So I don't know.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
How much more feral you could get. And I don't know,
I mean, do these kids really have social media? What
are you talking about? They live in a twelve by
twelve room with dirt and filth and trash and feces everywhere,
but they have phones. I mean, that doesn't make any
sense on the broader conditions of the home. Her attorney
framed the situation as one of poverty rather than neglect. Well,
(16:43):
we talked about that before. There is a difference between
being poor and being filthy. You cannot have the means
to have a big home and have nice furniture and
all the things, but it doesn't mean that your children
have to live in fills, right in a twelve by
twelve room and not attend school, and that's right.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
I remember a family court case I was there for,
but I wasn't a part of the family court case.
But the mother, which doesn't matter if it's a mother father,
but the one parent was arguing that the other parent
didn't have adequate bedrooms for the two children, that they
were sleeping on the floor, and I think I came
(17:31):
late to this case. And the judges orders were that
some of the best times he's had with his father
was camping in a sleeping bag and just nothing around them,
and so he was telling him that they don't need
a fancy bed have quality time with their parent, and
so then he didn't consider whether the parent could provide
(17:55):
a bedroom or not, but rather just whether the parent
was caring for them and having good, meaningful interaction with
them and providing for them and that was always an
example of it. It didn't matter how the house was
set up for the children. It was more of how
the parent is parenting. Well, it's about safety. Yeah, that
wasn't about money, right, It's.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
About safety and taking care of your kids. And this
comes down to not so much that they were poor,
but that the hygiene and the state of the house
was right.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
And in this case, that's what the judge considered. It
had nothing to do with any with a bed or
a mattress. I had to do with the home atmosphere
for these children.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
All right.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
This month we also did an episode on Pamela Smart.
Pamela Smart was a twenty two year old school media
coordinator in New Hampshire who in nineteen ninety manipulated her
fifteen year old student lover Billy Flynn, into killing her husband,
Greg Smart. Flynn and three teenage accomplices carried out the
murder in May of nineteen ninety, staging it to look
like a robbery that had gone wrong. Smart was convicted
(19:06):
in nineteen ninety one of being an accomplice to first
degree murder, and she was sentenced to life in prison
without the possibility of parole, the first such sentence handed
down to a woman in New Hampshire. Flynn, Billy Flynn
and the others received lesser sentences and have since been released.
The case drew massive national attention and is widely credited
(19:27):
with helping launch the era of TV courtroom coverage. Smart
has maintained her innocence and continues to seek a new
trial from prison. To this day, there's a couple updates
on this. She is seeking a new trial, so attorneys
for Pamela Smart appeared before a Merrimac County Superior Court
judge last Monday, urging him to let her latest petition
(19:48):
for a new trial move forward. Judge James Kennedy took
the matter under advisement and is expected to rule within
thirty to sixty days. Smart filed a habeas corpus petition
in January. What habeas corpus.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
Isn't that you have to bring charges.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
It's basically saying you're someone yeah, alleging several constitutional violations.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
The body, I think is what it translates to show
the body, show me the proof before you just show
me the crime, before you just hold me right.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
It means you're being unjustly detained. The centerpiece of her
argument involves transcripts of secretly recorded conversation used at trial.
Her lawyers contend the transcripts included words, among them like killed, busted,
and murder that were not actually audible on the recordings.
Do you remember talking about this earlier when we talked
(20:40):
about this case. That was one of the arguments. There's
two things that I took away from this. First of all,
Billy Flynn did pull the trigger. Billy Flynn is now
out of prison. Right, She never She wasn't there when
the murder took place. She claims her innocence, that she
had nothing to do with it. She claims that, you know,
he was a jealous fifteen year old that was you know,
in love with her and you know, obsessed with her,
(21:02):
and so he wanted to get rid of her husband,
so he shot him, you know, of his own free will,
free will. Right, She's still in prison. Everyone involved in
the actual murder are now out.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
Is she in for life?
