SERIALously - 19: Bryan Kohberger: Latest Legal Updates & Addressing Drug House Rumors

Episode Date: June 15, 2023

Bonus Episode! Does Bryan Kohberger have an alibi? Bryan Kohberger had a multiple court hearings on Friday June 9th, 2023 in Latah County, Idaho. Motions were heard to vacate the gag order in this case, by the Media Coalition and the Goncalves family attorney. Kohberger’s defense team also filed a motion to ban cameras in the courtroom. Additionally, there have been an alarming number of false rumors surrounding this case that have no basis in reality that we have to address! In this episode, we will discuss why these rumors are false, go over everything that went down at both hearings, the defense’s motion to ban cameras, and why they think the public shouldn’t be allowed to call their client, “creepy.” And last but not least, why the Judge accused the Media Machine of unethical practices and got spicy with Shannon Gray, the Goncalvez Family Attorney.  Your True Crime BFF, Annie Elise xx All Social Media Links: https://www.flowcode.com/page/annieelise_ About Me: https://annieelise.com/ For Business Inquiries: [e-mail]

hey true crime besties welcome back to an all-new episode of serialously hey everybody welcome back to another bonus episode of serialously with me your true crime bff annie elise now as a reminder we release new episodes every single monday where we talk about true crime cases but there are special circumstances that require us to drop a bonus episode, very much like the episode we are talking about today and the case we will be discussing in this episode. So to make sure that you don't miss a single one of those, take a quick second, look on your app, whatever app you're listening to this on, and make sure that you're following the podcast, kind of like social media. press the follow button that way anytime we do drop these bonus episodes you will not miss any of them and you will be the first to hear and at the end of this episode if you appreciate the coverage please

take another 30 seconds to rate and review the podcast because it helps the algorithm it's a free way to support support support it's a free way to support and really it just helps kind of push it out there. So anyways, today we are going to be talking about Brian Koberger. Now the reason that I decided to do this bonus episode is because there have been some updates in the case, yes, but there also has been a lot of chatter out there regarding this case, and I have been getting so many requests from all of you guys asking me if I've seen certain things on social media, if I've heard about the drug house, if I've heard about some of the new theories, and while I haven't wanted to put a video or even a podcast out on it yet because it is all just speculation and rumors at this point, I felt like with the

updates that I'm going to share with you, it was a good time to just kind of address all of it. Everything that's been going on, what people are talking about, what the news is in this case, and just break it all down with you. So on Friday, June 9th, Brian Koberger was back in the courtroom again, this time for a hearing regarding the gag order that's in place and a new filing from Brian's defense team wanting to ban cameras from the courtroom. There were also a few new filings that were updated online, including the defense wanting an extension of time to provide an alibi, which initially I nearly spit wine out of my mouth before realizing what this all really meant. Because at

first I was like, what do you mean he needs more time to figure out his alibi? If he has an alibi, he either has an alibi or he doesn't, but we're going to get into all of that. So in the hearing, Brian was not in his normal orange jail attire. He was in a suit this time. Now, typically this happens sometimes with people who have been charged and perpetrators they their defense attorneys ask that they wear layperson's clothing or a suit so that they can seem more relatable and not look like a convict and have judgment passed and I don't I don't believe it was announced but a lot of the speculation when Brian entered the courtroom in the suit was that it was for that very reason because everyone on the internet and all the news programs have been of course talking about how

creepy Brian looks how he has like these evil eyes but in my and he does in my opinion but also putting him in the suit didn't change that in my opinion he still looked fucking creepy to me maybe even more fucking creepy actually so I don't know let me know what you think if you saw those pictures but I don't think the suit necessarily was going to save him in that I think he just has a creepy face whether he did this or not sorry Brian you got a creepy face so the hearing started off with the judge making an apology for butchering the victim's names in the last hearing which we all remember that it was everybody was kind of up in arms over it the judge just couldn't figure out how to say these victims names correctly and people were pissed off about

it personally I think that maybe the judge was just a little bit nervous this is obviously a very high pressure highly publicized case and the judge was new on it I don't know I I want to give a little bit of grace there but was it the best look to not know the victim's names and not be able to pronounce them? Probably not, but I think there's much larger things to worry about. So then the hearing shifted gears, and it started with the gag order, where the court got a little heated as the attorney for Kaylee's family, Shannon Gray, and the judge in this case started to just go back and forth with each other. The prosecution has said that they don't want the Gonsalves family to speak about anything because they may be called as witnesses in trial, but their attorney finds that to be outrageous because the prosecution has never asked any of them any

