0:01

Hey true

0:04

crime Besties,

0:10

welcome

0:12

back to

0:16

an

0:18

all-new

0:21

episode

0:23

of

0:25

serialously. And we have got a

0:27

lot to talk about today regarding

0:29

the Idaho 4 case. Now if

0:31

you're brand new and you haven't

0:33

checked out this podcast before, let

0:35

me just break it down for

0:37

you really quick. But basically what

0:39

I like to do over here

0:41

is talk with you guys about

0:43

these true crime cases, but do

0:45

so in a less clinical and

0:47

sterile way. And what I mean

0:49

by that is I want it

0:51

to be just like we're having

0:54

a conversation amongst friends, calling out the

0:56

red flags, having a frank conversation. kind of

0:58

having the dialogue back and forth. So even

1:00

though I get it, you're not in the

1:02

studio with me. The way I'm talking and

1:04

the way I'm looking at the camera might

1:06

as well be here because I feel like

1:08

I am just talking to somebody who's sitting

1:10

next to me. So I don't know. Hopefully

1:12

it comes across that way when you're listening

1:14

to it as well. But if I miss

1:16

the mark. I guess don't tell me because

1:18

it'll hurt my feelings. No, but anyway,

1:20

there has been so much happening in

1:22

the Idaho case and new updates almost

1:24

weekly now at this point as we're

1:26

gearing up for the trial in August.

1:29

And although I just did an update

1:31

on this case a little over a

1:33

week ago, there's now again more information.

1:35

And I think that that was kind

1:37

of to be expected, right? Because there

1:39

have been so many different hearings going

1:41

on. We know that more information about

1:44

the case itself is getting released and

1:46

We're learning more about, it started with

1:48

the 911 call, but then about the

1:50

text message history, the Snapchat, the Amazon

1:52

history, I mean, we constantly are learning

1:54

things. So I would guess that we

1:56

probably will be having updates like this

1:58

weekly or by week. the trial

2:01

starts in August. That's just my

2:03

guess because again, more information just

2:05

keeps coming out. And the reason we

2:07

have an update today is because there

2:09

was a hearing this last week that

2:12

was a very very long hearing and

2:14

there was a lot of new information

2:16

given out in this hearing. I mean,

2:18

the defense and the state just continues

2:20

to really battle it out with one

2:23

another and experts are now saying that

2:25

there is concrete evidence, digital. proof that

2:27

shows that Brian Coburger had zero connection

2:29

to any of the victims. And that's

2:32

huge because what everybody's been wondering

2:34

for the last couple of years at

2:36

this point is who was the target?

2:38

What was the motive? Did he meet

2:40

them at the mad Greek restaurant or

2:42

first notice them there? Did he follow

2:44

one of them on Instagram? And They're

2:46

now going into great detail about that

2:49

all the way into like Venmo receipts.

2:51

So I'm going to talk to you

2:53

guys all about that. There's of course

2:55

more information now to about the Amazon

2:57

histories and if that's going to be

2:59

allowed into trial, what words we are

3:01

going to expect to hear or not

3:03

hear certain terminology and I'll discuss that as

3:06

well. So we have quite a bit to

3:08

go over. And I want to know from

3:10

you guys in the comments where you currently

3:12

stand with this case. I feel like for

3:15

the last couple of years. the majority of

3:17

people out there, although cloaked in innocence

3:19

until proven guilty, I understand that, but

3:21

I will say the majority of people

3:24

out there definitely thought, you know, Brian

3:26

Coburger is the guy, he's gonna be

3:28

found guilty, it's him, it's him, it's

3:30

him, it's him. While there have over

3:33

the last, I would call it what, eight

3:35

to 10 months, been more people coming

3:37

out saying, no, no, no, no, no,

3:39

he's not only being framed, he's being

3:41

set up, there was a second person

3:43

involved, which. Also in my last video,

3:45

you know, we talked about that

3:47

where the defense brought up that there

3:50

was a second person in question back

3:52

then or like a person of

3:54

interest, I should say. And so it

3:56

seems like now it's more divided than

3:58

it ever really has been. A

4:00

lot of people do believe that Brian

4:02

is innocent. I even saw a comment

4:04

in one of my last videos that

4:06

they're dubbing themselves as pro-burger, because his

4:09

last name is co-burger. But I'm curious

4:11

where you sit. And I've kept it

4:13

real with you from the beginning, okay?

