SERIALously - 10: Uncovering Idaho 4 Murders with Emily D. Baker

Episode Date: May 15, 2023

Ep 7: Uncovering Idaho 4 Murders with Emily D. Baker: Examining the Horrific & Shocking Details Join us for a gripping episode of SERIALously, as we unravel the chilling story of the Idaho 4 murders. Esteemed attorney and law nerd leader, Emily D. Baker, joins us to provide her expertise on this horrifying case. Together, we explore the shocking events, examine the accused murderer Bryan Kohberger, and delve into the legal complexities surrounding the case. Prepare for a captivating exploration of a crime that shook a community and the nation to its core. Today's Sponsors: Nutrafol - Nutrafol is offering our listeners $10 off your first month’s subscription and free shipping when you go to Nutrafol.com and enter the promo code ELISE First Leaf -Head over to TryFirstleaf.com/ae to sign up and save 50% on your first SIX hand-curated bottles plus free shipping. 

Are you looking for a trusted and experienced online high school where you can earn credits or upgrade your marks? Learn with Ontario Virtual School, Ontario's leading online provider with a 5-star Google rating. OVS has over 140 interactive grade 7 to 12 courses to choose from, including STEM, French Immersion and more. Sign up today, create your own timetable and get access to their supportive teachers and counsellors. See why over 25,000 students have chosen to learn with OVS. Visit ontariovirtualschool.ca. Buckle up and crank up that volume. This is Serialistly with Annie Elise. Hey everybody, happy Monday. Welcome back to an all new episode of Serialistly. It is me, your true crime BFF, Annie Elise, and I am so beyond excited to break down today's episode with you. I have a very

special guest that is going to be joining me, which I'm going to introduce you to in just a minute, and we are going to talk about some of the crazy headlines in the true crime world right now. We are going to talk about the Idaho murders, and if you're not fully caught up on that case, I don't know where you have been, and you must have been living under a rock, but I do have a playlist over on my YouTube channel where you can get fully caught up, but it is the case of accused murderer Brian Koberger, who is standing accused of brutally killing the four roommates in Moscow, Idaho, Kaylee, Maddie, Zanna, and Ethan. So we are going to talk about the latest updates in that case,

some details surrounding that. We are also going to talk a little bit about what's going on with Alec Berda, some new filings that have happened, some newness going on with that, and so much more. And let me just say, further ado guys I am introducing you to today's guest because it is the intelligent, the fantastic, the super ultra smart Emily D. Baker. And let me just give you a breakdown. If you've never heard of Emily Baker I'm going to give you a breakdown of who Emily is, what she's all about. She is on YouTube, and she is just like a superstar, massive creator. She is also the host of the Emily Show podcast. She's been a licensed attorney for 17 years. She is a former LA deputy district attorney, and she is the internet's most favorite

legal commentator. I am telling you, she has like this whole community of, they, they dub themselves law nerds. It is a massive community. She live streams trials, but breaks down all of it for you in real time and in normal people jargon. So you and I can understand what's actually going on in these trials. And she is just so talented. So Emily, thank you so much for joining. Can you please let everybody know a little bit about you and what you do and what you focus on? Thank you for having me. I'm so excited to be here. I am a second career as a content creator because I have been a licensed attorney for over 17 years. I was a deputy district attorney in LA

for over 10. So I did a lot of trial work. So when I started covering trials, I always have this dual mind like, oh, don't be too hard on the attorneys because what if it's you? And then there's the other side of me that's like, but this was you and you got your microphone turned on. So like, let's just get it together.

So I am a content creator that covers pop culture legal and does the legal breakdown and live trial streaming. So I do court commentary over live stream trials, which is so much fun because I'm going to watch every minute of some of these trials either way. So it's really nice to be joined by sometimes hundreds of thousands of my closest friends to all talk about it together because we want to talk about these cases, don't we? I 100% and I love it because I personally tuned in, especially when you're covering Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, because I feel like even though I'm in the true crime world and I understand the legal jargon, I like to think for the most part,

having you break it down as it's happening in real time is just beyond helpful. So anybody who ever has a little bit of trouble navigating those trials, if you're listening, you got to watch through Emily because she breaks it all down for you as you're watching in real time. It's fantastic. Yeah. There's times in court, particularly when you don't know something's a big deal. If, if this is not the system that you're a part of. And so it might seem like a really quiet moment if you're just casually watching. And I am freaking out because a massive ruling has just happened by the court because I know what the

implications are down the road. But if you haven't worked in this system, our legal system is so complex that if you haven't done that, I don't know how you would be expected to know. And I feel like we've all gotten much more familiar with what objections are, what hearsay is, what the law is. And in the true crime world, you're looking so much at either breaking cases or past cases, but not always exactly why the courts ruled things. So it's really great to have a conversation to kind of overlay the two, the investigation and the personalities and what people are doing, plus the court processes and proceedings and how that works.

Absolutely, and that actually poses a really great question. I know you don't cover true crime exclusively, like we talked about a lot of pop culture. How is it that you decide what case you're going to cover, what you're going to stream and talk about? Absolutely, I look for a blend of what I'm interested in, what my community is interested in, and where I think I can actually be helpful. There are some cases that after 10 plus years

as a district attorney are far too triggering for me to be a part of. They are just too difficult. I have been to autopsies of children. I tend to stay away from cases with young kids because it's just too much for me to cover. And when I look at how can I be helpful, I can't be helpful if I'm sitting there just miserable with the evidence that's coming in because it is too much. So I really look, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard was a really easy choice because I was fascinated by the case after seeing the UK ruling. And we've got two massive celebrities unveiling their private lives in court with very highly paid lawyers. So I'm like, what does a multimillion dollar legal team operate like in court? We never get to see these things

because normally civil cases aren't streamed. They operate behind closed doors and you never really hear about it. So that was an easy yes for me. I was fascinated anyway. So that's really where the blend is. Something like Murdaugh, I started covering that when it was an attorney who staged a roadside shooting to fake his own or fake his own death and the stealing from clients long before he got charged with murder. So that case I was already invested in before he got charged with murder. So that case, I was already invested in when he got charged with those murders. And so I'm like, well, this is another part of it. Attorney fraud has become more of something that I cover than I thought I would because I was covering the Tom Girardi case because Erica Girardi is on the

Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. And I do cover a lot of reality TV related cases because they're fascinating and because we already know the players involved a little bit and they talk of Beverly Hills. And I do cover a lot of reality TV related cases because they're fascinating. And because we already know the players involved a little bit and they talk about their cases on social media, which is so interesting. It's crazy to me. I personally watched your content when you were covering Jen Shaw and you were, I think it was the one where you were reading everything that like all the handbags and everything that they were pulling and sourcing. And it is pretty unbelievable that they are so brazen knowing that they're like in the public eye they're flaunting all of their stuff it was theresa then erica then jen now rumor is who knows allegedly that it's a kim zolciak's

gonna be next and so it's like it's very fascinating to watch yeah and theresa's husband is being investigated for stuff too now so there's the reality TV personality fascinates me. I don't have the courage to be a reality TV star. I'm not opening up my life and my ups and downs and my best moments and my worst moments like that. So I'm fascinated by those who are, but I've always loved reality TV. I would go into work and people are like, how are you doing? I'm like, oh my God, did you see Jersey Shore last night? And they're like, girl, no. Hey, you're just like me. I'm like knee deep in Scandaval right now from Bravo.

