Truth Denied Dismissed Delayed in the Idaho 4 case

Añadido: 2026-05-23

[00:00:00]In the Idaho 4 case, there's really something to this Coberger investigation. And in Idaho, all they're doing is delay, delay, delay, >> and a lot of secrecy.

[00:00:23]>> You lost.

[00:00:24]>> And you know what you did.

[00:00:27]>> I'm attorney Andrew Meyers. This is about the law. Joining me is California attorney Yoli Medina. Yoli, how are you?

[00:00:36]>> Hi, I'm fine. How are you?

[00:00:37]>> I'm pretty good. You know, we were ready to walk away from this Coberger case as a lot of people. And you know, I was ready to say, "Okay, let's go. Guilty or not guilty." You know, the the the guiltters are the guilters. You're never going to change their minds. The uh proberers, you're never you're never going to change their minds no matter what. But now there's an issue of people that are trying to get information under the Idaho Public Records Act, which in itself calls for openness and transparency in the mechanations of government in Idaho. Well, that's what it says. But, you know, when it comes right down to it, it just seems to me that, you know, the people in Idaho don't don't want that. At least the people that are on the public payroll in Idaho, they don't want anything to do with letting people know, you know, what what they're doing. Am I going too far out on a limb, Yoli?

[00:01:33]>> No. Uh it's just a struggle to get anything. And it seems like the people in Idaho is are special and they block out their faces. everybody that was interviewed, I mean, the body cams, uh, you know, interviewing the students or people there, their their faces are all blacked out and it's it's sort of like wh what I mean, are we going to see somebody with a chunk of hair missing?

[00:02:00]Is that why they're blocking everything out? I mean, I don't know what what what is the I don't understand the purpose of blocking them out. I understand privacy, but when the when there's a public crime, a crime that's committed and it's a public crime and the public is prosecuting what what why do they need to be private? It's a public thing, >> you know, and I've followed other, you know, people love to go down in the comments and please do go down in the comments and give us all the information that you want to give us. And we we we read all the comments and we have somebody that helps us read all the comments. So, yes, I know that there are other um podcasters and creators that have spent a lot of time and money on their own trying to get documents and they they do their own podcast and I think they do a great idea. I'm not going to copy them. I don't want a copyright violation, but they do a great idea telling you, you know, what they have found out, but they've got to fight tooth and nail. And a lot of times their requests are denied, dismissed, delayed, they're charged money, and then they get stuff that's react redacted and fuzzed out. And it's just it's just incredible.

[00:03:08]In this episode, we want to look at a group called EWU Media LLC, uh, which is based in I think it's Nevada, isn't it, Yoli? and uh they put in a request for a bunch of documents >> and the city of Moscow, Idaho, and the Moscow Police Department said, "Nah, no, we're not giving it to you. No, no way."

[00:03:32]And they didn't really site specifics and they waited a while and they said and they they somehow even though these requests were made way last fall in the fall of 2025, now the FBI comes forward and we showed the FBI correspondence which came out in May. I think it was May 4th of 2026, just a few weeks before this. And so now the FBI says, "Oh, by the way, the stuff we gave you, it's all ours and we want it back." Now, mind you, the Coberger uh plea was back in July, almost a year ago. So now, coincidentally, when there's a request for documents and information and other materials from Moscow, now the FBI says, "Oh, by the way, we want it back." So now Moscow is is backpedaling and saying, "Oh yeah, that's part of the reason." But no, you can't do that because the requests were >> and and the Moscow uh the Moscow statute or the Idaho statute I should say, not Moscow.

[00:04:31]>> The Idaho statute says that whatever is in the possession of Idaho of the agency, it could be documents from other agencies that are in the possession of the agency in Moscow. those they're considered the custodian of records for that for all of it even if it's from another agency and they have copies of it. So I'm I I don't know if this new law that's coming into effect in July has anything to do with that but that's the statute as it stands.

[00:05:03]>> Well you know yeah put the cart ahead of the horse. That's okay. you mentioned that there's a new law that's coming out in July, July 1st of this year that tamps down even more on what Idaho um has to release to the public. And so part of the reason this court is pushing things back is at the uh behest of uh the city and the police department, they want to push things back so they have this new more restrictive law. That's how I see it. Um I think that's how a lot of people see it. So, um, the EWU Media LLC attorneys filed a comprehensive, uh, petition that cited what they need to do and cited the law under the Idaho Public Records Act.

[00:05:47]And the city, you know, instead of taking it issue by issue by issue, which is what you and I do, you're in California, I'm here in Massachusetts.

[00:05:55]When you get a petition, you address the you address the issues. That's what we is. No, do that. No, they cited a a bogus procedural uh matter that uh oh, EWU is not registered in Idaho. And they went on and on in this brief. They didn't. And as I said in our last episode, you have alternative arguments.