4:15

I have thought in my gut that

4:17

this is the guy, that they got

4:19

their guy, and there is just

4:21

too much coincidence and inconsistencies and

4:23

evidence that we have heard of

4:25

to not be him, to just

4:28

be casually explained away. But I also

4:30

am like hearing some of the stuff like

4:32

what we'll be going over today to where

4:34

I'm like, you know, it's circumstantial at

4:36

best. Whether or not this is the

4:39

guy, do they have enough to convict

4:41

him? And that's a really scary place

4:43

to be, not, I mean, scary for

4:46

Brian, scary for the victim's family, scary

4:48

for everybody, because if not Brian, or

4:50

if not convicted, will these victims

4:52

ever get justice? I'm going to stop talking

4:55

now. Let me just get into all this

4:57

new information and break it down for you.

4:59

And like I said, let me know as

5:01

we go in the comments what you think.

5:03

So this week's court session in the Brian

5:06

Coburger case was not your typical hearing. It

5:08

was like an all day just legal face-off.

5:10

I'm talking packed with jabs from the judge,

5:12

heated back and forths between the attorneys, and

5:14

really some important reveals about what might make

5:17

it in front of a jury this summer

5:19

in August. And I want to start with

5:21

one of the defense's biggest asks in

5:23

this because they said they do not

5:26

want the state or any witnesses for

5:28

that matter throwing around words like psychopath

5:30

psychopaths psychopaths. or sociopath, which we know

5:33

that those words have been used a

5:35

lot in the media to describe Brian

5:37

Coburger or possibly describe him. So the

5:40

defense is saying there is no medical

5:42

diagnosis to back those terms up or

5:44

that kind of label. So calling him

5:47

that or using that terminology during the

5:49

trial, it would be wildly inappropriate. There

5:51

is no argument made for why, which

5:53

that would stand. Yes, he could be

5:56

called a murderer because he has been

5:58

charged with that, but sociopath insight. Those

6:00

are medical terms that is what you

6:02

are diagnosed with so since he has not

6:04

been diagnosed with that They're arguing he should

6:06

not be called that or referred to that

6:08

at all which Honestly, they're not wrong because

6:11

words like that do hit different when they

6:13

are said in court when they are said

6:15

in a formal setting where it's not casual

6:17

like me being like, oh my god, my

6:19

ex-boyfriend, he was such a sociopath or something

6:22

like that. But if you're in a court

6:24

and if you hear the state or a

6:26

witness say, he's a sociopath, he did this,

6:28

he did that, I think there is a

6:30

different. level of heaviness that is

6:32

attached to the words. And that's

6:35

just my opinion. And apparently, I

6:37

guess not just my opinion, because

6:39

the judge agreed and said, unless

6:41

there is expert proof, those terms

6:43

are off the table, at least

6:45

correction, at least during the guilt

6:47

phase. So unless it's backed by

6:49

expert evidence, which at this point,

6:51

it just doesn't exist, those terms

6:53

cannot be said. The defense also

6:55

asked to limit the jury's exposure

6:58

to some of the very brutal,

7:00

very horrific crime scene photos, which

7:02

fair. Some of the images are

7:04

reportedly horrific. We know that at

7:06

the scene, it was reported that

7:08

just walking inside the door, you

7:10

could smell the blood. It was

7:12

just... you know, for lack of a better

7:14

term, a full bloodbath in that house

7:16

and that Zanna had such defensive wounds

7:19

that a finger was almost hanging

7:21

off of her. Like we know

7:23

that this was a truly barbaric

7:25

and haunting scene. But also here's

