Hidden True Crime - A Witness Nobody Saw Coming… and a Trial on the Brink | Bryan Kohberger Updates

Episode Date: June 19, 2025

A surprise claim from a woman who says she saw Bryan Kohberger the night of the Idaho 4 murders. As tensions rise in court, Kohberger’s defense pushes to delay the trial—again. Leaked evidence, media pressure, and a mysterious police video take center stage. Is the truth getting closer—or just more clouded? About Hidden True Crime: What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at ⁠Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lately, I've been trying to be more intentional about what I wear, intentional about everything, just choosing pieces that feel effortless, still put together, timeless, but also not overthinking it every morning. It's why I keep going back to quince. Their pieces just make getting dressed easier and I feel so classy. I feel elevated. The fits are flattering. The fabric is really high quality. Everything is wearable day to day. I actually got this really, really, beautiful yellow V-neck midi dress from them, and I paired it with some Italian leather sandals. It's one of those outfits that just works. It feels polished but still comfortable. It's exactly what I've been looking for. What surprises me, though, is the quality for the price.

Quince uses premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, q-u-in-c-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day of returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Before I switched to wealth front, my APY was probably 0.1. Once I switched to ching, with a wellfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. I can trust. Wellfront is taking care of me.

Make your money earn more. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials, creating a conflict of interest. Howcomes vary. 3.3% base API Y as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, not a bank. Hello, hidden gems.

A major hearing today in Boise, Idaho, and I want to break it all down for you. Plus, a possible witness with a shocking claim. For an intense two and a half years, the entire nation has followed the unfolding saga of the Idaho Four, anxiously awaiting the day when justice will finally prevail, justice for the four innocent college students whose lives were brutally taken. I'm talking about Zana Kurnodal, Ethan Chapin, Madison Mogan, and Kaylee Gonzalez. Justice for their families and friends,

and the people so intimately affected by the senseless tragedy. And as we draw closer to the scheduled trial date of August 2025, it is coming up and so fast, a whirlwind of motions, drama, leaked information. It has created a very unsettling atmosphere, making it feel as though justice is perpetually slipping further away. The sole suspect, Brian Coburger, has pleaded innocent to four counts of murder and one count of felony burglary,

if convicted, Brian could be sentenced to death. This looming possibility makes the upcoming trial even more high stakes. And his lead defense attorney and Taylor, while she doesn't feel ready

according to Taylor. The defense has filed a motion for continuance, or in other words, pushing the trial date off once again. Another quick attempt for a delay, citing, quote, the substantial amount

of trial investigation and preparation still outstanding as well as recent and forthcoming publicity that is highly prejudicial to the defense, end quote. They believe that moving forward with the scheduled August trial would infringe upon Brian's constitutional rights. This motion came just days after Judge Hippler said he wanted to identify the source of information leaked in a recent dateline episode. Remember that? I mean, he was fierce. Find the leaker. And he also said that this may have violated the court's gag order. The defense believes pushing the trial date off is necessary to fully investigate the leak and to mitigate the prejudicial effects so close to the current trial date.

But before we jump into the details of today's hearing, we're going to get to all of that. Some additional bombshell info came out just this week. Info that sort of, in my opinion, set the stage for today's hearing because once again, Evidence that is supposed to be under seal is one of the bigger concerns for the defense because they claim that the more that comes out, the more it will taint the potential jury pool. And well, this week was no different. And it's not just Dateline releasing the never heard before information. An eight-month-old video. So from 2024 is drawing massive attention.

And it's not Dateline. It's not a mini-series. This is footage after a woman claiming to be a key witness in the Idaho four case was suspected of a DUI. And video is a police interview with a 43 old woman again back in September of 2024. She was pulled over for expired tags and then arrested again on that suspicion of driving under the influence of prescription medication. She told the officer that she took a painkiller and was stressed. due to some physical ailments as well as PTSD. She said, quote,

now I have to testify in the big murder case too because I'm the door dash driver, the murder case with the college girls, end quote. She also said, quote, I saw Brian there. I parked right next to him, end quote. Let's listen to a little bit of this police interview. Tell me about taking a pain pill. No, I'm not. I'm standing over here more parking low. I was going to take naked in the bathroom. Did you say what type of pain pill was? I'm sorry if I

missed it. Was it a hydrocodone? Was it a high? Was it a five milligram or a three? A ten milligram? A ten milligram. Okay. I've been on it. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know. I'm sorry. I don't know my pain pills. So yeah, because I'm my daughter's striker. So, yeah. You have to testify in which murder case. Oh. My daughter has to figure us up when I'm married.