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (21:16):
But she claims we also talked about those recordings because remember,
because you made a joke. I remember when you talk
about those recordings back in the nineties, when they put
like they attached like a recorder onto her.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
You were like, it had to.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
Have been huge, because we're talking about like nineteen ninety, right,
it's not like some small.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
A big handbag.
Speaker 3 (21:34):
Yeah, right.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
And then the audio goes in and out, and then
someone you know, transcribed what they were listening to and
the audio into court transcripts that were entered into you know,
as evidence. But her attorney and her you know, her
position is that you couldn't actually hear a lot of
the conversation, so someone used their own discretion to add
(22:00):
words in which weren't accurate. So you know, her conviction
shouldn't be based on someone just sitting in an office
with you know, their walkman on.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
Interpret gets lost in translation, right, And not to bring religion,
but that's where the Bible comes in thousands of years
they didn't have photo copies. They'd have someone to write it.
So someone didn't want to spell it a certain way,
or if they saw an animal, they might change the animal,
or they might just be tired, and they write and
over and over and over and over again and it
gets lost in translation.
Speaker 3 (22:29):
Right.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
So same with the audio recording. He had someone who
wasn't trained or or there was no guidelines and they
just arbitrarily create their own transcript good for them the
dis science.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
The defense also challenged the jury instructions and argued that
Smart was improperly given a mandatory life sentence for an
accompliced charge that doesn't legally require it. Prosecutors have pushed back,
saying that most of Smart's claims were already resolved on
appeal or could have been raised earlier, and accused her
of using the habeas process as a workaround for a
standard appeal. Her legal options have narrowed considerably over the years.
(23:06):
New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayote rejected her requests for a
council hearing last year, and the state Supreme Court dismissed
a prior petition in twenty twenty three. In twenty twenty four,
Pamela Smart publicly accepted responsibility for the general situation of
her husband's murder and her wrongful behavior, saying she had
spent years deflecting blame, almost as if it was a
(23:29):
coping mechanism. I would assume that she's probably accepting blame
at this point because they're like, you're never going to
get out on any kind of I don't know if
she's eligible for parole because she's eligible for parole. Someone's
probably saying, You're never even going to get out on
parole unless you take some responsibility for this crime. So
maybe that's why now after all these years, she's finally saying, well, I.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
Learned that about was it Terrelle when he said he
was wrongfully committed? He was an ex hoonnery he was released,
and then he part of his release program. I think
is didn't you have to go to some meetings? Yes,
and if he wasn't going to take ownership of the
crime that he didn't commit, Yeah, they're kind of like, well,
(24:10):
then you should go back to jail, yeah, or something
along those lines. So then he's like thinking, like, yeah,
I have to pretend I committed this crime for the
rest of my life.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Right in order to go through the tape, the red
tape of through these mandatory meetings.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
Now good, he wouldn't give.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
In Yeah, all right.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Do you have any final thoughts on any of these cases?
On Brian Coberger or on Pamela Smart or the sixteen
kids in Ohio. We will continue to follow the cases
and give updates as we get them, but do you
have any final thoughts.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
The Shelby in prison.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
They're all crooksh Is that your for the kids? Except
for the kids. The kids are the innocent victims, you know.
Just to talk about the kids, because you brought those up.
We talked about that before. First of all, how difficult
is it on the state or just the resources to
play sixteen siblings somewhere? I mean, first of all, you
can't play them all together, because there's no one that
would have the ability to take on sixteen kids.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
Nessily wouldn't be the best thing either.
Speaker 1 (25:06):
And I don't know because obviously when they did the
press conference, the district attorney called them feral and said
that basically, you know that they were, you know, like
like feral to me means like wild.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
They weren't. They didn't have I'd say they weren't civilized,
but I mean they probably didn't have the basic manners
and understandings of day to day operations. That's what it is, right.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
So then not only are there sixteen of them, but.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Then how do you find caring for themselves being sanitary?