[00:06:18]That's fine. If they wanted to make that argument, even though it was bogus, uh they should have gone on and said, "Okay, as a backup, here's our response to the substantive matters." No, they didn't do that. So, comes a hearing. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

[00:06:32]>> Oh, what I was going to say is it's like they're treating in the hearing they were treating this public records request, this petition as a motion to compel. They were they were saying, "Well, here's what we can do." And in essence, what they were saying was they were going to provide sort of like a privilege log, like for each request, what was the exemption? And I'm thinking to myself, this is not a motion to compel. This is public records. they should be available. I don't understand.

[00:07:02]>> It's a whole different thing. So, the hearing comes up and uh the attorney, I couldn't believe it. The attorney for the city of Moscow is a gentleman by the name of Zachary Jones. And he doubled down on that pre-existing uh position that EWU media had no standing to bring their document request because they're not registered in Idaho. no matter the merits of the case, they cannot prevail because they haven't um registered to do business within the state and so they don't have access to the courts and it shouldn't be the city's obligation to incur the costs of litigation um and so on if the petitioner cannot prevail on the arguments requested. Um and so with that, I think that it's in the interest of justice for the court to to grant this continuence in this in this fashion. And then I think most importantly, this is a matter of significant consequence and I think that the court and the public deserve um a full a fully complete record. Um this bell can't be unrungg.

[00:08:06]>> This bell cannot be unrgung. What what what bell? What is he talking about?

[00:08:11]>> And again, they're doing everything they can procedurally. You know that that just the idea of like throwing logs in front of somebody's legs so they can't run. That's that's all this in my mind really is.

[00:08:23]And um EWU media's attorney Kirsty Kennedy uh said that the focus is on the documents and not where the requesttor is from because requesters from all over the country from all different uh media places and YouTubers very good YouTubers that are from all over the country.

[00:08:42]They've requested documents and this is a new thing to you know allege that um the person that's requesting the documents has to be from that state. Uh so the uh EWU uh attorney Christy Kennedy said the focus is on the documents and not where the requesttor is based. She also said that the city of Moscow's resting its refusal to produce documents on that letter from the FBI which we just talked about is just you know it made no sense.

[00:09:13]>> The relevant inquiry is the basis for the denial at the time of the denial.

[00:09:18]And here, this FBI letter was obtained months after litigation began. Um, and under Wade v. Taylor, the ta the city can't retroactively supplement its denial grounds through a post-litation FBI letter. Um, it still identifies no specific federal statute or regulation.

[00:09:36]Um, and it really just isn't an exemption under the public records act.

[00:09:41]Uh, it also only addresses FBI generated records. that says nothing of these supposed Pennsylvania records.

[00:09:48]>> And uh she also said that the equities of the case really called for decision right then. What uh what the city was calling for. It was obvious that their argument about you know this uh well you had to be registered in uh in Idaho.

[00:10:02]That was obviously not going to go their way. So they wanted to continue the hearing so they would have time. We think they wanted to continue it so they would get the protection of that new law that goes into effect July 1st. But his argument was, "Oh, we need more time."

[00:10:16]Well, Attorney Kennedy said, "No, the Equities call for a determination right now in this hearing."

[00:10:22]>> Um, the Public Records Act is intended to ensure timely public access to government records, especially in matters of extraordinary public importance like this case. Um, and the city has already repeatedly delayed this issue and hasn't really provided us a basis for withholding these documents.

[00:10:38]Um, and we don't think that's that would change with the continuence. So, we believe the hearing should proceed today, >> you know, and the judge at first she kind of sort of agreed with that. At first, she was giving uh Leh the attorney for the city a hard time and asked him a lot of questions. So, at first it seemed like the hearing was going to go that way. But, you know, for a lot of reasons, she changed her mind and we're going to give her the opportunity to explain why. But first, um the attorney for the Chapens and Mattie Mogan, Leander James, was there to intervene. I don't think he should have been allowed because his case in the Moscow court uh regarding the city of Moscow and the Moscow Police Department that's already been adjudicated. I don't think he even, you know, I don't think he should have been a party here and he wasn't. He he he filed to intervene. I don't think the court should have allowed it, but they did. And it was obvious he was just there to kick it down the road some more.

[00:11:35]>> Well, yeah. I mean, they already have a ruling, you know. They already have a ruling that the uh photos of the the death scene photos are not to be published uh to the public. They already have that ruling. So, I don't understand why they're here. And I don't think that EW EWU media is actually requesting the death scene photos. They they want documents and they want the interrogation of Brian Coberger and that. So, I don't really know why uh the Chapen and Laram's attorney is there, but I guess the judge let him intervene.

[00:12:14]>> Well, he's going to tell you right now why he was there. He just wanted to delay matters more.

[00:12:20]>> The court uh took a great deal of of time and effort and energy uh uh to uh analyze the permanent injunction case and to get it right. And I think we should do that here. And for that reason, I I don't oppose the city's uh I do not oppose the city's uh request for a short uh uh continuence. I think it's merited for the reasons I've I've said.

