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

Starting point is 00:00:00 We interrupt this program to bring you an important Wayfair message. Wayfair's got style tips for every home. This is Nicole Byer helping you make those rooms flyer. Today's style tip, when it comes to making a statement, treat bold patterns like neutrals go wild! Like an untamed animal print area rug under a rustic farmhouse table from Wayfair.com. Ooh, fierce! This has been your Wayfair style tip to keep those interiors superior.

Starting point is 00:00:27 -♪ Wayfair, every style, every home. -♪ Hey, true crime besties. Welcome back to an all-new episode of Serialistly with me, your host Annie Elise. 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

Starting point is 00:01:12 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.

Starting point is 00:01:49 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.

Starting point is 00:02:22 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,

Starting point is 00:02:43 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 Coburger 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 Venmo receipts. So I'm going to talk to

Starting point is 00:03:22 you guys all about that. There's of course more information now too about the Amazon histories and if that's gonna 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 wanna know from you guys in the comments where you currently stand with this case.

Starting point is 00:03:44 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 gonna be found guilty, it's him, it's him, it's him. While there have over the last, I would call it what, eight to ten 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

Starting point is 00:04:22 person of interest I should say. 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 Pro Burgers 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

Starting point is 00:04:52 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

Starting point is 00:05:18 if not Brian or if not convicted, will these victims ever get justice? And I'm going gonna stop talking now. Let me just get into all of 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 Coburger case was not your typical hearing.

Starting point is 00:05:36 It was like an all day, just legal face-off. I'm talking packed with jabs from the judge, heated back and forth between the attorneys, and really some important reveals about what might make it I'm talking packed with jabs from the judge, heated back and forth 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

Starting point is 00:06:01 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 label. So calling him that or using that terminology during the trial, it would be wildly inappropriate. There is no argument made for why 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

Starting point is 00:06:31 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

Starting point is 00:06:56 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,

Starting point is 00:07:23 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 Zana 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.

Starting point is 00:08:08 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,

Starting point is 00:08:26 but we understand some of them are very, very graphic, they're gonna 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

Starting point is 00:08:46 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 Coburger.

Starting point is 00:09:07 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

Starting point is 00:09:27 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 off-handed comments, you know, talking about seat belts, 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

Starting point is 00:10:03 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,

Starting point is 00:10:20 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 some, talking, why do you need my phone number or Giving kind of like talking back a little bit about their seatbelt 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 big 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

Starting point is 00:10:44 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

Starting point is 00:11:13 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 wanna 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 Coburger took six hours after the murders.

Starting point is 00:11:42 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. 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.

Starting point is 00:11:55 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.

Starting point is 00:12:20 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

Starting point is 00:12:57 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 like, 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, no, no, Dylan gave the description of him multiple times, even before Brian Coburger was ever even arrested.

Starting point is 00:13:37 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, you know, not only is your vision impaired, but your memory is 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

Starting point is 00:14:15 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 gonna use his social awkwardness as some kind of ammo, saying 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 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

Starting point is 00:14:56 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 gotta 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,

Starting point is 00:15:33 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, it's not even on their radar of bringing it in, but I guess we'll see.

Starting point is 00:16:05 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 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,

Starting point is 00:16:41 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 Coburger 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

Starting point is 00:17:13 from the East Coast, even though they do wanna be there. They do wanna support him. So they're saying like, look, they just wanna 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,

Starting point is 00:17:34 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. But then other people are saying, no, it doesn't matter until you have been found guilty of something

Starting point is 00:17:56 you absolutely deserve support in the courtroom of your family, your friends, whoever 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 at 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

Starting point is 00:18:18 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, then 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.

Starting point is 00:18:52 Every time I go on Amazon, it's like, here's 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 bought with a debit card

Starting point is 00:19:25 unless you're trying to hide it, 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 Coburger'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,

Starting point is 00:19:57 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.

Starting point is 00:20:23 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

Starting point is 00:20:37 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.

Starting point is 00:21:05 And speaking of, I don't know if Brian's gonna 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

Starting point is 00:21:23 hearing was already so much back and forth, just watching everybody 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

Starting point is 00:21:58 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.

Starting point is 00:22:38 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,

Starting point is 00:23:13 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 Zana at the Mad Greek restaurant

Starting point is 00:23:35 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,

Starting point is 00:23:51 please correct me and school me in the comments, but I do vaguely remember Kaylee's father, Steve Gonzalez, 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. Um, 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

Starting point is 00:24:16 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 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, proved 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 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,

Starting point is 00:25:02 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 andying 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

Starting point is 00:25:28 and he followed them? I don't know, but that worries me a little bit. I mean, 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,

Starting point is 00:25:49 but then if they say there's 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.

Starting point is 00:26:19 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 watch 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

Starting point is 00:26:47 We are in for months of new information new twists and more questions if I'm being honest So like I said, I'm gonna keep you guys updated as these updates happen 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 Coburg 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

Starting point is 00:27:15 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

Starting point is 00:27:36 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.

Starting point is 00:28:11 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. Alright 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.

Starting point is 00:28:52 So check back for that tomorrow. Alright, 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. Alright, bye.

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

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.