7:27

the thing, okay? The nature of

7:29

the crime is horrific. It is,

7:31

so you're going to have horrific

7:33

crime scene photos. That's just, unfortunately,

7:35

the nature of the beast. But

7:37

they argued that these images would

7:39

do more shock than actual informing

7:41

of the jury. Now, the judge

7:43

didn't make a blanket ruling on

7:45

that particular situation, but the judge

7:47

did acknowledge that some of these

7:49

photos are especially disturbing and said,

7:52

you know what, because we do

7:54

think it's important that some of

7:56

the images are shown. but we

7:58

understand some of evaluated individually during

8:00

the trial. Now, my personal opinion is

8:03

I wouldn't be shocked if a lot

8:05

of those images still make their way

8:07

into this trial because again, the nature

8:09

of the crime is horrific. There's no

8:12

way to get around that. So it's

8:14

not that they would be showing horrific

8:16

autopsy photos or things like that maybe.

8:18

But the crime scene photos itself, it's

8:20

important to understand what went on in

8:23

that King Road house, right? Now here's

8:25

something new that we heard a lot

8:27

about in this hearing and they were

8:29

battling back and forth for quite some

8:32

time. We finally have details on a

8:34

previously unreleased traffic stop that involved Brian

8:36

Coburger. Now this traffic stop happened two

8:38

miles from the crime scene and it

8:40

started just before school started in August

8:42

of 22 that year. So the prosecution

8:44

wants to use this traffic stop video

8:47

in the trial. Which people are like

8:49

why this was before the murders even

8:51

took place But the reason they want

8:53

to use this is because it shows

8:55

Brian in the area at night

8:57

in the car just like they're

8:59

alleging he was the night of

9:01

the murders. However, the defense says

9:03

that it's more prejudicial than actually

9:05

helpful, pointing out that in this

9:07

traffic stop footage, Brian is making

9:09

these off-handed comments, you know, talking

9:12

about seat belts, questions about giving

9:14

his phone number, kind of being

9:16

like non-resistant or abrasive with the cops,

9:18

but kind of, to wear... If you're

9:20

watching that, you could see, okay, this

9:22

person's kind of coming off sketchy, like

9:24

why are they so resistant to the

9:26

police? So I get why they're worried.

9:28

I mean, anything that makes him look

9:30

evasive, especially paired with the timeline, it's

9:32

risky for the defense's case. And they say

9:35

that they fear that it could all be

9:37

twisted into something way more sinister. But think

9:39

about it. I mean, if you're in a

9:41

trial and you're seated on the jury and

9:43

you're seated on the jury, they were stopped

9:46

by in a traffic stop a couple months

9:48

before the murder and you're watching that body

9:50

cam footage and this person's like well why

9:52

do you need my phone number or giving

9:54

kind of like some talking back a little

9:56

bit about their seat belt or just kind

9:59

of acting weird. I think any of

10:01

us, and I get maybe just me,

10:03

but I feel like most people would

10:05

watch them, be like, why is he

10:07

being so sketchy? Why is he like

10:09

asking so many questions? Why is he

10:11

so nervous? Especially given that the stop

10:13

was near the home, right? So while I

10:15

get both sides of the argument, I

10:17

think. I get the defense. I get why

10:19

they're worried and why they say, I think

10:22

this could be twisted and turned into something

10:24

more sinister as far as like his behavioral

10:26

issues, his attitude, his entitlement possibly, whatever they

10:29

say that it's going to be twisted into.