[00:12:45]I think it's important we get this right.

[00:12:47]>> Yeah. Well, you know, I think it sounds good to say they want to get it right, but it it it seemed obvious people just wanted to kick the can down the road.

[00:12:58]The judge, Leo County Judge Megan Marshall said she came into the hearing thinking about the case one way and then thought about it differently and she was surprised that the city rested its response on procedural grounds and gave no substantive answer.

[00:13:13]>> Quite candidly, it was pretty I understand the city's argument, the position that it took. It was a little surprising uh initially to not see kind of the follow-up substantive argument to be prepared to proceed on that here today because I think it leaves unanswered a lot of questions that quite frankly I think EWO is seeking which is what is the basis for these for the denial itself. um and kind of generally cites to reasons for denying the the request, but that's really all the court has as far as that substantive part.

[00:13:54]>> So, yeah, we have to we have to mention one thing. Our commenters, you know, we keep calling it EWU, EWU, EWU, but our commenters pointed out, yeah, those are the letters, but everybody that knows anything about anything calls it ew. And I guess the judge was uh tipped into that. So, you heard her say >> ew, >> that it's ewoo. I forget what does Ewoo stand for?

[00:14:13]>> Explore with us.

[00:14:14]>> Okay. Explore with us. And they do uh they do videos. They're online. You can go check them out. They uh they do videos largely from, you know, body cam and other footage that they get. I'm not I know I'm not doing them any justice.

[00:14:28]Go down below uh and tell me I'm not doing them any justice, but that's what they do and they do a good job. And you know, this is a huge case of national significance and they want to just do a documentary on this.

[00:14:40]uh you know, they're going to have a hard time getting anything. Judge Marshall also re-emphasized that she changed her mind during this hearing and was disincined uh at first to continue the uh issue. When I came into this hearing, quite frankly, I was inclined to say, "No, we're not continuing it." Because I think the city had an opportunity to respond and instead chose to um take a different approach um and argue the issue of standing. Now that we are in this hearing and I've heard argument here, more specifically, you know, Mr. Jones reference to the this is a the procedural posture is a little different. the rules of, you know, civil procedure as application to this is different. And so the re, you know, as far as any arguments or or motions, uh, 12B6 or otherwise to dismiss, this was the the states or the city's option or choice in doing so, which is a little different than what's provided under the rules of civil procedure. On top of that, I think that there's also been more clarity as far as what the issue raised is Mr. Jones saying the implications of if the court were to find um that even even if the remedy were cured or not, but if the court were to find that EWO was required to register um and it should have been, you know, should be dismissed.

[00:16:12]>> Oh, and by the way, um EW did register.

[00:16:14]Did you see that, Yoli? That at the last it's really easy. I think I actually mentioned this in the last episode. It's really because I do do a little bit of business law and to register in another state. First of all, I don't think it'll be required in these circumstances, but to the extent that it might have been these days, you know, in the old days, you had to actually fill out a document and get it notorized and mail it in and, you know, all that kind. No, no, you can register in another state with the click of a mouse and if you've done it before, as most business attorneys have, five minutes maybe. So, that was that was >> Yeah. And you know what else I was going to say about this hearing? Not to change the subject, but >> No, it's fine.

[00:16:52]>> Everybody looks very scared, very subdued. I don't know why, but it's a very I don't know, very everybody's sad and or scared or I don't know. It's just a weird ambiance.

[00:17:08]>> Well, I don't know. Are we attorneys like happy golucky smiley types or I think it was because her, you know, and we're going to see it more when I continue this video cut. Nobody knew where she was going. uh she would talk on one side and she gave the city attorney a hard time, then she talked the other way. So people really didn't know which way she was going to go. So maybe that's it. I don't know.

[00:17:34]>> I don't know.

[00:17:34]>> So I think judicial economy may say otherwise. But regardless, even if it were to be dis should be dismissed, that may change uh the setup for what uh EW is requesting. for example, do they have to then based upon the timing of that would have to refile a public records request and what would that look like?

[00:17:54]And may some of these issues be cured in the meantime? I don't know. It would change the posture of the case.

[00:18:00]Certainly not suggesting that I have a decision on either one of those things, but um that does change I think the way in which the court was initially looking at it uh because by way of the briefing it, it would seem to suggest the issue was cured by the filing. Well, but really does that address the substantive part of it? So, what the judge said was uh that she said she claimed that she didn't have enough information on the specific records. So, she was kind of, you know, thinking, well, all right, let's give the city a chance to respond.

