Podcast appearances and mentions of eric faddis

The Netflix documentary doesn't stop at abuse allegations — it dives straight into the two most infamous unsolved murders in music history: Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G. With Keefe D now awaiting trial in Nevada, statements resurfacing from decades past, and former associates like Kirk Burrowes making explosive claims, many viewers are asking the same question: Is there any world where Diddy faces criminal charges? Defense attorney Eric Faddis breaks down exactly why these allegations haven't resulted in charges and what prosecutors actually need before they put anyone — especially a high-profile figure — in front of a grand jury. We examine Keefe D's interviews, his credibility problems, and the challenge of using a witness whose own confessions may undermine his reliability. Eric walks through the Burrowes journals, the allegations involving Eric “Von Zip” Martin, the cross-state car movements, and the claims of hidden compartments. Is any of that enough to reopen a cold case? Or is it circumstantial at best? We also explore whether acquittals in unrelated federal cases influence prosecutorial willingness to pursue old allegations, whether civil wrongful-death suits are still possible, and whether a future cooperation deal from Keefe D could implicate anyone else — including Diddy. We end on a crucial point: In criminal law, accusations alone mean nothing. Evidence is everything. #Diddy #Tupac #Biggie #EricFaddis #HiddenKillers #TrueCrimePodcast #TonyBrueski #HipHopHistory #LegalBreakdown #ColdCaseAnalysis Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Eighteen-year-old Anna Kepner died aboard a cruise ship. Her sixteen-year-old stepbrother has been identified as the suspect — not by police, not by the FBI, but through explosive court filings in a custody battle. The family acknowledges it. Witnesses describe aggression, chokeholds, and a dynamic the adults claim they never saw. And still: no charges. So what does this silence actually signal? Former prosecutor Eric Faddis explains why federal investigations move slowly, why cruise-ship deaths fall under complex jurisdictional rules, and what benchmarks investigators need before they pursue homicide charges involving a minor. We examine the digital trail (key-card logs, surveillance, onboard data), the fracture within the family, and how contradicting statements influence a prosecutor's strategy. Eric also walks through what a defense attorney would be doing right now behind the scenes — protecting a juvenile client, anticipating transfer hearings, and preparing for the moment charges finally drop. We discuss why custody documents are revealing more than the FBI, why investigators might be intentionally delaying charges, and what it means when a case hinges on both forensic evidence and family testimony. This case is quiet — too quiet — and Eric breaks down exactly what silence means in federal law. #AnnaKepner #CruiseShipCase #EricFaddis #HiddenKillers #TrueCrimePodcast #TonyBrueski #FederalInvestigation #LegalAnalysis #JusticeForAnna #TrueCrimeCommunity Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Three cases. Three firestorms. One attorney who cuts through the noise. In this extended episode, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins me to break down the legal chaos surrounding the Netflix documentary Sean Combs: The Reckoning, the explosive allegations linking Diddy to the murders of Tupac and Biggie, and the mysterious cruise-ship death of 18-year-old Anna Kepner, where a 16-year-old stepbrother is the named suspect — yet no charges have been filed. Part One: Diddy vs. Netflix We look at the cease-and-desist letter, the “stolen footage” accusations, and why Diddy hasn't filed the billion-dollar lawsuit he threatened. Eric explains the hurdles of copyright ownership, the brutal reality of defamation law for public figures, and how anti-SLAPP statutes could turn the whole thing back on Diddy. We also break down why 50 Cent's decades-long feud with Diddy isn't enough to create legal exposure on its own. Part Two: Tupac & Biggie Allegations Keefe D named Diddy 47 times across interviews. Kirk Burrowes says Diddy “ushered Biggie to his death.” Former LAPD detective Greg Kading lays out timelines and motive theories. But accusations do not equal evidence. Eric explains why none of this has triggered criminal charges, what prosecutors would actually need, and whether future cooperation deals could change the landscape. Part Three: The Anna Kepner Case A death at sea. A teenage suspect identified in legal filings, not by investigators. Conflicting family narratives, witnesses claiming aggression and chokeholds, and an FBI investigation happening entirely out of sight. Eric breaks down why the silence may be strategic, how federal cases involving minors unfold, and what the legal roadmap looks like behind closed doors. This episode pulls together the legal, psychological, and forensic threads of three highly complicated cases — and gives listeners a grounded, real-world understanding of what justice looks like when the spotlight is this bright. #DiddyCase #TupacAndBiggie #AnnaKepner #EricFaddis #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #TrueCrimePodcast #LegalAnalysis #NetflixDocumentary #TrueCrimeDiscussion Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Three cases. Three firestorms. One attorney who cuts through the noise. In this extended episode, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins me to break down the legal chaos surrounding the Netflix documentary Sean Combs: The Reckoning, the explosive allegations linking Diddy to the murders of Tupac and Biggie, and the mysterious cruise-ship death of 18-year-old Anna Kepner, where a 16-year-old stepbrother is the named suspect — yet no charges have been filed. Part One: Diddy vs. Netflix We look at the cease-and-desist letter, the “stolen footage” accusations, and why Diddy hasn't filed the billion-dollar lawsuit he threatened. Eric explains the hurdles of copyright ownership, the brutal reality of defamation law for public figures, and how anti-SLAPP statutes could turn the whole thing back on Diddy. We also break down why 50 Cent's decades-long feud with Diddy isn't enough to create legal exposure on its own. Part Two: Tupac & Biggie Allegations Keefe D named Diddy 47 times across interviews. Kirk Burrowes says Diddy “ushered Biggie to his death.” Former LAPD detective Greg Kading lays out timelines and motive theories. But accusations do not equal evidence. Eric explains why none of this has triggered criminal charges, what prosecutors would actually need, and whether future cooperation deals could change the landscape. Part Three: The Anna Kepner Case A death at sea. A teenage suspect identified in legal filings, not by investigators. Conflicting family narratives, witnesses claiming aggression and chokeholds, and an FBI investigation happening entirely out of sight. Eric breaks down why the silence may be strategic, how federal cases involving minors unfold, and what the legal roadmap looks like behind closed doors. This episode pulls together the legal, psychological, and forensic threads of three highly complicated cases — and gives listeners a grounded, real-world understanding of what justice looks like when the spotlight is this bright. #DiddyCase #TupacAndBiggie #AnnaKepner #EricFaddis #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #TrueCrimePodcast #LegalAnalysis #NetflixDocumentary #TrueCrimeDiscussion Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The Netflix documentary doesn't stop at abuse allegations — it dives straight into the two most infamous unsolved murders in music history: Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G. With Keefe D now awaiting trial in Nevada, statements resurfacing from decades past, and former associates like Kirk Burrowes making explosive claims, many viewers are asking the same question: Is there any world where Diddy faces criminal charges? Defense attorney Eric Faddis breaks down exactly why these allegations haven't resulted in charges and what prosecutors actually need before they put anyone — especially a high-profile figure — in front of a grand jury. We examine Keefe D's interviews, his credibility problems, and the challenge of using a witness whose own confessions may undermine his reliability. Eric walks through the Burrowes journals, the allegations involving Eric “Von Zip” Martin, the cross-state car movements, and the claims of hidden compartments. Is any of that enough to reopen a cold case? Or is it circumstantial at best? We also explore whether acquittals in unrelated federal cases influence prosecutorial willingness to pursue old allegations, whether civil wrongful-death suits are still possible, and whether a future cooperation deal from Keefe D could implicate anyone else — including Diddy. We end on a crucial point: In criminal law, accusations alone mean nothing. Evidence is everything. #Diddy #Tupac #Biggie #EricFaddis #HiddenKillers #TrueCrimePodcast #TonyBrueski #HipHopHistory #LegalBreakdown #ColdCaseAnalysis Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Eighteen-year-old Anna Kepner died aboard a cruise ship. Her sixteen-year-old stepbrother has been identified as the suspect — not by police, not by the FBI, but through explosive court filings in a custody battle. The family acknowledges it. Witnesses describe aggression, chokeholds, and a dynamic the adults claim they never saw. And still: no charges. So what does this silence actually signal? Former prosecutor Eric Faddis explains why federal investigations move slowly, why cruise-ship deaths fall under complex jurisdictional rules, and what benchmarks investigators need before they pursue homicide charges involving a minor. We examine the digital trail (key-card logs, surveillance, onboard data), the fracture within the family, and how contradicting statements influence a prosecutor's strategy. Eric also walks through what a defense attorney would be doing right now behind the scenes — protecting a juvenile client, anticipating transfer hearings, and preparing for the moment charges finally drop. We discuss why custody documents are revealing more than the FBI, why investigators might be intentionally delaying charges, and what it means when a case hinges on both forensic evidence and family testimony. This case is quiet — too quiet — and Eric breaks down exactly what silence means in federal law. #AnnaKepner #CruiseShipCase #EricFaddis #HiddenKillers #TrueCrimePodcast #TonyBrueski #FederalInvestigation #LegalAnalysis #JusticeForAnna #TrueCrimeCommunity Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Eighteen-year-old Anna Kepner died aboard a cruise ship. Her sixteen-year-old stepbrother has been identified as the suspect — not by police, not by the FBI, but through explosive court filings in a custody battle. The family acknowledges it. Witnesses describe aggression, chokeholds, and a dynamic the adults claim they never saw. And still: no charges. So what does this silence actually signal? Former prosecutor Eric Faddis explains why federal investigations move slowly, why cruise-ship deaths fall under complex jurisdictional rules, and what benchmarks investigators need before they pursue homicide charges involving a minor. We examine the digital trail (key-card logs, surveillance, onboard data), the fracture within the family, and how contradicting statements influence a prosecutor's strategy. Eric also walks through what a defense attorney would be doing right now behind the scenes — protecting a juvenile client, anticipating transfer hearings, and preparing for the moment charges finally drop. We discuss why custody documents are revealing more than the FBI, why investigators might be intentionally delaying charges, and what it means when a case hinges on both forensic evidence and family testimony. This case is quiet — too quiet — and Eric breaks down exactly what silence means in federal law. #AnnaKepner #CruiseShipCase #EricFaddis #HiddenKillers #TrueCrimePodcast #TonyBrueski #FederalInvestigation #LegalAnalysis #JusticeForAnna #TrueCrimeCommunity Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Three cases. Three firestorms. One attorney who cuts through the noise. In this extended episode, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins me to break down the legal chaos surrounding the Netflix documentary Sean Combs: The Reckoning, the explosive allegations linking Diddy to the murders of Tupac and Biggie, and the mysterious cruise-ship death of 18-year-old Anna Kepner, where a 16-year-old stepbrother is the named suspect — yet no charges have been filed. Part One: Diddy vs. Netflix We look at the cease-and-desist letter, the “stolen footage” accusations, and why Diddy hasn't filed the billion-dollar lawsuit he threatened. Eric explains the hurdles of copyright ownership, the brutal reality of defamation law for public figures, and how anti-SLAPP statutes could turn the whole thing back on Diddy. We also break down why 50 Cent's decades-long feud with Diddy isn't enough to create legal exposure on its own. Part Two: Tupac & Biggie Allegations Keefe D named Diddy 47 times across interviews. Kirk Burrowes says Diddy “ushered Biggie to his death.” Former LAPD detective Greg Kading lays out timelines and motive theories. But accusations do not equal evidence. Eric explains why none of this has triggered criminal charges, what prosecutors would actually need, and whether future cooperation deals could change the landscape. Part Three: The Anna Kepner Case A death at sea. A teenage suspect identified in legal filings, not by investigators. Conflicting family narratives, witnesses claiming aggression and chokeholds, and an FBI investigation happening entirely out of sight. Eric breaks down why the silence may be strategic, how federal cases involving minors unfold, and what the legal roadmap looks like behind closed doors. This episode pulls together the legal, psychological, and forensic threads of three highly complicated cases — and gives listeners a grounded, real-world understanding of what justice looks like when the spotlight is this bright. #DiddyCase #TupacAndBiggie #AnnaKepner #EricFaddis #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #TrueCrimePodcast #LegalAnalysis #NetflixDocumentary #TrueCrimeDiscussion Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The Netflix documentary doesn't stop at abuse allegations — it dives straight into the two most infamous unsolved murders in music history: Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G. With Keefe D now awaiting trial in Nevada, statements resurfacing from decades past, and former associates like Kirk Burrowes making explosive claims, many viewers are asking the same question: Is there any world where Diddy faces criminal charges? Defense attorney Eric Faddis breaks down exactly why these allegations haven't resulted in charges and what prosecutors actually need before they put anyone — especially a high-profile figure — in front of a grand jury. We examine Keefe D's interviews, his credibility problems, and the challenge of using a witness whose own confessions may undermine his reliability. Eric walks through the Burrowes journals, the allegations involving Eric “Von Zip” Martin, the cross-state car movements, and the claims of hidden compartments. Is any of that enough to reopen a cold case? Or is it circumstantial at best? We also explore whether acquittals in unrelated federal cases influence prosecutorial willingness to pursue old allegations, whether civil wrongful-death suits are still possible, and whether a future cooperation deal from Keefe D could implicate anyone else — including Diddy. We end on a crucial point: In criminal law, accusations alone mean nothing. Evidence is everything. #Diddy #Tupac #Biggie #EricFaddis #HiddenKillers #TrueCrimePodcast #TonyBrueski #HipHopHistory #LegalBreakdown #ColdCaseAnalysis Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The Netflix documentary doesn't stop at abuse allegations — it dives straight into the two most infamous unsolved murders in music history: Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G. With Keefe D now awaiting trial in Nevada, statements resurfacing from decades past, and former associates like Kirk Burrowes making explosive claims, many viewers are asking the same question: Is there any world where Diddy faces criminal charges? Defense attorney Eric Faddis breaks down exactly why these allegations haven't resulted in charges and what prosecutors actually need before they put anyone — especially a high-profile figure — in front of a grand jury. We examine Keefe D's interviews, his credibility problems, and the challenge of using a witness whose own confessions may undermine his reliability. Eric walks through the Burrowes journals, the allegations involving Eric “Von Zip” Martin, the cross-state car movements, and the claims of hidden compartments. Is any of that enough to reopen a cold case? Or is it circumstantial at best? We also explore whether acquittals in unrelated federal cases influence prosecutorial willingness to pursue old allegations, whether civil wrongful-death suits are still possible, and whether a future cooperation deal from Keefe D could implicate anyone else — including Diddy. We end on a crucial point: In criminal law, accusations alone mean nothing. Evidence is everything. #Diddy #Tupac #Biggie #EricFaddis #HiddenKillers #TrueCrimePodcast #TonyBrueski #HipHopHistory #LegalBreakdown #ColdCaseAnalysis Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Three cases. Three firestorms. One attorney who cuts through the noise. In this extended episode, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins me to break down the legal chaos surrounding the Netflix documentary Sean Combs: The Reckoning, the explosive allegations linking Diddy to the murders of Tupac and Biggie, and the mysterious cruise-ship death of 18-year-old Anna Kepner, where a 16-year-old stepbrother is the named suspect — yet no charges have been filed. Part One: Diddy vs. Netflix We look at the cease-and-desist letter, the “stolen footage” accusations, and why Diddy hasn't filed the billion-dollar lawsuit he threatened. Eric explains the hurdles of copyright ownership, the brutal reality of defamation law for public figures, and how anti-SLAPP statutes could turn the whole thing back on Diddy. We also break down why 50 Cent's decades-long feud with Diddy isn't enough to create legal exposure on its own. Part Two: Tupac & Biggie Allegations Keefe D named Diddy 47 times across interviews. Kirk Burrowes says Diddy “ushered Biggie to his death.” Former LAPD detective Greg Kading lays out timelines and motive theories. But accusations do not equal evidence. Eric explains why none of this has triggered criminal charges, what prosecutors would actually need, and whether future cooperation deals could change the landscape. Part Three: The Anna Kepner Case A death at sea. A teenage suspect identified in legal filings, not by investigators. Conflicting family narratives, witnesses claiming aggression and chokeholds, and an FBI investigation happening entirely out of sight. Eric breaks down why the silence may be strategic, how federal cases involving minors unfold, and what the legal roadmap looks like behind closed doors. This episode pulls together the legal, psychological, and forensic threads of three highly complicated cases — and gives listeners a grounded, real-world understanding of what justice looks like when the spotlight is this bright. #DiddyCase #TupacAndBiggie #AnnaKepner #EricFaddis #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #TrueCrimePodcast #LegalAnalysis #NetflixDocumentary #TrueCrimeDiscussion Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Before the Netflix documentary Sean Combs: The Reckoning even aired, Diddy's legal team fired off a cease-and-desist letter. They called the documentary a “shameful hit piece,” claimed the footage was “stolen,” and floated the idea of a billion-dollar lawsuit. And yet… nothing. No lawsuit. No emergency injunction. No filings. So what is actually happening here? In this segment, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down the legal truth behind Diddy's threats. We examine what it would take for Diddy to win a copyright claim over footage filmed by his own videographer — especially when some reports say there were no formal contracts at all. Eric explains how ownership works, how intellectual property law overlaps with employment agreements, and why “stolen footage” is much harder to prove than people realize. We then dig into defamation. Diddy is a public figure — which means the “actual malice” standard applies. Eric walks us through how extraordinarily difficult it is for celebrities to win defamation cases, especially when a documentary includes on-camera statements from people like Kirk Burrowes rather than direct factual claims made by Netflix. We also discuss Diddy's active lawsuit against NBCUniversal, how his own sentencing-day statements may have severely weakened his claims, and whether 50 Cent — a vocal adversary — exposes himself to additional liability as an executive producer. Finally, we break down how New York's anti-SLAPP laws could turn the tables entirely, forcing Diddy to pay Netflix's legal fees if a defamation claim is deemed retaliatory. This is where legal threats meet actual law — and those two worlds rarely look the same. #DiddyCase #NetflixDoc #EricFaddis #LegalAnalysis #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #SeanCombs #DefamationLaw #TrueCrimePodcast #50Cent Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Before the Netflix documentary Sean Combs: The Reckoning even aired, Diddy's legal team fired off a cease-and-desist letter. They called the documentary a “shameful hit piece,” claimed the footage was “stolen,” and floated the idea of a billion-dollar lawsuit. And yet… nothing. No lawsuit. No emergency injunction. No filings. So what is actually happening here? In this segment, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down the legal truth behind Diddy's threats. We examine what it would take for Diddy to win a copyright claim over footage filmed by his own videographer — especially when some reports say there were no formal contracts at all. Eric explains how ownership works, how intellectual property law overlaps with employment agreements, and why “stolen footage” is much harder to prove than people realize. We then dig into defamation. Diddy is a public figure — which means the “actual malice” standard applies. Eric walks us through how extraordinarily difficult it is for celebrities to win defamation cases, especially when a documentary includes on-camera statements from people like Kirk Burrowes rather than direct factual claims made by Netflix. We also discuss Diddy's active lawsuit against NBCUniversal, how his own sentencing-day statements may have severely weakened his claims, and whether 50 Cent — a vocal adversary — exposes himself to additional liability as an executive producer. Finally, we break down how New York's anti-SLAPP laws could turn the tables entirely, forcing Diddy to pay Netflix's legal fees if a defamation claim is deemed retaliatory. This is where legal threats meet actual law — and those two worlds rarely look the same. #DiddyCase #NetflixDoc #EricFaddis #LegalAnalysis #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #SeanCombs #DefamationLaw #TrueCrimePodcast #50Cent Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Before the Netflix documentary Sean Combs: The Reckoning