I mean, admittedly, I'm shocked that we haven't seen this until now and that if there is a witness that actually saw Brian Kovberger there that night, that it wasn't even possibly in the probable cause or the charging documents, right? this would be, in my opinion, like a bombshell, a piece of evidence. The woman's name has not been publicly released, but she is referred to as Molly in the police interviews. And her initials also match the M.M. Written in court documents for the door dash driver who made the delivery to Zana the night of the murders. The woman, M.M. said that she delivered food to the house on King Road around 4 a.m.

just minutes before the murders occurred. So obviously, a lot of people are raised. concerns, though now about this woman's credibility because of this incident, whether we like it or not, the defense will undoubtedly poke holds in someone's story, especially if they are known to take prescription, painkillers, and have a history of driving under the influence. But regardless, what this means is that there may be another person who was there and saw Brian that night, another person who can corroborate what he was wearing, what he looked like, maybe those bushy eyebrows, the car he was driving, the car he was driving. So far it hasn't been released where the killer is believed to have parked before he

entered the house. Those of us who order DoorDash know that if there's a there's room, the dashers will usually pull right into the driveway, maybe the side of the house, often along the side. But could this mean that the killer brazenly waited in the driveway before entering the house? Where did the, the killer park? And if this woman is also called to testify, having a second eyewitness would be a critical. asset to the prosecution. We know that Dylan Mortensen believes she saw the bushy eyebrows, black clothing, and a mask covering the killer's nose and mouth. Perhaps MM saw the killer before he put on his mask. We don't know. Perhaps she saw the face of Ryan Coburg. And the next thing causing a stir in the media,

and that was even mentioned by Anne Taylor during today's hearing, is a new upcoming docu-series on Amazon Prime, covering the case. It is titled One Night in Idaho. the college murders series is produced in part by james patterson entertainment and is said to accompany his book that the idaho four an american tragedy both to be released this july patterson claimed to have unmatched access and exclusive interviews from law enforcement who would have been subject to judge hippler's gag and the docu series will be the center it will center on the victims family and friends and feature exclusive interviews with Ethan's parents. We haven't heard a lot from Ethan's family.

Stacey and Jim Chapin and Madison's parents, Karen and Scott. And then there are also suspected interviews from witnesses who were present at the house the morning after the murders, including Hunter and Emily, heard on the call to 911. So with that setting the stage at today's June 18, 2025 hearing, all of that information, many were already on edge. and curious, would Judge Hipler grant the defense's request for a continuance and push the trial date off once again? There was also a closed portion of the hearing

to discuss the defense's ability to present information about that alternate perpetrator, the blaming of the other guy. Wishing that wasn't closed, honestly. I was hoping to hear that, but what do you do? I get it. I get it. The hearing began with defense attorney

and Taylor issuing a statement to the court, she said the motion to continue is necessary to protect Brian's rights under the Constitution and the state of Idaho. Specifically, it would protect his right to a fair trial and if it comes to it, a fair sentencing free of cruel and unusual punishment. We read most of this information in the defense's lengthy motion when it came down, and today Taylor was pretty much giving the TLDR summary for the court. Taylor said that this request should not come as a surprise over the history of the case. The defense's has met challenges but remained dedicated in meeting all of those deadlines. Discovery issues have been discussed before and in large part brings us to the need for a continuance.

There are 68 terabytes of information that is so much. There's also been 23 requests for additional discovery and seven motions to compel discovery. Taylor said that over the past two years, they have had to fight to get access to grand jury material. They have faced issues with change of venue from Moscow to Boise, issues with discovery, and they have not had a chance to review everything they've received. Taylor said that just because they have followed the court's orders and met deadlines, that doesn't mean they are ready for trial. The defense submits that it is the court's responsibility to assess their motion

to continue with heightened due process that's required in death penalty cases. A death penalty case is different, and the court must be sensitive to safeguard every avenue of due process. The qualitative difference between death and other penalties calls for a greater degree, of reliability when death is imposed. Taylor stated that in a capital case, a defense attorney must follow the ABA guidelines by raising all legal claims and perform background investigations on all witnesses that might be called, especially those being called by the state.