[00:18:35]Um, she said that, uh, she wanted to know. So, she kind of turned around and turned it on to Carrie Kennedy, the attorney for EWOU, and she the judge said she needed to know what they have already requested and received, uh what they have requested and not received, and just what were their general requests. So, the judge also, you know, kicked the can down the road. First, at first the judge, you know, was going to set up a date in June, which as we record this episode, that's that's not that far away at all. But then the parties wanted time to brief and reply and respond and itemize. And so now, here are the new dates. The city of Moscow will provide a log of what they have by June 22nd. So, we've already kicked the can down the road a month.

[00:19:26]There will be until July 10th for the city to actually respond to the substantive petition that was already filed quite some time ago. EW will have time to reply until July 31st. The intervenor, who in my opinion shouldn't even be there, but they'll have then until July 24th, and then the final hearing is August 10th at 9:00. So, we've pretty much kicked this thing, you know, down the road for the whole summer, you know, even though this was initially filed, if I remember correctly, back in February when there was still snow on the ground. So, >> right. And so, July 1st, a new law goes into effect, which I haven't analyzed, but it uh my understanding it it protects the death scenes from being released to the public and the family has input into what is released.

[00:20:20]>> I took a look at it. I took a look at it, but it's like all legislation. And I know some legislators and you're really nice people. You sure are. But when they when they get into these committees, you know, that guy over there wants that and that guy over there wants that and that guy over there wants that. So they mush there's a lot of stuff mushed into the Senate bill. I think it's Senate Bill 2510. I looked at it. I read it because I wasn't satisfied with the newspaper accounts. and it's got a lot of other stuff in there, but essentially, you know, no autopsy, nothing from the coroner, and the families will have a say so in what's released. And to me, that's an astonishing infringement on the First Amendment rights of the public. I have all due sympathy and empathy for the families. I've said that before. I've talked to some family members and I do have empathy for them.

[00:21:13]But this is a matter of public import. I mean, four young people at a state university were tragically and horrifically slain and there was an investigation by the state police in Idaho, the local police, the FBI came in. All of those people, by the way, even the defense attorney, all paid by taxpayers. But no, no, no. The taxpayers don't have any rights here. The first amendment, just tear it up, throw it in the garbage. The families will have the final say. And in my opinion, that's wrong. in my opinion that would withstand a constitutional test, but that's the law in Idaho and it's, you know, um >> well, yeah, I have to read it. Uh I haven't read it yet, but um you know what what did what what's hidden here that they don't want released because that's what it's it's coming about. Um I understand the families don't want the death scenes released and photos and things like that and that's fine. I mean, it's their loved one, but other things, you know, uh, like the interrogation video or audio of Brian Kberger, what why wouldn't we be able to see that? He plead guilty.

[00:22:27]>> Yeah.

[00:22:28]>> I mean, what what what are you hiding?

[00:22:29]Like, what what why is that not something that the public can see?

[00:22:36]>> And that's something that uh was done with Brett Payne right there. So, let's not talk about Pennsylvania law. It's an it's an Idaho case.

[00:22:44]>> Uh he was uh living right over the line in uh Washington State, but it's allegedly to have occurred in Moscow, Idaho. Um it's an Idaho case. It was investigated by the people in Idaho.

[00:22:58]People in Idaho police departments were there at the scene. You know, Pennsylvania law really has nothing to do with it. This is not a a conflict of law or a choice of law issue. these this is documentation that's in the possession of the city of Moscow. So, you know, I wouldn't want to see this be decided the way I think it's going to be decided that it has to go up on appeal, but I think it's a first amendment constitutional issue. And you know where those issues end up? Not in the little Idaho Supreme Court. No, they end up at Scotas, the Supreme Court of the United States. So, I don't know. I just I I I hate to see the case end the way it looks like it's going to end. But um anyhow, uh on behalf of EW, Kirsty Kennedy pointed out that if the city is now going to be given additional time to address the substantive issues, they wanted additional time to reply.

[00:23:51]>> I think we would want the opportunity to do a reply to whatever the city file, like a supplemental reply. Um, and I also listen in listening to the court's comments, I had maybe an idea on um, how we could get some clarity on what documents we're talking about. Um, I think the court theoretically could just make a ruling that as a matter of law, Pennsylvania law doesn't apply or there's no federal law for example. Um but if the court is inclined to do more of a document by document analysis and if that would allow for clarity um the federal courts do something called a vaugh index is the name of the case. Um and that occurs in foye cases and it basically is like a privilege log from the agency which lists out all the responsive documents and what exemptions are claiming. And for example, in this case, we know that there was an interrogation of Brian Cobberger that was done in Pennsylvania, but Brett Payne from Moscow flew out there um with the FBI. And so the interrogation was conducted by FBI, Idaho, and Pennsylvania. And we don't understand if that's being claimed as a Pennsylvania document or an FBI document or both. Um, of course, it seems to us it should be an Idaho document. Um, but I wonder if some kind of log like that from the city would be helpful for the court and the parties. Um, we I think would uh prefer just kind of a a blanket legal ruling that these exemptions don't apply, but to the extent the court wants to do more of a documentby-do analysis, that would be my suggestion.