10:31

But I also understand the state wanting to

10:33

bring it in because I understand them wanting

10:35

to be like, look, he was near the

10:38

house, this is him in the car, this

10:40

is him at night, almost so it's like

10:42

you can visualize what they're alleging he did

10:45

that night as well, right. So ultimately the

10:47

judge hasn't ruled on it, so stay

10:49

tuned, but that was a big point

10:51

of contention. And now I want to

10:54

talk about the eyebrows, the bushy eyebrows,

10:56

because as we know, one of the

10:58

surviving roommates description of the man that

11:00

she saw in the house, those early

11:02

morning hours, included the exact words, the

11:05

exact words, bushy eyebrows, which prosecutors are

11:07

linking to that selfie that Brian Coburger

11:09

took six hours after the murders, the

11:11

one where he's in the bathroom taking

11:14

it and they're trying to enter that

11:16

selfie into evidence being like, look, here

11:18

are the bushy eyebrows. Here are what

11:20

she described. reliable. Siding, she was really

11:23

heavily drinking that day. She started with

11:25

morning mimosas. She moved on to white

11:27

claws. She then moved on to this

11:29

homemade borg, which I honestly am too

11:32

old to know what that is. I

11:34

had to research it, but it kind

11:36

of sounds like it's like a rum

11:38

jungle vodka punch where you just like

11:41

pour a bunch of things into it

11:43

and like, I don't know what you

11:45

call like dealer's choice, something like that,

11:47

but basically saying like, look, she had

11:49

been drinking all day, also into the

11:52

night. Here's all the things that she

11:54

had been drinking. Clearly, she doesn't know

11:56

what she saw. She was wasted. She

11:58

could have seen anything. never even brought

12:01

up the eyebrows on her own

12:03

that the police did. So really,

12:05

they're questioning whether she actually even

12:07

recalled those details herself ever, or

12:09

if the investigators fed her that

12:11

information. Which if they fed her

12:13

that information, that's a big problem.

12:15

And I have seen from after

12:17

my last video, I've seen some

12:19

different takes out there and different

12:21

accounts for this where Dylan apparently

12:24

drew the sketch of the guy

12:26

before police said anything about the

12:28

Balaklava mask that he was wearing

12:30

so that that happened before they

12:32

told her anything about a mask.

12:34

I don't know what the exact

12:36

timeline was of when she first

12:38

mentioned bushy eyebrows and then it,

12:40

you know, took flight. But the defense

12:42

is saying like, look, not only was she

12:44

drunk, but we also think that the detectives

12:47

spoon fed her this information about bushy eyebrows,

12:49

which I don't know why they would do

12:51

that because how would they even know what

12:53

kind of guy they were looking for at

12:56

the time? I don't know. But anyway, the

12:58

defense is arguing it. However, prosecutors are firing

13:00

back saying, no, no, no, no, no, Dylan

13:02

gave the description of him multiple times, even

13:05

before Brian Coburger was ever even arrested.