I am so invested. And I had Heather McDonald on the other day and all we were doing was talking about Scandaval when the cameras were off. I was like, I need to know everything about this. Heather McDonald's great. And I've been talking to people behind the scenes too, who know members of the cast from Vanderpump. I can't, I I'm fascinated. I'm just gripped. And once there was a temporary restraining order, I'm like, I have an in. There's a court, there's a court process. We get to talk about it too. Now I get to talk about it officially. So today I definitely, of course, I want to pick your brain on Idaho because, I mean, it is just such a big case. You've been

covering it so well and so detailed and also a little bit of Murdoch. But aside from those, are there any cases right now that you've just been following extra closely or that have piqued your interest in any way? There are, but we're kind of in and out of cases right now because we're in, well, the news cycle has been taken up with cases that I'm not following with Vallow and Stotts just coming down with a verdict. So I have not been following and covering those. So that's really where the news cycle has been. I'm going to look into Kim Zolciak. That's kind of next up. There's a big Britney Spears court hearing, actually, as we're recording this. So I'll be checking back in with what's going on. That is supposed to be going to trial.

So even though it's now been three years of coverage of Britney Spears' conservatorship, that's over in the sense that she's not under a conservatorship, but not over in the sense that the finances are still going. So I'm covering that. And Murdoch and Idaho are still popping off. But the Idaho TikTok defamation case with the professor is the one that I am gripped by. I can't look away from that case. It is horrific and fascinating and sad and playing out on social media. And I'm, I'm great. I'm absolutely gripped by it. Definitely. I mean, there are so many different facets. I feel like

with the Idaho case and like I once we get there, we're going to have a lot to talk about quickly. I want to ask you just a couple of questions about about Murdoch, because with your legal background and your insights, do you think that it was a big fuck up for him to testify? Oh, yeah. There's no way he should have testified, but there was no way he was not going to testify. Like this man thinks he can talk his way out of anything. And we saw that time and time again, because his whole life he's talked his way out of everything. He's from a super powerful family. He was a well-respected attorney. He got away with literally everything. So of course he's going to testify. He shouldn't have. And when the jurors came out and were asked if they thought his testimony helped him, we're like, no. It showed the jury who he was. And I

think it erased doubt from their mind in a circumstantial case. And in a circumstantial case, you need the jury for the defense to keep doubt in their mind. And when you testify it and they get to see you up there just lying, they're like, nope, done. We're done. We're done. We don't believe you at all. That's a good point. And I was wondering, too, if you had thought that if his financial crimes were not let in, do you think that he would have still been convicted? I think it would have been a bit harder, but if his financial crimes didn't come in, I don't know if he would have felt as compelled

to testify. And so it's kind of a two part. If he hadn't testify, would he have been convicted? If the financial stuff didn't come in, would he have been convicted? It makes it harder for the jury to wrap their mind around. How do you go sit down and have dinner with your family and then murder them within you know the next 30 minutes what what leads up to that so i think some of the financial crimes are always going to come in but it leaves really big questions for appeal because the line is really blurry on when is it too much evidence on other cases and so murdoch was kind of put in a position where he had to come in and explain some of the financial crimes and say, yes, I know I'm terrible. I did all these things and I stole from all these people, but I didn't kill my wife and son. And the jury just did not believe him.

And it's still going on. He's still involved in cases. The financial crimes are still going on. He hasn't gone in and pled to any of those. So he's still fighting. He hasn't gone in and pled to any of those. So he's still fighting. It's interesting. I feel like there's a new subject or detail regarding him that shows up on my feed every single day, whether it's a financial crime, if it's still somehow tying him over to, is it, I think it's, is it Stephen Baker? And is that right?

Oh, no. Stephen Smith. The Stephen Smith case is. which I don't know if there is any tie to there but I just feel like it's constantly in my feed just all this um everything just constantly Murdoch still do you have any theories of where you think the guns may be or where what he may have done with those I haven't thought about it too much I know there's a lot of theories wandering around on the internet, but he had opportunity to hide them. There was not a thorough police investigation right after the murders

looking for those guns. I don't think we'll ever see them resurface. South Carolina has a whole lot of water. So they are probably in the water somewhere, or maybe they are buried with his father. That's what everybody speculated, but that would be pretty easy to get to if they were ever going to try to find those. I'm sure they're in water somewhere and gone. It's not that he didn't have connections. And I have to ask, and I know that this probably would be way more detailed

than you'll be able to share just right now, but if you were on his defense team, what would your strategy have been? Point out all the flaws in the police investigation and keep your mouth shut. I think, I mean, and you can't do that, right? As a defense attorney, ultimately the defendant has the right to testify or not. The court asks the defendant, do you want to testify? I've seen defendants and defense attorneys get into fights in court, yelling at each other over testifying and defense attorneys being like, I've advised you against this. And the client's like, I don't care. I'm testifying. And they're like, this is not, this is not going to go well for you. And they're just, I don't care. I'm

testifying. So Murdoch had that right. I would have absolutely wanted him to not to not testify. It wasn't going to go well. And it opened up a lot of other areas of evidence. And I think trying to limit the financial crimes, which they really tried to do, the judge just wasn't having any of it. I love summertime and it is almost here. I call it summertime. I also call it rosé season because for me, it means reconnecting with my friends, my family, people I haven't seen in a while, catching up, talking all things Scandival, you know the drill. And when I do, I want to make sure that I have plenty of wine on hand for us to celebrate with. As America's most personalized wine company, First Leaf takes the worry and guesswork out of buying

quality wines. To get started, you just answer some specific questions about your wine likes and dislikes on First Leaf's website. It only takes about five minutes to create a personalized wine profile. Then your very own wine concierge will use your responses to curate a customized selection of delicious and award-winning varieties, from rosés to sparklings and everything in between, all based on your personal preferences. These hand-selected wines will then be delivered to your door within a few days, with each bottle priced lower than what you would pay for at a wine store. You even get to choose when you receive your wine, so you are never shorthanded when you are going to have company in town. I love reconnecting with friends

and family over bottles of Firstleaf wine, and I bet that you'll feel that way too. So give Firstleaf a try. Head over to firstleaf.com to sign up and save 50% on your first six hand curated bottles plus free shipping. That's tryfirstleaf.com slash a e t r y f i r s t l e a f.com slash a e to save 50% on your first six bottles plus free shipping. Try firstleaf.com slash AE today and thank me later. Clink clink cheers. Let's toast together and let's get to firstleaf.com now. Well, I thank you for sharing all that because I feel like that one is one that's been weighing on my mind even though I feel like so many people have moved past it. There's still just so many questions and I'm like, oh, okay, if I'm going to have Emily on, like I have to pick her brain a little bit about this.