[00:25:28]>> Yeah. And I think a blanket ruling would have been um appropriate here where that was what the initial petition called for. The city of Idaho failed to make substantive arguments. They just rested on their um failed procedural argument that this group EWO was not registered in Idaho. That went by the boards. But the um Idaho Public Records Act, and I'm no expert on it. I'm only licensed in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

[00:25:55]Granted, but I I looked at it and the Idaho Public Records Act talks about documents that are in the possession, custody, and control of Idaho government agencies. So, who cares if it was done in Pennsylvania? Uh, it's in the possession, custody, and control of the uh Moscow, Idaho Police Department.

[00:26:16]Their top investigative guy in this case, Brett Payne, was there. I don't see a legitimate valid argument about, you know, not releasing it. What was in there? What do they want to hide?

[00:26:27]>> Especially now he's plead guilty. There is no uh there's nothing pending in the way of an, you know, postconviction relief that we know of him. Uh there's speculation, but there's nothing there is the investigation into the leak, but how would that have anything to do with his interrogation video?

[00:26:45]>> Yeah, there's two different things. Two different things. a valid valid point that you bring up that they're still doing that investigation supposedly. Now it's a criminal investigation, but I mean, you know, two different things, apples and oranges. I mean, I hate to keep going back to two cases that are in my mind because I read enough about them, but Charles Manson and Ted Bundy, they were chatter boxes and, you know, we all heard about it. They were chit cchatting and talking and, you know, always saying stuff and, you know, >> why is this case so different? What is Idaho hiding? Why is Idaho so insistent upon, you know, kicking the can down the road until they get additional protections by a new statute, by not disclosing things, by saying, "Oh, well, you know, we have to step back and even though the petitioner made valid arguments that went unresponded to, let's require them to have this additional index of additional materials and item." Why? What is wrong with you people in Idaho? Why? Why such a dark veil of secrecy? I keep thinking of that character in Peanuts, Pig Pen. Remember Pig Pen? Wherever he went, there was this big dark cloud hanging over him.

[00:27:53]That's what the people in Idaho remind me of just a state full of pig pens walking around and this dark cloud is over their heads.

[00:28:00]>> It's like, what is the deal here? And especially since everybody, you know, says, okay, he plead guilty. He's guilty under the law. So what is what is I mean there's some information that there I mean the leak was the leak that was before he plead guilty. Okay. So now it's after. So what what what's wrong?

[00:28:20]What's wrong here? Whose privacy are we trying to protect Brian Cobberger's interrogation video? I don't believe that he has a privacy right in terms of his interrogation video.

[00:28:31]>> There's something rotten in this case.

[00:28:34]Look at Sharilla. Sharilla McKenzie, the case that the Netflix show that I talked to you about.

[00:28:40]>> I mean, nobody's blurred. Nobody's faces are blurred.

[00:28:46]>> You know that they're they're talking they're interviewing people, but they're not blurred.

[00:28:50]>> Should we do an episode on Sharilla Mackenzie? You sent me the uh the Netflix and I was in between a couple of files and I I started I couldn't turn it off. I mean, I hate it when people say I couldn't put that book down, but I couldn't stop watching it. Oh my god, what a case. Sharilla McKenzie >> and she was 17 and they're still showing everything. I mean, it's it's just because it's a matter of public import.

[00:29:13]Like people in the public are entitled to see what's going on and how people are prosecuted.

[00:29:20]>> Yeah.

[00:29:20]>> I mean, it's it's simple, >> but I don't know what we would do. Let's ask our viewers. Should we do something on Sharilla McKenzie or did did Netflix hit it? Did did Netflix do it? I don't know what we would do, but maybe we could do a short on it. I don't know what what a ca But you're right because um two of them were kids that had just graduated from high school and the other one was a couple of years older, but I mean it happened in a small town outside of Cleveland.

[00:29:50]And everybody in the whole town was just taken aback. these these kids, these 17-year-old kids, all of a sudden they're in this car that hurdles at 90 100 miles an hour in a building and just what a case. I've never heard of a case quite like that one.

[00:30:04]>> No, your point is well taken and I see why you bring it up because yeah, everything was public.

[00:30:10]>> Yeah. And same thing with Celeste Rivas or the one uh that rap singer that she was found in his car >> and body you know uh they released the autopsy report. They you know things are pretty transparent in that uh and I don't understand why and you know that's a high-profile case because it involves a celebrity. So here we have all this secrecy and no grounds for they just cite various under federal and state law kind of thing. And it's like well what what I don't know you know it reminds me you know in the same episode for having said the same things. I have in the past been called both a proberger and a guilter. So it it it's all in the eyes of whoever's watching this. Um, I mean, I'm not either. I've tried to be objective. And haven't you scolded me before by saying I've got to pick a side?

[00:31:11]>> No, I've never scolded you before.