13:07

So personally, I think that it

13:09

might be a toss-up. I mean, jurors

13:12

might empathize with a scared drunk, college

13:14

girl, college student, but I think they

13:16

also might equally doubt the clarity of

13:18

her memory, recalling maybe their own time

13:21

when they used to party, that sometimes,

13:23

you know, not only is your vision

13:25

impaired, but your memories impaired. I think

13:28

it could go either way. There's been

13:30

no decision yet, but it's clear that

13:32

both sides are definitely gearing up for

13:34

a battle over Dylan's credibility. Then there's

13:37

also the topic of Brian Coburger's autism

13:39

that has been brought up, and we've talked

13:41

about this a little bit before, I think

13:43

a little bit in our last video. His

13:45

defense team wants to ensure that it cannot

13:48

be used against him if the trial reaches

13:50

the sentencing phase. They say that they're worried

13:52

that the prosecution is going to use... his

13:54

social awkwardness as some kind of ammo saying

13:57

they're worried that the state could twist you

13:59

know his social behaviors such as awkward

14:01

eye contact or how he stands in

14:03

rooms or something like that and twist

14:05

that into something more menacing or even

14:07

sinister almost like well you see how

14:09

he's acting you see how he's behaving

14:12

you see how he's fidgeting or how

14:14

he won't make eye contact when really

14:16

that's a direct reflection of the autism

14:18

is what they're saying which I honestly

14:20

think that they do have a point

14:22

in this. Nobody's social awkwardness or social

14:24

behaviors that are out of their control

14:26

should be used against them, not unless

14:29

it directly ties to a crime or

14:31

something that they did, which I also

14:33

got to say if the prosecution is

14:35

planning to use somebody's autism against them,

14:37

not as reasoning for something they've done

14:39

or haven't done, but rather using their

14:41

behaviors as a factor in it. that's

14:43

kind of gross to me and I

14:45

don't know that the prosecution would do

14:48

that but I guess the defense is

14:50

trying to get ahead of it and

14:52

when the defense brought this up the

14:54

prosecution did flat out say they have

14:56

no intention of using autism as an

14:58

aggravating factor and frankly when they said

15:00

that they also said they have quote

15:02

this is a direct quote much better

15:05

arguments for the death penalty if it

15:07

does get that far specifically they said

15:09

they have even more aggravating factors which

15:11

I think that that shows how confident

15:13

they are in their case. I really

15:15

do, because if they're like, we're not

15:17

even bringing that up, you have no

15:19

need to worry. We have way more

15:21

evidence, way more aggravating factors if it

15:24

gets to the death penalty phase. Like,

15:26

that to me shows they're not even

15:28

concerned at all, and that the autism

15:30

diagnosis and his behaviors with that aren't

15:32

even on their radar of bringing it

15:34

in, but... I guess we'll see. Now,

15:36

in a more personal turn in this

15:38

hearing, Brian Coburger's lawyers asked the court

15:41

to let his family attend the trial.

15:43

And I got to say, this was

15:45

one of the more emotional moments of

15:47

this hearing, because the prosecution has included

15:49

some of his relatives on their witness

15:51

list. And like any trial, if a

15:53

relative, a friend, whomever it is, is

15:55

on a witness list, that means that

15:57

they would be barred from sitting in

16:00

the trial. until after they testify, because

16:02

they don't want anything to taint their

16:04

testimony. If they see something or hear

16:06

something from another testimony ahead of theirs,

16:08

like you basically are removed until you

16:10

testify, then you can sit in on

16:12

the balance, just to keep it pure

16:14

and keep it clean. But the defense

16:17

is calling it out, saying. They feel

16:19

like listing all of these relatives as

16:21

a witness is actually just a tactic,

16:23

a strategic move to isolate Brian Coburg

16:25

or even further, that they don't need

16:27

these relatives or people listed as witnesses,

16:29

that they're doing this intentionally because they

16:31

don't want Brian to have any sort

16:33

of support in the courtroom. And the

16:35

defense even emphasized that, yeah, his parents

16:37

have shown unwavering support, but they also

16:40

can't afford to fly back and forth

16:42

from the East Coast, even though they

16:44

do want to be there. So they're

16:46

saying, look, they just want to be

16:48

there for their son. And the judge

16:50

is actually citing with the defense here,

16:52

telling prosecutors, you know, you need to

16:54

adjust the order of your witnesses so

16:56

that you can allow the family to

16:58

be present for more of the trial. And

17:00

by that he means, okay, if these witnesses

17:02

were set to go last, say, then obviously

17:04

they wouldn't be able to sit through the

17:07

majority of the duration of the trial. So

17:09

the judge is saying, reshuffle it up. ring

17:11

them in first so then they can be

17:13

there for the balance of the trial. But

17:15

a lot of people are torn on this.