But of course, I know why so many people are probably listening. And what I'm most excited and eager to talk with you about is Idaho, because so many things have been coming out over the last few weeks. There is a lot of mixed opinions out there. A lot of people kind of running with certain things, thinking they mean one thing when really it means another. So I'm excited to have you on here and really pick your brain and get your insights as to what should we be worried about, what shouldn't we be worried about, and kind of just talk through all of these different things that have now been emerging. The main one that I feel like so many people are hung up on is the roommate Bethany and what that's going to mean because we now know

that the investigator who has been working on the case and helping out with ann taylor has now said that bethany has that important information and that they it's material and necessary and all of these things to the defense which makes everybody on that i've seen on socials at least kind of run one way saying she must have seen something she must know something which i which I'm like, whoa, like slow your roll a little bit. I don't think that's quite where we're at. So can you just weigh in illegally and what is the strategy there? What do you believe that means? And let's kind of just talk through that. Well, the defense is going to want to talk to everyone that they can, but particularly the two roommates that know these victims the best and her having information that could be exculpatory could be,

were you all out drinking that night? When people came home, what was their level of sobriety? Those types of questions about what was going on when she got home for the night. Were the doors locked? How many people did your roommates regularly have over? Did your roommates have friends that were in and out? Those things could all be considered exculpatory because they're, well, you know, people were coming in and out of this location at all hours. So the person that the roommate saw was just another

house guest. It wasn't necessarily the defendant. The language used by the investigator were kind of the legal buzzwords to try to make sure they got that subpoena. We think it's necessary, exculpatory. But that doesn't mean that it's a smoking gun, if you will, because people are familiar with that phrase. It can just be that they wanted to get that subpoena, which ultimately they're not going to be able to pull that roommate into the preliminary hearing, but were able to interview the roommate oftentimes witnesses don't want to be interviewed by the defense they don't want to sit down with the defense investigator this roommate i have been really saddened to see how she's been kind of

dragged on social media because the amount of trauma that they've gone through is absolutely unfathomable to most so it it's really hard. At some point, if this goes to trial, we are going to hear what Bethany has to say, and we will hear that testimony, and it will be something that will be with her for the rest of her life. So I try to give a lot of space and grace. But yes, the defense is going to tell the court it's necessary to do this interview and try to make sure they get that interview because oftentimes they can't get them. The defense needs all of the information they can find to give those room for little arguments that it couldn't be this defendant. Because again, the defense's goal is just to bring in that doubt. So anything they

can do to bring in doubt, oh, the night before the roommates had six people over and people walk in and out and they never locked the door. Those are things they're going to argue to the jury brings doubt. We've only seen some of what this roommate knows. I have a lot of questions truly about the 911 call and what went down with all of that. That's what I'm really curious to see. So I want to know what you're curious about the 911 call, because if it's just the delay or what it is, but I that when you were talking, it did bring up a good point in my mind. To your point, even if it were just they're trying to get the information from Bethany, was everybody out

drinking? Were you and Dylan out drinking the night before that? To your point, it's like that could easily then tarnish what she was saying as far as identifying the bushy eyebrows, him walking through the house, how drunk was she? Were they potentially using any other substances? And that could shoot that credibility. And that could even be the simplest explanation right there as for what information they think she may have. Absolutely. And with college kids- I'm in full agreeance with you. Oh, go ahead. No, I was going to say with college kids this is totally normal to expect that if they're out for a night uh drinking or whatever that the defense is going to argue see

the memory or the perception might be um altered it could be misremembered they could have been intoxicated so they're going to do what they can to call into question that ID or that ID of a person that they're trying to link to the defendant, because if that's some of the strongest evidence that the state has, somebody around his general description, around his general height was in the house, and then there's this shoe print, that's the first thing the defense is going to want to attack. So they need to know more. And we know that Bethany has an attorney already. So the attorney will be in that interview, the defense investigator, the defense attorney, but the defendant's not going to be transported to be in that interview. He's going to stay in Idaho. So it'll just be all the attorneys and her. It's not like a deposition when they do these criminal interviews normally or interviews in criminal cases. They put down a tape recorder and they sit down and ask questions. Sometimes it's, I don't remember,

sometimes it's, I'm not gonna answer that. And sometimes it's a, this is what I told the police and this is what it is. It's interesting. Now, is it standard that this would happen before preliminary hearing, or what are your thoughts on to why it's happening before the prelim?

In high profile cases, and remember this preliminary hearing got pushed out over six months. In a lot of cases, the preliminary hearing happens within a month in some jurisdictions within 10 days. So in a lot of jurisdictions, the defense doesn't even have time. They get the reports and they ask questions and that's it. And the preliminary hearings can happen in 15 minutes and then they're done and you move on. But in a high profile case like this with a quadruple homicide where you've got six months, it's not a surprise to me that they're at that point of investigating where they can make time for this to happen. If they hadn't waived their time to go to preliminary hearing, they wouldn't have had time to get this done. And it gives them room to ask the questions of law enforcement,

which is who's going to testify at the preliminary hearing, to ask more questions. Did law enforcement ask these questions or did they not? So it gives them the most information going into the preliminary hearing. Though the preliminary hearing, it's unlikely to me the defense will present a defense. They normally don't. And I don't see any defenses that would matter at preliminary hearing at this point, because calling into question the credibility of witnesses is really for trial. So this preliminary hearing will probably be a couple of days. It'll get held over to trial. And the big question will be, how much do we learn at the preliminary hearing? And does the defendant then waive time for speedy trial or after the prelim does the defendant push this to trial within the next 90 days or whatever the the limit is in Idaho I'm not it might be longer than that off the top of my head but does the defendant then push their speedy

trial right from the time that they're held over a preliminary hearing okay and quickly going back to the 911 call what is it that was bugging you the most about her? What questions do you have about that one? Because we don't know a lot about the 911 call, the timing is always a question, of course, but also what did they say when they called 911? What did they discover? What were their perceptions when they called 911? And what was the state of the call? what was their emotional state what does their voice sound like um because we've heard a lot of mixed reports about what that 911 call contains but we haven't heard the 911 call we don't know much about it so the delay is a big

question for me but also the the rest of the context around that 911 call and what was said so i agree the delay everybody seems to be hung up on and there have been so many different versions that have come out of what somebody passed out. It was a friend, I heard that it was a family member who had the discovery. So it is going to be interesting to see if we once we eventually hear whether that's in the trial or whenever that may be like what really happened? What was the delay for? Was she truly just hiding under the bed for that eight hour period or however long it ended up being and it's it's unbelievable because there's been just so many different versions out there that it's hard to even find one common thread throughout i don't know if you've heard differently but i still

haven't heard a concrete reason as to why there was a delay or what the nature of the scene was when the call was made. Yeah, I know. I've only heard speculation. I think that's all we have and that's all we're going to have. And I don't know how much of that will get answered at the preliminary hearing or not. I hope some of it does. Of course, that's one of the things I'm going to be looking for because I'm curious about it because it's one of those things that's odd. Some of the neighbors heard noises, but then there were roommates in the house, but they didn't call at that point. But again, had they been out drinking? Were there other things in the house that they didn't want the police to discover?

Were they like, oh, I'm just overreacting? And I can see this circumstance happening when it's like, oh, no, I'm just overreacting. And we, I can see this circumstance happening when it's like, oh no, I'm just overreacting. It's going to be fine. And you just, you're just like, this seems really weird. I'm just going to go to sleep and it's, it's going to be fine in the morning. Like I can see an 18, 19, 20 year old responding that way and that making perfect sense to them. So in hindsight, it's going to be really hard for us to say what was going on. And I just hope we get some answers about it because it is one of those big sticking points in this case, though I don't know how much it will matter to a jury down the road.

I agree. I think if anything, it'll be great to have the answer because to your point from earlier, not only Bethany, but Dylan, they're just kind of getting raked over the coals and people are ripping them to shreds, which is awful because they have gone through something just so traumatic already in itself. So then to be just villainized and have everybody on social media coming after you. So regardless what the reason was or what happened, hopefully it provides some sort of clarity so people can just back off a little bit and allow these girls to finally be able to grieve and process their trauma. Because I can't even imagine that they've had a moment to do that yet, given the circumstances.