even aired, Diddy's legal team fired off a cease-and-desist letter. They called the documentary a “shameful hit piece,” claimed the footage was “stolen,” and floated the idea of a billion-dollar lawsuit. And yet… nothing. No lawsuit. No emergency injunction. No filings. So what is actually happening here? In this segment, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down the legal truth behind Diddy's threats. We examine what it would take for Diddy to win a copyright claim over footage filmed by his own videographer — especially when some reports say there were no formal contracts at all. Eric explains how ownership works, how intellectual property law overlaps with employment agreements, and why “stolen footage” is much harder to prove than people realize. We then dig into defamation. Diddy is a public figure — which means the “actual malice” standard applies. Eric walks us through how extraordinarily difficult it is for celebrities to win defamation cases, especially when a documentary includes on-camera statements from people like Kirk Burrowes rather than direct factual claims made by Netflix. We also discuss Diddy's active lawsuit against NBCUniversal, how his own sentencing-day statements may have severely weakened his claims, and whether 50 Cent — a vocal adversary — exposes himself to additional liability as an executive producer. Finally, we break down how New York's anti-SLAPP laws could turn the tables entirely, forcing Diddy to pay Netflix's legal fees if a defamation claim is deemed retaliatory. This is where legal threats meet actual law — and those two worlds rarely look the same. #DiddyCase #NetflixDoc #EricFaddis #LegalAnalysis #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #SeanCombs #DefamationLaw #TrueCrimePodcast #50Cent Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Before the Netflix documentary Sean Combs: The Reckoning even aired, Diddy's legal team fired off a cease-and-desist letter. They called the documentary a “shameful hit piece,” claimed the footage was “stolen,” and floated the idea of a billion-dollar lawsuit. And yet… nothing. No lawsuit. No emergency injunction. No filings. So what is actually happening here? In this segment, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down the legal truth behind Diddy's threats. We examine what it would take for Diddy to win a copyright claim over footage filmed by his own videographer — especially when some reports say there were no formal contracts at all. Eric explains how ownership works, how intellectual property law overlaps with employment agreements, and why “stolen footage” is much harder to prove than people realize. We then dig into defamation. Diddy is a public figure — which means the “actual malice” standard applies. Eric walks us through how extraordinarily difficult it is for celebrities to win defamation cases, especially when a documentary includes on-camera statements from people like Kirk Burrowes rather than direct factual claims made by Netflix. We also discuss Diddy's active lawsuit against NBCUniversal, how his own sentencing-day statements may have severely weakened his claims, and whether 50 Cent — a vocal adversary — exposes himself to additional liability as an executive producer. Finally, we break down how New York's anti-SLAPP laws could turn the tables entirely, forcing Diddy to pay Netflix's legal fees if a defamation claim is deemed retaliatory. This is where legal threats meet actual law — and those two worlds rarely look the same. #DiddyCase #NetflixDoc #EricFaddis #LegalAnalysis #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #SeanCombs #DefamationLaw #TrueCrimePodcast #50Cent Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Prosecutors in the Brian Walshe murder trial are trying to do something extremely rare: prove first-degree murder without a body, without a weapon, and without a confirmed cause of death. Ana Walshe has never been found. But what the Commonwealth does have is a digital trail that reads like a blueprint for premeditated murder — and a defendant positioned to receive $2.7 million in life insurance if his wife died. According to testimony from Massachusetts State Police Trooper Nicholas Guarino, the searches began at 4:52 a.m. on New Year's Day: “Best way to dispose of a body.” Three minutes later: “How long before a body starts to smell.” Over the next several days, the searches continued and escalated — questions about DNA degradation, dismemberment tools, identifying remains with broken teeth, and research into serial killer Patrick Kearney, the so-called “trash bag killer.” Day 5 testimony took the case even deeper. Trooper Connor Keefe read dozens of text messages Brian allegedly sent to Ana's phone for three days after prosecutors say she was already dead. None were delivered. Her phone was never recovered. In court, jurors also saw the tools investigators pulled from a Swampscott dumpster — a hacksaw, hatchet, hammer, shears, tape, even a measuring cup — items prosecutors say Brian used to dismember her body. Former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins us to assess the strength of the Commonwealth's case, the role of circumstantial evidence in no-body prosecutions, and how the defense is trying to introduce doubt through marital context and investigative missteps. Brian Walshe admits he disposed of Ana's body — but the jury doesn't know that. Now the question is whether the prosecution has enough to prove he killed her. Subscribe for daily trial updates. #BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #WalsheTrial #TrueCrimeNews #MurderTrial #TrialCoverage #LifeInsuranceCase #DigitalEvidence #TrueCrimePodcast #CourtroomAnalysis Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Prosecutors in the Brian Walshe murder trial are trying to do something extremely rare: prove first-degree murder without a body, without a weapon, and without a confirmed cause of death. Ana Walshe has never been found. But what the Commonwealth does have is a digital trail that reads like a blueprint for premeditated murder — and a defendant positioned to receive $2.7 million in life insurance if his wife died. According to testimony from Massachusetts State Police Trooper Nicholas Guarino, the searches began at 4:52 a.m. on New Year's Day: “Best way to dispose of a body.” Three minutes later: “How long before a body starts to smell.” Over the next several days, the searches continued and escalated — questions about DNA degradation, dismemberment tools, identifying remains with broken teeth, and research into serial killer Patrick Kearney, the so-called “trash bag killer.” Day 5 testimony took the case even deeper. Trooper Connor Keefe read dozens of text messages Brian allegedly sent to Ana's phone for three days after prosecutors say she was already dead. None were delivered. Her phone was never recovered. In court, jurors also saw the tools investigators pulled from a Swampscott dumpster — a hacksaw, hatchet, hammer, shears, tape, even a measuring cup — items prosecutors say Brian used to dismember her body. Former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins us to assess the strength of the Commonwealth's case, the role of circumstantial evidence in no-body prosecutions, and how the defense is trying to introduce doubt through marital context and investigative missteps. Brian Walshe admits he disposed of Ana's body — but the jury doesn't know that. Now the question is whether the prosecution has enough to prove he killed her. Subscribe for daily trial updates. #BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #WalsheTrial #TrueCrimeNews #MurderTrial #TrialCoverage #LifeInsuranceCase #DigitalEvidence #TrueCrimePodcast #CourtroomAnalysis Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Brian Walshe is currently on trial for the murder of his wife Ana Walshe, a mother of three who vanished from their Cohasset, Massachusetts home on New Year's Day 2023. Her body has never been found. But here's where this case takes a turn that legal experts are still trying to wrap their heads around: two weeks before trial, Walshe pleaded guilty to disposing of his wife's body and lying to police. He admitted, in open court, that he dismembered Ana and discarded her remains in dumpsters across the region. And yet he's standing in front of a jury right now saying he didn't kill her. The defense theory? Ana Walshe died suddenly and unexpectedly in their bed in the early hours of New Year's Day. No cause. No explanation. Just gone. Defense attorney Larry Tipton told jurors that his client panicked when he found his wife unresponsive. That he didn't think anyone would believe her death was natural. That his only thought was protecting their three young boys. So instead of calling 911, Brian Walshe allegedly grabbed a hacksaw. In this episode, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down what might be the boldest — or most reckless — defense strategy we've seen in years. We dig into the tactical decision to plead guilty to the lesser charges right before trial. Is this about limiting what evidence the jury sees, or did the defense just hand prosecutors a gift? How do you sell "sudden unexplained death" to a jury when your client then cut up the body? And how do you rehabilitate a defendant's credibility when his own lawyer admitted he lied in every single police interview? Eric walks us through what the defense needs to prove, what experts they might call, and whether putting Walshe on the stand is a necessary risk or a fatal mistake. This is a case where the defense has already conceded consciousness of guilt — now they have to convince twelve people that consciousness of guilt doesn't mean guilt. We break down whether that's even possible. #BrianWalshe #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #WalsheDefense #SuddenUnexplainedDeath #MurderTrial #EricFaddis #DefenseStrategy #MassachusettsMurderTrial #TrueCrime #CourtAnalysis #LegalAnalysis #DismembermentCase #NoBodyMurder #CriminalDefense #TrialStrategy #Cohasset #TrueCrimeCommunity #CriminalJustice #CourtRoom Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Brian Walshe is currently on trial for the murder of his wife Ana Walshe, a mother of three who vanished from their Cohasset, Massachusetts home on New Year's Day 2023. Her body has never been found. But here's where this case takes a turn that legal experts are still trying to wrap their heads around: two weeks before trial, Walshe pleaded guilty to disposing of his wife's body and lying to police. He admitted, in open court, that he dismembered Ana and discarded her remains in dumpsters across the region. And yet he's standing in front of a jury right now saying he didn't kill her. The defense theory? Ana Walshe died suddenly and unexpectedly in their bed in the early hours of New Year's Day. No cause. No explanation. Just gone. Defense attorney Larry Tipton told jurors that his client panicked when he found his wife unresponsive. That he didn't think anyone would believe her death was natural. That his only thought was protecting their three young boys. So instead of calling 911, Brian Walshe allegedly grabbed a hacksaw. In this episode, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down what might be the boldest — or most reckless — defense strategy we've seen in years. We dig into the tactical decision to plead guilty to the lesser charges right before trial. Is this about limiting what evidence the jury sees, or did the defense just hand prosecutors a gift? How do you sell "sudden unexplained death" to a jury when your client then cut up the body? And how do you rehabilitate a defendant's credibility when his own lawyer admitted he lied in every single police interview? Eric walks us through what the defense needs to prove, what experts they might call, and whether putting Walshe on the stand is a necessary risk or a fatal mistake. This is a case where the defense has already conceded consciousness of guilt — now they have to convince twelve people that consciousness of guilt doesn't mean guilt. We break down whether that's even possible. #BrianWalshe #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #WalsheDefense #SuddenUnexplainedDeath #MurderTrial #EricFaddis #DefenseStrategy #MassachusettsMurderTrial #TrueCrime #CourtAnalysis #LegalAnalysis #DismembermentCase #NoBodyMurder #CriminalDefense #TrialStrategy #Cohasset #TrueCrimeCommunity #CriminalJustice #CourtRoom Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Brian Walshe is currently on trial for the murder of his wife Ana Walshe, a mother of three who vanished from their Cohasset, Massachusetts home on New Year's Day 2023. Her body has never been found. But here's where this case takes a turn that legal experts are still trying to wrap their heads around: two weeks before trial, Walshe pleaded guilty to disposing of his wife's body and lying to police. He admitted, in open court, that he dismembered Ana and discarded her remains in dumpsters across the region. And yet he's standing in front of a jury right now saying he didn't kill her. The defense theory? Ana Walshe died suddenly and unexpectedly in their bed in the early hours of New Year's Day. No cause. No explanation. Just gone. Defense attorney Larry Tipton told jurors that his client panicked when he found his wife unresponsive. That he didn't think anyone would believe her death was natural. That his only thought was protecting their three young boys. So instead of calling 911, Brian Walshe allegedly grabbed a hacksaw. In this episode, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down what might be the boldest — or most reckless — defense strategy we've seen in years. We dig into the tactical decision to plead guilty to the lesser charges right before trial. Is this about limiting what evidence the jury sees, or did the defense just hand prosecutors a gift? How do you sell "sudden unexplained death" to a jury when your client then cut up the body? And how do you rehabilitate a defendant's credibility when his own lawyer admitted he lied in every single police interview? Eric walks us through what the defense needs to prove, what experts they might call, and whether putting Walshe on the stand is a necessary risk or a fatal mistake. This is a case where the defense has already conceded consciousness of guilt — now they have to convince twelve people that consciousness of guilt doesn't mean guilt. We break down whether that's even possible. #BrianWalshe #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #WalsheDefense #SuddenUnexplainedDeath #MurderTrial #EricFaddis #DefenseStrategy #MassachusettsMurderTrial #TrueCrime #CourtAnalysis #LegalAnalysis #DismembermentCase #NoBodyMurder #CriminalDefense #TrialStrategy #Cohasset #TrueCrimeCommunity #CriminalJustice #CourtRoom Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Brian Walshe is on trial right now in Dedham, Massachusetts for the first-degree murder of his wife Ana — a 39-year-old real estate executive, immigrant from Serbia, and mother of three young boys. Ana was last seen alive in the early hours of New Year's Day 2023. Her body has never been found. But what prosecutors and the defense agree on is this: Brian Walshe dismembered her remains and discarded them in dumpsters across the region. He's already pleaded guilty to that. He just says he didn't kill her. The defense theory is unlike anything we've seen in a high-profile murder case. Attorney Larry Tipton told jurors that Ana Walshe died suddenly and unexpectedly in bed — no cause, no explanation — and that Brian panicked. He didn't think anyone would believe it was natural. So instead of calling 911, he made a series of catastrophic decisions that included internet searches for "best way to dispose of a body," "hacksaw best tool for dismembering," and research into a serial killer known as the "trash bag killer." The defense says those searches prove panic, not premeditation. Prosecutors see it differently. They've told the jury this was a planned killing motivated by money and betrayal. Ana had $2.7 million in life insurance policies naming Brian as the sole beneficiary. She was also having an affair with William Fastow, a D.C. real estate broker — and prosecutors say Brian knew. His phone searched Fastow's name on Christmas Day, less than a week before Ana vanished. The internet searches, prosecutors argue, aren't evidence of panic. They're a roadmap. In this full breakdown, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins me to dissect every angle of this case. We start with the defense strategy: the decision to plead guilty to the lesser charges, the viability of the "sudden death" theory, and whether putting Walshe on the stand is a necessary gamble. Then we dig into the prosecution's case: the digital evidence, the insurance motive, the affair, and the challenges of proving first-degree murder without a body. Finally, we examine the trial dynamics — including the Michael Proctor scandal, Walshe's jail stabbing and mental competency evaluation, and what to watch as this case heads toward a verdict. This is a case that will test the limits of circumstantial evidence and force a jury to answer an almost impossible question: Can you believe a man who admits he cut up his wife when he says he didn't kill her? #BrianWalshe #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #MurderTrial #EricFaddis #DefenseAttorney #FormerProsecutor #FullBreakdown #NoBodyMurder #Dismemberment #LifeInsurance #GoogleSearches #MichaelProctor #KarenRead #Massachusetts #TrueCrime #CourtTV #TrialAnalysis #Cohasset #SuddenDeathDefense #WilliamFastow #FirstDegreeMurder #CircumstantialEvidence #CriminalJustice #TrueCrimePodcast #LegalAnalysis #DeepDive Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Brian Walshe is on trial right now in Dedham, Massachusetts for the first-degree murder of his wife Ana — a 39-year-old real estate executive, immigrant from Serbia, and mother of three young boys. Ana was last seen alive in the early hours of New Year's Day 2023. Her body has never been found. But what prosecutors and the defense agree on is this: Brian Walshe dismembered her remains and discarded them in dumpsters across the region. He's already pleaded guilty to that. He just says he didn't kill her. The defense theory is unlike anything we've seen in a high-profile murder case. Attorney Larry Tipton told jurors that Ana Walshe died suddenly and unexpectedly in bed — no cause, no explanation — and that Brian panicked. He didn't think anyone would believe it was natural. So instead of calling 911, he made a series of catastrophic decisions that included internet searches for "best way to dispose of a body," "hacksaw best tool for dismembering," and research into a serial killer known as the "trash bag killer." The defense says those searches prove panic, not premeditation. Prosecutors see it differently. They've told the jury this was a planned killing motivated by money and betrayal. Ana had $2.7 million in life insurance policies naming Brian as the sole beneficiary. She was also having an affair with William Fastow, a D.C. real estate broker — and prosecutors say Brian knew. His phone searched Fastow's name on Christmas Day, less than a week before Ana vanished. The internet searches, prosecutors argue, aren't evidence of panic. They're a roadmap. In this full breakdown, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins me to dissect every angle of this case. We start with the defense strategy: the decision to plead guilty to the lesser charges, the viability of the "sudden death" theory, and whether putting Walshe on the stand is a necessary gamble. Then we dig into the prosecution's case: the digital evidence, the insurance motive, the affair, and the challenges of proving first-degree murder without a body. Finally, we examine the trial dynamics — including the Michael Proctor scandal, Walshe's jail stabbing and mental competency evaluation, and what to watch as this case heads toward a verdict. This is a case that will test the limits of circumstantial evidence and force a jury to answer an almost impossible question: Can you believe a man who admits he cut up his wife when he says he didn't kill her? #BrianWalshe #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #MurderTrial #EricFaddis #DefenseAttorney #FormerProsecutor #FullBreakdown #NoBodyMurder #Dismemberment #LifeInsurance #GoogleSearches #MichaelProctor #KarenRead #Massachusetts #TrueCrime #CourtTV #TrialAnalysis #Cohasset #SuddenDeathDefense #WilliamFastow #FirstDegreeMurder #CircumstantialEvidence #CriminalJustice #TrueCrimePodcast #LegalAnalysis #DeepDive Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Brian Walshe is on trial right now in Dedham, Massachusetts for the first-degree murder of his wife Ana — a 39-year-old real estate executive, immigrant from Serbia, and mother of three young boys. Ana was last seen alive in the early hours of New Year's Day 2023. Her body has never been found. But what prosecutors and the defense agree on is this: Brian Walshe dismembered her remains and discarded them in dumpsters across the region. He's already pleaded guilty to that. He just says he didn't kill her. The defense theory is unlike anything we've seen in a high-profile murder case. Attorney Larry Tipton told jurors that Ana Walshe died suddenly and unexpectedly in bed — no cause, no explanation — and that Brian panicked. He didn't think anyone would believe it was natural. So instead of calling 911, he made a series of catastrophic decisions that included internet searches for "best way to dispose of a body," "hacksaw best tool for dismembering," and research into a serial killer known as the "trash bag killer." The defense says those searches prove panic, not premeditation. Prosecutors see it differently. They've told the jury this was a planned killing motivated by money and betrayal. Ana had $2.7 million in life insurance policies naming Brian as the sole beneficiary. She was also having an affair with William Fastow, a D.C. real estate broker — and prosecutors say Brian knew. His phone searched Fastow's name on Christmas Day, less than a week before Ana vanished. The internet searches, prosecutors argue, aren't evidence of panic. They're a roadmap. In this full breakdown, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins me to dissect every angle of this case. We start with the defense strategy: the decision to plead guilty to the lesser charges, the viability of the "sudden death" theory, and whether putting Walshe on the stand is a necessary gamble. Then we dig into the prosecution's case: the digital evidence, the insurance motive, the affair, and the challenges of proving first-degree murder without a body. Finally, we examine the trial dynamics — including the Michael Proctor scandal, Walshe's jail stabbing and mental competency evaluation, and what to watch as this case heads toward a verdict. This is a case that will test the limits of circumstantial evidence and force a jury to answer an almost impossible question: Can you believe a man who admits he cut up his wife when he says he didn't kill her? #BrianWalshe #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #MurderTrial #EricFaddis #DefenseAttorney #FormerProsecutor #FullBreakdown #NoBodyMurder #Dismemberment #LifeInsurance #GoogleSearches #MichaelProctor #KarenRead #Massachusetts #TrueCrime #CourtTV #TrialAnalysis #Cohasset #SuddenDeathDefense #WilliamFastow #FirstDegreeMurder #CircumstantialEvidence #CriminalJustice #TrueCrimePodcast #LegalAnalysis #DeepDive Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Brian Walshe is currently on trial for the murder of his wife Ana Walshe, a mother