Podcast appearances and mentions of eric faddis

Two major true-crime cases just took sharp, unexpected turns — one in the courtroom, one in the civil arena. First, Brian Walshe blindsided the court by pleading guilty to disposing of Ana Walshe's remains and misleading investigators — but still maintaining he didn't kill her. It's a move that redefines the entire murder trial and forces huge strategic shifts for both sides. Then, across the country, Washington State University is facing legal heat. The Goncalves family has filed a civil claim arguing WSU ignored repeated warnings about Brian Kohberger before the Moscow murders. More than a dozen complaints. A professor calling him a future predator. Students saying they felt trapped and unsafe. The question now is simple: Does the law say the university should have done more? On today's episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski sits down with legal analyst Eric Faddis to break down both cases: • Why did Walshe plead guilty to these charges but not murder? • Does this strengthen the prosecution's theory — or hand the defense a new angle? • What does the jury hear now, and how will it shape perception? • And in the WSU civil case — what duty does a university owe? • What evidence matters most? • Does foreseeability apply when the crime occurred off-campus at another school? • And is the real goal here discovery — forcing WSU's internal files out into the light? Two cases. Two seismic shifts. One conversation that lays out the stakes, the law, and the fallout. #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #BrianWalshe #BryanKohberger #WSU 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

Two major true-crime cases just took sharp, unexpected turns — one in the courtroom, one in the civil arena. First, Brian Walshe blindsided the court by pleading guilty to disposing of Ana Walshe's remains and misleading investigators — but still maintaining he didn't kill her. It's a move that redefines the entire murder trial and forces huge strategic shifts for both sides. Then, across the country, Washington State University is facing legal heat. The Goncalves family has filed a civil claim arguing WSU ignored repeated warnings about Brian Kohberger before the Moscow murders. More than a dozen complaints. A professor calling him a future predator. Students saying they felt trapped and unsafe. The question now is simple: Does the law say the university should have done more? On today's episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski sits down with legal analyst Eric Faddis to break down both cases: • Why did Walshe plead guilty to these charges but not murder? • Does this strengthen the prosecution's theory — or hand the defense a new angle? • What does the jury hear now, and how will it shape perception? • And in the WSU civil case — what duty does a university owe? • What evidence matters most? • Does foreseeability apply when the crime occurred off-campus at another school? • And is the real goal here discovery — forcing WSU's internal files out into the light? Two cases. Two seismic shifts. One conversation that lays out the stakes, the law, and the fallout. #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #BrianWalshe #BryanKohberger #WSU 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

Two major true-crime cases just took sharp, unexpected turns — one in the courtroom, one in the civil arena. First, Brian Walshe blindsided the court by pleading guilty to disposing of Ana Walshe's remains and misleading investigators — but still maintaining he didn't kill her. It's a move that redefines the entire murder trial and forces huge strategic shifts for both sides. Then, across the country, Washington State University is facing legal heat. The Goncalves family has filed a civil claim arguing WSU ignored repeated warnings about Brian Kohberger before the Moscow murders. More than a dozen complaints. A professor calling him a future predator. Students saying they felt trapped and unsafe. The question now is simple: Does the law say the university should have done more? On today's episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski sits down with legal analyst Eric Faddis to break down both cases: • Why did Walshe plead guilty to these charges but not murder? • Does this strengthen the prosecution's theory — or hand the defense a new angle? • What does the jury hear now, and how will it shape perception? • And in the WSU civil case — what duty does a university owe? • What evidence matters most? • Does foreseeability apply when the crime occurred off-campus at another school? • And is the real goal here discovery — forcing WSU's internal files out into the light? Two cases. Two seismic shifts. One conversation that lays out the stakes, the law, and the fallout. #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #BrianWalshe #BryanKohberger #WSU 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

Two major true-crime cases just took sharp, unexpected turns — one in the courtroom, one in the civil arena. First, Brian Walshe blindsided the court by pleading guilty to disposing of Ana Walshe's remains and misleading investigators — but still maintaining he didn't kill her. It's a move that redefines the entire murder trial and forces huge strategic shifts for both sides. Then, across the country, Washington State University is facing legal heat. The Goncalves family has filed a civil claim arguing WSU ignored repeated warnings about Brian Kohberger before the Moscow murders. More than a dozen complaints. A professor calling him a future predator. Students saying they felt trapped and unsafe. The question now is simple: Does the law say the university should have done more? On today's episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski sits down with legal analyst Eric Faddis to break down both cases: • Why did Walshe plead guilty to these charges but not murder? • Does this strengthen the prosecution's theory — or hand the defense a new angle? • What does the jury hear now, and how will it shape perception? • And in the WSU civil case — what duty does a university owe? • What evidence matters most? • Does foreseeability apply when the crime occurred off-campus at another school? • And is the real goal here discovery — forcing WSU's internal files out into the light? Two cases. Two seismic shifts. One conversation that lays out the stakes, the law, and the fallout. #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #BrianWalshe #BryanKohberger #WSU 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

Right before jury selection — right before the moment everything becomes real — Brian Walshe walked into court and detonated a grenade in his own case. He pled guilty to two critically important charges: misleading investigators and disposing of Ana Walshe's remains. But he refused to plead guilty to murder. It's a strange split. A risky split. And a split that reshapes the entire murder trial. In this episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski and Stacy Cole sit down with former prosecutor and defense attorney Eric Faddis to break down exactly what this means — legally, strategically, and psychologically — as the trial begins. Tony and Eric dissect the questions the public is asking: • Why would a defendant admit to moving a body but deny killing the person?  • Is this a sign of desperation? A strategy? A narrative play?  • Does this strengthen the prosecution's story of intent and consciousness of guilt?  • Is the defense about to pivot into an “accident + panic” explanation?  • What happens now that jurors will hear Walshe admit he concealed and destroyed evidence?  • Does this force the defense to abandon earlier theories — like Ana leaving on her own?  • And what does this mean for sentencing exposure and credibility? Eric breaks down how prosecutors will weaponize these admissions — and how a defense attorney must now scramble to build a narrative around a client who has put himself directly at the scene after death. This isn't a small procedural detour. This is the trial tipping on its axis. If you want the legal truth — not spin, not rumor — this conversation lays out exactly what this plea tells us, what the prosecution now knows, and what options Walshe has left. #HiddenKillers #BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #TrueCrime 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 Goncalves family has taken the next step — not criminal, but civil. They've filed claims against Washington State University, arguing the school ignored repeated red flags about Brian Kohberger before the murders in Moscow. And now the question becomes: Does the law agree? In this deep-dive episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski sits down with former prosecutor and defense attorney Eric Faddis to unpack the legal claims, the duty-of-care standards, the foreseeability argument, and the staggering list of complaints that WSU allegedly received long before the killings. Tony and Eric break down the core issues: • What duty does a university have when a graduate student — and teaching assistant — has multiple formal complaints?  • Do warnings like “He's a predator in the making” create legal exposure?  • Do stalking-adjacent behaviors — blocking doorways, following students — meet the threshold for negligent supervision?  • Does the fact that the murders occurred off-campus, in another state, change the legal calculus?  • Could WSU actually be found liable for failing to remove or restrict him?  • Or will the university argue: “We couldn't have seen this coming”?  • And is this lawsuit partly about discovery — forcing WSU to release internal emails, HR files, and Title IX records? Eric walks us through what plaintiffs need to prove, what defenses WSU will likely mount, and why this case could have massive implications for universities nationwide if a court allows it to move forward. This is one of the most legally significant developments to emerge from the Moscow murders — and it could reshape university policies around reporting, supervision, and risk. #HiddenKillers #BryanKohberger #WSU #TrueCrime 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

Right before jury selection — right before the moment everything becomes real — Brian Walshe walked into court and detonated a grenade in his own case. He pled guilty to two critically important charges: misleading investigators and disposing of Ana Walshe's remains. But he refused to plead guilty to murder. It's a strange split. A risky split. And a split that reshapes the entire murder trial. In this episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski and Stacy Cole sit down with former prosecutor and defense attorney Eric Faddis to break down exactly what this means — legally, strategically, and psychologically — as the trial begins. Tony and Eric dissect the questions the public is asking: • Why would a defendant admit to moving a body but deny killing the person?  • Is this a sign of desperation? A strategy? A narrative play?  • Does this strengthen the prosecution's story of intent and consciousness of guilt?  • Is the defense about to pivot into an “accident + panic” explanation?  • What happens now that jurors will hear Walshe admit he concealed and destroyed evidence?  • Does this force the defense to abandon earlier theories — like Ana leaving on her own?  • And what does this mean for sentencing exposure and credibility? Eric breaks down how prosecutors will weaponize these admissions — and how a defense attorney must now scramble to build a narrative around a client who has put himself directly at the scene after death. This isn't a small procedural detour. This is the trial tipping on its axis. If you want the legal truth — not spin, not rumor — this conversation lays out exactly what this plea tells us, what the prosecution now knows, and what options Walshe has left. #HiddenKillers #BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #TrueCrime 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