questions or talked to them in any capacity whatsoever, never been involved in the investigation, and don't know any of the evidence in the case, so there is absolutely zero reason they would be called to testify about anything in the trial. Victim impact statements at sentencing? Absolutely, but the trial would have nothing to do with Kaylee's family members and they have no reason to be called as witnesses. Instead, he says that this is just a tactic used by the prosecution to keep the family quiet and really violates their freedom of speech. Further, they believe that the gag order is too vague and broad. Their attorney, Mr. Grade, isn't a party to the case, and they don't believe that the gag order should apply to him. Since Kaylee's families would talk with their lawyer about anything in the case or have him speak on their behalf,

would talk with their lawyer about anything in the case or have him speak on their behalf, they feel that the gag order unfairly restricts their free speech because their lawyer is barred from talking about it. He went on and cited many cases that had similar gag orders and expressed how all of those only included the people directly involved in the case. Cutler was a defense attorney, U.S. Free Cutler. Zal versus Flav was a defense attorney. Erwin versus Dowd were the prosecutor's actions, and speaking to the media. Shepherd v. Marshall, Maxwell, is a trial publicity regarding the prosecutor's actions prior to trial. None of those things apply to the victim's family or the victim's attorney in any way. Now, I do agree that the court has the power to control those that are parties to the case and that are involved in the case in some way.

But we have to define that, what means involvement in the case. Part of that is that the judge referred to the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct 3.6, probability. is that the judge referred to the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct 3.6, Probability. She references that multiple times as the basis for her non-dissemination order in this case and how it might apply to me. If you'll read the first paragraph, a lawyer who participates or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make extrajudicial statements.

That is not me. It never has been me. It can't be me because I'm not involved in the litigation. She also says... Can I ask a question about that? Because I mean I think the case law is quite clear that attorneys who are representing witnesses can be restricted to some degree. Partly because they have access to particular information that may not, should not, be shared with the public. If I'm recalling correctly, the state has suggested or has determined that your clients are witnesses, potentially. So that's kind of the issue. Go ahead. As part of that is that, let's just make it clear, the victim's family has never been involved in this investigation, ever, from the get-go.

After Mr. Koberger was indicted, we received no information about anything regarding the prosecution, nothing. They wouldn't even tell us that a grand jury was being impaneled for Mr. Koberger. They told us that there was a grand jury that was being impaneled, and common sense we figured it out, because he's the only guy in the county, but they wouldn't even relay that information. They haven't really given us any information regarding the investigation of the case, but the most critical part of it is that the prosecution has never, ever interviewed the Gonzales family. So how in the world would we ever be able to be witnesses in this case? And for what purpose would we be? If you're asking about for sentencing spaces, purposes, that's post-conviction.

That's after he's been convicted on the case. Prior to trial, we're not any witnesses. And that falls into completely different statutes. That falls into the restitution statute. It falls into the victim statute. I just handled that matter in front of the Lori Vallow case, where the judge, I had a motion, the defense did not want the victim's family to appear. And so the judge had to make a determination whether they were immediate family, because it was the grandparents. Completely different statutes because that was post-conviction. And those witnesses were allowed in the courtroom and were involved in a sentencing aspect of it. So we are in a very, very different factual situation here.

I'm not asking as a witness to the case, which, witness to the case, they've never ever told us in any way how we would be witnesses in this case, which witness to the case, they've never ever told us in any way how we would be witnesses in this case, other than the conjecture that we may have potentially. That's not good enough to stop the free speech of the victim's family, as well as myself. Now here's where things got a little spicy, and the judge even calls him out because he has made numerous televised appearances, And the judge even calls him out because he has made numerous televised appearances. And then he expressed disgust at the prosecution for how they have been handling things.

The other thing is that if the victims can say whatever they want, you're in the free speech and that's exempt. Why would I not be allowed to say the same thing that they say? My understanding is that your clients are not restricted in any way you never have to well i'll give you an example is that true that's right well i agree now because that's not the tone of the zoom meeting we're not talking about okay i'm talking about the language of the order yes the language of the order now because any interested parties, I ask for clarification,

now understand that they can say whatever they want. And that's correct. But here's the problem. If they said, we think the judge is crazy, would I advise them against that? Absolutely. Thank you.