[00:31:13]>> I think scolded is a harsh word. But, um, I thought you told me that, you know, at some point I've got to make up my mind. And that old reporter in me says, "No, just be objective." But objectively speaking, trying to stay objective about what I see. There's something rotten in this case. There's something wrong.

[00:31:29]>> It may have been Laney.

[00:31:30]>> It may have been Laney that told you that. No, I I don't know. Anyhow, I was told that and it just seems to me that this doesn't make sense. And what doesn't make sense even more than the fact that it doesn't make sense is the fact that they don't want to tell us stuff and they think they think we're all going to go away. We did go away.

[00:31:49]remember we stopped, you know, we we covered the uh the change of plea, we covered the sentencing, we covered the early documents, and then, you know, when I calculated that it would take two years for them to get through all the documents, we pretty much washed our hands on of it and went on to other cases, but just the things that have come out recently just make me want to do five episodes a week. I mean, now that's an exaggeration. That's too much, but I mean, >> it just makes me want to do more. Yeah, I'm I'm more interested in the process of how they prosecute people. So, I'm looking back and I want to see the other documents that are going to be unsealed because I want to see what the judge's decisions were really based on because the a lot of the evidence was sealed.

[00:32:36]So, you know, I just want to know it's my interest and I'm also interested in that mental health aspect of it. uh being that he's in the record, court record, diagnosed with autism and OCD.

[00:32:50]And so I that's my interest, but you know, it's like I can't even it's hard to get the whole information because you might go by something, but then something else comes out that is different and >> you don't it's it's crazy. Okay, before we go on to our viewer comments, let's allow uh Judge Megan Marshall uh to get the last word in here. She closed out the hearing after setting the schedule that I went over uh earlier uh setting the whole thing back to August, explaining her change of heart during the hearing. This is not where I anticipated that uh we would be, but I do think that sometimes this is the way things happen in the sense of making sure that we have all the information. I think quite frankly for myself, but for the party's sake, so that we can figure out exactly what we're talking about um and to do it right hopefully uh the first time instead of having to keep coming back to court is my hope. So, I know this is going to cause a little bit of delay in the records in getting those, but hopefully even in the the log itself, hoping that once that's created and even provided to Miss Kennedy, that might be even a talking point for you all to say, well, are there things that we ha we haven't had that we can have or or what it might be? I don't know. So, I think it will help us move things forward actually better going forward than than it would have. So, as attorneys, our job is always to identify what is the issue, to determine what the law is in order to um adjudicate that issue, to analyze, and then come to a conclusion. I'll be honest with you, and I I'm at a loss to figure out what the issues are anymore. Uh the initial petition by EWO kind of spelled it out.

[00:34:40]Here's what we want. we want an order that we should get the materials, but it kind of fuzzed all up here. And so now, you know, um the city's going to have a chance to address the issues. Um the intervenor on behalf of the two families is going to have a chance to reply to that. Then EW is going to have a chance to reply. Uh the city is going to specify what documents they have. Uh the um EWO people will have an opportunity to address each of those. So, I'm not clear on what the issues are anymore other than that, you know, should they be released or shouldn't they be released? And then the law is the Idaho Public Records Act as modified in the uh Senate bill that becomes law on J on July 1st. So, in my mind, it's kind of murky. And so, the whole thing may or may not be decided in August. My my guess is that it won't be. I don't know.

[00:35:36]You know, the petition on its face was a petition for public records. So, those records that she was requesting were denied or not provided fully. They were redacted. You know, it's on the public agency to tell you why they're not producing them. Uh, and I guess that's what she's trying to get at, but this should not be an issue. they should be able to provide whatever statute they're relying on or whatever exemption, they should be able to provide that period that there shouldn't be this long time for them to gather it together and and decide which you know I mean there's only a few privacy and uh others that you know reasons why the documents should not be released. So, I don't understand why this is process is taking so long.

[00:36:30]>> And again, with all due respect to the families of the victims, don't tell me I don't have empathy because I have. Are the families going to be able to sit there and uh and help make a determination on each and every document? And you know, I mean, are they going to intervene in each and every uh determination? It just I don't know. It just seems like the process in Idaho is crazy. Sure.

[00:36:51]>> Why don't we take a look at what our um viewers have to say? And do you want the odds of the evens this week?

[00:36:58]>> I'll take the evens.

[00:37:00]>> Okay. So, that leaves us with TJS. Why didn't Moscow arrest Brian before he left with his father for Thanksgiving week break? Moscow Ellie and Bill Thompson said they didn't have any evidence to connect BK to the unalivvenings. Well, I asked this question a long time ago and then they said, "Oh, well, we didn't have him on our radar until um December 19th." But no, his name appeared in lab records. Uh Yoli, I think it was December 6th. And then there were the two Washington State University uh officers who identified his car at the very end of November. So, when they really had their radar on Mr. Coberger is a question and I remember a long time ago I asked this question too. So it's a good question. We don't have an answer to it as far as I know.