Two major true-crime cases just took sharp, unexpected turns — one in the courtroom, one in the civil arena. First, Brian Walshe blindsided the court by pleading guilty to disposing of Ana Walshe's remains and misleading investigators — but still maintaining he didn't kill her. It's a move that redefines the entire murder trial and forces huge strategic shifts for both sides. Then, across the country, Washington State University is facing legal heat. The Goncalves family has filed a civil claim arguing WSU ignored repeated warnings about Brian Kohberger before the Moscow murders. More than a dozen complaints. A professor calling him a future predator. Students saying they felt trapped and unsafe. The question now is simple: Does the law say the university should have done more? On today's episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski sits down with legal analyst Eric Faddis to break down both cases: • Why did Walshe plead guilty to these charges but not murder? • Does this strengthen the prosecution's theory — or hand the defense a new angle? • What does the jury hear now, and how will it shape perception? • And in the WSU civil case — what duty does a university owe? • What evidence matters most? • Does foreseeability apply when the crime occurred off-campus at another school? • And is the real goal here discovery — forcing WSU's internal files out into the light? Two cases. Two seismic shifts. One conversation that lays out the stakes, the law, and the fallout. #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #BrianWalshe #BryanKohberger #WSU 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 Goncalves family has taken the next step — not criminal, but civil. They've filed claims against Washington State University, arguing the school ignored repeated red flags about Brian Kohberger before the murders in Moscow. And now the question becomes: Does the law agree? In this deep-dive episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski sits down with former prosecutor and defense attorney Eric Faddis to unpack the legal claims, the duty-of-care standards, the foreseeability argument, and the staggering list of complaints that WSU allegedly received long before the killings. Tony and Eric break down the core issues: • What duty does a university have when a graduate student — and teaching assistant — has multiple formal complaints?  • Do warnings like “He's a predator in the making” create legal exposure?  • Do stalking-adjacent behaviors — blocking doorways, following students — meet the threshold for negligent supervision?  • Does the fact that the murders occurred off-campus, in another state, change the legal calculus?  • Could WSU actually be found liable for failing to remove or restrict him?  • Or will the university argue: “We couldn't have seen this coming”?  • And is this lawsuit partly about discovery — forcing WSU to release internal emails, HR files, and Title IX records? Eric walks us through what plaintiffs need to prove, what defenses WSU will likely mount, and why this case could have massive implications for universities nationwide if a court allows it to move forward. This is one of the most legally significant developments to emerge from the Moscow murders — and it could reshape university policies around reporting, supervision, and risk. #HiddenKillers #BryanKohberger #WSU #TrueCrime 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

Two major true-crime cases just took sharp, unexpected turns — one in the courtroom, one in the civil arena. First, Brian Walshe blindsided the court by pleading guilty to disposing of Ana Walshe's remains and misleading investigators — but still maintaining he didn't kill her. It's a move that redefines the entire murder trial and forces huge strategic shifts for both sides. Then, across the country, Washington State University is facing legal heat. The Goncalves family has filed a civil claim arguing WSU ignored repeated warnings about Brian Kohberger before the Moscow murders. More than a dozen complaints. A professor calling him a future predator. Students saying they felt trapped and unsafe. The question now is simple: Does the law say the university should have done more? On today's episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski sits down with legal analyst Eric Faddis to break down both cases: • Why did Walshe plead guilty to these charges but not murder? • Does this strengthen the prosecution's theory — or hand the defense a new angle? • What does the jury hear now, and how will it shape perception? • And in the WSU civil case — what duty does a university owe? • What evidence matters most? • Does foreseeability apply when the crime occurred off-campus at another school? • And is the real goal here discovery — forcing WSU's internal files out into the light? Two cases. Two seismic shifts. One conversation that lays out the stakes, the law, and the fallout. #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #BrianWalshe #BryanKohberger #WSU 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

Right before jury selection — right before the moment everything becomes real — Brian Walshe walked into court and detonated a grenade in his own case. He pled guilty to two critically important charges: misleading investigators and disposing of Ana Walshe's remains. But he refused to plead guilty to murder. It's a strange split. A risky split. And a split that reshapes the entire murder trial. In this episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski and Stacy Cole sit down with former prosecutor and defense attorney Eric Faddis to break down exactly what this means — legally, strategically, and psychologically — as the trial begins. Tony and Eric dissect the questions the public is asking: • Why would a defendant admit to moving a body but deny killing the person?  • Is this a sign of desperation? A strategy? A narrative play?  • Does this strengthen the prosecution's story of intent and consciousness of guilt?  • Is the defense about to pivot into an “accident + panic” explanation?  • What happens now that jurors will hear Walshe admit he concealed and destroyed evidence?  • Does this force the defense to abandon earlier theories — like Ana leaving on her own?  • And what does this mean for sentencing exposure and credibility? Eric breaks down how prosecutors will weaponize these admissions — and how a defense attorney must now scramble to build a narrative around a client who has put himself directly at the scene after death. This isn't a small procedural detour. This is the trial tipping on its axis. If you want the legal truth — not spin, not rumor — this conversation lays out exactly what this plea tells us, what the prosecution now knows, and what options Walshe has left. #HiddenKillers #BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #TrueCrime 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 Goncalves family has taken the next step — not criminal, but civil. They've filed claims against Washington State University, arguing the school ignored repeated red flags about Brian Kohberger before the murders in Moscow. And now the question becomes: Does the law agree? In this deep-dive episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski sits down with former prosecutor and defense attorney Eric Faddis to unpack the legal claims, the duty-of-care standards, the foreseeability argument, and the staggering list of complaints that WSU allegedly received long before the killings. Tony and Eric break down the core issues: • What duty does a university have when a graduate student — and teaching assistant — has multiple formal complaints?  • Do warnings like “He's a predator in the making” create legal exposure?  • Do stalking-adjacent behaviors — blocking doorways, following students — meet the threshold for negligent supervision?  • Does the fact that the murders occurred off-campus, in another state, change the legal calculus?  • Could WSU actually be found liable for failing to remove or restrict him?  • Or will the university argue: “We couldn't have seen this coming”?  • And is this lawsuit partly about discovery — forcing WSU to release internal emails, HR files, and Title IX records? Eric walks us through what plaintiffs need to prove, what defenses WSU will likely mount, and why this case could have massive implications for universities nationwide if a court allows it to move forward. This is one of the most legally significant developments to emerge from the Moscow murders — and it could reshape university policies around reporting, supervision, and risk. #HiddenKillers #BryanKohberger #WSU #TrueCrime 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 Goncalves family has taken the next step — not criminal, but civil. They've filed claims against Washington State University, arguing the school ignored repeated red flags about Brian Kohberger before the murders in Moscow. And now the question becomes: Does the law agree? In this deep-dive episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski sits down with former prosecutor and defense attorney Eric Faddis to unpack the legal claims, the duty-of-care standards, the foreseeability argument, and the staggering list of complaints that WSU allegedly received long before the killings. Tony and Eric break down the core issues: • What duty does a university have when a graduate student — and teaching assistant — has multiple formal complaints?  • Do warnings like “He's a predator in the making” create legal exposure?  • Do stalking-adjacent behaviors — blocking doorways, following students — meet the threshold for negligent supervision?  • Does the fact that the murders occurred off-campus, in another state, change the legal calculus?  • Could WSU actually be found liable for failing to remove or restrict him?  • Or will the university argue: “We couldn't have seen this coming”?  • And is this lawsuit partly about discovery — forcing WSU to release internal emails, HR files, and Title IX records? Eric walks us through what plaintiffs need to prove, what defenses WSU will likely mount, and why this case could have massive implications for universities nationwide if a court allows it to move forward. This is one of the most legally significant developments to emerge from the Moscow murders — and it could reshape university policies around reporting, supervision, and risk. #HiddenKillers #BryanKohberger #WSU #TrueCrime 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