You know, I don't even know if they're interacting with people.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
Her attorney did say that the older ones could talk,
but I don't know what that means. Do they talk coherently.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
At a lower educated level.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
So you know, it's sad to think that they have
to find placement for these children and if people are
equipped to be able to care properly for children like this.
So anyway, there's a gag order. So I assume it
has to do with them being minors. They just don't
want them out there talking about these kids. They're probably
(26:07):
trying to make sure that they're taken care of and
that hopefully there's some happy ending for these sixteen children
at some point, that they have some type of quality
of life and find some type of home or situation
where they can thrive and grow into functioning, happy adults
would be my hope for them. All right, thank you
(26:28):
so much for listening to our end of the month recap.
We appreciate it. As always, you can find Legally Brunette
wherever you listen to podcasts, and be sure to tell
your friends and family. Also, if you have any recommendations
of cases that you would like us to discuss, please
find me on Instagram and let me know. I love
to read your feedback and hear about recommendations of cases
that you have for us. Thank you so much for listening.
(26:49):
We appreciate it.
Hi, guys, Welcome to Legally Brunette. I'll be your host today,
Emily Simpson with today. Welcome to our end of the
month recap, where we're going to talk about some of
our favorite cases that we went over this month. But
first of all, we're going to start with Brian Coberger,
who that's the Idaho murder college student case. We originally
(00:22):
weren't going to talk about him in the end of
month recap, but because there's been so much new information
coming up about him and we have done several episodes
on the Idaho murders in the past, that we thought
we would start with Brian Coberger. So he is a
former criminology PhD student who was arrested back in December
of twenty twenty two for the stabbing murders of four
(00:44):
University of Idaho students Ethan Shapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogan,
and Kaylee Gonsalves. They were killed in their off campus
home in Moscow, Idaho. This is back in November of
twenty twenty two. Brian Coberger was apprehended at his parents'
home in Pennsylvania after investigators linked him to the crime
(01:04):
through DNA evidence. And cell phone data. He had been
studying at nearby Washington State University at the time of
the murders. After lengthy legal proceedings, Coburger pleaded guilty in
twenty twenty five and was sentenced to life in prison
without the possibility of parole. He avoided the death penalty.
Now there's been new information that's just come out that
(01:27):
he is seeking to take back his guilty plea. Did
you see this?
Speaker 2 (01:31):
I only saw the headline that said he was it
was being considered. Is there any more details?
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Well, I don't think it's being considered. It's just he
has made a I guess emotion if you will, that
he wants to rescind his guilty plea. So we're going
to get into that. About a year after Brian Coberger
pleaded guilty to the twenty twenty two murders of four
University of Idaho students, he is now seeking to withdraw
(01:59):
that plea. He changed his plea just one month before
jury's selection was set to begin by and he did
this to avoid the death penalty, and he received a
sentence of life without parole. When Judge Stephen Hipler directly
asked whether he was pleading guilty because he was guilty.
Coberger answered yes in open court. Now, in this new
(02:21):
filing that he submitted, this is him submitting on his behalf.
I don't believe he's represented by counsel because the motion
or the affidavit that he is that he's filed seeking
to take back his guilty plea is handwritten in his
own handwriting.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Okay, so it's not.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
It doesn't look as if he's represented by counsel that's
putting this out there.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Okay, all right, unless he unless he just did that
on his own, without counsel's advice, like you, he submitted
it or something.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
That's what I'm saying. I think he just I think he.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
He might still be represented. He just probably submitted this
on his own.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
Cober.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
He submitted this filing on Monday, and is claiming that
his attorneys provided ineffective assistance and that his plea was
not made knowingly or voluntarily, and that it was secured
through what he describes as false promises and misinformation. Specifically,
he alleges that his legal team withheld potentially exculpatory evidence
(03:24):
during plea discussions assured him the plea didn't need to
be truthful despite his insistence of his innocence, and made
promises about privileges that he would receive in prison, including contact,
visits and freedom of movement, that were never honored. He
also claims they painted a misleading picture of what life
on death row would look like compared to his actual life.