[00:37:49]>> And this is from Johnny Mkhitri Alive. I hope I said that right. The 4 a.m. hour is oddly quiet on all of the cameras, but from 2:27 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. we we hear several backtoback screams, voices, arguing, etc. Well, I mean, I we don't even know if those cameras are, you know, as you know, if you're going to introduce evidence like a camera, you have to show uh the foundation for it and the chain of custody.

[00:38:22]>> Not if you're in Norfol County, Massachusetts, but in every other in every other courthouse in America. No, you're right.

[00:38:29]So, you know, my understanding is that there likely isn't going to be a chain of custody because we know that um per Mr. Gonalves, he because he was concerned uh and his family was concerned, they were able to access the cameras uh in the one of the cameras in the area. Uh and the and there was also a guy when they removed the camera from the neighbor's home. I believe it's 1112.

[00:38:59]There was a guy that was actively looking at the camera and he called the police and said, "Hey, you busted my stream. I was watching this." Uh, so we we know that various people had access to it. So, how the the videos were going to come into evidence, I'm not quite sure, unless they all stipulated that the videos were authentic. And I, you know, I I just find it very very odd. I mean, because you really do have to have the foundation for the video to say that this is a true and correct video of what was happening the night of November 13th.

[00:39:38]>> Yeah, good points. Good points all.

[00:39:42]Number three is from Eve A. The FBI was supposed to help MPD and ISP. It wasn't their investigation. Therefore, their findings and documents, etc. belong to Moscow Police Department and should be open to Foya. I kind of made this point before, so thank you, Eve, for reinforcing this. You know, yeah, if statements were made in Pennsylvania or if the FBI collected documents, I guess now it's in the possession of Moscow Police Department and it should be open to actually the Idaho Public Records Act, >> but it's the same idea. So, I agree. I agree. It was like the the FBI and the Moscow uh state police department or the FBI and the uh state police they stepped into into the shoes of Moscow police department to assist. Um that's how >> they stepped in something. I'll tell you that.

[00:40:36]>> Well well they they were and you remember Fry Chief Fry saying this is a a Moscow PD investigation >> and I'm going to drive my U-Haul truck right up to the property.

[00:40:49]He's not working somewhere else.

[00:40:51]>> Yeah.

[00:40:52]>> Uh, two, >> number two, this is from Sprite.

[00:40:57]Non-controversial evidence such as Amazon records the state claimed proved Brian was trying to buy a replacement KBAR knife will not cause trauma to the families and cannot understand why they refuse to release. Well, that's the thing. We we've seen a receipt for a a beanie or some kind of beanie from I think it was Walmart or something. Uh we've seen a receipt for that. Uh but we haven't seen any kind of Amazon receipt for what they say Brian was trying to replace a KBAR knife because now they've gone into Brian's mind and they know what he was doing. I mean, I don't It was a It was basically something kind of vague, you know, that he he bought a KBAR knife. He was looking at buying a KBAR knife.

[00:41:47]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[00:41:50]I would like someone in Idaho to call me and explain to me either on or off camera why the secrecy. I mean, Charles Manson, you know, we had Vincent Bulliosce's book, Laugh at Me All You Want. We had Vinceos's great book.

[00:42:07]>> Uh then when Charles Manson died a FEW YEARS AGO, ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE ARE a ton of books >> about all kinds of stuff. Do we have to wait that long until the the current cast of characters passes away to find out what hap Why can't they just release everything? I've said it before. Sure.

[00:42:24]Redact the names of minors, redact social security uh numbers, dates of birth, and all that rubbish. We know about that. Those of us who practice law have been told many many many times what we have. So don't lecture me on that.

[00:42:37]All right. Somebody call me and tell me why they can't just release everything now today.

[00:42:42]>> It's very bizarre. And you know when you think about all these unalivers like Manson and uh Ted Bundy and even the BTK >> BTK.

[00:42:54]>> Yeah. They all talked. Oh my god. They talked and talked and I remember the BTK uh guy giving his the reasons and he just talked about why he did it and how he went in there and how you know he was just matter of fact and he just loved to talk and talk and here Brian >> well here's here's a here's a drum roll for you. BTK admitted it and and in detail to Katherine Ramsland in her book and I read it and he goes into a great deal of detail about how he selected his victims. Uh how he watched his victims, how he would go to the house and things weren't as he thought. So how he would change his plan, you know, maybe he wasn't going to use the liatures he thought maybe he'd use his belt, you know. So he talked in detail. Mr. The coberers said nothing >> and he still hasn't said anything.

[00:43:47]>> He said nothing on the day of the uh plea change of plea and the day you know he was he he he talked responding to questions but as we've pointed out before and I'm not going to go into detail again today um there's a big difference between a guilty plea and an admission. There's a really huge or a confession I should say big difference.