Two major true-crime cases just took sharp, unexpected turns — one in the courtroom, one in the civil arena. First, Brian Walshe blindsided the court by pleading guilty to disposing of Ana Walshe's remains and misleading investigators — but still maintaining he didn't kill her. It's a move that redefines the entire murder trial and forces huge strategic shifts for both sides. Then, across the country, Washington State University is facing legal heat. The Goncalves family has filed a civil claim arguing WSU ignored repeated warnings about Brian Kohberger before the Moscow murders. More than a dozen complaints. A professor calling him a future predator. Students saying they felt trapped and unsafe. The question now is simple: Does the law say the university should have done more? On today's episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski sits down with legal analyst Eric Faddis to break down both cases: • Why did Walshe plead guilty to these charges but not murder? • Does this strengthen the prosecution's theory — or hand the defense a new angle? • What does the jury hear now, and how will it shape perception? • And in the WSU civil case — what duty does a university owe? • What evidence matters most? • Does foreseeability apply when the crime occurred off-campus at another school? • And is the real goal here discovery — forcing WSU's internal files out into the light? Two cases. Two seismic shifts. One conversation that lays out the stakes, the law, and the fallout. #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #BrianWalshe #BryanKohberger #WSU 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 Alex Murdaugh case has reached its most critical moment yet: the South Carolina Supreme Court is now reviewing the final filings in his appeal, and both sides are delivering a completely opposite narrative of what happened in that courtroom. One side says the evidence was overwhelming. The other says the process was broken. The justices now have to decide which matters more. In this new Hidden Killers episode, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and legal analyst Eric Faddis examine whether the verdict was powered by solid facts or by a trial that couldn't withstand its own chaos. The prosecution argues everything lines up: Murdaugh's voice on the kennel video, his shifting accounts, his financial world collapsing around him — all pointing toward guilt. The defense counters with accusations that the trial was tainted from the inside: Clerk of Court Becky Hill's alleged comments to jurors, untested DNA, missing forensic work, and a flood of financial testimony they say “poisoned the pool” long before the jury deliberated. Tony and Eric explore what appellate courts really evaluate — not guilt or innocence, but integrity. Did the clerk's alleged words create prejudice? Were the financial crimes allowed to overwhelm the murder evidence? When does “harmless error” become harmful? And how much does media pressure play into what judges are willing to overturn? Beyond Murdaugh, the episode asks a larger question: What happens when a justice system has to evaluate itself? If the verdict stands, does that restore confidence — or just protect an institution's reputation? And if a new trial is ordered, does the public view it as fairness or failure? This appeal will define not just Alex Murdaugh's future, but how the public sees the courts moving forward. #HiddenKillers #AlexMurdaugh #TrueCrime #LegalBreakdown #TonyBrueski #MurdaughCase #SupremeCourtReview #EricFaddis #JusticeDebate #CourtAppeal 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 Alex Murdaugh case has reached its most critical moment yet: the South Carolina Supreme Court is now reviewing the final filings in his appeal, and both sides are delivering a completely opposite narrative of what happened in that courtroom. One side says the evidence was overwhelming. The other says the process was broken. The justices now have to decide which matters more. In this new Hidden Killers episode, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and legal analyst Eric Faddis examine whether the verdict was powered by solid facts or by a trial that couldn't withstand its own chaos. The prosecution argues everything lines up: Murdaugh's voice on the kennel video, his shifting accounts, his financial world collapsing around him — all pointing toward guilt. The defense counters with accusations that the trial was tainted from the inside: Clerk of Court Becky Hill's alleged comments to jurors, untested DNA, missing forensic work, and a flood of financial testimony they say “poisoned the pool” long before the jury deliberated. Tony and Eric explore what appellate courts really evaluate — not guilt or innocence, but integrity. Did the clerk's alleged words create prejudice? Were the financial crimes allowed to overwhelm the murder evidence? When does “harmless error” become harmful? And how much does media pressure play into what judges are willing to overturn? Beyond Murdaugh, the episode asks a larger question: What happens when a justice system has to evaluate itself? If the verdict stands, does that restore confidence — or just protect an institution's reputation? And if a new trial is ordered, does the public view it as fairness or failure? This appeal will define not just Alex Murdaugh's future, but how the public sees the courts moving forward. #HiddenKillers #AlexMurdaugh #TrueCrime #LegalBreakdown #TonyBrueski #MurdaughCase #SupremeCourtReview #EricFaddis #JusticeDebate #CourtAppeal 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 Alex Murdaugh case has reached its most critical moment yet: the South Carolina Supreme Court is now reviewing the final filings in his appeal, and both sides are delivering a completely opposite narrative of what happened in that courtroom. One side says the evidence was overwhelming. The other says the process was broken. The justices now have to decide which matters more. In this new Hidden Killers episode, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and legal analyst Eric Faddis examine whether the verdict was powered by solid facts or by a trial that couldn't withstand its own chaos. The prosecution argues everything lines up: Murdaugh's voice on the kennel video, his shifting accounts, his financial world collapsing around him — all pointing toward guilt. The defense counters with accusations that the trial was tainted from the inside: Clerk of Court Becky Hill's alleged comments to jurors, untested DNA, missing forensic work, and a flood of financial testimony they say “poisoned the pool” long before the jury deliberated. Tony and Eric explore what appellate courts really evaluate — not guilt or innocence, but integrity. Did the clerk's alleged words create prejudice? Were the financial crimes allowed to overwhelm the murder evidence? When does “harmless error” become harmful? And how much does media pressure play into what judges are willing to overturn? Beyond Murdaugh, the episode asks a larger question: What happens when a justice system has to evaluate itself? If the verdict stands, does that restore confidence — or just protect an institution's reputation? And if a new trial is ordered, does the public view it as fairness or failure? This appeal will define not just Alex Murdaugh's future, but how the public sees the courts moving forward. #HiddenKillers #AlexMurdaugh #TrueCrime #LegalBreakdown #TonyBrueski #MurdaughCase #SupremeCourtReview #EricFaddis #JusticeDebate #CourtAppeal 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 Alex Murdaugh case has reached its most critical moment yet: the South Carolina Supreme Court is now reviewing the final filings in his appeal, and both sides are delivering a completely opposite narrative of what happened in that courtroom. One side says the evidence was overwhelming. The other says the process was broken. The justices now have to decide which matters more. In this new Hidden Killers episode, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and legal analyst Eric Faddis examine whether the verdict was powered by solid facts or by a trial that couldn't withstand its own chaos. The prosecution argues everything lines up: Murdaugh's voice on the kennel video, his shifting accounts, his financial world collapsing around him — all pointing toward guilt. The defense counters with accusations that the trial was tainted from the inside: Clerk of Court Becky Hill's alleged comments to jurors, untested DNA, missing forensic work, and a flood of financial testimony they say “poisoned the pool” long before the jury deliberated. Tony and Eric explore what appellate courts really evaluate — not guilt or innocence, but integrity. Did the clerk's alleged words create prejudice? Were the financial crimes allowed to overwhelm the murder evidence? When does “harmless error” become harmful? And how much does media pressure play into what judges are willing to overturn? Beyond Murdaugh, the episode asks a larger question: What happens when a justice system has to evaluate itself? If the verdict stands, does that restore confidence — or just protect an institution's reputation? And if a new trial is ordered, does the public view it as fairness or failure? This appeal will define not just Alex Murdaugh's future, but how the public sees the courts moving forward. #HiddenKillers #AlexMurdaugh #TrueCrime #LegalBreakdown #TonyBrueski #MurdaughCase #SupremeCourtReview #EricFaddis #JusticeDebate #CourtAppeal 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 Alex Murdaugh case has reached its most critical moment yet: the South Carolina Supreme Court is now reviewing the final filings in his appeal, and both sides are delivering a completely opposite narrative of what happened in that courtroom. One side says the evidence was overwhelming. The other says the process was broken. The justices now have to decide which matters more. In this new Hidden Killers episode, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and legal analyst Eric Faddis examine whether the verdict was powered by solid facts or by a trial that couldn't withstand its own chaos. The prosecution argues everything lines up: Murdaugh's voice on the kennel video, his shifting accounts, his financial world collapsing around him — all pointing toward guilt. The defense counters with accusations that the trial was tainted from the inside: Clerk of Court Becky Hill's alleged comments to jurors, untested DNA, missing forensic work, and a flood of financial testimony they say “poisoned the pool” long before the jury deliberated. Tony and Eric explore what appellate courts really evaluate — not guilt or innocence, but integrity. Did the clerk's alleged words create prejudice? Were the financial crimes allowed to overwhelm the murder evidence? When does “harmless error” become harmful? And how much does media pressure play into what judges are willing to overturn? Beyond Murdaugh, the episode asks a larger question: What happens when a justice system has to evaluate itself? If the verdict stands, does that restore confidence — or just protect an institution's reputation? And if a new trial is ordered, does the public view it as fairness or failure? This appeal will define not just Alex Murdaugh's future, but how the public sees the courts moving forward. #HiddenKillers #AlexMurdaugh #TrueCrime #LegalBreakdown #TonyBrueski #MurdaughCase #SupremeCourtReview #EricFaddis #JusticeDebate #CourtAppeal 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