It's one thing after another, it feels. And it's always because their names are out there, their faces have been out there. This is going to be something that 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now, people are still going to be like, oh wait, weren't you the roommate from, so they're never going to be able to escape what happened to them. And this happened to them too. They're going to be suffering. I'm sure with survivor's guilt, with questioning themselves, with why didn't I know what could I have done? And truly there's nothing they probably could have done. And it's really hard because social media

has been absolutely brutal to them, and I hope that they've stayed off it. But even if they have stayed off social media, it's likely that their families haven't. Their parents, their siblings, their cousins, their, you know, best friends from high school. This is something that has a pretty large ripple effect. And it's hard to explain to people that have never been subject

to internet vitriol like that, how damaging it can actually be to people. And to throw that on top of all of the trauma of this event, I can't imagine how hard this must be. I agree. It's one of those things where they, of course, are just forever changed. And it's something as trivial as they're young girls. They're going to be out dating, meeting people. It's like, how do you even go on a first date with somebody who you say, I'm this person, this is what happened, or they recognize you as being that person. It's like their life is just completely forever changed that they're not even going to have any sort of moment of normalcy or what you would deem as normal.

So then it's like on top of that to just continue to just like berate them and come after them. It's it's very sad to witness and it's very hard to watch. With that, I guess kind of leading into my next question for you with this gag order in place. next question for you with this gag order in place. We know that there have been lawyers for groups of media outlets who have filed a now a motion to the judge asking them to lift the gag order on this case. What do you make of the gag order that's in place? Do you think that there will have any movement with that? I feel like there's just been so much talk about that out there. It's a pretty broad gag order when it comes to the media. And I cover this on my podcast, The Emily Show 2, where the rights are between the First Amendment right to not just free speech, but a free press, and then

the defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury, and where these rights balance against each other, because we have the defendant's constitutional rights, the media's constitutional rights, the constitutional rights of the victim's families, of their lawyer. So we've got two motions that the court is going to set for a hearing. And the court is going to hear argument that the order should be vacated or thrown out. And I think it's unlikely the court will throw out the order. The court might modify or clarify the order, but they might not. because what the court did was have an initial gag order and then there was a meeting with the victim's family attorney the prosecutors the defense attorney in the court and after that meeting the court doubled down and made the

court order broader so i don't think this judge is inclined to change their own order but once there's a ruling then everybody can go back to the Supreme Court. Because the media companies went to the Idaho Supreme Court and said, hey, this ruling is unconstitutional. This gag order is unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court said, did you ask the court to vacate it or clarify it? And they went, well, no. And the Supreme Court goes, right. So we don't have jurisdiction you need to go talk to the district court judge that ordered it and ask them for a ruling and then if you don't like their ruling then you can appeal it so i think we're going to be stuck in this loop

with them fighting over the gag order the judge is going to give a ruling if they don't like the ruling the media companies will appeal back to the supreme court and i think by the time we actually get a court answer on it we could be well past the preliminary hearing and possibly to the trial. And that might be what the court desires is just let it go. But I don't think the media companies are going to stop this fight because it shows other courts that they're not afraid to keep this litigation going and kind of sends a signal. It's rare that we see the media with a gag order like this that's broad enough that it goes beyond just the investigators and the attorneys involved in the case. And that's really where the problem is coming in, because

the media wants to talk to the victim's families if they want to talk. They want the 911 call and they want the rest of this information. And the public wants it too, which is why the media is fighting this because they're like, if we had this, the amount of views and clicks and money that we would make. So they're fighting for their rights to access, which gives a lot of transparency to all of it. And the prosecution and the defense are like, please don't, please don't prejudice a potential jury pool because we don't want to have to do this trial more than once. That's not fair to anyone. And it's real expensive. Absolutely. Well, and with that, there's been this whole now conversation about where the county prosecutors had disclosed the internal affairs investigation,

which is just like another added layer in addition to everything that's going on and the police and the investigation of one of the police and the investigation of one of the police officers involved in the case. So the details of that, as far as I know, last I had heard were completely sealed and it's not clear who the officer was, who's involved, or how central it is to the case or anything like that. But I just kind of look at this and it makes me question that it seems like it's just procedural and probably precautionary. But based on your experience, what kind of situations could have possibly transpired that would make this now a nightmare for the prosecution? Oh, gosh, it could be anything. And all of those investigations have to be turned over to the

defense, which is why we're seeing it in court record. It really truly could be anything from things involving this case to past cases to a civilian made a complaint that this officer didn't treat them fairly during a traffic stop. And so there was an investigation into that. It could be just about anything. So speculating on it isn't helpful because someone will hear it and be like, wait, it's this. I'm like, wait, it's this. I'm like, no, no, no. It could be anything. But any officer that might be a witness in the case that has anything that needs to be turned over to the defense that will get turned over to the defense, that might also get turned over to the defense and never come up in court because the court can deem that it's not relevant to the procedure at all.

But that evidence still needs to be turned over so the defense is aware of it. And then the prosecution can decide whether they need to call that officer, not call that officer. They can have hearings about it if the officer's going to be called and cross-examined on any investigation that was done. So this is not unusual that this kind of stuff gets turned over. People make complaints about police officers all the time. Internal Affairs investigates those complaints. Sometimes the results are disciplinary actions. Sometimes they're not. But the defense has a right to know about it. So that's why it gets turned over. And then that gets turned over in court records because there needs, of course,

needs to be a trail of that. Okay, that makes sense. So it really could, yeah, it'd be something that is super minor and maybe people are just making it a bigger deal. And yeah, could be something not related to this case. Could be something that never comes up in court. Okay, that's good to know. You guys may have noticed that I recently cut my hair pretty short. And let me tell you why. My hair has been thinning like crazy. I think it's the damage, it's the bleach, it's the age, but it's basically thinning. It's looking a little scarecrow-like, so I had to cut it really short to make it look thick and healthy again, which kind of is crazy because did you know that hair thinning will happen to approximately one in two women?

If you're among them, know that you are not alone. And luckily, Nutrafol is here to help deliver results. Nutrafol is the number one dermatologist-recommended hair growth supplement brand and is physician-formulated with 100% drug-free ingredients. Nutrafol's women's vegan formula targets key root causes of thinning hair in women, such as stress, nutrition, and metabolism. While stress and styling habits can contribute to poor hair health in many women, like myself, a plant-based diet can also create a nutrient gap that further impacts hair growth. So Nutrafol's newest all-vegan formula is for women ages 18 plus with plant-based lifestyles who are experiencing signs of thinning hair. With consistent daily use, Nutrafol Women's Vegan Hair Growth Supplement promotes visibly

less hair shedding, visibly thicker hair volume, and hair that grows faster, longer, and stronger. In a clinical study, 100% of women reported improved hair strength after three months and more scalp coverage after six months. Guys, I'm telling you, it is a game changer. So take the first step to visibly thicker, healthier hair. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to Nutrafol.com and enter the promo code ELISE. So find out why over 4,000 healthcare professionals recommend Nutrafol for healthier hair. Nutrafol.com spelled N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L.com promo code ELISE. That's Nutrafol.com promo code ELISE. So moving kind of more into like the