of three who vanished from their Cohasset, Massachusetts home on New Year's Day 2023. Her body has never been found. But here's where this case takes a turn that legal experts are still trying to wrap their heads around: two weeks before trial, Walshe pleaded guilty to disposing of his wife's body and lying to police. He admitted, in open court, that he dismembered Ana and discarded her remains in dumpsters across the region. And yet he's standing in front of a jury right now saying he didn't kill her. The defense theory? Ana Walshe died suddenly and unexpectedly in their bed in the early hours of New Year's Day. No cause. No explanation. Just gone. Defense attorney Larry Tipton told jurors that his client panicked when he found his wife unresponsive. That he didn't think anyone would believe her death was natural. That his only thought was protecting their three young boys. So instead of calling 911, Brian Walshe allegedly grabbed a hacksaw. In this episode, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down what might be the boldest — or most reckless — defense strategy we've seen in years. We dig into the tactical decision to plead guilty to the lesser charges right before trial. Is this about limiting what evidence the jury sees, or did the defense just hand prosecutors a gift? How do you sell "sudden unexplained death" to a jury when your client then cut up the body? And how do you rehabilitate a defendant's credibility when his own lawyer admitted he lied in every single police interview? Eric walks us through what the defense needs to prove, what experts they might call, and whether putting Walshe on the stand is a necessary risk or a fatal mistake. This is a case where the defense has already conceded consciousness of guilt — now they have to convince twelve people that consciousness of guilt doesn't mean guilt. We break down whether that's even possible. #BrianWalshe #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #WalsheDefense #SuddenUnexplainedDeath #MurderTrial #EricFaddis #DefenseStrategy #MassachusettsMurderTrial #TrueCrime #CourtAnalysis #LegalAnalysis #DismembermentCase #NoBodyMurder #CriminalDefense #TrialStrategy #Cohasset #TrueCrimeCommunity #CriminalJustice #CourtRoom Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Prosecutors in the Brian Walshe murder trial are trying to prove first-degree murder without a body, without a murder weapon, and without a definitive cause of death. Ana Walshe has never been found. What the Commonwealth does have is a digital trail that reads like a step-by-step guide to getting away with murder — and a defendant who stood to collect $2.7 million in life insurance if his wife died. The internet searches are the backbone of the prosecution's case, and they are brutal. According to testimony from Massachusetts State Police Trooper Nicholas Guarino, the searches began at 4:52 a.m. on January 1, 2023 — just hours after the couple celebrated New Year's Eve with a friend. That first search: "Best way to dispose of a body." By 4:55 a.m., Walshe had moved on to "How long before a body starts to smell." Over the next several days, the searches continued: "How long does DNA last." "Hacksaw best tool for dismembering." "Can you be charged with murder without a body." "Can you identify a body with broken teeth." He even researched Patrick Kearney — a serial killer known as the "trash bag killer." Prosecutors also have motive. Ana Walshe had taken out $2.7 million in life insurance policies naming her husband as the sole beneficiary. And according to the prosecution, Brian Walshe knew his wife was having an affair with William Fastow, a Washington D.C. real estate broker who sold Ana the townhouse she owned there. Prosecutors say Walshe's phone searched Fastow's name on Christmas Day — less than a week before Ana disappeared. In this episode, former prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down the strength of the Commonwealth's case. We discuss how prosecutors prove premeditation through circumstantial evidence, whether the internet searches are as damning as they appear, and what the defense can do to poke holes in the timeline. Eric also explains the challenges of no-body murder cases and what the conviction rates actually look like. The prosecution may not have Ana Walshe's remains, but they're betting they have enough to put her husband away for life. #BrianWalshe #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #ProsecutionCase #GoogleSearches #LifeInsuranceMurder #NoBodyMurderCase #CircumstantialEvidence #EricFaddis #TrueCrime #MurderTrial #WilliamFastow #AffairMotive #Hacksaw #Dismemberment #FirstDegreeMurder #Premeditation #MassachusettsTrial #CriminalJustice #TrueCrimePodcast Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The Brian Walshe murder trial isn't just about the evidence — it's about the dynamics surrounding the case that could influence how this jury sees everything. And there are some significant wildcards in play that most people aren't talking about. First, there's the Michael Proctor connection. Proctor, the disgraced Massachusetts State Police trooper who was fired for misconduct during the Karen Read investigation, also worked the Walshe case. Several investigators tied to the Proctor scandal may be called as witnesses. The defense has every reason to lean into this — if they can paint the investigation as tainted or sloppy, it creates doubt. And after what happened in the Karen Read trial, Massachusetts juries may be more skeptical of state police testimony than they've ever been. Then there's what happened to Walshe himself. In September 2025, he was stabbed in jail at the Norfolk County Correctional Center. His attorneys pushed for a trial delay, arguing he couldn't adequately assist in his own defense after the attack. The judge ordered a 40-day mental health evaluation at Bridgewater State Hospital. Walshe was cleared to stand trial just two weeks before opening statements. The jury won't hear about any of that — but it's context that matters for understanding where this defendant's head might be. And then there's the fundamental problem the jury has to wrestle with: Brian Walshe has already admitted he disposed of his wife's body. He pleaded guilty to it. Now they have to decide if they can separate that admission from the murder charge. Legally, they're supposed to. Psychologically? That's a different question. In this episode, Eric Faddis breaks down the trial dynamics that could shape the outcome. We discuss how the Proctor scandal might be weaponized by the defense, what "consciousness of guilt" jury instructions actually mean, and what typically makes or breaks no-body murder cases. Eric also tells us what he's watching for as this trial moves into its second week. #BrianWalshe #BrianWalsheTrial #MichaelProctor #KarenReadCase #MassachusettsStatePolice #NoBodyMurder #JuryInstructions #ConsciousnessOfGuilt #MentalCompetency #EricFaddis #TrueCrime #TrialAnalysis #WhatToWatch #LegalAnalysis #NorfolkCounty #Dedham #CriminalJustice #TrueCrimeCommunity #CourtAnalysis #TrialDynamics Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Brian Walshe is currently on trial for the murder of his wife Ana Walshe, a mother of three who vanished from their Cohasset, Massachusetts home on New Year's Day 2023. Her body has never been found. But here's where this case takes a turn that legal experts are still trying to wrap their heads around: two weeks before trial, Walshe pleaded guilty to disposing of his wife's body and lying to police. He admitted, in open court, that he dismembered Ana and discarded her remains in dumpsters across the region. And yet he's standing in front of a jury right now saying he didn't kill her. The defense theory? Ana Walshe died suddenly and unexpectedly in their bed in the early hours of New Year's Day. No cause. No explanation. Just gone. Defense attorney Larry Tipton told jurors that his client panicked when he found his wife unresponsive. That he didn't think anyone would believe her death was natural. That his only thought was protecting their three young boys. So instead of calling 911, Brian Walshe allegedly grabbed a hacksaw. In this episode, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down what might be the boldest — or most reckless — defense strategy we've seen in years. We dig into the tactical decision to plead guilty to the lesser charges right before trial. Is this about limiting what evidence the jury sees, or did the defense just hand prosecutors a gift? How do you sell "sudden unexplained death" to a jury when your client then cut up the body? And how do you rehabilitate a defendant's credibility when his own lawyer admitted he lied in every single police interview? Eric walks us through what the defense needs to prove, what experts they might call, and whether putting Walshe on the stand is a necessary risk or a fatal mistake. This is a case where the defense has already conceded consciousness of guilt — now they have to convince twelve people that consciousness of guilt doesn't mean guilt. We break down whether that's even possible. #BrianWalshe #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #WalsheDefense #SuddenUnexplainedDeath #MurderTrial #EricFaddis #DefenseStrategy #MassachusettsMurderTrial #TrueCrime #CourtAnalysis #LegalAnalysis #DismembermentCase #NoBodyMurder #CriminalDefense #TrialStrategy #Cohasset #TrueCrimeCommunity #CriminalJustice #CourtRoom Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Prosecutors in the Brian Walshe murder trial are trying to prove first-degree murder without a body, without a murder weapon, and without a definitive cause of death. Ana Walshe has never been found. What the Commonwealth does have is a digital trail that reads like a step-by-step guide to getting away with murder — and a defendant who stood to collect $2.7 million in life insurance if his wife died. The internet searches are the backbone of the prosecution's case, and they are brutal. According to testimony from Massachusetts State Police Trooper Nicholas Guarino, the searches began at 4:52 a.m. on January 1, 2023 — just hours after the couple celebrated New Year's Eve with a friend. That first search: "Best way to dispose of a body." By 4:55 a.m., Walshe had moved on to "How long before a body starts to smell." Over the next several days, the searches continued: "How long does DNA last." "Hacksaw best tool for dismembering." "Can you be charged with murder without a body." "Can you identify a body with broken teeth." He even researched Patrick Kearney — a serial killer known as the "trash bag killer." Prosecutors also have motive. Ana Walshe had taken out $2.7 million in life insurance policies naming her husband as the sole beneficiary. And according to the prosecution, Brian Walshe knew his wife was having an affair with William Fastow, a Washington D.C. real estate broker who sold Ana the townhouse she owned there. Prosecutors say Walshe's phone searched Fastow's name on Christmas Day — less than a week before Ana disappeared. In this episode, former prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down the strength of the Commonwealth's case. We discuss how prosecutors prove premeditation through circumstantial evidence, whether the internet searches are as damning as they appear, and what the defense can do to poke holes in the timeline. Eric also explains the challenges of no-body murder cases and what the conviction rates actually look like. The prosecution may not have Ana Walshe's remains, but they're betting they have enough to put her husband away for life. #BrianWalshe #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #ProsecutionCase #GoogleSearches #LifeInsuranceMurder #NoBodyMurderCase #CircumstantialEvidence #EricFaddis #TrueCrime #MurderTrial #WilliamFastow #AffairMotive #Hacksaw #Dismemberment #FirstDegreeMurder #Premeditation #MassachusettsTrial #CriminalJustice #TrueCrimePodcast Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The Brian Walshe murder trial isn't just about the evidence — it's about the dynamics surrounding the case that could influence how this jury sees everything. And there are some significant wildcards in play that most people aren't talking about. First, there's the Michael Proctor connection. Proctor, the disgraced Massachusetts State Police trooper who was fired for misconduct during the Karen Read investigation, also worked the Walshe case. Several investigators tied to the Proctor scandal may be called as witnesses. The defense has every reason to lean into this — if they can paint the investigation as tainted or sloppy, it creates doubt. And after what happened in the Karen Read trial, Massachusetts juries may be more skeptical of state police testimony than they've ever been. Then there's what happened to Walshe himself. In September 2025, he was stabbed in jail at the Norfolk County Correctional Center. His attorneys pushed for a trial delay, arguing he couldn't adequately assist in his own defense after the attack. The judge ordered a 40-day mental health evaluation at Bridgewater State Hospital. Walshe was cleared to stand trial just two weeks before opening statements. The jury won't hear about any of that — but it's context that matters for understanding where this defendant's head might be. And then there's the fundamental problem the jury has to wrestle with: Brian Walshe has already admitted he disposed of his wife's body. He pleaded guilty to it. Now they have to decide if they can separate that admission from the murder charge. Legally, they're supposed to. Psychologically? That's a different question. In this episode, Eric Faddis breaks down the trial dynamics that could shape the outcome. We discuss how the Proctor scandal might be weaponized by the defense, what "consciousness of guilt" jury instructions actually mean, and what typically makes or breaks no-body murder cases. Eric also tells us what he's watching for as this trial moves into its second week. #BrianWalshe #BrianWalsheTrial #MichaelProctor #KarenReadCase #MassachusettsStatePolice #NoBodyMurder #JuryInstructions #ConsciousnessOfGuilt #MentalCompetency #EricFaddis #TrueCrime #TrialAnalysis #WhatToWatch #LegalAnalysis #NorfolkCounty #Dedham #CriminalJustice #TrueCrimeCommunity #CourtAnalysis #TrialDynamics Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The Brian Walshe murder trial isn't just about the evidence — it's about the dynamics surrounding the case that could influence how this jury sees everything. And there are some significant wildcards in play that most people aren't talking about. First, there's the Michael Proctor connection. Proctor, the disgraced Massachusetts State Police trooper who was fired for misconduct during the Karen Read investigation, also worked the Walshe case. Several investigators tied to the Proctor scandal may be called as witnesses. The defense has every reason to lean into this — if they can paint the investigation as tainted or sloppy, it creates doubt. And after what happened in the Karen Read trial, Massachusetts juries may be more skeptical of state police testimony than they've ever been. Then there's what happened to Walshe himself. In September 2025, he was stabbed in jail at the Norfolk County Correctional Center. His attorneys pushed for a trial delay, arguing he couldn't adequately assist in his own defense after the attack. The judge ordered a 40-day mental health evaluation at Bridgewater State Hospital. Walshe was cleared to stand trial just two weeks before opening statements. The jury won't hear about any of that — but it's context that matters for understanding where this defendant's head might be. And then there's the fundamental problem the jury has to wrestle with: Brian Walshe has already admitted he disposed of his wife's body. He pleaded guilty to it. Now they have to decide if they can separate that admission from the murder charge. Legally, they're supposed to. Psychologically? That's a different question. In this episode, Eric Faddis breaks down the trial dynamics that could shape the outcome. We discuss how the Proctor scandal might be weaponized by the defense, what "consciousness of guilt" jury instructions actually mean, and what typically makes or breaks no-body murder cases. Eric also tells us what he's watching for as this trial moves into its second week. #BrianWalshe #BrianWalsheTrial #MichaelProctor #KarenReadCase #MassachusettsStatePolice #NoBodyMurder #JuryInstructions #ConsciousnessOfGuilt #MentalCompetency #EricFaddis #TrueCrime #TrialAnalysis #WhatToWatch #LegalAnalysis #NorfolkCounty #Dedham #CriminalJustice #TrueCrimeCommunity #CourtAnalysis #TrialDynamics Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Prosecutors in the Brian Walshe murder trial are trying to prove first-degree murder without a body, without a murder weapon, and without a definitive cause of death. Ana Walshe has never been found. What the Commonwealth does have is a digital trail that reads like a step-by-step guide to getting away with murder — and a defendant who stood to collect $2.7 million in life insurance if his wife died. The internet searches are the backbone of the prosecution's case, and they are brutal. According to testimony from Massachusetts State Police Trooper Nicholas Guarino, the searches began at 4:52 a.m. on January 1, 2023 — just hours after the couple celebrated New Year's Eve with a friend. That first search: "Best way to dispose of a body." By 4:55 a.m., Walshe had moved on to "How long before a body starts to smell." Over the next several days, the searches continued: "How long does DNA last." "Hacksaw best tool for dismembering." "Can you be charged with murder without a body." "Can you identify a body with broken teeth." He even researched Patrick Kearney — a serial killer known as the "trash bag killer." Prosecutors also have motive. Ana Walshe had taken out $2.7 million in life insurance policies naming her husband as the sole beneficiary. And according to the prosecution, Brian Walshe knew his wife was having an affair with William Fastow, a Washington D.C. real estate broker who sold Ana the townhouse she owned there. Prosecutors say Walshe's phone searched Fastow's name on Christmas Day — less than a week before Ana disappeared. In this episode, former prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down the strength of the Commonwealth's case. We discuss how prosecutors prove premeditation through circumstantial evidence, whether the internet searches are as damning as they appear, and what the defense can do to poke holes in the timeline. Eric also explains the challenges of no-body murder cases and what the conviction rates actually look like. The prosecution may not have Ana Walshe's remains, but they're betting they have enough to put her husband away for life. #BrianWalshe #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #ProsecutionCase #GoogleSearches #LifeInsuranceMurder #NoBodyMurderCase #CircumstantialEvidence #EricFaddis #TrueCrime #MurderTrial #WilliamFastow #AffairMotive #Hacksaw #Dismemberment #FirstDegreeMurder #Premeditation #MassachusettsTrial #CriminalJustice #TrueCrimePodcast Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Brian Walshe is currently on trial for the murder of his wife Ana Walshe, a mother of three who vanished from their Cohasset, Massachusetts home on New Year's Day 2023. Her body has never been found. But here's where this case takes a turn that legal experts are still trying to wrap their heads around: two weeks before trial, Walshe pleaded guilty to disposing of his wife's body and lying to police. He admitted, in open court, that he dismembered Ana and discarded her remains in dumpsters across the region. And yet he's standing in front of a jury right now saying he didn't kill her. The defense theory? Ana Walshe died suddenly and unexpectedly in their bed in the early hours of New Year's Day. No cause. No explanation. Just gone. Defense attorney Larry Tipton told jurors that his client panicked when he found his wife unresponsive. That he didn't think anyone would believe her death was natural. That his only thought was protecting their three young boys. So instead of calling 911, Brian Walshe allegedly grabbed a hacksaw. In this episode, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down what might be the boldest — or most reckless — defense strategy we've seen in years. We dig into the tactical decision to plead guilty to the lesser charges right before trial. Is this about limiting what evidence the jury sees, or did the defense just hand prosecutors a gift? How do you sell "sudden unexplained death" to a jury when your client then cut up the body? And how do you rehabilitate a defendant's credibility when his own lawyer admitted he lied in every single police interview? Eric walks us through what the defense needs to prove, what experts they might call, and whether putting Walshe on the stand is a necessary risk or a fatal mistake. This is a case where the defense has already conceded consciousness of guilt — now they have to convince twelve people that consciousness of guilt doesn't mean guilt. We break down whether that's even possible. #BrianWalshe #BrianWalsheTrial #AnaWalshe #WalsheDefense #SuddenUnexplainedDeath #MurderTrial #EricFaddis #DefenseStrategy #MassachusettsMurderTrial #TrueCrime #CourtAnalysis #LegalAnalysis #DismembermentCase #NoBodyMurder #CriminalDefense #TrialStrategy #Cohasset #TrueCrimeCommunity #CriminalJustice #CourtRoom Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we revisit the opening week of one of the most sensational murder trials in America — the Arizona case of Lori Vallow Daybell, the self-proclaimed “Doomsday Mom” now defending herself against charges of conspiracy to murder her fourth husband, Charles Vallow. In this two-part breakdown, Tony Brueski teams up with former prosecutor and defense attorney Eric Faddis and retired FBI Behavioral Analysis Chief Robin Dreeke to unpack the chaotic courtroom drama, bizarre legal strategy, and psychological meltdown that have turned this trial into both a legal cautionary tale and a study in delusional self-belief. In part one, Tony and Eric dissect the prosecution's sharp, disciplined opening statement — a methodical narrative of motive, manipulation, and murder. Prosecutors allege Lori conspired with her brother, Alex Cox, to eliminate Charles for a $1 million life insurance policy and clear the path to marry apocalyptic author Chad Daybell. With evidence including religious texts misused to justify killing, texts to Alex invoking scripture (“I will be like Nephi”), and forensic proof that Charles was shot twice — one bullet fired after he collapsed, the state paints a chilling picture of faith twisted into fanaticism. Then comes the chaos. Lori, representing herself, opens with rambling monologues, misplaced objections, and narcissistic cross-examinations that seem designed more to satisfy curiosity than to construct a defense. Her fixation on her late husband's private life leaves jurors bewildered and prosecutors almost amused. As Faddis notes, “It's like watching someone try to build a house without knowing what a hammer does.” Part two turns darker, as Robin Dreeke analyzes the devastating testimony of Alex Cox, now deceased but still very much present in the trial through recordings, statements, and evidence. Dreeke explores how narcissism, shared delusion, and familial loyalty intertwine in Lori's world — and how her brother's past words now serve as the prosecution's most powerful witness. Was Lori's courtroom confidence a sign of faith — or pure delusion? And how does a woman who once claimed divine authority handle being her own undoing?