It's been nearly three years since Alex Murdaugh was convicted of murdering his wife Maggie and son Paul, a verdict that felt like the final chapter in a Southern empire built on generational power, corruption, and deceit. But now the case is back in the spotlight — because three final filings have landed in front of the South Carolina Supreme Court, and they paint two completely different realities about what happened inside that courtroom. In this episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and former prosecutor/defense attorney Eric Faddis dissect why this appeal matters far beyond whether Murdaugh pulled the trigger. The state insists the verdict is bulletproof: the kennel video placed him at the scene, his lies destroyed his credibility, and the motive was clear. Meanwhile, the defense argues the entire process was contaminated before it even began — with Clerk of Court Becky Hill allegedly influencing jurors, commenting on Murdaugh's demeanor, and later writing a book she financially benefited from. Add in untested DNA, missing gunshot residue analysis, and expert-pressure allegations, and the trial starts to look less like justice and more like a perfect storm of misconduct. Tony and Eric break down the real questions the Supreme Court must answer: Was the trial fair? Did the clerk's alleged comments prejudice the jury? Can a verdict stand if the process underneath it cracks? And what does it mean for public trust if a clerk who handled the jury is now facing her own criminal charges? From how jurors absorb financial-crime testimony, to whether “harmless error” can excuse missing forensic testing, to the psychology of high-profile verdicts and the pressure on courts to protect their own institutions — this episode asks whether justice was served, or simply performed. If the Court upholds the conviction, the case is over… until it isn't. If they grant a new trial, the system itself becomes the story. What do you think? Did the evidence overpower the errors — or did the errors overpower the verdict? #AlexMurdaugh #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #TrueCrime #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #CourtSystem #EricFaddis #LegalAnalysis #JusticeDebate 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

Alex Murdaugh's murder conviction was supposed to be the end of the story — but now the outcome of his trial is under review at the South Carolina Supreme Court, and the spotlight isn't just on the evidence… it's on the courthouse itself. In today's Hidden Killers episode, Tony Brueski and former prosecutor/defense attorney Eric Faddis tackle the most explosive element of the appeal: allegations that Clerk of Court Becky Hill may have influenced the jury, urged a quick verdict, commented on Murdaugh's body language, and then wrote a book she financially benefited from. One juror claims Hill whispered, “Watch him… don't be fooled.” The state says it doesn't matter. The defense says it absolutely does. Tony and Eric take listeners inside the legal and psychological weight of jury influence: What happens when a court official speaks to a juror about the defendant? Can a juror truly “un-hear” a remark from someone in authority? And how should the justices interpret Hill's later criminal charges — irrelevant noise, or evidence of a compromised system? The episode also digs into the evidence battle the appeal now centers on. Was this a murder trial supported by overwhelming proof — or a character trial overloaded with financial-crime testimony unrelated to the shootings? Were missing DNA tests, uncollected fingerprints, and absent gunshot residue analysis harmless mistakes… or constitutional failures? And when the public already picked a side long before the verdict, how much pressure do the justices feel to either protect the system's credibility or correct its mistakes? This appeal isn't just about Alex Murdaugh's freedom. It's about whether the justice system can still be trusted to police itself — or whether the courtroom became a stage where fairness took a back seat to outcome. #AlexMurdaugh #BeckyHill #TrueCrimePodcast #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #MurdaughAppeal #JusticeSystem #CourtIntegrity #EricFaddis #CrimeDiscussion 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

Alex Murdaugh's murder conviction was supposed to be the end of the story — but now the outcome of his trial is under review at the South Carolina Supreme Court, and the spotlight isn't just on the evidence… it's on the courthouse itself. In today's Hidden Killers episode, Tony Brueski and former prosecutor/defense attorney Eric Faddis tackle the most explosive element of the appeal: allegations that Clerk of Court Becky Hill may have influenced the jury, urged a quick verdict, commented on Murdaugh's body language, and then wrote a book she financially benefited from. One juror claims Hill whispered, “Watch him… don't be fooled.” The state says it doesn't matter. The defense says it absolutely does. Tony and Eric take listeners inside the legal and psychological weight of jury influence: What happens when a court official speaks to a juror about the defendant? Can a juror truly “un-hear” a remark from someone in authority? And how should the justices interpret Hill's later criminal charges — irrelevant noise, or evidence of a compromised system? The episode also digs into the evidence battle the appeal now centers on. Was this a murder trial supported by overwhelming proof — or a character trial overloaded with financial-crime testimony unrelated to the shootings? Were missing DNA tests, uncollected fingerprints, and absent gunshot residue analysis harmless mistakes… or constitutional failures? And when the public already picked a side long before the verdict, how much pressure do the justices feel to either protect the system's credibility or correct its mistakes? This appeal isn't just about Alex Murdaugh's freedom. It's about whether the justice system can still be trusted to police itself — or whether the courtroom became a stage where fairness took a back seat to outcome. #AlexMurdaugh #BeckyHill #TrueCrimePodcast #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #MurdaughAppeal #JusticeSystem #CourtIntegrity #EricFaddis #CrimeDiscussion 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 Alex Murdaugh case has reached its most critical moment yet: the South Carolina Supreme Court is now reviewing the final filings in his appeal, and both sides are delivering a completely opposite narrative of what happened in that courtroom. One side says the evidence was overwhelming. The other says the process was broken. The justices now have to decide which matters more. In this new Hidden Killers episode, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and legal analyst Eric Faddis examine whether the verdict was powered by solid facts or by a trial that couldn't withstand its own chaos. The prosecution argues everything lines up: Murdaugh's voice on the kennel video, his shifting accounts, his financial world collapsing around him — all pointing toward guilt. The defense counters with accusations that the trial was tainted from the inside: Clerk of Court Becky Hill's alleged comments to jurors, untested DNA, missing forensic work, and a flood of financial testimony they say “poisoned the pool” long before the jury deliberated. Tony and Eric explore what appellate courts really evaluate — not guilt or innocence, but integrity. Did the clerk's alleged words create prejudice? Were the financial crimes allowed to overwhelm the murder evidence? When does “harmless error” become harmful? And how much does media pressure play into what judges are willing to overturn? Beyond Murdaugh, the episode asks a larger question: What happens when a justice system has to evaluate itself? If the verdict stands, does that restore confidence — or just protect an institution's reputation? And if a new trial is ordered, does the public view it as fairness or failure? This appeal will define not just Alex Murdaugh's future, but how the public sees the courts moving forward. #HiddenKillers #AlexMurdaugh #TrueCrime #LegalBreakdown #TonyBrueski #MurdaughCase #SupremeCourtReview #EricFaddis #JusticeDebate #CourtAppeal 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

It's been nearly three years since Alex Murdaugh was convicted of murdering his wife Maggie and son Paul, a verdict that felt like the final chapter in a Southern empire built on generational power, corruption, and deceit. But now the case is back in the spotlight — because three final filings have landed in front of the South Carolina Supreme Court, and they paint two completely different realities about what happened inside that courtroom. In this episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and former prosecutor/defense attorney Eric Faddis dissect why this appeal matters far beyond whether Murdaugh pulled the trigger. The state insists the verdict is bulletproof: the kennel video placed him at the scene, his lies destroyed his credibility, and the motive was clear. Meanwhile, the defense argues the entire process was contaminated before it even began — with Clerk of Court Becky Hill allegedly influencing jurors, commenting on Murdaugh's demeanor, and later writing a book she financially benefited from. Add in untested DNA, missing gunshot residue analysis, and expert-pressure allegations, and the trial starts to look less like justice and more like a perfect storm of misconduct. Tony and Eric break down the real questions the Supreme Court must answer: Was the trial fair? Did the clerk's alleged comments prejudice the jury? Can a verdict stand if the process underneath it cracks? And what does it mean for public trust if a clerk who handled the jury is now facing her own criminal charges? From how jurors absorb financial-crime testimony, to whether “harmless error” can excuse missing forensic testing, to the psychology of high-profile verdicts and the pressure on courts to protect their own institutions — this episode asks whether justice was served, or simply performed. If the Court upholds the conviction, the case is over… until it isn't. If they grant a new trial, the system itself becomes the story. What do you think? Did the evidence overpower the errors — or did the errors overpower the verdict? #AlexMurdaugh #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #TrueCrime #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #CourtSystem #EricFaddis #LegalAnalysis #JusticeDebate 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 Alex Murdaugh case has reached its most critical moment yet: the South Carolina Supreme Court is now reviewing the final filings in his appeal, and both sides are delivering a completely opposite narrative of what happened in that courtroom. One side says the evidence was overwhelming. The other says the process was broken. The justices now have to decide which matters more. In this new Hidden Killers episode, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and legal analyst Eric Faddis examine whether the verdict was powered by solid facts or by a trial that couldn't withstand its own chaos. The prosecution argues everything lines up: Murdaugh's voice on the kennel video, his shifting accounts, his financial world collapsing around him — all pointing toward guilt. The defense counters with accusations that the trial was tainted from the inside: Clerk of Court Becky Hill's alleged comments to jurors, untested DNA, missing forensic work, and a flood of financial testimony they say “poisoned the pool” long before the jury deliberated. Tony and Eric explore what appellate courts really evaluate — not guilt or innocence, but integrity. Did the clerk's alleged words create prejudice? Were the financial crimes allowed to overwhelm the murder evidence? When does “harmless error” become harmful? And how much does media pressure play into what judges are willing to overturn? Beyond Murdaugh, the episode asks a larger question: What happens when a justice system has to evaluate itself? If the verdict stands, does that restore confidence — or just protect an institution's reputation? And if a new trial is ordered, does the public view it as fairness or failure? This appeal will define not just Alex Murdaugh's future, but how the public sees the courts moving forward. #HiddenKillers #AlexMurdaugh #TrueCrime #LegalBreakdown #TonyBrueski #MurdaughCase #SupremeCourtReview #EricFaddis #JusticeDebate #CourtAppeal 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