evidence piece of it, back in, gosh when was it? It was in January. I don't remember the exact date, but I know that Brian had given his public defender or his attorney Ann Taylor access to go to his WSU apartment to get the keys or to get the keys back for his office or something like that that were on his TV stand. From there, there were reports that they took a receipt out of the cupboard that there were items in the bathroom the living room things like that and that the defense team went back towards the end of january and boxed up even more of his belongings and things like that could is that normal is my first question and then could those items also then be used as evidence, even though it wasn't collected from the initial search? I hate to give this answer because it is the worst lawyer

answer ever, but it really does depend on what the thing is in the circumstances. And so if the defense goes in with defense investigators, yes, the defense investigators can chain of custody things and bring them in. Is it unusual? Yes. Normally, defense attorneys don't even have the resources to go and investigate their cases. And oftentimes, crime scenes, by the time the defense gets a case, the crime scene is done or sometimes just gone. If it's a robbery at a gas station, they've recovered the tapes from the gas station and then it's done. There's nothing else for the defense to go get or go do. But if the defendant is telling them, look, there's these other things that maybe explain some of the things the police took, he's in the best position to know what's in his apartment,

what's in his office, and to go get things. So I'm not surprised. Could we see that come in in a defense? Maybe, maybe we could. Could those be items that he wanted to give to his parents? That's possible too. We just don't know. Well, and some of the items that stuck out to me, it was like, it was a flat screen TV, a computer monitor, a small box of papers and receipts and then a laundry basket that i think had books and papers and things in it as well so and i you know i you would be the one to answer this but could it be stuff that the defense is taking to yes use in his defense and possibly things that they he knew had information on it but if they're ever if they were to discover

something damning on say the computer monitor or whatever, maybe you're in one of those receipts, can they just dispose of that? Is that then entered into evidence or do they kind of get the jump on it because they then went and retrieved it? If they're not going to use it, they don't have to turn it over to the prosecution. So the police got the search warrants first. They got to the apartment first. They had first access to everything.

So if there's things they left behind that the defense then finds something on, the defense does not have to turn that over to the prosecution unless and until they decide that they're going to use it. Okay. Okay. That's great to know. Thank you. So then moving along, too, with the pieces of evidence,

the knife sheath, of course, has been a huge point of contention in this because it's the dna and people are speculating that the dna on the knife sheath can be argued and that it possibly isn't strong enough and so i wanted to just talk through with you what you think and what your professional opinion is because there could be a million explanations as for how his DNA was transferred onto that, how it was on the button. So do you think that this is a slam dunk? Do you have doubt? Do you think it can be argued? The knife sheath, in my opinion, is pretty damning. And here's why. It's found on the bed where the victims are. Depending on the circumstance, like how it is, how it is where it's discovered, it's going to be really hard to argue that that was there before this happened, because you have what we know to be such a violent crime

scene. So you would expect things would get knocked over or, or not just be laying there. So it really depends on how it is there. How his DNA gets on this is something that while the defense can argue it and there might be technical arguments for that, a jury is often going to default to their common sense and be like, are you kidding me with this? It also depends what other evidence they recover. was matched through familial DNA from trash taken in Pennsylvania. I expect that they've also now matched that to him based on the DNA they took during his arrest. But we know the defense is asking for more DNA that the prosecution hasn't turned over. If that DNA comes back that it was a familial match, but it doesn't match well to him, then you've got more room to argue that the DNA is not 100% conclusive, but I have tended to see juries very persuaded by DNA, even when it is just a little bit. And it's like, oh, somebody touches this, they leave their DNA. They're like, well, yeah, it's a snap on a knife sheath. How do you get the knife out of it?

Obviously you open it with your fingers. Of course your DNA is there. Those types of things are a big deal. Is the defense going to argue somebody planted it there because they're framing him? Maybe. Is a jury going to believe that? Maybe not. It's going to depend on the rest of the evidence. One piece of evidence alone is never just the thing. There's always a puzzle that goes around that piece. And well, like a puzzle, some pieces are bigger or smaller or more obvious it might be the most obvious piece of the puzzle but it needs the context around it when you add the knife sheath to cell phone data to him being in the area to other things that may or may not be presented then you

start building that case where the knife sheath becomes a very big deal and that is an actual perfect transition to my next question for you. Out of the probable cause affidavit, what do you think the biggest piece of evidence or allegation that was made in there is something that is the most damning in addition to the sheath? I think the knife sheath was a big one for me. The footprint was a big one for me. The roommate seeing someone in the house was a big one for me. It roommate seeing someone in the house was a big one for me. It raised as many questions as it answered, though. But the roommate seeing someone leaving the house and narrowing down that timeline, but also the cell phone pings.

I love cell phone evidence. If you are committing crimes with a cell phone anywhere near your vicinity, it is going to track back. Digital evidence is such a gift to a prosecution because it gives them so much, not just cell phones, but vehicles as well. And I think a lot of people were stunned in Murdoch how much information can be gathered from vehicles and phones. They are incredibly powerful pieces of evidence. So the fact that his phone had been in that vicinity will be really interesting to see how many cell towers. Does that cell tower cover 80 miles? Well, if it does, then it's less relevant. But if that cell tower covers just a small circle of space, then that's going to be much more

relevant because that's not his school. And that's where, why would he be there unless his favorite coffee shop is across the street? And that doesn't seem to be the case. So the cell phone evidence I was really interested by and how many times his cell phone pinged in the area. And then that really discreet period of time where his cell phone goes silent. Sometimes what your phone doesn't say is very easy for a prosecutor to argue, look, this is intentional. He turned off his phone because he was going to murder people, obviously. Exactly. And the silent phone mattered in Murdaugh too. It's like this man is always on his phone. And you can see how the investigators put together kind of the pattern of life of how people use their phone.

And then to say for his phone to just be silent during the time of the murders speaks volumes when he is always on the phone. It's never just turned on. And we'll see that kind of evidence, I imagine, in this case, too. Well, and Brian's phone also pinged near the area the next morning as well, which like such as i was looking through like when it went silent when it pinged then it came back i'm like so he like drove back by was he trying to see if the police were there did he want to did he notice the sheath was maybe missing and he wanted to go back like there it brings in so many questions but it never ceases to amaze me no matter what case i'm talking about these morons who like bring their phone with them or turn it off and think

oh okay well now's when I'm gonna commit the crime or get rid of the weapon I'm gonna turn it off and think like that people aren't going to put those puzzle pieces together which it's like good thing you're not that intelligent and you are doing that but it's still like in such a day and age right now where like technology is king and everybody's using it's like how these people still don't put those pieces together yet think they're smart enough to get away with murder will never compute to me ever i just don't get it there's an interesting there's an interesting level of arrogance that goes to some of that but um i'm sure the best criminals that exist are the ones you ones we don't know about. You don't catch those crimes.