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we're revisiting the question that haunts this case — can studying crime actually teach someone how to commit it? When Bryan Kohberger, a Ph.D. student in criminology, was arrested for the brutal murders of four University of Idaho students, the irony was inescapable. The man studying the psychology of killers was suddenly accused of becoming one. But what makes this case so disturbing isn't just the alleged crime — it's the meticulous planning prosecutors say went into  it. In this two-part deep dive, Tony Brueski is joined by former felony prosecutor Eric Faddis and retired FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke to dissect the chilling contradictions of Kohberger's mind and methods. Faddis unpacks the mountain of circumstantial evidence: Amazon receipts for a combat knife, face mask, and sheath bought months before the murders; a phone that conveniently “went dark” the night of the killings; license plates swapped just days after; and trash runs in gloves at four in the morning. The prosecution says this wasn't just murder — it was an attempt at the perfect one. But can a defense argument of social awkwardness or autism spectrum behavior humanize a suspect accused of such precise brutality? Then, Dreeke dives into the psychology. What happens when curiosity about crime becomes a compulsion to control? Was Kohberger's alleged “research” into how criminals feel during their acts a window into his own fascination? From eerily timed online posts to that infamous mirror selfie that mirrors American Psycho and Psycho, Dreeke and Brueski explore how fantasy, narcissism, and obsession may have fused into something monstrous. And what about those alleged rap lyrics and digital “breadcrumb trails”? Were they bravado, confession, or taunt? When someone studies the mechanics of murder for years, do they start to believe they can outsmart the system that taught them?