They must review all the discovery to be able to present a full defense. They cannot present what they are not aware of. Next, Taylor noted for the court that the discovery in this case has been ongoing, meaning evidence is still coming down. It wasn't just all dumped on somebody's lap. It is ongoing. It is continuing to come down. And she has received unreviewed discovery as recently as this week. That actually is surprising to hear. Considering the penalty phase in a capital case, the defense is required to perform in a way that allows the jury to carry out their function of individualized sentencing. And so what that means is by Brian's background, so evidence of his character,

life circumstances, those all have to be known, investigated, ready to present to the jurors. The jurors must have the opportunity to consider all evidence that may weigh against the death penalty, including everything about Brian's life. It is the duty of the defense to find and investigate all mitigating information. Taylor said they have several experts who would be ready for the mitigation phase of the case, and they rely on understanding Brian and his family's history. They can only understand what they've been presented with and the investigation needs to be thorough. Records have to be collected. Interviews have to be conducted.

Taylor said they haven't been able to conduct all of their interviews in this case. But it isn't due to a lack of diligence. There have been numerous challenges with gathering records and interviewing collateral witnesses. I'm actually surprised myself, new evidence coming down this week, new discovery, interviews that haven't been done. Taylor said the court is aware of these challenges and it is imperative that the defense is able to collect these things from more family members other than Brian and his parents so that his history is complete, which makes sense collateral interviews. When Dr. John is doing an assessment on a criminal, he has to get a lot of collateral interviews for a forensic evaluation, meaning you don't just reach out to the parents and the family, you do grandparents, you do other people in his life, you do school teachers. You have to interview people to get a full history that is complete. finally find your thing, you want the whole world to know about that thing.

So you use a thing called Canva to make it an even bigger and better thing. Whether you want to create flyers for that thing, make presentations for that thing, or design merch for that thing, you can do anything. So people can see your thing, feel your thing, love your thing. The next thing you know, it's a thing. Canva, the thing that makes anything a thing. I was literally getting pennies using Wealthfront. Cheching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest, and I didn't have to do anything. Clients like Angela earn up to 4.2% APY on their cash with the Wealthfront cash account.

Get started at Wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base API as of January 30th, 26, variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, not a bank. The next reason Taylor gave for a continuance is based on that media coverage that we've already gone over.

But particularly the Dateline episode and additional docu series and other media that's about to come down. Taylor reiterated that the Dateline episode wasn't just a one-time deal. It continues to be talked about. And the court has a responsibility to make sure that Brian receives a fair trial. I get it. I get it. The defense believes that a continuance, a new trial date may be the best way for the court to protect Brian Coburgers' rights. In addition to the Dateline episode, Taylor also reminded the court again about this upcoming James Patterson book and the Amazon docu-series that both claim to

have inside sources. So when it comes time for jury selection, those things will be at that moment on everyone's TV and social media feeds. I mean, the algorithms will be in full effect, just as jury selection begins. And if that's not enough, some witnesses who are, are expected to testify in the trial, are even taking part in this series, which Taylor believes is the reason for a continuance in and of itself. In other words, let's delay this trial because this is happening at the July right before jury selection. And let's let this series play out and die down before moving forward. Taylor stated that based on what's happened in the media, jury selection is going to be particularly challenging and we'll take a great deal of time.

In conclusion, she asked the judge for this continuance to allow the defense to be effective and perform their constitutional duty and protect Brian's constitutional rights. I do have to say this, though. While I agree it's not great for jury selection to have this happening right now, I'm pretty confident they picked the end of July right before jury selection for a reason for this docu-series to drop and this book to drop. Let's be honest, like they're going to market it at the most interesting time. So if the trial's delayed, I just wonder, will the miniseries be delayed, right?