It's been nearly three years since Alex Murdaugh was convicted of murdering his wife Maggie and son Paul, a verdict that felt like the final chapter in a Southern empire built on generational power, corruption, and deceit. But now the case is back in the spotlight — because three final filings have landed in front of the South Carolina Supreme Court, and they paint two completely different realities about what happened inside that courtroom. In this episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and former prosecutor/defense attorney Eric Faddis dissect why this appeal matters far beyond whether Murdaugh pulled the trigger. The state insists the verdict is bulletproof: the kennel video placed him at the scene, his lies destroyed his credibility, and the motive was clear. Meanwhile, the defense argues the entire process was contaminated before it even began — with Clerk of Court Becky Hill allegedly influencing jurors, commenting on Murdaugh's demeanor, and later writing a book she financially benefited from. Add in untested DNA, missing gunshot residue analysis, and expert-pressure allegations, and the trial starts to look less like justice and more like a perfect storm of misconduct. Tony and Eric break down the real questions the Supreme Court must answer: Was the trial fair? Did the clerk's alleged comments prejudice the jury? Can a verdict stand if the process underneath it cracks? And what does it mean for public trust if a clerk who handled the jury is now facing her own criminal charges? From how jurors absorb financial-crime testimony, to whether “harmless error” can excuse missing forensic testing, to the psychology of high-profile verdicts and the pressure on courts to protect their own institutions — this episode asks whether justice was served, or simply performed. If the Court upholds the conviction, the case is over… until it isn't. If they grant a new trial, the system itself becomes the story. What do you think? Did the evidence overpower the errors — or did the errors overpower the verdict? #AlexMurdaugh #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #TrueCrime #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #CourtSystem #EricFaddis #LegalAnalysis #JusticeDebate 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

Alex Murdaugh's murder conviction was supposed to be the end of the story — but now the outcome of his trial is under review at the South Carolina Supreme Court, and the spotlight isn't just on the evidence… it's on the courthouse itself. In today's Hidden Killers episode, Tony Brueski and former prosecutor/defense attorney Eric Faddis tackle the most explosive element of the appeal: allegations that Clerk of Court Becky Hill may have influenced the jury, urged a quick verdict, commented on Murdaugh's body language, and then wrote a book she financially benefited from. One juror claims Hill whispered, “Watch him… don't be fooled.” The state says it doesn't matter. The defense says it absolutely does. Tony and Eric take listeners inside the legal and psychological weight of jury influence: What happens when a court official speaks to a juror about the defendant? Can a juror truly “un-hear” a remark from someone in authority? And how should the justices interpret Hill's later criminal charges — irrelevant noise, or evidence of a compromised system? The episode also digs into the evidence battle the appeal now centers on. Was this a murder trial supported by overwhelming proof — or a character trial overloaded with financial-crime testimony unrelated to the shootings? Were missing DNA tests, uncollected fingerprints, and absent gunshot residue analysis harmless mistakes… or constitutional failures? And when the public already picked a side long before the verdict, how much pressure do the justices feel to either protect the system's credibility or correct its mistakes? This appeal isn't just about Alex Murdaugh's freedom. It's about whether the justice system can still be trusted to police itself — or whether the courtroom became a stage where fairness took a back seat to outcome. #AlexMurdaugh #BeckyHill #TrueCrimePodcast #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #MurdaughAppeal #JusticeSystem #CourtIntegrity #EricFaddis #CrimeDiscussion 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

It's been nearly three years since Alex Murdaugh was convicted of murdering his wife Maggie and son Paul, a verdict that felt like the final chapter in a Southern empire built on generational power, corruption, and deceit. But now the case is back in the spotlight — because three final filings have landed in front of the South Carolina Supreme Court, and they paint two completely different realities about what happened inside that courtroom. In this episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and former prosecutor/defense attorney Eric Faddis dissect why this appeal matters far beyond whether Murdaugh pulled the trigger. The state insists the verdict is bulletproof: the kennel video placed him at the scene, his lies destroyed his credibility, and the motive was clear. Meanwhile, the defense argues the entire process was contaminated before it even began — with Clerk of Court Becky Hill allegedly influencing jurors, commenting on Murdaugh's demeanor, and later writing a book she financially benefited from. Add in untested DNA, missing gunshot residue analysis, and expert-pressure allegations, and the trial starts to look less like justice and more like a perfect storm of misconduct. Tony and Eric break down the real questions the Supreme Court must answer: Was the trial fair? Did the clerk's alleged comments prejudice the jury? Can a verdict stand if the process underneath it cracks? And what does it mean for public trust if a clerk who handled the jury is now facing her own criminal charges? From how jurors absorb financial-crime testimony, to whether “harmless error” can excuse missing forensic testing, to the psychology of high-profile verdicts and the pressure on courts to protect their own institutions — this episode asks whether justice was served, or simply performed. If the Court upholds the conviction, the case is over… until it isn't. If they grant a new trial, the system itself becomes the story. What do you think? Did the evidence overpower the errors — or did the errors overpower the verdict? #AlexMurdaugh #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #TrueCrime #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #CourtSystem #EricFaddis #LegalAnalysis #JusticeDebate 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 Alex Murdaugh case has reached its most critical moment yet: the South Carolina Supreme Court is now reviewing the final filings in his appeal, and both sides are delivering a completely opposite narrative of what happened in that courtroom. One side says the evidence was overwhelming. The other says the process was broken. The justices now have to decide which matters more. In this new Hidden Killers episode, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and legal analyst Eric Faddis examine whether the verdict was powered by solid facts or by a trial that couldn't withstand its own chaos. The prosecution argues everything lines up: Murdaugh's voice on the kennel video, his shifting accounts, his financial world collapsing around him — all pointing toward guilt. The defense counters with accusations that the trial was tainted from the inside: Clerk of Court Becky Hill's alleged comments to jurors, untested DNA, missing forensic work, and a flood of financial testimony they say “poisoned the pool” long before the jury deliberated. Tony and Eric explore what appellate courts really evaluate — not guilt or innocence, but integrity. Did the clerk's alleged words create prejudice? Were the financial crimes allowed to overwhelm the murder evidence? When does “harmless error” become harmful? And how much does media pressure play into what judges are willing to overturn? Beyond Murdaugh, the episode asks a larger question: What happens when a justice system has to evaluate itself? If the verdict stands, does that restore confidence — or just protect an institution's reputation? And if a new trial is ordered, does the public view it as fairness or failure? This appeal will define not just Alex Murdaugh's future, but how the public sees the courts moving forward. #HiddenKillers #AlexMurdaugh #TrueCrime #LegalBreakdown #TonyBrueski #MurdaughCase #SupremeCourtReview #EricFaddis #JusticeDebate #CourtAppeal 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

Alex Murdaugh's murder conviction was supposed to be the end of the story — but now the outcome of his trial is under review at the South Carolina Supreme Court, and the spotlight isn't just on the evidence… it's on the courthouse itself. In today's Hidden Killers episode, Tony Brueski and former prosecutor/defense attorney Eric Faddis tackle the most explosive element of the appeal: allegations that Clerk of Court Becky Hill may have influenced the jury, urged a quick verdict, commented on Murdaugh's body language, and then wrote a book she financially benefited from. One juror claims Hill whispered, “Watch him… don't be fooled.” The state says it doesn't matter. The defense says it absolutely does. Tony and Eric take listeners inside the legal and psychological weight of jury influence: What happens when a court official speaks to a juror about the defendant? Can a juror truly “un-hear” a remark from someone in authority? And how should the justices interpret Hill's later criminal charges — irrelevant noise, or evidence of a compromised system? The episode also digs into the evidence battle the appeal now centers on. Was this a murder trial supported by overwhelming proof — or a character trial overloaded with financial-crime testimony unrelated to the shootings? Were missing DNA tests, uncollected fingerprints, and absent gunshot residue analysis harmless mistakes… or constitutional failures? And when the public already picked a side long before the verdict, how much pressure do the justices feel to either protect the system's credibility or correct its mistakes? This appeal isn't just about Alex Murdaugh's freedom. It's about whether the justice system can still be trusted to police itself — or whether the courtroom became a stage where fairness took a back seat to outcome. #AlexMurdaugh #BeckyHill #TrueCrimePodcast #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #MurdaughAppeal #JusticeSystem #CourtIntegrity #EricFaddis #CrimeDiscussion 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