(03:49):
Since I've read before that he's having problems in prison,
I think he was under the assumption. No, I think
he was under the assumption that it wasn't going to
be as challenging for him. I think he thought that
he was going to, you know, be able to freely
move about and basically have some type of nice life
(04:12):
life behind bars. And I think him wanting to rescind
this plea deal is because he's very unhappy with his.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
New home.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Right, he says in this handwritten plea, my actual innocence
is my truth, and the plea, hinged on by false
promises and blatant dis information, must be withdrawn. This is
a statement. Oh, he also did an interview with The
New York Times. So once he submitted this new this
new filing on his behalf, he did do an interview
(04:44):
with the New York Times, and that was a statement
that he gave them Coberger has signed a questionnaire. Oh also,
this was interesting, I read this, so before he can enter,
Remember he didn't. He was all set to go to
trial and there were jury selections going on, and then
all of a sudden, it was the news came out
that he pled guilty so that he could avoid trial,
(05:05):
and he also avoided the des sentence at the same time. Yeah,
in order for him to plead guilty in open court,
they made him and I'm sure this is with any plead,
they make sure that you're voluntarily pleading guilty. So he
had to go through a lengthy questionnaire and answer all
the questions of basically like is this you know what
I mean? Like are you answering this freely? Do you understand?
Speaker 3 (05:27):
Do you know this?
Speaker 1 (05:28):
Do you understand this? And he had to go through
and answer all these questions on a questionnaire so that
he could exhibit that he was openly and willingly admitting.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
To his guilty. Right stress.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Under Idaho law, withdrawing a guilty plea becomes significantly harder
once a sentence has already been handed down.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
That's really tough. It's like, yeah, oh wait I didn't, okay,
wait I didn't do it. I'm going to change my story.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
Yeah, sorry, I'm just kidding.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
I just signed that because I thought I was going
to get to freely move about and have good meals
and you know, be able to do whatever I wanted.
And it's not really happening that way.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
I'd like to go back to I didn't kill anyone. Yeah,
can we come back to that.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Prior to sentencing. The Idaho Rule of Criminal Procedure this
is thirty three c uses a lenient, fair and just
reason standard, but post sentencing, the bar rises to manifest injustice,
which is a much higher threshold. In order to meet
that standard, Coberger would need to demonstrate that his plea
was not entered voluntarily. So this is the standard of
(06:31):
him being able to rescind this plea.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Right. He has to.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
Prove that the plea was not entered voluntarily and that
he wasn't properly informed of the consequences or that he
otherwise lacked informed consent. And also he has to prove
that he had ineffective legal counsel at the time as well.
So he has like a huge threshold to be able.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
To Yeah, that's a good luck to him.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Yeah, So anyway I want to read.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
And it's likely if the courts followed the regular procedures.
I mean, they do all that. They ask them all
the questions, they have them know what the penalties that
he's facing. They have them know everything and know all
his rights, so that way someone doesn't come back and
then say, oh, I didn't know right. So they do
do all that a lot. I've seen it. So if
they followed the procedures to ensure that he was aware
(07:25):
of everything before accepting or before pleading guilty, he's got
a tough road to battle.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
I do have a copy of his actual handwritten filing.
He says council's failure to inform petitioner of exculpatory discovery
received during plea discussions, namely clumps of unknown hair found
in Ethan Chapin's hands, as well as a failure of
further inquiry, that's interesting. I don't know if that's true,
but I do know that there was a book that
came out recently that seems to lean towards Brian Koberger
(07:58):
being innocent. So I don't know that unknown hair. I
believe that might have been part of the book, but
I don't know if this if he read the book,
or if this is something he learned after the fact.
Petitioner was convinced that actual guilt was not an important
factor in considering plea acceptance, death row was eminence and
advise to lie. He claims that they told him to lie,
that he had been saying all along he was innocent,
(08:20):
but he just lied and said that he was guilty.