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we're revisiting the question that haunts this case — can studying crime actually teach someone how to commit it? When Bryan Kohberger, a Ph.D. student in criminology, was arrested for the brutal murders of four University of Idaho students, the irony was inescapable. The man studying the psychology of killers was suddenly accused of becoming one. But what makes this case so disturbing isn't just the alleged crime — it's the meticulous planning prosecutors say went into  it. In this two-part deep dive, Tony Brueski is joined by former felony prosecutor Eric Faddis and retired FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke to dissect the chilling contradictions of Kohberger's mind and methods. Faddis unpacks the mountain of circumstantial evidence: Amazon receipts for a combat knife, face mask, and sheath bought months before the murders; a phone that conveniently “went dark” the night of the killings; license plates swapped just days after; and trash runs in gloves at four in the morning. The prosecution says this wasn't just murder — it was an attempt at the perfect one. But can a defense argument of social awkwardness or autism spectrum behavior humanize a suspect accused of such precise brutality? Then, Dreeke dives into the psychology. What happens when curiosity about crime becomes a compulsion to control? Was Kohberger's alleged “research” into how criminals feel during their acts a window into his own fascination? From eerily timed online posts to that infamous mirror selfie that mirrors American Psycho and Psycho, Dreeke and Brueski explore how fantasy, narcissism, and obsession may have fused into something monstrous. And what about those alleged rap lyrics and digital “breadcrumb trails”? Were they bravado, confession, or taunt? When someone studies the mechanics of murder for years, do they start to believe they can outsmart the system that taught them?