17:17

A lot of people are saying like no

17:19

he doesn't need to have the support in

17:21

the courtroom. He's an alleged quadruple murderer like

17:23

but then other people are saying no it

17:25

doesn't matter until you have been found guilty

17:27

of something you absolutely deserve support in the

17:29

courtroom of your family, your friends, whoever

17:31

wants to go. So I don't know

17:34

where do you sit on that? Now we

17:36

also know that one of the most talked

17:38

about pieces of evidence in this case has

17:40

been Brian Coburger's Amazon activity. And we are

17:43

getting a little bit more information about this

17:45

because prosecutors are saying that Brian used a

17:47

gift card that was bought with his own

17:49

debit card to purchase the Kbar knife and

17:52

that that purchase was made months before the

17:54

murders. So just to track that one more

17:56

time, that would be like me right now

17:58

using my debit card. to buy a

18:00

Visa gift card, then to use that

18:03

Visa gift card on Amazon to buy

18:05

something. But it all traces back to

18:07

Brian. However, the defense is pushing back

18:09

on this, saying, you know, clicks on

18:11

a website do not prove intent to

18:13

buy. Algorithms can always suggest or even

18:15

auto load items into somebody shopping cart

18:17

online, which... That's true. I mean, happens

18:19

to me all the time. Every time

18:21

I go on Amazon, it's like, here

18:24

is what you looked at last or

18:26

here's suggested items for you. Sometimes on

18:28

other platforms it actually will add things

18:30

to your cart too. So I get where

18:32

that argument might hold a little bit of

18:34

water. But the prosecution says, no, we're not

18:36

guessing here. We have records, we have time

18:39

stamps, we have linked accounts, we have devices.

18:41

It's all there. A digital paper trail. It's

18:43

not guesswork. And honestly, it's not just

18:45

about what he bought, it's about when

18:47

he bought it, how he bought it,

18:49

and how everything else just starts to

18:52

connect with it. Why are you buying

18:54

something with a gift card that you

18:56

bought with a debit card unless you're

18:58

trying to hide it, like things like

19:01

that. Like things like that. And the

19:03

state plans to walk the jury through

19:05

all of this, the entire digital trail

19:07

they say they have. Now, during this

19:09

hearing, we also circledled back to Brian

19:12

Coburgers claimed alibi. As you. Star-Gazing. Something

19:14

that he allegedly did often to quote,

19:16

look at the stars. Totally normal,

19:18

right? Said, no one ever who has tried

19:21

to prove an alibi in court, but I

19:23

get it, you need some sort of alibi,

19:25

so why not throw Star-gazing into the mix?

19:27

Across state lines, in the middle of the

19:30

night. Sure. And that's just my personal

19:32

opinion. So the alibi comes up

19:34

again. And his team is now

19:36

introducing a cell phone expert who's trying

19:38

to back up that claim. The

19:40

expert says that they can confirm some

19:42

movement, but that the phone was

19:44

off during the murders. So since

19:46

his phone was allegedly off at the

19:49

time of the murders, it still

19:51

is a little bit shaky, but

19:53

they're saying we can confirm some movement.

19:55

That's when he was out there

19:57

star gazing and driving and driving

19:59

around. of course, is saying, well,

20:01

yeah, his phone turned off because

20:03

he went and committed a quadruple

20:05

murder. Now, because of this whole,

20:07

like, phone expert coming in and

20:09

the alibi and it being kind

20:11

of a partial alibi, that's actually

20:13

exactly what the prosecution is calling

20:15

it, a partial alibi, which Idaho

20:17

law doesn't apparently recognize. Under Idaho

20:19

law, an alibi needs to be

20:21

more than a vague statement and

20:23

partial cooperation. And as of

20:26

now, Brian doesn't have a solid

20:28

witness to vouch for his whereabouts

20:30

at night, not at all. So

20:32

unless he himself testifies, that alibi

20:34

might not even go anywhere.