Anyway, up next was the state's turn to address the court. Special deputy prosecutor Joshua Hurwitz started by going over the standard for a continuance, which is whether denying one would violate the defendant's rights by causing unfair prejudice. The court has discretion to grant a continuance, even in cases that could result in the death penalty. The defense is asking the court to delay the trial because they believe that it, ineffective assistance of counsel might lead to an appeal, right? We always have to worry about the future appeals, protecting the rights. That is, if there is a conviction. The state believes that this court should use its discretion and look at the objective record, which would support denying the

motion. And Hurwit presented some different cases to use as examples to help show why the court should deny the motion. The first was from the Idaho Supreme Court, which evaluated if the counsel was effective in a death penalty case. So we're talking case law. In that case, counsel was not required to investigate the defendant's entire life in order to objectively and reasonably present mitigating evidence. Hurwitt stated that they use a standard of reasonableness and the defense didn't give any specifics about which witnesses they need to contact and which records need to be obtained. They haven't said what admissible evidence they need to obtain and what some strategies they would use to fruitfully obtain that evidence. Without specifics, the state can't

accurately respond. And again, the state believes that the record shows that the court can use its discretion to deny the motion to continue. In the state's response briefly cited the fact that the defense has identified 56 witnesses and 132 exhibits to use for the mitigation phase. The state doesn't want the court to completely ignore these things, but to realize that the defense doesn't have to follow a checklist in order to get to trial. The defense has raised several ABA guidelines, and the state believes that the record shows that they have witnesses to talk about those issues and discovery for those issues as well. Herbert stated that the court needs to be satisfied that the defense has done a reasonable job to prepare for trial. so there is no basis for a motion to continue. Next, Hurwit moved on to discuss some of the defense's specific arguments, and the state

acknowledges that media coverage will pose challenges for jury selection. So the state agrees with the defense. They're saying, look, we acknowledge media coverage is a problem. However, the issue is not whether there is a lot of publicity. There will be a lot of publicity that we know. regardless of when the trial happens, that is going to happen. People will continue to talk about the case. The issue is whether the court can seat a panel of impartial jurors.

The Supreme Court of Idaho has found that despite widespread publicity, even on the day of jury selection, seating an impartial jury is possible. The state believes it's possible in this case as well, even with the challenges. And as we know, I have done a lot of jury interviews. or juror interviews at this point, and it is always amazing to me how they can find people that have never even heard of these cases or these defendants. I will say this is going to be difficult, but I do agree with the stay here as possible. Herbert stated that if they base the continuance on media publicity, that puts the court at the whim of the media. They can't just keep stalling the

trial indefinitely every time there is a breaking story, a new book, a documentary or TV show about the case. The defense hasn't given a proposal about when the trial could take place if there is a continuance. So we don't even know when they would want to move forward. Are we talking 2026, 2027, 2028? It seems like their strategy is to just keep delaying. And I just want to point out, I actually kind of agree with the state in this argument because, again, the reason I'm pretty sure that the book and the docu-series are coming out at the end of July is probably because that's when jury selection starts. They want to hit those algorithms. They're marketing. While Brian's offense is trying to get a fair trial, the media is out there wanting to be seen. So I sort of agree,

the longer you wait, the longer you stall, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here. Let me know your thoughts and comments, but it seems like the longer you stall this trial, the more media coverage there's going to be. Hurwit cited and Taylor's comment that this request shouldn't come as a surprise, but according to the state, it is a surprise to file a motion to continue so late in the game.

So the issue isn't this attempt to stall the trial. It's doing it right now, just weeks before the trial is set to begin. They believe that the defense tried to use a massive amount of discovery to remove the death penalty from the table when that didn't work.

Now they want to ask for a continuance, a last ditch trial delay. The timing of their motion seems relevant. It's not just that the defense waited so long, but that they have a very substantial record that the court can use to deny the motion. So in terms of the mitigation investigation, the state believes that the defense has hired a mitigation specialist in addition to the entire defense team. The mitigation specialist has one role, which is to prepare for the penalty phase. They would still have time to continue the work the defense says they need to do, even if the trial isn't delayed. The defense also raises, raised concerns about needing time to complete, again, Brian's life history. However, the state believes that the specialists have already conducted a significant life history investigation.

This is interesting. Really? There was nothing that the specialists raised that needed to be investigated further. and their reports appear to be complete. That's interesting, right? Oh, the life history is already done. So let's listen to Hurwit conclude the state's response. Both of those specialists, well-trained, very experienced specialist, conducted significant, fulsome life history investigations. They weren't just looking at bare records.