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we revisit the opening week of one of the most sensational murder trials in America — the Arizona case of Lori Vallow Daybell, the self-proclaimed “Doomsday Mom” now defending herself against charges of conspiracy to murder her fourth husband, Charles Vallow. In this two-part breakdown, Tony Brueski teams up with former prosecutor and defense attorney Eric Faddis and retired FBI Behavioral Analysis Chief Robin Dreeke to unpack the chaotic courtroom drama, bizarre legal strategy, and psychological meltdown that have turned this trial into both a legal cautionary tale and a study in delusional self-belief. In part one, Tony and Eric dissect the prosecution's sharp, disciplined opening statement — a methodical narrative of motive, manipulation, and murder. Prosecutors allege Lori conspired with her brother, Alex Cox, to eliminate Charles for a $1 million life insurance policy and clear the path to marry apocalyptic author Chad Daybell. With evidence including religious texts misused to justify killing, texts to Alex invoking scripture (“I will be like Nephi”), and forensic proof that Charles was shot twice — one bullet fired after he collapsed, the state paints a chilling picture of faith twisted into fanaticism. Then comes the chaos. Lori, representing herself, opens with rambling monologues, misplaced objections, and narcissistic cross-examinations that seem designed more to satisfy curiosity than to construct a defense. Her fixation on her late husband's private life leaves jurors bewildered and prosecutors almost amused. As Faddis notes, “It's like watching someone try to build a house without knowing what a hammer does.” Part two turns darker, as Robin Dreeke analyzes the devastating testimony of Alex Cox, now deceased but still very much present in the trial through recordings, statements, and evidence. Dreeke explores how narcissism, shared delusion, and familial loyalty intertwine in Lori's world — and how her brother's past words now serve as the prosecution's most powerful witness. Was Lori's courtroom confidence a sign of faith — or pure delusion? And how does a woman who once claimed divine authority handle being her own undoing?