But if I went and said, my victim, the family asked, has said that they think the judge is crazy. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm repeating exactly what they said. Now, what comes into play is, for our purposes today, is what if I offer up my own opinion?

Right? Well, then I I'm already governed by the Idaho rules of professional economy. I'm glad you're acknowledging that. Well, every attorney is, Your Honor. Thank you. Every attorney is.

So I'm glad that I'm not, but every rule doesn't apply all the time. If I'm talking poorly about a judge, another rule might pop in. 8.3, I think, is what it is. Or 8.1. If I'm saying other things that might affect things another way, then maybe the probability.

But the probability I don't even think applies to me in this anyway. Because if you look at it, it says it applies to a lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter, shall not make extrajudicial statements. And it goes on,

highlighted by Judge Marshall, then in paragraph three, the rule sets forth a basic general prohibition about lawyers making statements that the lawyer knows or should know will have substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the adjudicated proceeding. And at the bottom of the paragraph, it says this. Rule only applies to lawyers who are or who

have been involved in the investigation or litigation of cases and their associates. If I'm not according to the case, I can't be involved in the investigation or the litigation of this case in any way. So I would argue that the trial publicity rule, professional conduct does not apply to me as well. Help me understand what you think you can't say that you've already been saying. I have no idea. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've been on the media and you've had interviews, so I'm kind of wondering how do you feel that you've been restrained in any way with this order?

I think you're not seeing what the point is. What the point is is that the court has issued a non-dissemination order that restricts First Amendment rights that is overly broad in almost every aspect of it. Anybody that's interested, and they have an attorney. When an attorney who's walking down the street could offer up his opinion in any way. It also takes away from the idea, doesn't the court want victims' families to have representation to guide them through the legal process? Wouldn't the court encourage that? That they could explain things,

maybe advise them on what to say, what not to say? I mean, if you're taking my voice away, you're taking their voice away of everything. The other part of it is this, is that I'm absolutely blown away that the prosecution doesn't agree with me in this case. The reason being is that we, they are representing the victims, which in turn are the victims' families. And I have not seen a poorer line of communication in my 22 years of practicing than the prosecution's office and the González family.

who practice it than the prosecution's office and the González family. And I think it stems from, initially, we were critical of the investigation. They wanted to find the person who did this. That's normal emotions. And then from that point on, it has been, we are the enemy. And that's how we feel. The prosecution and the defense were both on the same page that they wanted to keep things under the gag order just like they have been. Also, an attorney for the media argued that the gag order should be lifted because it violates the First Amendment as well, freedom of the press.

So here's what the judge said. This is not the same world as it was 10 years ago or five years ago. And it is troubling for the media, the ethical, hardworking media. I don't know what the answer is, but it's a serious threat to a fair trial. The judge has not made any official decision yet, but says he will do so in a written order when he does. So moving on to banning cameras in the courtroom, I have to say I'm not at all surprised by this and that this is something that the defense asked for. And we are going to go over the filing in a second, but we did see this same thing with Lori Vallow in Idaho, and it's still in effect for Chad Daybell in Idaho as well. Similarly, there were a ton of things sealed and kept from the public, which interestingly enough, when I covered the Vallow trial, I was a little surprised that there wasn't just an entire plethora of new information that we had never heard at all. So in this case, just like the

Vallow Daybell trial, both the prosecution and the defense are in agreement that they do not want cameras, which is also interesting because you'd think that the prosecution would feel differently, but I don't know, maybe that's just me and my opinion. The reason we have freedom of the press in courts is so that when you get arrested for something, you aren't just thrown in jail and nobody ever knows what happened to you, anything like that. Instead, it's kind of checks and balances between the public, who are also the taxpayers and fund the courts, and then also in that coupled with the judicial system. It promotes transparency between the court system and the public, and that's a great thing that we have in this country, because there are a lot of countries that don't have this. And now some people are saying that with cases that are too highly publicized and have too much publicity,

you can't possibly get a fair trial, which violates the Sixth Amendment, and the defense and the prosecution agree with this. So is there something to that? Can someone like Brian Koberger get a fair trial at this point? Casey Anthony was the most hated woman in America back in the tabloid days, and you couldn't even go into a fucking grocery store without seeing an insane headline about her or watch TV without hearing Nancy Grace pop up and say, top mom, top mom, top mom, if you remember that and lived through all of that. And Casey was found not guilty, which don't even get me freaking started on that,