20:36

And speaking of, I don't know

20:39

if Brian's going to testify. I'm

20:41

curious to know what you guys think. My

20:43

gut? I don't know. My gut tells me

20:46

no, but the more I think about

20:48

it, maybe. I don't know. Now to

20:50

make things even messier, which I don't

20:52

even know if that's possible because this

20:54

hearing was already so much back and

20:56

forth, just watching everybody like argue with

20:58

each other, but the defense started accusing

21:00

prosecutors of hiding key cell data. Now

21:02

the judge called them out on this

21:04

almost immediately warning them, you know, you

21:06

can't just throw around these kind of

21:08

accusations without having solid concrete proof. Doing

21:11

that is not going to fly in

21:13

this courtroom. So like figure it out,

21:15

get your evidence, or you know, zip

21:17

it. He basically said, don't make serious

21:19

accusations unless you can prove them. And

21:21

frankly, he looked pretty annoyed that this

21:23

even had to be addressed. Just my

21:25

take, but definitely did. So finally, we

21:27

have to talk about one more thing

21:29

in this hearing, and it's the question

21:31

that still haunts the case, and honestly,

21:33

it's the question that's on all of

21:35

our minds, right? What was the motive

21:38

here? Is there any known connection between

21:40

Brian Coburger and the victims, any of

21:42

the victims? What, why did he do

21:44

this? What would have made him do

21:46

this? Now his defense team has long

21:48

said, no, first of all, he didn't

21:50

do this, but he had no connection

21:52

to the victims, he had no motive

21:54

in this, there was no reason. And

21:56

so far, experts have combed through phones,

21:59

computers, financial records. social media accounts,

22:01

and nothing has turned

22:03

up. No link, no contact,

22:05

no relationship, zero. And

22:08

even the judge confirmed

22:10

that after digging through

22:12

phones, computers, financials, social

22:15

media, there's nothing. No

22:17

known link. Not a DM, not

22:19

a Venmo, not a class together.

22:21

Nothing. And that is huge, because

22:23

without a motive, you have to

22:25

rely entirely on circumstantial evidence. Also,

22:27

maybe a little bit on behavior

22:30

and interpretation, but circumstantial evidence. That

22:32

could truly go either way in

22:34

front of a jury. I mean,

22:36

yes, you do still have the

22:38

DNA that was left behind on

22:41

the sheath button, but all of

22:43

the other evidence that people are

22:45

talking about, aside from that one tiny

22:47

speck of DNA, is circumstantial. And remember,

22:49

I cited this at the beginning of

22:51

the episode, but there were those rumors

22:54

in the beginning about Brian following Maddie

22:56

on Instagram or maybe being in her

22:58

D.M. or trying to hang out. There

23:00

were rumors that he saw. I think

23:02

it was Maddie and Zanna at the

23:04

Mad Greek restaurant because it was a

23:07

vegan restaurant that he frequented and became

23:09

fixated or obsessed with her. But they're

23:11

saying now that there is no known

23:13

link that they have scraped everything and

23:15

have not found any sort of connection. Now,

23:18

I do want to say

23:20

this, and for those of

23:22

you who are following the

23:24

case, please correct me and

23:26

school me in the comments,

23:28

but I do vaguely remember

23:31

Kaylee's father, Steve Gonzales, saying

23:33

something like there was a

23:35

connection, or there was like

23:37

a quote about Brian saying, you

23:39

know, he didn't need to go

23:42

upstairs. I don't remember the details off the

23:44

top of my head. Let me know if

23:46

you do. Again, it's just a vague memory.

23:48

But I do recall there being something said

23:50

early on, maybe like a year and a

23:52

half ago or a year ago, where there was

23:55

something said about there being a

23:57

target. And it's been my long

23:59

suspected belief. that there was a

24:01

target, I believe Maddie was the target,

24:03

which perhaps I'm wrong, and you

24:05

know, prove me wrong with the digital

24:08

evidence, you know. We're going to find

24:10

out during trial, obviously, but

24:12

that kind of just raises a

24:14

bunch more questions, right? If there

24:16

was no target, if there was

24:18

no connection, would he have really just

24:20

picked a random house and a random victim,

24:23

if he was... Casing the house, as the

24:25

state is suggesting he was, remember all of

24:27

the cell phone pings in the months leading

24:29

up to the murder, you know, a couple

24:31

dozen times or whatever, if he was casing

24:34

the house, wouldn't he know it was a

24:36

party house and that multiple people were coming

24:38

and going and staying to where if he

24:40

was going to just pick a random house

24:43

and a random target to like get a

24:45

thrill kill, why would he pick that house

24:47

when there's such a risk of multiple people

24:49

being in there? Was he watching them? Did

24:51

he never have any known connection? But he

24:54

had seen them somewhere and then like, it's

24:56

hard to get the digital footprint and he

24:58

followed them? I don't know, but that worries

25:00

me a little bit. I mean, not in

25:02

the sense if he's innocent, but like,

25:05

which again, personally, I don't think he

25:07

is, but if they get Dylan's identification

25:09

thrown out or the jury doesn't believe

25:11

it because they're citing how wasted she

25:13

was, if He says he has an

25:15

alibi even though it's like a bullshit

25:18

alibi in my opinion, stargazing. But then

25:20

if they say there's no connection to

25:22

these victims, there's no reason he would

25:24

want to kill them. He didn't do

25:26

this. We have no murder weapon. There

25:29

was no blood found at his apartment.