[00:44:11]Okay, Jane Thug Garrick, I don't know.

[00:44:15]In my opinion, they are hiding a lot.

[00:44:17]Thank you, Jane. We've been saying that for the last half hour, I think, but anyhow. All right. So, >> I think that FBI letter that came to the Moscow, the city of Moscow, I think that that made it see that that tipped the scales for me that they're hiding something. uh what in what world is there active litigation and a city has FBI documents for the longest time even after Brian has plead guilty and then all of a sudden there's this litigation and then they get a letter from the FBI saying please return our documents we just loan them to you >> that's a little fishy no and I mean you know as you pointed out last week there's in the document releases that have occurred uh since July of 2025 there's FBI I documents in there.

[00:45:04]>> There are in the court record.

[00:45:06]>> Yeah. And they've been released. So, you know, I mean, as you pointed out last week, I'm stealing your idea. Are they going to have to claw that back? They never have. Um, they never have re-released those photos, those 3,000 more or less photos that were released and then pulled back. They've never re-released those, have they?

[00:45:25]>> No.

[00:45:27]>> Crazy. All right. So, your closing thoughts? My closing thoughts are I'm very interested in the state of Idaho now. I'm interested in the state of Idaho because I don't like this secrecy stuff and people shouldn't the evidence to prosecute a person especially when the death penalty was on the table should be open to the public because the public should know and I know I'm not a resident of Idaho but still we don't want secret prosecutions. That's just not what the United States is about.

[00:46:01]>> Yeah. And um we've asked our viewers uh before whether we should walk I was I was ready to walk away from the case. I was all ready to say, "Okay, history, let's step down." There's plenty of other cases like the Aaron Spencer case and like the sheriff who shot the judge and like the one you just mentioned earlier, the kids in Ohio. I mean, there's so many cases. We don't, you know, people accuse us of clickbait. You you just want clickbait. There's plenty of cases. There's a ton of cases. But, you know, I was ready to walk away, but two things happened. One, they just decided to drag out the whole process, which makes you look again. You know, when people say look away, what do you do? You look. And then the second thing is we asked our viewers, should we just should we move away? And by a huge majority, our own viewers and commenters said, no, we want you to stay on the case. So, that's my closing thought. But I'm going to have a plea as soon as we have um Lucky tell us that you could subscribe to this channel and do it for free.

[00:47:03]>> Do you pay for a subscription?

[00:47:04]>> I do not.

[00:47:06]>> Ask it differently. I'm going to allow that.

[00:47:08]>> Well, you know now because you follow.

[00:47:10]Do you pay for a subscription?

[00:47:11]>> I do not.

[00:47:12]>> Did you get one for free?

[00:47:14]>> Yes.

[00:47:15]>> I was not paying to any social media.

[00:47:19]>> All right, Mr. Brennan.

[00:47:21]>> Sorry. I have just a few more questions.

[00:47:24]It's denied.

[00:47:26]>> I was not paying to any social media.

[00:47:31]>> Okay.

[00:47:36]We don't sell merch. We don't run ads.

[00:47:39]We don't ask you for money. And uh you know, all we ask you to do is please go down below and click the like button uh and subscribe and give us a hype because those things are all free. Here's my plea. Here's my plea. My poor dog Lily is very, very, very sick. Some of you have seen her. We had her birthday party on here one time. Uh, we've shown her pictures. We've talked about her. Uh, she's kind of the office mascot here.

[00:48:04]She's 15 years old. She's very, very, very sick right now. She's been to the vet three times in the last week. Um, she has a neurological condition. She hasn't eaten for a week other than a tube of stuff we can force feed her. And so, I'm very, very, very worried about my dog, Lily. So, please give her a prayer, think about her, send us some good thoughts, and uh we'll give you an update cuz yes, I'm very worried about her. Um Yoli, what is our um emoji this week for people that have stayed with us through the whole episode? What emoji should we ask them to drop?

[00:48:38]>> I would say coffee to help us keep keep ourselves up to follow the cases.

[00:48:45]>> Is that because you're sitting in front of a coffee maker there? Is that what that is?

[00:48:49]>> The library. We're not going to dox you, but you moved out of the library and you're sitting in front of a coffee maker. Is that so you can get coffee real quick?

[00:48:56]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[00:48:58]>> Coffee.

[00:48:59]Coffee.

[00:49:01]All right. Thanks, Yoli. Thanks, folks.

[00:49:03]Let us know what you think. Like, subscribe, hype.

[00:49:07]Thank you. Whether you are in the grocery store, the gas station, or anywhere else, please remember to be kind to people. You don't know what they're going through. And the same goes for our comment section. We want you to comment, but be nice, be kind, be positive if you can. And thank you for watching. Be sure to like and subscribe.

[00:49:28]Have a good one.

[00:49:35]>> Okay.

[00:49:36]>> Okay.