because I don't care what the new Peacock documentary is saying. I don't care what her story is that she's pushing. She is 1000% guilty, in my opinion. OJ Simpson also not guilty. And we saw the Bronco chase. We knew about him. He was a household name. So is it possible that he really won't get a fair trial, meaning Brian Koberger? And more recently, Kyle Rittenhouse was also found not guilty. But then as it relates to Brian Koberger, he may be facing the death penalty. We don't know yet. So what then? Well, let's talk about Jodi Arias. She was found guilty but didn't get the death penalty. The Parkland school shooter pled guilty, but the penalty phase was live-streamed, and like Jodi, he didn't get the

death penalty either, and that just happened in October of 2022. So while none of these are perfect comparisons to the case against Brian Koberger, it does make you wonder what the judge will do. But moving on, let's get into some of the filings. In the motion, the defense says that, one, this court should limit media coverage of this case to protect Sixth Amendment interests. Two, this court should not permit the media to use cameras to permit unfairly prejudicial coverage of Mr. Koberger or harass courtroom participants. And number three, this court should not permit cameras in the courtroom to distract courtroom participants And then there is a quoted statement along with that, which reads, and national news organizations, as well as social media platforms alike. The court has previously permitted cameras in the courtroom in regard to this case's prior proceedings.

However, given the sensationalized nature of the case, the audio and visual coverage has become material for news outlets and social media accounts to espouse their unfounded opinions. Following each of Mr. Koberger's court appearances, numerous social media posts have been made regarding him through Facebook posts, YouTube, and TikTok videos, also podcasts as well. Hi, shout out for this podcast. Each video, well this isn't a video, each video attempts to analyze Mr. Koberger's demeanor by observing his body language from one court appearance and describing him using phrases such as cold iciness. It looks like he is just filled with darkness and hate and he keeps getting

creepier among numerous other phrases. And then they, so this is the end of that statement, and then they literally have an exhibit of screenshots that have been taken from a phone of different TikToks, Facebook comments, a video of Nancy Grace that says all of those phrases. I mean, they're really trying to sell this. Not sell it, that's the wrong way to describe it, but really trying to illustrate. That's the word I was looking for.

They're really trying to illustrate their point here. They go on saying, While the media holds the crucial role of informing the public of criminal proceedings, the right only exists to the extent that it does not impede upon the rights of a defendant and is subject to maintaining fairness in the judicial process. And this is where it starts to get interesting. They say when cameras are present in the courtroom, the defendant becomes subject to minute scrutiny as his or her every movement can be replayed and analyzed. As such, the court in Vallow Daybell held the video footage from a hearing displayed

an inordinate focus on the defendant zooming into on her face throughout the vast majority of the hearing, regardless of who was speaking or what was happening. In the present case, Mr. Koberger's actions are heavily scrutinized as self-proclaimed experts utilize audio and visual footage from courtroom proceedings to make assumptions regarding his body language and his character, which actualizes prior court's concerns regarding the presence of cameras in the courtroom. For instance, a YouTube video titled, Psychologist Breaks Down Brian Koberger's Arraignment Body Language, purports to dissect every gesture, every shift in posture, every flicker of emotion that crossed Koberger's face during this tense courtroom scene,

all while utilizing only one courtroom video. And such a video would not exist except for the presence of cameras in the courtroom. Furthermore, the video posted on May 23rd garnered over 44,000 views in two days, further demonstrating the high level of interest in the case and the potential impact of pretrial publicity. Now look, I'm not trying to help the defense at all, but 44,000 views in two days demonstrates the high level of interest in this case? Really? Not the Dateline episodes that are being cranked out? Not everything else on the media outlets? The 44,000 views on a YouTube video? Okay. Now I get that they chose that example because it was specific to their argument to ban cameras, but I don't know know I just found that example extremely odd and quite frankly a little bit of a reach.

is not from someone who lives in Moscow, Idaho, or Idaho in general, which, side note, I do think that there probably will be a change in venue because of how impacted this small community has been, but we'll see if that happens. Then they go on to say, along with making claims about Mr. Koberger based on body language, social media videos also use the courtroom footage to make comments regarding Mr. Koberger's character. The videos use phrases such as cold iciness, and if you have never seen evil before, this is what it looks like when you're in the presence of a demon. Now, look, maybe that is somebody's opinion, but that is a pretty bold statement. So, they go on to say, as such, these phrases are used to characterize and make determinations about an individual based on a limited footage with no regard for the presumption of innocence, which may impact a jury's opinion. Now, here's my thing with that.