Two cases. Two very different crimes. One system that failed both sets of victims. In this Hidden Killers double feature, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and Todd Michaels sit down with defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis to unpack two stories that expose the cracks in American justice — one soaked in leniency, the other in cruelty. First: Jesse Mack Butler. Eleven felony charges. Two teenage girls. One nearly strangled to death. Video evidence. Doctors saying seconds more and she'd be gone. Yet somehow, Stillwater, Oklahoma's court system gave him a second chance — turning seventy-eight years of possible prison time into one year of supervision under the Youthful Offender statute. Eric and Tony dig into how the legal definition of “youth” became a shield for violence, how privilege masqueraded as compassion, and how prosecutors and judges rationalized a decision that left two survivors behind. Then: Susan Lorincz.  The Florida woman convicted of shooting Ajike “AJ” Owens through a locked door — killing the mother of four in front of her children. From prison, Lorincz has now written a four-page letter threatening to sue Owens's children and mother for defamation — accusing them of trespassing, lying, and “ruining her reputation.” Tony and Eric expose the psychological rot behind that letter — how denial becomes control, how narcissism replaces remorse, and how the legal system still lets killers weaponize paperwork against the families they destroyed. Two stories. Same disease. A justice system too soft on those who harm and too silent for those who suffer.

Two cases. Two very different crimes. One system that failed both sets of victims. In this Hidden Killers double feature, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and Todd Michaels sit down with defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis to unpack two stories that expose the cracks in American justice — one soaked in leniency, the other in cruelty. First: Jesse Mack Butler. Eleven felony charges. Two teenage girls. One nearly strangled to death. Video evidence. Doctors saying seconds more and she'd be gone. Yet somehow, Stillwater, Oklahoma's court system gave him a second chance — turning seventy-eight years of possible prison time into one year of supervision under the Youthful Offender statute. Eric and Tony dig into how the legal definition of “youth” became a shield for violence, how privilege masqueraded as compassion, and how prosecutors and judges rationalized a decision that left two survivors behind. Then: Susan Lorincz.  The Florida woman convicted of shooting Ajike “AJ” Owens through a locked door — killing the mother of four in front of her children. From prison, Lorincz has now written a four-page letter threatening to sue Owens's children and mother for defamation — accusing them of trespassing, lying, and “ruining her reputation.” Tony and Eric expose the psychological rot behind that letter — how denial becomes control, how narcissism replaces remorse, and how the legal system still lets killers weaponize paperwork against the families they destroyed. Two stories. Same disease. A justice system too soft on those who harm and too silent for those who suffer.

Two cases. Two very different crimes. One system that failed both sets of victims. In this Hidden Killers double feature, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and Todd Michaels sit down with defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis to unpack two stories that expose the cracks in American justice — one soaked in leniency, the other in cruelty. First: Jesse Mack Butler. Eleven felony charges. Two teenage girls. One nearly strangled to death. Video evidence. Doctors saying seconds more and she'd be gone. Yet somehow, Stillwater, Oklahoma's court system gave him a second chance — turning seventy-eight years of possible prison time into one year of supervision under the Youthful Offender statute. Eric and Tony dig into how the legal definition of “youth” became a shield for violence, how privilege masqueraded as compassion, and how prosecutors and judges rationalized a decision that left two survivors behind. Then: Susan Lorincz.  The Florida woman convicted of shooting Ajike “AJ” Owens through a locked door — killing the mother of four in front of her children. From prison, Lorincz has now written a four-page letter threatening to sue Owens's children and mother for defamation — accusing them of trespassing, lying, and “ruining her reputation.” Tony and Eric expose the psychological rot behind that letter — how denial becomes control, how narcissism replaces remorse, and how the legal system still lets killers weaponize paperwork against the families they destroyed. Two stories. Same disease. A justice system too soft on those who harm and too silent for those who suffer.

She killed their mother—and now she wants to sue them. Convicted shooter Susan Lorincz, the woman who fired through a locked door and killed Ajike “AJ” Owens in Ocala, Florida, is back in the headlines. From her prison cell, Lorincz penned a four-page handwritten letter threatening to sue Owens's children and mother for defamation—accusing them of lying, trespassing, and “ruining her reputation.” In this episode of Hidden Killers, host Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and Todd Michaels sit down with defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis to unpack the legal and moral insanity behind this letter. Could Lorincz actually file a lawsuit from prison? What's her endgame—justice or control? And how does a system even allow a convicted killer to weaponize paperwork against the very family she destroyed? Eric Faddis breaks down the reality: why this “defamation threat” has no legal ground, how narcissism and denial often drive post-conviction behavior, and what reforms could stop offenders from re-victimizing families through civil filings. Tony and Eric go beyond the law—into the psychology of entitlement, the trauma inflicted on AJ Owens's children, and the failure of a justice system that still lets a killer's words reach the people she hurt most.

Two cases. Two very different crimes. One system that failed both sets of victims. In this Hidden Killers double feature, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and Todd Michaels sit down with defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis to unpack two stories that expose the cracks in American justice — one soaked in leniency, the other in cruelty. First: Jesse Mack Butler. Eleven felony charges. Two teenage girls. One nearly strangled to death. Video evidence. Doctors saying seconds more and she'd be gone. Yet somehow, Stillwater, Oklahoma's court system gave him a second chance — turning seventy-eight years of possible prison time into one year of supervision under the Youthful Offender statute. Eric and Tony dig into how the legal definition of “youth” became a shield for violence, how privilege masqueraded as compassion, and how prosecutors and judges rationalized a decision that left two survivors behind. Then: Susan Lorincz.  The Florida woman convicted of shooting Ajike “AJ” Owens through a locked door — killing the mother of four in front of her children. From prison, Lorincz has now written a four-page letter threatening to sue Owens's children and mother for defamation — accusing them of trespassing, lying, and “ruining her reputation.” Tony and Eric expose the psychological rot behind that letter — how denial becomes control, how narcissism replaces remorse, and how the legal system still lets killers weaponize paperwork against the families they destroyed. Two stories. Same disease.  A justice system too soft on those who harm and too silent for those who suffer.

Eleven felony charges. Two teenage victims. One nearly strangled to death. And somehow—no prison time. In this episode of Hidden Killers with Tony Brueski, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins Tony, Stacy, and Todd to unpack how Stillwater, Oklahoma's justice system transformed one of the state's most brutal sexual-assault cases into a single year of “rehabilitation.” Eighteen-year-old Jesse Mack Butler was originally charged with rape, attempted rape, sexual battery, and assault and battery by strangulation after attacking two 16-year-old girls. Police recovered partial phone-video evidence of the assault; one victim required neck surgery after nearly dying. Because Butler was 17 at the time, his defense argued for Youthful Offender status. The court agreed. A potential 78-year sentence vanished, replaced with one year of supervision. Tony and Eric break down: How a no-contest plea erased accountability. Why prosecutors accepted leniency despite overwhelming evidence. The legal loopholes in Oklahoma's Youthful Offender statute. Whether empathy or privilege decided the outcome. From both sides of the courtroom—prosecutor and defense—Eric Faddis explains how mercy became protection, how the law failed its victims, and what reforms could stop it from happening again.

Eleven felony charges. Two teenage victims. One nearly strangled to death. And somehow—no prison time. In this episode of Hidden Killers with Tony Brueski, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins Tony, Stacy, and Todd to unpack how Stillwater, Oklahoma's justice system transformed one of the state's most brutal sexual-assault cases into a single year of “rehabilitation.” Eighteen-year-old Jesse Mack Butler was originally charged with rape, attempted rape, sexual battery, and assault and battery by strangulation after attacking two 16-year-old girls. Police recovered partial phone-video evidence of the assault; one victim required neck surgery after nearly dying. Because Butler was 17 at the time, his defense argued for Youthful Offender status. The court agreed. A potential 78-year sentence vanished, replaced with one year of supervision. Tony and Eric break down: How a no-contest plea erased accountability. Why prosecutors accepted leniency despite overwhelming evidence. The legal loopholes in Oklahoma's Youthful Offender statute. Whether empathy or privilege decided the outcome. From both sides of the courtroom—prosecutor and defense—Eric Faddis explains how mercy became protection, how the law failed its victims, and what reforms could stop it from happening again.