They were talking to people from the defendant's past, from his present, his family. and developed parallel life histories. And in their reports, as I read them, no red flags that needed further investigation were noted. Nothing about those reports appeared to be incomplete. And the experts didn't say we are unable to reach the conclusions we need to reach for lack of investigation. So I think that is sort of proof in the pudding.

We have life history for the defendant. the defense has amassed significant materials. And I thought we were going to be solely talking about the mitigation case that still needs to be developed. That is not a basis for a continuance. And to the extent there are ongoing discovery from the state that Ms. Taylor alluded to, I can represent that most of what was just turned over was our investigators speaking with witnesses is that the defense has disclosed. So that's the nature of that discovery,

is us responding to discovery from the defense. And that will continue, of course, to occur as we lead up to trial and witnesses make statements that we need to disclose to the defense. So with that, Your Honor, I would again rest on the case law holding that a scorched the earth investigation is not what's required.

And on the record before the court, the court should exercise its discretion to deny the motion. If the court has any questions, I'm happy to answer those. Otherwise, we would submit on the record before the court. Thank you. Thank you. Well, after this, the defense was given a chance to reply to the state's arguments.

Taylor refuted what Herbert said about the ABA guidelines and their obligation to conduct a full investigation. It's not about going, quote, unquote, scorched earth to understand Brian's full life history. It's about doing what's required. She admitted that they do have a mitigation specialist on the case but said that the average time to take for a capital case is three and a half years and we're only at two and a half. And I will admit it is true. As we've seen trials play out, it can be three, four, five years. I was just at Brandon watching Lori Vallaudet.

She was just charged and it's not even a death penalty case, but with the attempted murder of Brandon Boudreau, her nephew in law. And that was in 2019, so we're talking six years. But we're only at two and a half years. Judge Hippler, though, interjected, and this is what Judge Hippler said, that that's the average time it takes for federal cases, which notoriously move at a snail's pace. So interesting, he disagrees.

Taylor rebutted that two and a half years is still excessively fast to conduct their thorough investigation, and they still have a lot left to do. with all of this being said, Judge Hipler stated that he would take the matter under advisement, okay, and would get an opinion out as quickly as possible. Okay. He also said that even though he will consider their arguments, it is likely that they will go to trial on schedule and they should continue working toward the date as usual.

I just want to say, isn't that like when you're a child and you're like, So mom, dad, and Ann, and they're like, well, it'll be likely this, you'll likely, but I'll let you know later. I mean, we were all waiting for the judge's answer, but he said it'd be fast. He heard their arguments. He will issue, he will consider the arguments and issue a decision soon. And but, but probably going to go forward in August. And then that is when the court moved to that closed portion of the hearing regarding a third party defense or an other words, who the defense wants to blame other than Brian Cobur to take that pressure off of

Brian, the man charged with murdering the four friends. And so with the looming questions, we are a step closer to answering the questions, but we are still waiting. It looks like the trial, though, from what Judge Hippler says, will be soon. Jury selection starting in just weeks. And I plan to be there. I plan to cover it daily. It's going to be difficult to get in. It'll be a drawing each day and align each day. But I do plan to be there to bring daily updates and recaps.

And I do hope that we will move forward swiftly. And as I always say, this case, near and dear to, I think, all of our hearts for young friends, with their entire lives ahead of them. My justice be served. Before I switched to Wealthfront, my APY was probably 0.1. Once I switched, chiching. With the Wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. I can trust wealthfront is taking care of me.

Make your money earn more. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3%. 3.3% base API as of January 30th, 2026, variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000.

Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokeridge LLC member FINRA SIPC, not a bank. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using Wealthfronts. Cheching. Meet Angela, a wealthfront cash account client since 2023. I lost my job, not having something else lined up yet. I was pregnant with my second. We had to think about how do we make our money work for us.

Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest in. I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own, and I can trust wealth. is taking care of me. With a Wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. No account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached. Plus, free instant withdrawals to eligible accounts. Get started at Wealthfront.com.

Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base API as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealth Front Brokerage LLC member FINRA SIPC, not a bank.

Instant withdrawal subject to conditions, fees, and eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account.