If someone can be impacted so much by watching one single TikTok, literally taking to heart everything that's in it and regarding it as true and using it to base their opinion on somebody else, newsflash, they wouldn't be a good juror to begin with if you really think about it. I get the argument, though. I get where they're going with it, saying the overall amount of videos that are out there, for sure. But again, people that have watched a lot of news and information regarding any case before trial are almost always dismissed during jury selection. And I know this is the petty part of me in here, but if you're worried about everybody casting judgments because of one single angle of a camera in the courtroom, put more cameras.

Let's see what his feet are doing. Let's see what his back's doing. Let's see what the top of his head's doing what his back's doing let's see what the top of his head's doing let's analyze all of that body language as well and then you can't say we're only getting one view and making judgments from that but obviously i know that's the petty me and that's not going to happen so let me continue here so the defense goes on to quote valo and dabel again saying that the presence of cameras is a concern regarding the additional pressure witnesses and counsel may be exposed to, knowing that their every expression, utterance, and appearance will be captured and circulated without their control. As far as counsel, I feel like that's kind of a cop-out a little bit, but for witnesses that are more sensitive to this, like maybe the roommates, I 1000% get that and there are options. They don't have to

appear on camera for their testimony and we see that all the time in trials. But other than that, won't most of the witnesses be investigators, medical examiners, crime scene forensics teams, the FBI, you know, all of the professionals who are very used to public trials and used to being on the stand I totally get not wanting to put Dylan or Bethany on the stand especially given the amount of scrutiny and torment that those girls have been dealing with since this all happened in November but for the professionals I don't know that just kind of doesn't really make sense to me I don't think that's a strong argument. So the judge did not make a decision on this either, but will do so in a written order like I said.

So will cameras be banned? What do you think? What do you think they're going to end up with that? Are their arguments strong? Does it help now that Brian is in a suit or does he still look creepy? I don't think it completely moves the needle, but it definitely does help, I think, a bit. Everyone looks extremely guilty, yes, as a fact, in jail clothes, but will that stop people from coming up with their own opinions? No, I doubt it will change anything. Just like it hasn't changed my opinion, if anything, it makes me feel like he looks even more creepy. The court can also come up with their own limitations of the cameras as well. They can say, hey, don't zoom in on the defendant's face for the entire hearing, etc. Personally, I won't be surprised at all if cameras are banned, but it would definitely be an interesting precedent to see in Idaho where this would be the second major case without cameras. what that room is going to look like with people who are trying to get in for that trial,

just like Vallow and Daybell, where it's like you had to line up first thing early morning before sunrise to get a spot, and they had the overflow room. On the motion to extend time for the defense to provide an alibi, the defense said that given the discovery and the 51 terabytes of information, including thousands of pages of discovery, thousands of photographs, hundreds of hours of recordings, and many gigabytes of phone records data and social media data, that they needed more time to provide an alibi. Like I said in the beginning, when I first read this, I was sitting there kind of like, um, what does this have to really do with anything with where he was? If he has an alibi, like, why would he need more time? Why do they have to review the discovery in order

to come up with his alibi? He should where he was right is the defense just going to go through everything and see if they can make an alibi up but that is not the case at all which is probably why it's a good thing that I didn't spout out on this right away thinking that I know the law so let me break it down because I know there is still confusion out there you have to provide witnesses to corroborate other evidence needed to corroborate the alibi know the law. So let me break it down because I know there is still confusion out there. You have to provide witnesses to corroborate other evidence needed to corroborate the alibi. You can't just say, oh, I was here and then that's the end of it, which most of us know that. You have to gather information and data to support the alibi and that's what can take time. So for example, and I'm making this completely up, let's say he was like, no, that wasn't me

because I was actually at a gas station 30 minutes away or I went to a friend's house in the area. They may need that extra time to go through all of that discovery that has been collected to look to see if there is surveillance footage to corroborate that from the gas station or ring cameras from the friend's house

or the neighbor's house, et cetera. Maybe he has a receipt or a credit card charge, things of that nature. So the extension for time is procedural and common because defendants have to officially file a notice of an alibi through the court. Now this kind of brings me into the next topic of discussion. Now that we've gotten through like the legal aspect of it, there has been a lot of chatter on social media about the possibility of drug use in that house on King Road. That there has been speculation that certain students were involved in dealing it, that this was a drug deal gone bad, that this is way deeper, that this is actually a conspiracy, all of these different things.