And then a gross misrepresentation of and promises regarding what
a life sentence would immediately afford petitioner, and a gross
misrepresentation of death row in Idaho, including an elaborate fabricated
story of council's horrific experience touring an actual eight y
eight death row cell, all communicated to petitioner and his
(08:42):
family through counsel, thus constituting threats and promises made to
induce a plea agreement. So basically, he's saying that they
told him that death row was horrible, which would be
a possibility if he goes to trial, and that he
would be in an eight y eight death row cell.
And I guess he's claiming that they misrepresented did and
scared him to death. And basically he just said, okay, fine,
(09:03):
I'll plead guilty so that I can avoid death row.
It's this my interpretation of what he's saying. All right,
So we'll keep following Brian Coberger and see what happens
with that case.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
America Gay that was pursuing criminal justice as masters. Yes,
so all of a sudden he doesn't know what he's
up against.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
That's true. That's a good point.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
All right.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Let's move on.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Another case that we did this month was the sixteen
children in the House of whoorors And, Ohio. This happened
back in late June twenty twenty six. There were sixteen
children ages eighteen months to eighteen years that were discovered
living in horrible conditions inside that small home in Hampden, Ohio.
They were largely confined to a single twelve by twelve room,
(09:53):
which is bigger than that we just talked about. The
cell that you would have on death row is eight
by eight. They were surrounded by filth and human feces
and had none of them were enrolled in school. Four
parents were arrested and charged with child in daygermant. That
was Gary the father, Christina the mother. Gary Sider's seventy three,
who is the grandfather Christina Siders sixty six, who is
(10:14):
the grandmother. Gary Siders the second, who is thirty six,
and the dad, well, allegedly the dad. I guess we
still haven't done I don't know if we've done DNA
testing on a last kid. You don't do any DNA testing.
And Elizabeth Siders the mother thirty three. Here's some updates
on this case since we did the last episode. Elizabeth
and Gary Siders are both being held at Southeastern Ohio
(10:38):
Regional Jail on three hundred thousands dollar bond, each facing
sixteen counts of child neglect. Gary the second, this is
the dad. His booking sheet noted that he was under
the influence of alcohol and or drugs at the time
that he was booked, and Elizabeth's booking sheet revealed that
she is not currently pregnant. A gag order is now
(10:58):
in place, restricting law enforcement and orneys from commenting on
the case. Why do you think there's a gag order now?
Because everybody was commenting on it, The attorneys were talking
and they were doing press content. It's on the attorneys
and law enforcement, so they can't talk about.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
The case now.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Maybe it has to do with miners and stuff, so
it was just easier to have a blanket like gag
order instead of monitoring everything that's being said.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
Gary, this is the father. Gary's attorney has filed emotion
requesting a mental competency evaluation to determine if he's fit
to stand trial. Additionally, Gary the second, who is the
dad or allegedly is the dad, faces separate misdemeanor public
and decency charges tied to four incidents in May, though
he has yet to enter a plea. And this other
(11:46):
separate case. That's can you imagine four separate indecent exposure charges?
That means he's just out there like like pulling his
pants down in front of people.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
That's only four times he's been caught.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Right, four times he's been caught. That means he's probably
doing it all the time. So and he has children, oh,
on a daily basis, Elizabeth Siders attorney, he.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Doesn't wear a belt, he has elastic pants.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Probably, well, you would have to to get four at
least four in decent charges in decent.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
Saw a body cam vide the other day. It was
like this hotel, like this guy that is like sixty.
He looked young, and he looked fit and everything. He
gets in the jacuzzie of the spa. I shouldn't say
Jauzie JACUZI you know it's the last name. I know,
it's a last name spa in the hot spa. And
apparently he takes his his little swim trunks off in
(12:37):
the hot top underneath. Yeah, and then he floats up
to the top on his back, you know. Yeah, he
closes himself and the girls get out and run. Teenage
girls and I'm not making light of it is bad.