25:31

There was no personal identification of

25:33

anybody that he kept as like

25:35

a trophy. There's no connection. There's

25:38

nothing like, can you really on

25:40

a jury convict somebody without any

25:42

reasonable doubt? I don't know. I don't know.

25:44

What do you think? Now again, what they

25:46

said was no known connection. So that

25:49

doesn't necessarily take that there was a

25:51

connection off the table and that they

25:53

just don't know about it yet or

25:56

that maybe there wasn't a digital footprint

25:58

to back it up. But I don't No.

26:00

It's getting interesting. It's getting very interesting,

26:02

especially if you watched my last update

26:05

where we talked about the seven minutes

26:07

that the defense is claiming changes everything

26:09

in this case. So this case is

26:11

only getting more intense the closer we

26:13

get to trial. And this hearing is

26:16

any indication we are in for months

26:18

of new information, new twists and more

26:20

questions, if I'm being honest. So like

26:22

I said, I'm going to keep you

26:24

guys updated as these updates happen. Seems

26:26

like weekly. So if you're not subscribed,

26:29

subscribe, subscribe now. so that you don't

26:31

miss any of those updates. And we'll

26:33

see where this goes. What do you

26:35

guys think? Do you sit in the

26:37

camp of thinking Brian Cobur is the

26:39

guy, they got their guy, he's guilty?

26:42

Do you sit in what they're calling

26:44

themselves the pro-burger's thinking he's innocent or

26:46

that he's been framed and that there's

26:48

somebody else involved? Or do you now

26:50

kind of sit in this other bucket of,

26:53

I think Brian's the guy, but I'm

26:55

worried about the evidence? a rock solid

26:57

conviction. The state feels very very confident

26:59

and again we don't know all of

27:01

the information they have because of the

27:03

gag order that had been put in

27:06

place we're just now getting bits and

27:08

pieces of it but they seem to

27:10

be very confident and rock solid in

27:12

this but there are certain things that

27:14

give me a little pause. But then

27:16

again, I say that and I think

27:18

back to, okay, if they can prove

27:20

the phone pings, if they can prove

27:22

the purchase history, all these things that

27:25

are too coincidental to be explained away

27:27

any other way or be explained

27:29

as a coincidence, like there is a lot

27:31

of strength in that case. I don't

27:33

know. I still believe in my heart of

27:35

hearts, he's the guy, but I also am

27:37

at a point now to where I'm like,

27:39

you know what, let's it, let's it's going

27:41

on, like, like, will we be proven wrong.

27:44

Or will there not be enough evidence? I

27:46

don't know. Thank you guys so much for

27:48

tuning in to another episode of Serialously with

27:50

me. Don't forget if you do not want

27:52

to miss any of these updates and these

27:54

random episodes that I release outside of the

27:56

normal release schedule. Take a quick second, whatever

27:58

podcast app you're listening on. Go to the

28:00

corner, press follow, follow the show, it's

28:02

totally free, but that way you will

28:04

not miss any time I push these

28:06

out. All right guys, other than that,

28:09

I will be back with you tomorrow

28:11

with headline highlights where we are talking

28:13

about everything under the sun in the

28:15

true prime world going on this week,

28:17

and there is a lot. We also

28:19

have more updates with Lori Vallow, with

28:21

Karen Reed, with some breaking cases, so

28:23

check back for that tomorrow. All right,

28:25

thanks again guys, and until the next

28:27

one. Be nice, don't kill people, and

28:29

don't join any cults, just get a

28:31

divorce, all the things. All right, bye.