Now, I sleuth just like the next guy, I'll be honest, and sometimes my conspiracies can get the best of me and it takes me a moment to get them in check before I turn the mic on. At this moment, I just, they could be absolutely right. 1000% there could be a lot of truth to many different situations here, but at this moment, to many different situations here. But at this moment, I just want to remind everybody that there has not been any proven indication that any of the students were drug users, that any of the students dealt drugs, that any of them dated drug dealers. And I think that it's a slippery slope when you start going that route because it very quickly can also turn to victim shaming a bit and we already know that Dylan the surviving roommate has just been

crucified online and for a variety of different things some people were even talking about her possibly being trans at one point which was just like so ridiculous but like that she was in on it that she was dating Brian that she hated the girls I mean you name it that rumor has been out there and imagine for a second and I'm gonna get off my soapbox here in a minute but imagine as a young girl that age the amount of survivor's guilt that you would probably already be feeling while simultaneously trying to cope with the loss of your some of your best friends in the most brutal and horrific way possible then also knowing that you came close to the killer yourself and somehow survived on top of the already survivor's guilt and that you're going to have to muster up the courage the bravery and the strength to

potentially testify against that person and look them courage the bravery and the strength to potentially testify against that person and look them in the eyes again the same person who allegedly brutally just massacred your friends then as if that's not already enough to deal with at such a young age and i get it she's an adult but still a very young age you have the whole internet including news companies just ripping you apart questioning why you didn't call 9-1-1 questioning why you didn't do anything about all of these things it just and I've had a soft spot I think for Dylan since the beginning and I could be completely proven wrong 1000% as more of the information gets released. But I just think that and I've learned this from my past case coverage guys, not because I'm saying I'm better than anybody, certainly not.

I've learned it because I've learned it the hard way. It's better to not jump to conclusions like that because these are real people. Even though we're fascinated because we're just looking through the lenses of viewer. These are real people's lives real people's emotions and I don't believe that this girl or any of them deserve to be raked over the coals so that coupled with the suspicion of like the drug use and they had to clean out all the drugs from the house and that was the delay for the 911 call again yes it could very very well be true but as of now especially with the gag order in place there is absolutely nothing that proves that so I know it's easy to get caught up in what you're hearing in different social media accounts or different videos or even different news outlets and when they're going on and you know when they're airing their stuff but the case has a gag order for a reason to try to

control everything imagine if there was not a gag order and certain information even bite-sized pieces of information was being released right now imagine how crazy the rumor mill would get then it would be literally like pouring gasoline all over it and lighting a match so if it's this bad with the gag order and they're trying to do that because they're trying to keep it clean and like boxed in so again I'm going to get off my soapbox here and I'm going to go not go on a rant but so many of you guys have been dming me sending me articles sending me Instagram stories being like you know did you see this Annie have you seen this what are your thoughts on this and I haven't spoken up for several weeks about it

just because again there hasn't been any concrete information to make it valid to speak on this but I did want to address it in some regard in this episode just to say like yeah I'm aware of it I know what people are talking about it could for sure be true but I don't have any reason to believe that it is true at this point so I'm not going to further perpetuate it I guess that's what I'm trying to say so anyways thank you for tuning in to another bonus episode of serialously I hope this was able to help explain a little bit of what's been going on in the Idaho case I will continue to keep you guys updated on this case even if there aren't large huge milestone updates I will jump on here and do more bonus episodes so like I said in the beginning make sure you are following the podcast if you're not already so that you don't miss any of those

bonus episodes other than that though I will be back with you every Monday morning bright and early with a brand new true crime case for you to break down for you some of the craziest ones and you know we do it in an uncensored way so I don't have to censor myself like YouTube which is nice because I feel like I can't even blink without YouTube flagging me these days so anyways that is today's episode of serialously thanks so much for tuning in with me and I will see you guys next Monday with an all-new case if I don't see you before that with a bonus episode please take 30 seconds to go give this podcast a rating if you feel so inclined to do so please also leave a quick review sentence or two i would greatly appreciate it all right

until the next one guys take care of everyone be nice don't kill anyone and i will talk with you very very soon bye Teksting av Nicolai Winther Thank you.