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we revisit the opening week of one of the most sensational murder trials in America — the Arizona case of Lori Vallow Daybell, the self-proclaimed “Doomsday Mom” now defending herself against charges of conspiracy to murder her fourth husband, Charles Vallow. In this two-part breakdown, Tony Brueski teams up with former prosecutor and defense attorney Eric Faddis and retired FBI Behavioral Analysis Chief Robin Dreeke to unpack the chaotic courtroom drama, bizarre legal strategy, and psychological meltdown that have turned this trial into both a legal cautionary tale and a study in delusional self-belief. In part one, Tony and Eric dissect the prosecution's sharp, disciplined opening statement — a methodical narrative of motive, manipulation, and murder. Prosecutors allege Lori conspired with her brother, Alex Cox, to eliminate Charles for a $1 million life insurance policy and clear the path to marry apocalyptic author Chad Daybell. With evidence including religious texts misused to justify killing, texts to Alex invoking scripture (“I will be like Nephi”), and forensic proof that Charles was shot twice — one bullet fired after he collapsed, the state paints a chilling picture of faith twisted into fanaticism. Then comes the chaos. Lori, representing herself, opens with rambling monologues, misplaced objections, and narcissistic cross-examinations that seem designed more to satisfy curiosity than to construct a defense. Her fixation on her late husband's private life leaves jurors bewildered and prosecutors almost amused. As Faddis notes, “It's like watching someone try to build a house without knowing what a hammer does.” Part two turns darker, as Robin Dreeke analyzes the devastating testimony of Alex Cox, now deceased but still very much present in the trial through recordings, statements, and evidence. Dreeke explores how narcissism, shared delusion, and familial loyalty intertwine in Lori's world — and how her brother's past words now serve as the prosecution's most powerful witness. Was Lori's courtroom confidence a sign of faith — or pure delusion? And how does a woman who once claimed divine authority handle being her own undoing?

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we're revisiting the question that haunts this case — can studying crime actually teach someone how to commit it? When Bryan Kohberger, a Ph.D. student in criminology, was arrested for the brutal murders of four University of Idaho students, the irony was inescapable. The man studying the psychology of killers was suddenly accused of becoming one. But what makes this case so disturbing isn't just the alleged crime — it's the meticulous planning prosecutors say went into  it. In this two-part deep dive, Tony Brueski is joined by former felony prosecutor Eric Faddis and retired FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke to dissect the chilling contradictions of Kohberger's mind and methods. Faddis unpacks the mountain of circumstantial evidence: Amazon receipts for a combat knife, face mask, and sheath bought months before the murders; a phone that conveniently “went dark” the night of the killings; license plates swapped just days after; and trash runs in gloves at four in the morning. The prosecution says this wasn't just murder — it was an attempt at the perfect one. But can a defense argument of social awkwardness or autism spectrum behavior humanize a suspect accused of such precise brutality? Then, Dreeke dives into the psychology. What happens when curiosity about crime becomes a compulsion to control? Was Kohberger's alleged “research” into how criminals feel during their acts a window into his own fascination? From eerily timed online posts to that infamous mirror selfie that mirrors American Psycho and Psycho, Dreeke and Brueski explore how fantasy, narcissism, and obsession may have fused into something monstrous. And what about those alleged rap lyrics and digital “breadcrumb trails”? Were they bravado, confession, or taunt? When someone studies the mechanics of murder for years, do they start to believe they can outsmart the system that taught them?

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we're revisiting one of the most disturbing and debated questions of the year: Was Bryan Kohberger just a socially awkward PhD student obsessed with criminology—or a meticulous killer hiding in plain sight? In this full-length breakdown, Tony Brueski sits down with former felony prosecutor and defense attorney Eric Faddis, and later, psychotherapist Shavaun Scott, to unravel both sides of the psychological and legal battlefield surrounding the Idaho student murder case. From disappearing cell phone signals to Amazon receipts allegedly showing purchases of masks and knives months before the crime, the evidence paints a chilling picture of intent and foresight. Prosecutors say these details form a digital breadcrumb trail of premeditation—a methodical pattern that includes turning off his phone during the murders, changing his license plates afterward, and buying a new knife sharpener like it was just another household necessity. Faddis breaks down how prosecutors could use this mountain of circumstantial evidence to prove intent and pattern, while the defense may counter with claims of coincidence—or even neurodivergence, arguing that Kohberger's socially awkward behavior is being misinterpreted as malice. Could an autism spectrum defense help humanize him in front of a jury—or would it risk sounding like an excuse for cold, calculated planning? Then, Shavaun Scott joins Tony for the darker dive — exploring the unsettling parallels between Kohberger's alleged actions and cinematic killers like Patrick Bateman (American Psycho) and Norman Bates (Psycho). From his mirror selfie and sterile composure to online alter egos like “Papa Rodger” commenting about the murders in real time, they examine how narcissism, ego, and obsession with control may have blended into performance. Was Kohberger studying criminology to understand crime—or to perfect it? And if these clues were left on purpose, what was the endgame: to prove superiority, or to be remembered?

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we turn the lens away from the accused and toward the people who've been living in the shadow of one of the nation's most haunting murder cases — the family of Bryan Kohberger. In this gripping three-part deep dive, Tony Brueski uncovers the emotional and legal crossroads facing Kohberger's parents and sisters as the Idaho murder trial looms. What happens when the system turns its gaze toward the family of the accused? What did they know, and when? We begin with the latest bombshell: both Bryan Kohberger's father and sister may be called as witnesses by the prosecution. Why would the state take the extraordinary step of subpoenaing family members? Could they have seen something—heard something—that adds weight to the timeline? Using verified court filings and public statements, Tony breaks down what this means for a case already teetering between the personal and the procedural. Then we go inside the Kohberger home in the tense weeks before Bryan's arrest. One sister reportedly noticed unsettling behavior—something that made her question the brother she thought she knew. What did she see? What did she say? And how did those private moments of suspicion and fear evolve into public testimony? This episode also examines the psychology of proximity — how families of alleged killers experience guilt by association, media intrusion, and unbearable moral conflict. Are they victims of circumstance, silent witnesses to horror, or both? Along the way, former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins Tony to dissect the unnerving behavior captured on surveillance footage after the murders — Kohberger shopping at Albertson's and Costco, the infamous mirror selfie, and possible online activity as “Papa Rodger.” Could these details show a man spiraling, or someone savoring the aftermath? From the quiet dread inside the Kohberger home to the bizarre post-crime trail that keeps resurfacing, this is the story of a family entangled in the making of a modern American tragedy.

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we're unpacking one of the most controversial and conversation-shifting verdicts of the decade — the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs. After months of disturbing testimony, celebrity appearances, and viral evidence — including the now-infamous surveillance video showing Diddy assaulting Cassie Ventura — the jury delivered a verdict that stunned the nation. Diddy was found guilty on two federal counts of transporting women across state lines for prostitution, yet acquitted on the most serious charges of sex trafficking, racketeering, and conspiracy. In this special episode, Tony Brueski and attorney Eric Faddis break down exactly what happened inside that courtroom — the evidence, the emotional testimony, and the legal strategies that defined the trial. How could a case so full of damning details end in such a divided result? Was this the justice system doing its job… or an indictment of how power and celebrity still distort accountability? Eric Faddis, a former prosecutor turned defense attorney, walks us through the legal nuance — how burden of proof, technical definitions, and jury psychology intersected to create this outcome. Together, Tony and Eric dissect the split verdict's cultural implications, asking whether this moment signals a deeper societal fatigue with #MeToo-era accountability. Did jurors no longer see psychological coercion as “real” violence? Did prosecutors overestimate how far public empathy extends for survivors of celebrity abuse? Or was this verdict less about the facts — and more about America's shifting comfort with power, money, and moral gray zones? We also explain why Diddy remains behind bars despite the partial acquittal, and what comes next as he faces a sentencing phase that could carry up to 20 years in federal prison. Will Judge Arun Subramanian set a precedent — or fold to the same cultural machinery that kept Diddy protected for decades? This isn't just a verdict recap. It's a postmortem on justice in 2025.

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we revisit the shocking moment that shattered the illusion of Adelson family unity — Wendi Adelson's refusal to testify for her mother, Donna, in one of Florida's most explosive murder-for-hire trials. In a stunning pretrial twist, Donna's defense team tried to subpoena her daughter, Wendi, hoping her testimony might humanize Donna or counterbalance the prosecution's narrative. But Wendi's lawyers fought back, arguing that testifying could incriminate her — and the judge agreed. The subpoena was tossed, meaning Wendi will not be forced to take the stand. It's a moment that speaks volumes without a word being spoken. While Charlie Adelson, already convicted and serving life for his role in the 2014 murder of Florida State law professor Dan Markel, steps forward to testify for his mother, Wendi stays silent. In a case built on loyalty, control, and manipulation, this silence may say more than any testimony ever could. Tony Brueski and psychotherapist Shavaun Scott break down what this fracture reveals about the psychology of the Adelson family — how fear, guilt, and self-preservation drive behavior when the walls close in. They analyze how jurors are likely to interpret the sibling contrast: one child taking the stand for loyalty, another staying quiet to save herself. Does Wendi's silence protect her, or does it make her look complicit? Then, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins Tony to explore how this new dynamic could shift courtroom strategy. Could Donna's team now push harder to put her on the stand herself, hoping to fill the emotional vacuum left by Wendi's absence? And what will the state do with a family now publicly divided — a daughter refusing to help her mother, a son defending her from a prison cell? This isn't just a trial about murder. It's about the collapse of a dynasty built on influence and image, where loyalty has finally given way to self-preservation.

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we're revisiting one of the most disturbing and debated questions of the year: Was Bryan Kohberger just a socially awkward PhD student obsessed with criminology—or a meticulous killer hiding in plain sight? In this full-length breakdown, Tony Brueski sits down with former felony prosecutor and defense attorney Eric Faddis, and later, psychotherapist Shavaun Scott, to unravel both sides of the psychological and legal battlefield surrounding the Idaho student murder case. From disappearing cell phone signals to Amazon receipts allegedly showing purchases of masks and knives months before the crime, the evidence paints a chilling picture of intent and foresight. Prosecutors say these details form a digital breadcrumb trail of premeditation—a methodical pattern that includes turning off his phone during the murders, changing his license plates afterward, and buying a new knife sharpener like it was just another household necessity. Faddis breaks down how prosecutors could use this mountain of circumstantial evidence to prove intent and pattern, while the defense may counter with claims of coincidence—or even neurodivergence, arguing that Kohberger's socially awkward behavior is being misinterpreted as malice. Could an autism spectrum defense help humanize him in front of a jury—or would it risk sounding like an excuse for cold, calculated planning? Then, Shavaun Scott joins Tony for the darker dive — exploring the unsettling parallels between Kohberger's alleged actions and cinematic killers like Patrick Bateman (American Psycho) and Norman Bates (Psycho). From his mirror selfie and sterile composure to online alter egos like “Papa Rodger” commenting about the murders in real time, they examine how narcissism, ego, and obsession with control may have blended into performance. Was Kohberger studying criminology to understand crime—or to perfect it? And if these clues were left on purpose, what was the endgame: to prove superiority, or to be remembered?