You don't crack the ones that are done really well. They're done really well and they are never solved. I don't want to teach people how to crime better, but the amount of resources investigators have are pretty staggering. And if they are trying to solve something, oftentimes they can, if there is digital evidence involved. From a computer search to searches on TikTok to posts on Reddit, these things can be tracked. And people are like, oh, I have a VPN. Okay, boo-boo. Sure. Great. You have a VPN. That's adorable. So people try, but the more they try to get around these things, sometimes the more incriminating it is because it's like, oh, look at all the

efforts that we're gone through to cover this. So is there a right answer? Yes. Don't crime. Amen. Love that. What are you expecting from Brian's defense? Amen. Love that. What are you expecting from Brian's defense? I would suspect will happen. And then saying that this is all circumstantial, that the car isn't the right car. And in fact, they changed the year that they thought the car was midway through the investigation. And maybe they did that because the defense will argue the prosecution then decided it was him. And so just narrowed in on him. And we'll see some of those things argued if and when this goes to trial. But the preliminary hearing is going to give us a real good idea with the questions that the defense asks, because most of a preliminary hearing is going to be the prosecution presenting evidence through law enforcement and the defense cross-examining that evidence.

And at a preliminary hearing, the prosecution can present witness testimony through law enforcement. So when you look at it, you're like, wait, that's hearsay. Yes, that can come in at a preliminary hearing to establish probable cause. So at a preliminary hearing, you're going to see evidence presented in a much different way than at a trial. And I don't think we will see any of the percipient witnesses testify. I think we'll see all law enforcement testimony. Do you think that at the preliminary hearing, we will learn anything else about the social media? Because there's been so many reports that he had not only photos or things of that nature on his phone, but that he had been DMing one of the girls, one of the roommates. Do you think any

of that evidence is going to come in at the preliminary hearing? It could, but it might not be needed. Really, all they need is that probable cause declaration that we've already seen. They could just present that officer to go through that. I think they will do more, but they could just go through that officer's probable cause declaration, and that would be enough legally to hold Koberger over for trial on these murders. I think they will do more. Whether they will get into social media, I don't know. I don't know if they want the public to know everything, and that's part of making sure they're protecting their witnesses, making sure they're protecting their evidence. And I don't know if they have

all of the search warrants back from social media, because we saw a whole bunch of motions filed for them going after everything from dating sites to, you know, TikTok to Instagram. I don't know if they have all those back yet to authenticate them. And it does take time to authenticate those types of things in court. And they might just not want to do it for a preliminary hearing unless it is very very damning so i'm not expecting it i'll be surprised if we see it but it depends if he's clearly in communication with one of the victims that might be something that they do present just to show look it's not just a one-off this is a big piece of the puzzle but if he's also communicating with one of the victims,

the defense might use it to explain why the knife sheath is in the house. Look, they were friends. He had a reason to be in the house before this. He wasn't there that day. So it could raise more questions. And out of right now, we had talked a little bit at the beginning of this about the TikTok, the lawsuit, the professor. What is it about that that has been fascinating you the most?

And what's like the biggest kind of takeaway from that right now that you've been focused on? It's wild. And if people aren't following this case, there was a TikToker that accused an Idaho University professor of hiring the hit on these victims and having a relationship with one of them. And that she has said that Koberger is being set

up to take the fall and changed her opinions on it. She has said that she is a witness, a quote, spiritual witness to these murders and that she should be brought in as a witness and law enforcement should have worked with her, but has made some really bold and I personally think defamatory statements about this Idaho University professor and is representing herself in this defamation lawsuit that the professor filed against her. And in the defamation lawsuit response, the TikToker representing herself talked about the media defaming her, TikToker, about YouTubers defaming her for saying that she was defaming the university of idaho professor it's bananas she's like uh-uh you're defaming me by saying that i'm defaming you i'm

like what is happening it is what it is wild um but it's going to be real interesting with defamation if the professor counts as a public figure i I don't think that she does. How a pro per defendant representing themselves navigates a federal trial. Federal court is scary. Federal court is way serious. There's a lot of rules. Yeah, you've got to have a big set of balls. I mean, it is absolutely staggering.

And so it seems that she is ceded to jurisdiction of the court, even though she lives in Texas. She didn't make motions saying, you know, I can't be brought into court in Idaho. It's going to be really interesting to see how this goes down. And I have a tremendous amount of empathy for this professor who was thrown into viral TikTok accusations. And I think a lot of people on TikTok were watching this going, I can't believe somebody's saying this shit. And I think a lot of people on TikTok were watching this going, I can't believe somebody's saying this shit. But others were sending her death threats. Their community has been rocked by this horrible and violent crime. And now she's also being threatened because someone isamation is a very interesting area of law as it is, because what do you do?

The damage is done. The damage to this professor has been done. Her name will forever be linked to these stories. If you Google her down the road, it will always be there. How do you undo that and get your life back when you're getting threatening voicemails at work every day? And that's one of the things when these cases get so big that's really hard is the ancillary impact it has on people who aren't even involved. This professor just happens to work at the University of Idaho. So do you think that this TikToker kind of just like chose her at random and like it was a reason to get a viral video going to say this is the person behind it and like there really was no tie there I mean

it's been pretty interesting to see the people coming out of the woodwork and some of the theories that are out there and I know it all started with food truck guy and then it went to the boyfriend who was a hunter I mean it's been pretty incredible to see people kind of spin off from it is with the tick tocker she has said in her motions and i covered her motion so i'm going to stick to her own words that she is a psychic that she is that she knows these things because she is a spiritual witness to them and she is a witness to this so she knows from a higher power she knows that this is what happened um i don't think that's going to fly in federal court but that's her argument so how did she land on this professor i don't know she says it's because um she's a psychic and that she saw this happen that brings

a really interesting point though because i've never heard of any case like that whether defamation or anything, aside where somebody says they're a spiritual witness. So how do you prove or disprove that? I guess I don't know. That has to be a judge's nightmare. Right. Because if she believes it, and this is where it's going to be really interesting in defamation with regard to whether the professor is a public figure. I don't think the professor will be legally found to be a public figure. But if they are a public figure, then you have to have malice. You have to know that what you're saying is false. If this TikToker is convincingly like, no, I believe this

shit, people might be like, well, even though we don't think it's factual, she believes it. So where is the malice if she believes what she's saying? And then that's a whole nother question, which is what makes defamation so interesting. Whether a jury will find that credible if this ever goes to jury, I don't know, but it costs the professor, it can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not into the millions, to go to trial on a case like that. And so to try to get back your reputation, I don't know how you do that. And I don't know if you ever fully recover. And that's what makes it so hard when people can say anything and the repercussion for it is that they get civilly sued. So I don't know where this will go, which is part of why I'm

so riveted by it because the TikToker seems to believe everything she's saying. She's like, no, I'm fighting this case. I am a spiritual witness. I witnessed this. You know, her, her TikTok handles refer to the fact that she is actually God. So I don't know what a jury is going to do with that. It's so interesting because you think, too, that even if the professor does win, if this ever goes to jury or anything like that, the likelihood of her being able to recoup her legal fees, probably unlikely, I would imagine. I mean, I don't know what this TikToker's net worth is, but I'm just assuming. She hasn't hired a lawyer yet. She hasn't hired a lawyer yet. So if and if it does go to jury, let's just say that it's proven that or she gets the, you know, this TikToker, I don't want to say gets away with it.