Two cases. Two very different crimes. One system that failed both sets of victims. In this Hidden Killers double feature, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and Todd Michaels sit down with defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis to unpack two stories that expose the cracks in American justice — one soaked in leniency, the other in cruelty. First: Jesse Mack Butler. Eleven felony charges. Two teenage girls. One nearly strangled to death. Video evidence. Doctors saying seconds more and she'd be gone. Yet somehow, Stillwater, Oklahoma's court system gave him a second chance — turning seventy-eight years of possible prison time into one year of supervision under the Youthful Offender statute. Eric and Tony dig into how the legal definition of “youth” became a shield for violence, how privilege masqueraded as compassion, and how prosecutors and judges rationalized a decision that left two survivors behind. Then: Susan Lorincz.  The Florida woman convicted of shooting Ajike “AJ” Owens through a locked door — killing the mother of four in front of her children. From prison, Lorincz has now written a four-page letter threatening to sue Owens's children and mother for defamation — accusing them of trespassing, lying, and “ruining her reputation.” Tony and Eric expose the psychological rot behind that letter — how denial becomes control, how narcissism replaces remorse, and how the legal system still lets killers weaponize paperwork against the families they destroyed. Two stories. Same disease.  A justice system too soft on those who harm and too silent for those who suffer.

She killed their mother—and now she wants to sue them. Convicted shooter Susan Lorincz, the woman who fired through a locked door and killed Ajike “AJ” Owens in Ocala, Florida, is back in the headlines. From her prison cell, Lorincz penned a four-page handwritten letter threatening to sue Owens's children and mother for defamation—accusing them of lying, trespassing, and “ruining her reputation.” In this episode of Hidden Killers, host Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and Todd Michaels sit down with defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis to unpack the legal and moral insanity behind this letter. Could Lorincz actually file a lawsuit from prison? What's her endgame—justice or control? And how does a system even allow a convicted killer to weaponize paperwork against the very family she destroyed? Eric Faddis breaks down the reality: why this “defamation threat” has no legal ground, how narcissism and denial often drive post-conviction behavior, and what reforms could stop offenders from re-victimizing families through civil filings. Tony and Eric go beyond the law—into the psychology of entitlement, the trauma inflicted on AJ Owens's children, and the failure of a justice system that still lets a killer's words reach the people she hurt most.

She killed their mother—and now she wants to sue them. Convicted shooter Susan Lorincz, the woman who fired through a locked door and killed Ajike “AJ” Owens in Ocala, Florida, is back in the headlines. From her prison cell, Lorincz penned a four-page handwritten letter threatening to sue Owens's children and mother for defamation—accusing them of lying, trespassing, and “ruining her reputation.” In this episode of Hidden Killers, host Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and Todd Michaels sit down with defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis to unpack the legal and moral insanity behind this letter. Could Lorincz actually file a lawsuit from prison? What's her endgame—justice or control? And how does a system even allow a convicted killer to weaponize paperwork against the very family she destroyed? Eric Faddis breaks down the reality: why this “defamation threat” has no legal ground, how narcissism and denial often drive post-conviction behavior, and what reforms could stop offenders from re-victimizing families through civil filings. Tony and Eric go beyond the law—into the psychology of entitlement, the trauma inflicted on AJ Owens's children, and the failure of a justice system that still lets a killer's words reach the people she hurt most.

Eleven felony charges. Two teenage victims. One nearly strangled to death. And somehow—no prison time. In this episode of Hidden Killers with Tony Brueski, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins Tony, Stacy, and Todd to unpack how Stillwater, Oklahoma's justice system transformed one of the state's most brutal sexual-assault cases into a single year of “rehabilitation.” Eighteen-year-old Jesse Mack Butler was originally charged with rape, attempted rape, sexual battery, and assault and battery by strangulation after attacking two 16-year-old girls. Police recovered partial phone-video evidence of the assault; one victim required neck surgery after nearly dying. Because Butler was 17 at the time, his defense argued for Youthful Offender status. The court agreed. A potential 78-year sentence vanished, replaced with one year of supervision. Tony and Eric break down: How a no-contest plea erased accountability. Why prosecutors accepted leniency despite overwhelming evidence. The legal loopholes in Oklahoma's Youthful Offender statute. Whether empathy or privilege decided the outcome. From both sides of the courtroom—prosecutor and defense—Eric Faddis explains how mercy became protection, how the law failed its victims, and what reforms could stop it from happening again.

Two cases. Two very different crimes. One system that failed both sets of victims. In this Hidden Killers double feature, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and Todd Michaels sit down with defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis to unpack two stories that expose the cracks in American justice — one soaked in leniency, the other in cruelty. First: Jesse Mack Butler. Eleven felony charges. Two teenage girls. One nearly strangled to death. Video evidence. Doctors saying seconds more and she'd be gone. Yet somehow, Stillwater, Oklahoma's court system gave him a second chance — turning seventy-eight years of possible prison time into one year of supervision under the Youthful Offender statute. Eric and Tony dig into how the legal definition of “youth” became a shield for violence, how privilege masqueraded as compassion, and how prosecutors and judges rationalized a decision that left two survivors behind. Then: Susan Lorincz.  The Florida woman convicted of shooting Ajike “AJ” Owens through a locked door — killing the mother of four in front of her children. From prison, Lorincz has now written a four-page letter threatening to sue Owens's children and mother for defamation — accusing them of trespassing, lying, and “ruining her reputation.” Tony and Eric expose the psychological rot behind that letter — how denial becomes control, how narcissism replaces remorse, and how the legal system still lets killers weaponize paperwork against the families they destroyed. Two stories. Same disease.  A justice system too soft on those who harm and too silent for those who suffer.

Two stories. One broken system. In Idaho, Bryan Kohberger could legally make money off his own murders. In Virginia, a first-grade teacher named Abby Zwerner was shot after four separate warnings were ignored. Both stories show how America's justice system has traded accountability for excuses — and how law, morality, and bureaucracy keep collapsing under their own contradictions. Tony Brueski and former prosecutor Eric Faddis connect these cases in one of their most morally charged episodes yet. The first half, When Infamy Becomes an Industry, explores how constitutional loopholes turned the First Amendment into a profit shield for convicted killers. The Supreme Court's Simon & Schuster decision gutted Son of Sam laws nationwide — and states like Idaho never replaced them. Tony and Eric unpack how “free speech” became a business plan for murderers and why politicians are too afraid to fix a law that lets killers cash checks while victims' families get nothing. The second half, The Price of Ignorance, turns the spotlight on institutional cowardice. In Newport News, Virginia, teacher Abby Zwerner was nearly killed after school officials ignored every warning about an armed six-year-old. Tony and Eric examine how fear of optics, legal liability, and self-preservation led to tragedy — and what that means for every teacher still walking into a classroom unprotected. Together, these stories reveal a single truth: justice in America doesn't end at the verdict — it just changes platforms. Whether it's a killer monetizing murder or a school hiding behind procedure, the result is the same. Profit over pain. Policy over people. #BryanKohberger #AbbyZwerner #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #SonOfSam #SchoolShooting #TonyBrueski #EricFaddis #VictimsRights #CrimePodcast #LegalAnalysis #WhenJusticeFails #FreeSpeech #Accountability 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

Two stories. One broken system. In Idaho, Bryan Kohberger could legally make money off his own murders. In Virginia, a first-grade teacher named Abby Zwerner was shot after four separate warnings were ignored. Both stories show how America's justice system has traded accountability for excuses — and how law, morality, and bureaucracy keep collapsing under their own contradictions. Tony Brueski and former prosecutor Eric Faddis connect these cases in one of their most morally charged episodes yet. The first half, When Infamy Becomes an Industry, explores how constitutional loopholes turned the First Amendment into a profit shield for convicted killers. The Supreme Court's Simon & Schuster decision gutted Son of Sam laws nationwide — and states like Idaho never replaced them. Tony and Eric unpack how “free speech” became a business plan for murderers and why politicians are too afraid to fix a law that lets killers cash checks while victims' families get nothing. The second half, The Price of Ignorance, turns the spotlight on institutional cowardice. In Newport News, Virginia, teacher Abby Zwerner was nearly killed after school officials ignored every warning about an armed six-year-old. Tony and Eric examine how fear of optics, legal liability, and self-preservation led to tragedy — and what that means for every teacher still walking into a classroom unprotected. Together, these stories reveal a single truth: justice in America doesn't end at the verdict — it just changes platforms. Whether it's a killer monetizing murder or a school hiding behind procedure, the result is the same. Profit over pain. Policy over people. #BryanKohberger #AbbyZwerner #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #SonOfSam #SchoolShooting #TonyBrueski #EricFaddis #VictimsRights #CrimePodcast #LegalAnalysis #WhenJusticeFails #FreeSpeech #Accountability 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