But then the young girls reports to the mom. The
mom reports to the police, like they're adamant, like this
is wrong, and we saw what we saw and it
(12:59):
was deliberate, so good because they're trying to prevent it
from becoming a bigger issue.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
Right.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
But when he approached the guy, he's just like, oh,
there was air bubbles in my swim trunks and so
I just took my pants. I didn't No one could
see anything. There's there's bubbles everywhere. You can't see like
that was his defense was, you can't see my penis,
it's underwater.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
But it wasn't.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
They they did, and he was denying and then he
was apologizing and he does it's more comfortable if he
just takes his pants off and then but get this.
Then it was female cops, so they were happy to
bust this creep, right, And there were some male cops
there too, and they're happy to bust them two. But
those female cops wanted to go tell the mom and
the adult kids what he was being arrested for. They
(13:45):
were very happy to report because they were like, you
want to tell them, let's go, let's go tell. Let's
go tell us. They like knock on the door and
they're like, yeah, your husband is being arrested for indecent
exposure of blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
They were embarrassed, Oh, I didn't understand what you were
saying earlier.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
They were happy to go tell.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
His wife, his family, his family, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Because they were kind of like, let's go tell, let's
go tell he's being arrested. Usually they're like, you know,
you can go to the station figure it out. Yeah,
this screeps on vacation with his wife. Yeah, and he
chooses to go to the hot tub.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
With teenage girls in it and take his pants off
and then float to the top right with.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
His ding dong up in the air.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
Yes, this is Gary Siders probably doesn't even wear pants
at this point, how do you get four indecent?
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Well, how is he not? Yea?
Speaker 3 (14:30):
How was he still charges? Yeah, I have.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
I have been in a public indecency situation. It was
at Target and your pants fall off.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
No, it was not me. I saw a man.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
A man pulled up next to me in the parking
lot and I was getting at an suv. I think
I drove Escalade at the time, so it was up high.
And when I looked over my shoulder to back out
of the space at Target, the car next to me
he was. He had his pants off and he was,
you know, doing his thing in the car. And I
(15:03):
went in and told security or whatever, because I thought,
I don't know, some kids going to like walk next
to him or near him or something. Anyway, there's some creepy,
weird people out there. They're in Ohio. Carrie Siders is
in Ohio, and there's some of them are at Target
in the parking lot. Be careful in the parking lot
or Walmart. Elizabeth Sider's attorney, Tommy Stoley, is pushing back
(15:26):
on the characterization that the children are almost feral, a
description that was used by the Ohio attorney General Andy
Wilson following the June thirtieth raid at their home. We've
already debunked to the myth that these kids were almost feral.
He pointed out that the older children had active social
media pages and that these kids could talk. They spoke
(15:47):
when the police came in. Her attorney also added that
he's uncertain Wilson was ever present at the scene. The attorney.
Her attorney paints a different picture and provides detail that
if we're talking about feral children, those are children who
do not understand the world. If the kids can speak,
(16:07):
I think that changes the analysis. I don't know, you're
talking about sixteen kids cramped into a twelve by twelve
room in the middle of nowhere that don't go to
school and are living with bugs and feces.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
So I don't know.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
How much more feral you could get. And I don't know,
I mean, do these kids really have social media? What
are you talking about? They live in a twelve by
twelve room with dirt and filth and trash and feces everywhere,
but they have phones. I mean, that doesn't make any
sense on the broader conditions of the home. Her attorney
framed the situation as one of poverty rather than neglect. Well,
(16:43):
we talked about that before. There is a difference between
being poor and being filthy. You cannot have the means
to have a big home and have nice furniture and
all the things, but it doesn't mean that your children
have to live in fills, right in a twelve by
twelve room and not attend school, and that's right.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
I remember a family court case I was there for,
but I wasn't a part of the family court case.