But you know what I mean? Like, you know, they find her to say, OK, she did believe this. That's scary to think about, because I feel like then it opens an entire new can of worms for people in the future to use that as their reasoning and their defense of, I'm a spiritual witness. I believe this to where you then really can get away with anything or saying anything in that regard. It just would set a new precedent for that. Right. And it really, I think, relies on the community and the public and those who are watching this on social media to really think through the, okay, I realize that this might be very entertaining because some of the allegations are so wild. And people saying wild shit on the internet is entertaining. You're like, I can't believe they're doing that. Okay. But the real world repercussions of it can be devastating. And there are always going to be those on the internet that take it

too far. And so now you have someone living in fear because they're the subject of rumors and harassment. And where is the boundary of that? And we don't have consistent laws state by state with regard to internet harassment, because this case might be easier to pursue under harassment laws than under defamation laws. But not every state has great harassment laws when it comes to cyber harassment. So it raises a lot of questions, like legal questions that I find really interesting as a person that is on the internet who's been subject sometimes to harassment and death threats and the rest of it. There are difficult things to deal with and there's no right answer and there's no right playbook to how to deal with it. And I feel for people who were just living their life in an area where something tragic

happened and now the world's media's attention is on it and they get dragged into it. It's difficult and it's why I really try to stay away from rumors involved in cases, because there's a real human cost to that. And I think it's fine to say, did the police find this? How many times did the police stop Koberger on his way between Idaho and Pennsylvania? Those are all great and valid questions. He's been arrested. He's presumed innocent. But there's an investigation there we can talk about when it comes to these ancillary things there's really no good answer for me changing a light bulb should be simple whoa whoa whoa oh that's not supposed to happen quickly submitting and tracking a claim on the Bel Air Direct app actually is simple Bel Air Direct

insurance simplified well thank you for sharing everything about Idaho because I know that there claim on the Bel Air Direct app actually is simple. Bel Air Direct. Insurance simplified. Well, thank you for sharing everything about Idaho because I know that there have just been so many more questions and I know in the future I'll probably have a million more for you. A million questions until we get this prelim and then a million more. I have so many, so many, but I know that we were short on time so I don't want to keep you, I have so many, so many. But I know that we were short on time, so I don't want to keep you. But I do have a couple of rapid fire true crime questions for you before we end.

It's a newer tradition that we're doing over here. They're just for funs and a couple of silly ones. So nothing to, you know, you can plead the fifth if you want. But first, well, what's a recent case that has bothered you the most? I don't know. I hate to lawyer. What do you mean by bothered? Maybe like the verdict bothers you a little bit or maybe it's something like Valo

where the details of it are bothering you and that's why you're not wanting to go near it. Valo and Staunch both bother me fundamentally and deeply, which is why I immediately was like, I can't follow this anymore. The Murdoch cases are probably the ones that caused me the most rage because the amount of of people who needed legal representation who were victimized Girardi too those two cases probably caused me the most rage I Girardi

for sure I can totally see that and it's still even just as a viewer and not knowing all the legal ins and outs of it it causes me rage because i'm like these victims aren't getting any justice you still have erica i get maybe legally she's not responsible kind of parading around i don't know it's just it's very bothersome as a whole when you look at the details of it it doesn't sit well and then it makes it harder for me to watch reality tv and just enjoy it because i'm like am i part of the like am i the problem here am i part of the problem still wanting to view this TV and just enjoy it. Cause I'm like, am I part of the, like, am I the problem here? Am I part of the problem still wanting to view this show and still wanting to know what's

going on? Like, are we perpetuating this where people will go to any lengths to be on TV? And I'm not saying that's the case with Erica, but it might've been with Jen Shaw. And I don't know if she ends up on Real Housewives if she's not stealing, you know, millions and millions and millions of dollars to live this fake lifestyle that seems like it's reality TV gold. So I also get bothered because now it makes me question my lovely escapism TV too. It's like, don't do this to me. It's all about me. No, and the lawyer stuff, particularly when it's in your own profession, it's offensive on a different level. Seeing people who are most vulnerable, which is, you know, mass tort plaintiffs who have been through surgeries, who have lost people that they love due to no fault of their own. They trust a lawyer to recover for them. The lawyer does that and then steals it. Like, it's just, it's so appalling. It really is. And there's no excuse. I know. I agree. All right. I have a few more for you. Sure. Who do you think killed JonBenet? I don't know who killed JonBenet. And I didn't

follow, again, with kids, I don't follow kid cases very closely. Okay, that's fair enough. With the Scott Peterson case, I have to ask because so many people are talking about it again. There's so many questions of is he truly guilty, even though he was found guilty? What's your opinion on that? I think there's a lot of really interesting questions in the Peterson case. And I don't know if the court would take them up. But I would like for the court to take them up. That's another case where did the dots really get connected or did the media push that connection of the dots? And did he get a fair trial? I think those are very interesting questions. But as I was watching it play out, living in California at the time, I was like, oh yeah, obviously guilty. Though when I've looked at some of the things that have gone on in the investigation, I'm like, okay, yeah, obviously guilty. Though when I've looked at some of the things that have

gone on in the investigation, I'm like, okay, I'd love to see that explored a little bit more. I do have questions about that. So. I think a lot of people do. And it is an interesting one, but it's also one that's very controversial because there's people who are on one side of it saying he's 100% guilty he did it. And then now there's the people saying, well, let's just open the door to a few more questions. Or like, do you have the answer for things that happened with the neighbor's homes and things like that? So it is interesting. And the timeline is very interesting. And what was found, what was not found, how was it done? Those are lingering questions. And I think when somebody has been convicted, they have the right to all those appeals. And everyone has the right to a fair trial. And there shouldn't be lingering questions like that of, well, did the police really turn over everything to the defense? Those questions should not happen.

confident when there's a conviction that that conviction is based on all of the facts and all of the evidence. And too often you see in the wrongful convictions stuff being left out conveniently, and that's never okay. So I would rather know more than less, even if it means you don't get a conviction. Absolutely. Just because that way, at least you have all of the information. Going into another one that is very controversial. Do you think that Brian Laundrie's parents knew he killed Gabby Petito? I've never really thought about whether I knew they knew. I think at some point they absolutely knew or suspected. Yes. Do I think they aided and abetted him getting away I don't know if they were trying to or not but I think they absolutely had to know something went down when he returned with the van without

her yeah I mean as a parent you would have to say yeah I mean I'm a parent if my son came home with the van and she wasn't there what the hell be like, what the hell happened? Like, give me, tell me what's going on. Yeah. And I wonder if they knew when he left that he was going to take his own life. I wonder if they knew that that was what was going to happen. I mean, speculating, my personal opinion is it would say yes, that's why they did the family camp trip and kind of maybe said their goodbyes. Or maybe it was not even that he was going to, it was going to end in him taking his would say yes that's why they did the family camp trip and kind of maybe said their goodbyes or

maybe it was not even that he was gonna it was gonna end in him taking his own life but maybe that he was going to try to flee and that was going to be the last time they would see him i mean there were just too many circumstances for me at least that lined up that would appear that that was what was happening yeah it's a really the potato case is just it's so sad and then him using her her banking cards and stuff afterwards and his parents, you know, if they didn't ask questions, then they willfully failed to ask questions. But yeah, with the family camping trip, it does seem like they knew that their time as a family was short either because he was going to be arrested or he was going to try to disappear.

And then he realized that disappearing was never going to work. Yeah, it's not really a question to me, though I hadn't really thought about it, that they would have known something. Whether that knowing, because I always addressed it from, why aren't they being arrested? Why aren't they being interrogated?

I don't think there was enough for law enforcement to get involved with it. But on the moral level, do I think they knew something? Yes. It'll be interesting to see that lawsuit between the parents play out because I don't know if they owed a legal duty to her family and they're trying to go that direction that they owed a duty to her family. I don't know if they did because legality and morality are often really different. And you would hope if something happened to your kid and somebody knew that they would tell you. And I understand the Petito's rage that they were searching for their daughter when they believed the Laundries knew that she was dead.