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we turn the lens away from the accused and toward the people who've been living in the shadow of one of the nation's most haunting murder cases — the family of Bryan Kohberger. In this gripping three-part deep dive, Tony Brueski uncovers the emotional and legal crossroads facing Kohberger's parents and sisters as the Idaho murder trial looms. What happens when the system turns its gaze toward the family of the accused? What did they know, and when? We begin with the latest bombshell: both Bryan Kohberger's father and sister may be called as witnesses by the prosecution. Why would the state take the extraordinary step of subpoenaing family members? Could they have seen something—heard something—that adds weight to the timeline? Using verified court filings and public statements, Tony breaks down what this means for a case already teetering between the personal and the procedural. Then we go inside the Kohberger home in the tense weeks before Bryan's arrest. One sister reportedly noticed unsettling behavior—something that made her question the brother she thought she knew. What did she see? What did she say? And how did those private moments of suspicion and fear evolve into public testimony? This episode also examines the psychology of proximity — how families of alleged killers experience guilt by association, media intrusion, and unbearable moral conflict. Are they victims of circumstance, silent witnesses to horror, or both? Along the way, former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins Tony to dissect the unnerving behavior captured on surveillance footage after the murders — Kohberger shopping at Albertson's and Costco, the infamous mirror selfie, and possible online activity as “Papa Rodger.” Could these details show a man spiraling, or someone savoring the aftermath? From the quiet dread inside the Kohberger home to the bizarre post-crime trail that keeps resurfacing, this is the story of a family entangled in the making of a modern American tragedy.

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we're unpacking one of the most controversial and conversation-shifting verdicts of the decade — the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs. After months of disturbing testimony, celebrity appearances, and viral evidence — including the now-infamous surveillance video showing Diddy assaulting Cassie Ventura — the jury delivered a verdict that stunned the nation. Diddy was found guilty on two federal counts of transporting women across state lines for prostitution, yet acquitted on the most serious charges of sex trafficking, racketeering, and conspiracy. In this special episode, Tony Brueski and attorney Eric Faddis break down exactly what happened inside that courtroom — the evidence, the emotional testimony, and the legal strategies that defined the trial. How could a case so full of damning details end in such a divided result? Was this the justice system doing its job… or an indictment of how power and celebrity still distort accountability? Eric Faddis, a former prosecutor turned defense attorney, walks us through the legal nuance — how burden of proof, technical definitions, and jury psychology intersected to create this outcome. Together, Tony and Eric dissect the split verdict's cultural implications, asking whether this moment signals a deeper societal fatigue with #MeToo-era accountability. Did jurors no longer see psychological coercion as “real” violence? Did prosecutors overestimate how far public empathy extends for survivors of celebrity abuse? Or was this verdict less about the facts — and more about America's shifting comfort with power, money, and moral gray zones? We also explain why Diddy remains behind bars despite the partial acquittal, and what comes next as he faces a sentencing phase that could carry up to 20 years in federal prison. Will Judge Arun Subramanian set a precedent — or fold to the same cultural machinery that kept Diddy protected for decades? This isn't just a verdict recap. It's a postmortem on justice in 2025.

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we revisit the shocking moment that shattered the illusion of Adelson family unity — Wendi Adelson's refusal to testify for her mother, Donna, in one of Florida's most explosive murder-for-hire trials. In a stunning pretrial twist, Donna's defense team tried to subpoena her daughter, Wendi, hoping her testimony might humanize Donna or counterbalance the prosecution's narrative. But Wendi's lawyers fought back, arguing that testifying could incriminate her — and the judge agreed. The subpoena was tossed, meaning Wendi will not be forced to take the stand. It's a moment that speaks volumes without a word being spoken. While Charlie Adelson, already convicted and serving life for his role in the 2014 murder of Florida State law professor Dan Markel, steps forward to testify for his mother, Wendi stays silent. In a case built on loyalty, control, and manipulation, this silence may say more than any testimony ever could. Tony Brueski and psychotherapist Shavaun Scott break down what this fracture reveals about the psychology of the Adelson family — how fear, guilt, and self-preservation drive behavior when the walls close in. They analyze how jurors are likely to interpret the sibling contrast: one child taking the stand for loyalty, another staying quiet to save herself. Does Wendi's silence protect her, or does it make her look complicit? Then, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins Tony to explore how this new dynamic could shift courtroom strategy. Could Donna's team now push harder to put her on the stand herself, hoping to fill the emotional vacuum left by Wendi's absence? And what will the state do with a family now publicly divided — a daughter refusing to help her mother, a son defending her from a prison cell? This isn't just a trial about murder. It's about the collapse of a dynasty built on influence and image, where loyalty has finally given way to self-preservation.

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we're revisiting one of the most disturbing and debated questions of the year: Was Bryan Kohberger just a socially awkward PhD student obsessed with criminology—or a meticulous killer hiding in plain sight? In this full-length breakdown, Tony Brueski sits down with former felony prosecutor and defense attorney Eric Faddis, and later, psychotherapist Shavaun Scott, to unravel both sides of the psychological and legal battlefield surrounding the Idaho student murder case. From disappearing cell phone signals to Amazon receipts allegedly showing purchases of masks and knives months before the crime, the evidence paints a chilling picture of intent and foresight. Prosecutors say these details form a digital breadcrumb trail of premeditation—a methodical pattern that includes turning off his phone during the murders, changing his license plates afterward, and buying a new knife sharpener like it was just another household necessity. Faddis breaks down how prosecutors could use this mountain of circumstantial evidence to prove intent and pattern, while the defense may counter with claims of coincidence—or even neurodivergence, arguing that Kohberger's socially awkward behavior is being misinterpreted as malice. Could an autism spectrum defense help humanize him in front of a jury—or would it risk sounding like an excuse for cold, calculated planning? Then, Shavaun Scott joins Tony for the darker dive — exploring the unsettling parallels between Kohberger's alleged actions and cinematic killers like Patrick Bateman (American Psycho) and Norman Bates (Psycho). From his mirror selfie and sterile composure to online alter egos like “Papa Rodger” commenting about the murders in real time, they examine how narcissism, ego, and obsession with control may have blended into performance. Was Kohberger studying criminology to understand crime—or to perfect it? And if these clues were left on purpose, what was the endgame: to prove superiority, or to be remembered?

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we're revisiting one of the most disturbing and debated questions of the year: Was Bryan Kohberger just a socially awkward PhD student obsessed with criminology—or a meticulous killer hiding in plain sight? In this full-length breakdown, Tony Brueski sits down with former felony prosecutor and defense attorney Eric Faddis, and later, psychotherapist Shavaun Scott, to unravel both sides of the psychological and legal battlefield surrounding the Idaho student murder case. From disappearing cell phone signals to Amazon receipts allegedly showing purchases of masks and knives months before the crime, the evidence paints a chilling picture of intent and foresight. Prosecutors say these details form a digital breadcrumb trail of premeditation—a methodical pattern that includes turning off his phone during the murders, changing his license plates afterward, and buying a new knife sharpener like it was just another household necessity. Faddis breaks down how prosecutors could use this mountain of circumstantial evidence to prove intent and pattern, while the defense may counter with claims of coincidence—or even neurodivergence, arguing that Kohberger's socially awkward behavior is being misinterpreted as malice. Could an autism spectrum defense help humanize him in front of a jury—or would it risk sounding like an excuse for cold, calculated planning? Then, Shavaun Scott joins Tony for the darker dive — exploring the unsettling parallels between Kohberger's alleged actions and cinematic killers like Patrick Bateman (American Psycho) and Norman Bates (Psycho). From his mirror selfie and sterile composure to online alter egos like “Papa Rodger” commenting about the murders in real time, they examine how narcissism, ego, and obsession with control may have blended into performance. Was Kohberger studying criminology to understand crime—or to perfect it? And if these clues were left on purpose, what was the endgame: to prove superiority, or to be remembered?

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we're revisiting the shocking new evidence and eerie imagery redefining the case against Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of murdering four University of Idaho students in one of the most haunting crimes of the decade. In this special combined episode, Tony Brueski is joined by Defense Attorney Bob Motta (Defense Diaries) and former prosecutor Eric Faddis to dissect the revelations that turned a complex case into a potentially airtight one. First, the receipts — literally. Prosecutors say Kohberger bought the exact model of knife and sheath found at the crime scene months before the murders. The order allegedly came straight from Amazon, complete with a matching knife sharpener that looks suspiciously like a vacuum attachment. It's the kind of detail that might sound absurd if it weren't so chilling. Tony and Motta break down how this discovery — paired with the bizarre thumbs-up bathroom selfie allegedly taken hours after the killings — creates a psychological portrait of someone who wasn't just methodical, but disturbingly proud. Was the selfie a trophy? A taunt? Or the self-satisfied smirk of a man who believed he'd gotten away with it? Then, Faddis brings the legal heat — explaining why this evidence could be devastating for the defense, how the alleged receipts demolish claims of “planted evidence,” and what the prosecution will do with a timeline that screams premeditation. Could Kohberger's team still angle for a plea deal to avoid the death penalty? Or has this case already crossed the line into the inevitable? Beyond the evidence, Tony and his guests explore the deeper question: Why document your own destruction? From online purchases to photos, the alleged digital breadcrumbs reveal a mindset obsessed with control — and undone by it.

As part of our Hidden Killers 2025 Year in Review series, we're revisiting the shocking new evidence and eerie imagery redefining the case against Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of murdering four University of Idaho students in one of the most haunting crimes of the decade. In this special combined episode, Tony Brueski is joined by Defense Attorney Bob Motta (Defense Diaries) and former prosecutor Eric Faddis to dissect the revelations that turned a complex case into a potentially airtight one. First, the receipts — literally. Prosecutors say Kohberger bought the exact model of knife and sheath found at the crime scene months before the murders. The order allegedly came straight from Amazon, complete with a matching knife sharpener that looks suspiciously like a vacuum attachment. It's the kind of detail that might sound absurd if it weren't so chilling. Tony and Motta break down how this discovery — paired with the bizarre thumbs-up bathroom selfie allegedly taken hours after the killings — creates a psychological portrait of someone who wasn't just methodical, but disturbingly proud. Was the selfie a trophy? A taunt? Or the self-satisfied smirk of a man who believed he'd gotten away with it? Then, Faddis brings the legal heat — explaining why this evidence could be devastating for the defense, how the alleged receipts demolish claims of “planted evidence,” and what the prosecution will do with a timeline that screams premeditation. Could Kohberger's team still angle for a plea deal to avoid the death penalty? Or has this case already crossed the line into the inevitable? Beyond the evidence, Tony and his guests explore the deeper question: Why document your own destruction? From online purchases to photos, the alleged digital breadcrumbs reveal a mindset obsessed with control — and undone by it.