But the mother, which doesn't matter if it's a mother father,
but the one parent was arguing that the other parent
didn't have adequate bedrooms for the two children, that they
were sleeping on the floor, and I think I came
(17:31):
late to this case. And the judges orders were that
some of the best times he's had with his father
was camping in a sleeping bag and just nothing around them,
and so he was telling him that they don't need
a fancy bed have quality time with their parent, and
so then he didn't consider whether the parent could provide
(17:55):
a bedroom or not, but rather just whether the parent
was caring for them and having good, meaningful interaction with
them and providing for them and that was always an
example of it. It didn't matter how the house was
set up for the children. It was more of how
the parent is parenting. Well, it's about safety. Yeah, that
wasn't about money, right, It's.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
About safety and taking care of your kids. And this
comes down to not so much that they were poor,
but that the hygiene and the state of the house
was right.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
And in this case, that's what the judge considered. It
had nothing to do with any with a bed or
a mattress. I had to do with the home atmosphere
for these children.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
All right.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
This month we also did an episode on Pamela Smart.
Pamela Smart was a twenty two year old school media
coordinator in New Hampshire who in nineteen ninety manipulated her
fifteen year old student lover Billy Flynn, into killing her husband,
Greg Smart. Flynn and three teenage accomplices carried out the
murder in May of nineteen ninety, staging it to look
like a robbery that had gone wrong. Smart was convicted
(19:06):
in nineteen ninety one of being an accomplice to first
degree murder, and she was sentenced to life in prison
without the possibility of parole, the first such sentence handed
down to a woman in New Hampshire. Flynn, Billy Flynn
and the others received lesser sentences and have since been released.
The case drew massive national attention and is widely credited
(19:27):
with helping launch the era of TV courtroom coverage. Smart
has maintained her innocence and continues to seek a new
trial from prison. To this day, there's a couple updates
on this. She is seeking a new trial, so attorneys
for Pamela Smart appeared before a Merrimac County Superior Court
judge last Monday, urging him to let her latest petition
(19:48):
for a new trial move forward. Judge James Kennedy took
the matter under advisement and is expected to rule within
thirty to sixty days. Smart filed a habeas corpus petition
in January. What habeas corpus.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
Isn't that you have to bring charges.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
It's basically saying you're someone yeah, alleging several constitutional violations.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
The body, I think is what it translates to show
the body, show me the proof before you just show
me the crime, before you just hold me right.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
It means you're being unjustly detained. The centerpiece of her
argument involves transcripts of secretly recorded conversation used at trial.
Her lawyers contend the transcripts included words, among them like killed, busted,
and murder that were not actually audible on the recordings.
Do you remember talking about this earlier when we talked
(20:40):
about this case. That was one of the arguments. There's
two things that I took away from this. First of all,
Billy Flynn did pull the trigger. Billy Flynn is now
out of prison. Right, She never She wasn't there when
the murder took place. She claims her innocence, that she
had nothing to do with it. She claims that, you know,
he was a jealous fifteen year old that was you know,
in love with her and you know, obsessed with her,
(21:02):
and so he wanted to get rid of her husband,
so he shot him, you know, of his own free will,
free will. Right, She's still in prison. Everyone involved in
the actual murder are now out.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
Is she in for life?
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (21:16):
But she claims we also talked about those recordings because remember,
because you made a joke. I remember when you talk
about those recordings back in the nineties, when they put
like they attached like a recorder onto her.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
You were like, it had to.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
Have been huge, because we're talking about like nineteen ninety, right,
it's not like some small.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
A big handbag.
Speaker 3 (21:34):
Yeah, right.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
And then the audio goes in and out, and then
someone you know, transcribed what they were listening to and
the audio into court transcripts that were entered into you know,
as evidence. But her attorney and her you know, her
position is that you couldn't actually hear a lot of
the conversation, so someone used their own discretion to add
(22:00):
words in which weren't accurate. So you know, her conviction
shouldn't be based on someone just sitting in an office
with you know, their walkman on.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
Interpret gets lost in translation, right, And not to bring religion,
but that's where the Bible comes in thousands of years
they didn't have photo copies. They'd have someone to write it.
So someone didn't want to spell it a certain way,
or if they saw an animal, they might change the animal,
or they might just be tired, and they write and
over and over and over and over again and it
gets lost in translation.