Like, rage. Yeah, and just ignoring their phone calls, ignoring everything. They're camping with their son, having their time with them. It's horrible. It's horrible. And they're going to have to live with that. Oh, absolutely. their time with them it's it's horrible horrible it's horrible we have and they're gonna have to live with you oh absolutely and i mean yeah it's something that those are people who it's like you'll never live a normal life just like casey anthony you'll never go in public again and live a normal life and maybe that is your punishment enough and in that regard that you'll never have

peace in that sense we we did receive a few questions from the YouTube community. So I just want to throw a couple of these out there. Carolyn Knight is saying, I have a question for each of you. How do you manage to do so much work-life balance? Thank you both. I love you both. You're extraordinary creators. That's a great question. I don't have an answer for that. So I'd love to know your answer. I don't have work-life balance at all. I'm not good at that. So I have no, I am not in any help there. What about you? How do you manage so much? That's the, that's your answer is there isn't any balance. Balance, balance fluctuates, right? It doesn't ever feel like balance. It feels like a sliding scale most of the time of

when I'm busier at work, I'm not as present at home. And when I'm not as busy at work, I'm more present at home. But that's something that I have been mindful of since I was doing my own trials is that when I was in trial, I was really not available, just not around and not available. And those times ebb and flow, And I try to find the ebb and flow. Now I also have a team that helps. I've gotten much better at asking for help. I wish I was better at asking for help when I was younger, but I want to keep being a content creator. And if I don't ask for help, I will burn out. I've been through horrible burnout before. I don't want to do it again. And so I'm very mindful of what I have to do. And then I

communicate that with my community online. If my husband and I recently had birthdays and I'm like, hey guys, I'm not going to be on social during this period of time. I hope you're all great. We're all great. I'll see you in a few. And I just communicate that and everyone's so supportive. And I saw people were tweeting at me about something and I saw people that and everyone's so supportive. And I saw people were tweeting at me about something and I saw people saying, oh, Emily's off for the weekend. She's like, she's not going to be back. She, and I'm like, thanks. Thanks for your out of office message. Thank you for communicating the boundaries that I had already communicated. And I appreciate that. So I love that. That's a great answer. It's helpful. I do run towards overwork though, because I really love what I do.

And so it's real easy to lean into working all the time. But, you know, your kids are only small once and there's plenty of time to work as they get older and as their needs of attention shift and change. So I try to keep it an ebb and flow more than a balance. I like that. The sliding scale. I love that. Another question here from Michelle is what is going on with the Britney Spears case and what do you think about her behavior? I think Britney has been through trauma that we can't even begin to understand. So I really look at her behavior as her trying to figure out how to navigate a world that she's never been allowed to grow up in.

And the internet being really, really hyper-focused on that because she's really been controlled since she was, what, in the Mickey Mouse Club. So Brittany, at what, 40 years old, is finally allowed to actually make her own decisions. I don't know how unnerving that would be and disorienting that would be. For her case, they are still getting ready to go to trial on the financial accountings to see where her money went and how it was being spent. I don't think we'll ever have satisfactory answers. And I think a lot will feel that justice is never wrought from her father if he's not in custody. But I don't see that happening. Nobody has brought criminal charges. The court signed off on years and years of questionable financial transactions because Brittany's attorney appointed by the court never objected. So there's not a way

to undo this except to keep talking about it so it doesn't happen to others going forward. But it is a really heartbreaking case to look at that everyone she should have been able to trust around her, she couldn't. It is very sad. I personally grew up on Brittany Spears. She was who I watched when I was in like junior high or elementary school, I guess. Junior high, I don't even know. I think elementary school. And it's like, that was her peak day, the slave for you days, the crossroads movie. to watch because regardless what the reasons were to whatever state she's in now to where it has people questioning if she's ai and she's somewhere else it's like that's very alarming and very sad to witness especially from somebody who was on a pedestal who you know so many people look to and had such great talent and it's it's very sad especially to know that the people who are contributing to that spiral downhill are

people who she should have trusted and who have should have protected her i don't know maybe brittany would be better off if it is ai and she could just go live quietly on an island somewhere and just be like i would love that stop questioning where i'm at i am unavailable um and we do see a lot of celebrities choose to do that and not be on social media. And we've, I think, seen more and more celebrities pulling back from being on social media. And their social media is really press PR promos and their teams and nothing when they're not promoting a project. And it's interesting to see because I think the media, there's a lot to be gained in watching someone fall. And that was really the circus around Britney was like, she was at the very peak,

but oh, how everyone wanted to watch her fall. And I think celebrities are trying to insulate themselves from that a little bit by saying, I'm going to go do a project and then I'm going to be gone. And that's really where I think social media personalities have filled in because we're not getting really a slice of life from traditional actors and musicians anymore. So others are more than happy to fill in on TikTok and show you what they drink for breakfast or whatever. Absolutely. Well, thank you so much. I know I've already kept you over the time limit, but I just want to thank you again so much for coming on. It was such a pleasure to have you and your insights are, of course, just so valuable. So thank you. Well, thank you. It's always lovely

to have a chat and we will have lots more to talk about after this Idaho preliminary hearing. So it will be it will be great to connect more as we go forward. Perfect. Well, yeah, please let everybody know where they can find you, your podcast, how often you're on streaming. Absolutely. I'm everywhere at the Emily D. Baker on YouTube. I stream Tuesdays and Thursdays at 11 a.m. Central, unless I am live covering a preliminary hearing or a trial. I have a podcast, The Emily Show, that drops every Wednesday. And if you can't keep up with the long form content, my Quick Bits channel and Quick Bits podcast are really like a

10 minute breakdown of everything I'm covering. So if you need to keep up with a case but don't have time for the longer coverage, that's where you can find it. Love that. Perfect. Okay. Well, thank you so much again. I appreciate you joining. Me too. Thanks. All right. Talk to you soon. Bye. Thanks, Annie. Bye. All right, guys. Thank you so much for tuning in to an all new episode of Serialistly with me today. I hope you enjoyed it. If you haven't subscribed to Emily yet or checked out her channels, make sure you do so. You know where to find her, but we are so happy that she came on today and was able to share all of her valuable insights

with us so i hope you enjoyed the episode today please don't forget to rate and review this podcast whichever podcast app you are using to listen to this and as always you can check out the video version of this over on my youtube channel tend to life it will be uploaded a few days after the podcast episode is released but you can always check over there for the video version. And if you are just a true crime enthusiast like myself and like all of the other tend-to-lifers in our community, hop on over to YouTube because we are constantly talking about cases over there. Full cases start to finish. New episodes are uploaded about two to three times a week, sometimes more. So if you are in need of a true crime fix and you want the video version of it, make sure you hop over there.

And that is 10 to Life. All right, guys. Thanks again so much. Also, a last little mention. If you are not following along on the Serialistly Facebook page yet, make sure you go and do so. I will link it in the description. But that is where I will post updates, upcoming guests, Q&A sections, and all sorts of just behind-the-scenes details.

All right, guys. Thanks again, and I will see you next Monday for a brand-new episode of Serialistly. This is your true crime bestie signing off. All right. Bye, guys. Have a great week. We'll see you next time.