Two stories. One broken system. In Idaho, Bryan Kohberger could legally make money off his own murders. In Virginia, a first-grade teacher named Abby Zwerner was shot after four separate warnings were ignored. Both stories show how America's justice system has traded accountability for excuses — and how law, morality, and bureaucracy keep collapsing under their own contradictions. Tony Brueski and former prosecutor Eric Faddis connect these cases in one of their most morally charged episodes yet. The first half, When Infamy Becomes an Industry, explores how constitutional loopholes turned the First Amendment into a profit shield for convicted killers. The Supreme Court's Simon & Schuster decision gutted Son of Sam laws nationwide — and states like Idaho never replaced them. Tony and Eric unpack how “free speech” became a business plan for murderers and why politicians are too afraid to fix a law that lets killers cash checks while victims' families get nothing. The second half, The Price of Ignorance, turns the spotlight on institutional cowardice. In Newport News, Virginia, teacher Abby Zwerner was nearly killed after school officials ignored every warning about an armed six-year-old. Tony and Eric examine how fear of optics, legal liability, and self-preservation led to tragedy — and what that means for every teacher still walking into a classroom unprotected. Together, these stories reveal a single truth: justice in America doesn't end at the verdict — it just changes platforms. Whether it's a killer monetizing murder or a school hiding behind procedure, the result is the same. Profit over pain. Policy over people. #BryanKohberger #AbbyZwerner #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #SonOfSam #SchoolShooting #TonyBrueski #EricFaddis #VictimsRights #CrimePodcast #LegalAnalysis #WhenJusticeFails #FreeSpeech #Accountability 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

A six-year-old brought a gun to class. Four adults sounded the alarm. The assistant principal said the boy's pockets were too small to hold a gun. Hours later, teacher Abby Zwerner was bleeding on a classroom floor. The bullet came from a child's hand — but the failure came from the adults who didn't listen. In this episode, Tony Brueski and former prosecutor Eric Faddis dig into The Price of Ignorance — the $40-million civil trial that exposes how bureaucracy, denial, and institutional cowardice nearly cost a teacher her life. They break down the legal concept of foreseeability — how repeated warnings establish negligence — and the difference between a bad decision and reckless disregard for human safety. Abby Zwerner's case reveals the rot inside American education: administrators afraid of optics, systems paralyzed by fear of lawsuits, and a culture that prioritizes image over action. Tony and Eric walk through every failure: the ignored warnings, the denied bag search, the “too small” comment, and the claim that being shot is a “normal occupational risk.” They also unpack the emotional and psychological damage to teachers nationwide who watch the case wondering, Would my school protect me? This episode asks the questions that cut through legal jargon: When does negligence become moral crime? How many warnings are enough before inaction becomes guilt? And if a jury rules that a teacher's shooting was “unforeseeable,” what message does that send to every educator still waiting to be heard? In a country with 344 school shootings since Columbine, this trial isn't an exception — it's a mirror. #AbbyZwerner #SchoolShooting #Negligence #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #TonyBrueski #EricFaddis #EducationReform #VictimsRights #TeacherSafety #ZwernerTrial #Accountability 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

Bryan Kohberger can't leave his cell — but his story can. In the state of Idaho, there's no Son of Sam law, meaning that a convicted murderer can legally make money from the story of his crimes. Books. Documentaries. Interviews. Royalties. In this episode, Tony Brueski and former prosecutor Eric Faddis expose how one of the most horrifying modern murder cases has collided with one of America's oldest constitutional blind spots: the First Amendment's protection of speech — even when that speech turns into profit from murder. Tony opens with the question every viewer needs to hear: How can a convicted killer make money from killing? The answer lies in a 1991 Supreme Court ruling, Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board, which struck down New York's original Son of Sam law after the “Son of Sam” killer, David Berkowitz, tried to sell his story. The Court ruled that laws restricting “crime-based storytelling” discriminated against speech by content. States rewrote their laws to pass constitutional review — some succeeded, others failed — but Idaho never passed anything. The result: a legal vacuum where infamy becomes an industry. This episode breaks down the moral, legal, and economic consequences of that loophole. What does it mean for victims' families when killers can cash checks? Could Kohberger assign rights to a third party to hide profits? And why are lawmakers too afraid to fix it? Tony and Eric dissect how “freedom” became a shield for greed, how fear of being called unconstitutional paralyzed reform, and why the justice system now doubles as a business model. Justice shouldn't have a payout plan. This episode asks why America keeps writing one. #BryanKohberger #SonOfSam #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #CrimePodcast #VictimsRights #TonyBrueski #EricFaddis #KohbergerTrial #FreeSpeech #MurderProfit #TrueCrimeAnalysis 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

Two stories. One broken system. In Idaho, Bryan Kohberger could legally make money off his own murders. In Virginia, a first-grade teacher named Abby Zwerner was shot after four separate warnings were ignored. Both stories show how America's justice system has traded accountability for excuses — and how law, morality, and bureaucracy keep collapsing under their own contradictions. Tony Brueski and former prosecutor Eric Faddis connect these cases in one of their most morally charged episodes yet. The first half, When Infamy Becomes an Industry, explores how constitutional loopholes turned the First Amendment into a profit shield for convicted killers. The Supreme Court's Simon & Schuster decision gutted Son of Sam laws nationwide — and states like Idaho never replaced them. Tony and Eric unpack how “free speech” became a business plan for murderers and why politicians are too afraid to fix a law that lets killers cash checks while victims' families get nothing. The second half, The Price of Ignorance, turns the spotlight on institutional cowardice. In Newport News, Virginia, teacher Abby Zwerner was nearly killed after school officials ignored every warning about an armed six-year-old. Tony and Eric examine how fear of optics, legal liability, and self-preservation led to tragedy — and what that means for every teacher still walking into a classroom unprotected. Together, these stories reveal a single truth: justice in America doesn't end at the verdict — it just changes platforms. Whether it's a killer monetizing murder or a school hiding behind procedure, the result is the same. Profit over pain. Policy over people. #BryanKohberger #AbbyZwerner #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #SonOfSam #SchoolShooting #TonyBrueski #EricFaddis #VictimsRights #CrimePodcast #LegalAnalysis #WhenJusticeFails #FreeSpeech #Accountability 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

Bryan Kohberger can't leave his cell — but his story can. In the state of Idaho, there's no Son of Sam law, meaning that a convicted murderer can legally make money from the story of his crimes. Books. Documentaries. Interviews. Royalties. In this episode, Tony Brueski and former prosecutor Eric Faddis expose how one of the most horrifying modern murder cases has collided with one of America's oldest constitutional blind spots: the First Amendment's protection of speech — even when that speech turns into profit from murder. Tony opens with the question every viewer needs to hear: How can a convicted killer make money from killing? The answer lies in a 1991 Supreme Court ruling, Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board, which struck down New York's original Son of Sam law after the “Son of Sam” killer, David Berkowitz, tried to sell his story. The Court ruled that laws restricting “crime-based storytelling” discriminated against speech by content. States rewrote their laws to pass constitutional review — some succeeded, others failed — but Idaho never passed anything. The result: a legal vacuum where infamy becomes an industry. This episode breaks down the moral, legal, and economic consequences of that loophole. What does it mean for victims' families when killers can cash checks? Could Kohberger assign rights to a third party to hide profits? And why are lawmakers too afraid to fix it? Tony and Eric dissect how “freedom” became a shield for greed, how fear of being called unconstitutional paralyzed reform, and why the justice system now doubles as a business model. Justice shouldn't have a payout plan. This episode asks why America keeps writing one. #BryanKohberger #SonOfSam #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #CrimePodcast #VictimsRights #TonyBrueski #EricFaddis #KohbergerTrial #FreeSpeech #MurderProfit #TrueCrimeAnalysis 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

A six-year-old brought a gun to class. Four adults sounded the alarm. The assistant principal said the boy's pockets were too small to hold a gun. Hours later, teacher Abby Zwerner was bleeding on a classroom floor. The bullet came from a child's hand — but the failure came from the adults who didn't listen. In this episode, Tony Brueski and former prosecutor Eric Faddis dig into The Price of Ignorance — the $40-million civil trial that exposes how bureaucracy, denial, and institutional cowardice nearly cost a teacher her life. They break down the legal concept of foreseeability — how repeated warnings establish negligence — and the difference between a bad decision and reckless disregard for human safety. Abby Zwerner's case reveals the rot inside American education: administrators afraid of optics, systems paralyzed by fear of lawsuits, and a culture that prioritizes image over action. Tony and Eric walk through every failure: the ignored warnings, the denied bag search, the “too small” comment, and the claim that being shot is a “normal occupational risk.” They also unpack the emotional and psychological damage to teachers nationwide who watch the case wondering, Would my school protect me? This episode asks the questions that cut through legal jargon: When does negligence become moral crime? How many warnings are enough before inaction becomes guilt? And if a jury rules that a teacher's shooting was “unforeseeable,” what message does that send to every educator still waiting to be heard? In a country with 344 school shootings since Columbine, this trial isn't an exception — it's a mirror. #AbbyZwerner #SchoolShooting #Negligence #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #TonyBrueski #EricFaddis #EducationReform #VictimsRights #TeacherSafety #ZwernerTrial #Accountability 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