Speaker 3 (22:29):
Right.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
So same with the audio recording. He had someone who
wasn't trained or or there was no guidelines and they
just arbitrarily create their own transcript good for them the
dis science.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
The defense also challenged the jury instructions and argued that
Smart was improperly given a mandatory life sentence for an
accompliced charge that doesn't legally require it. Prosecutors have pushed back,
saying that most of Smart's claims were already resolved on
appeal or could have been raised earlier, and accused her
of using the habeas process as a workaround for a
standard appeal. Her legal options have narrowed considerably over the years.
(23:06):
New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayote rejected her requests for a
council hearing last year, and the state Supreme Court dismissed
a prior petition in twenty twenty three. In twenty twenty four,
Pamela Smart publicly accepted responsibility for the general situation of
her husband's murder and her wrongful behavior, saying she had
spent years deflecting blame, almost as if it was a
(23:29):
coping mechanism. I would assume that she's probably accepting blame
at this point because they're like, you're never going to
get out on any kind of I don't know if
she's eligible for parole because she's eligible for parole. Someone's
probably saying, You're never even going to get out on
parole unless you take some responsibility for this crime. So
maybe that's why now after all these years, she's finally saying, well, I.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
Learned that about was it Terrelle when he said he
was wrongfully committed? He was an ex hoonnery he was released,
and then he part of his release program. I think
is didn't you have to go to some meetings? Yes,
and if he wasn't going to take ownership of the
crime that he didn't commit, Yeah, they're kind of like, well,
(24:10):
then you should go back to jail, yeah, or something
along those lines. So then he's like thinking, like, yeah,
I have to pretend I committed this crime for the
rest of my life.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Right in order to go through the tape, the red
tape of through these mandatory meetings.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
Now good, he wouldn't give.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
In Yeah, all right.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Do you have any final thoughts on any of these cases?
On Brian Coberger or on Pamela Smart or the sixteen
kids in Ohio. We will continue to follow the cases
and give updates as we get them, but do you
have any final thoughts.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
The Shelby in prison.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
They're all crooksh Is that your for the kids? Except
for the kids. The kids are the innocent victims, you know.
Just to talk about the kids, because you brought those up.
We talked about that before. First of all, how difficult
is it on the state or just the resources to
play sixteen siblings somewhere? I mean, first of all, you
can't play them all together, because there's no one that
would have the ability to take on sixteen kids.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
Nessily wouldn't be the best thing either.
Speaker 1 (25:06):
And I don't know because obviously when they did the
press conference, the district attorney called them feral and said
that basically, you know that they were, you know, like
like feral to me means like wild.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
They weren't. They didn't have I'd say they weren't civilized,
but I mean they probably didn't have the basic manners
and understandings of day to day operations. That's what it is, right.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
So then not only are there sixteen of them, but.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Then how do you find caring for themselves being sanitary?
You know, I don't even know if they're interacting with people.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
Her attorney did say that the older ones could talk,
but I don't know what that means. Do they talk coherently.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
At a lower educated level.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
So you know, it's sad to think that they have
to find placement for these children and if people are
equipped to be able to care properly for children like this.
So anyway, there's a gag order. So I assume it
has to do with them being minors. They just don't
want them out there talking about these kids. They're probably
(26:07):
trying to make sure that they're taken care of and
that hopefully there's some happy ending for these sixteen children
at some point, that they have some type of quality
of life and find some type of home or situation
where they can thrive and grow into functioning, happy adults
would be my hope for them. All right, thank you
(26:28):
so much for listening to our end of the month recap.
We appreciate it. As always, you can find Legally Brunette
wherever you listen to podcasts, and be sure to tell
your friends and family. Also, if you have any recommendations
of cases that you would like us to discuss, please
find me on Instagram and let me know. I love
to read your feedback and hear about recommendations of cases
that you have for us. Thank you so much for listening.
(26:49):
We appreciate it.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com