Podcasts about latah county

Prosecutors pushed back against Bryan Kohberger's scientific report supporting a change of venue by arguing that the defense had overstated what its survey data actually proved about potential juror bias in Latah County. The defense had relied on polling and expert analysis to argue that pretrial publicity had poisoned the local jury pool and made it impossible for Kohberger to receive a fair trial in Moscow. The State countered that widespread familiarity with the case was not the same thing as fixed prejudice and emphasized that jurors could know about the murders without having already decided Kohberger was guilty. Prosecutors also challenged the methodology and interpretation behind the defense study, arguing that some of the questions were leading, that attitudes measured in a survey did not necessarily predict how prospective jurors would behave under oath, and that voir dire remained the proper mechanism for identifying and removing biased jurors.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bryan Kohberger's defense pushed to move his trial out of Moscow, Idaho, arguing that the extraordinary publicity surrounding the murders of Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin had made it impossible for him to receive a fair trial in Latah County. His attorneys pointed to the intensity of local news coverage, the small size of the community, the emotional impact of the killings on Moscow and the University of Idaho, and survey data showing that many prospective jurors had already formed strong opinions about Kohberger's guilt. The defense argued that simply questioning jurors during voir dire would not be enough to overcome the level of prejudice they believed existed locally, and they specifically identified Ada County, home to Boise and a much larger jury pool, as a more suitable location for the case.Prosecutors resisted the effort, arguing that extensive publicity did not automatically mean an impartial jury could not be selected in Latah County and that moving the trial would create significant logistical and financial complications. Kohberger's lawyers countered that the issue was not convenience but whether the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury could realistically be protected in a community so closely connected to the crime. The fight ultimately became one of the most consequential pretrial battles in the case, with the defense relying heavily on expert analysis, public-opinion surveys and the sheer saturation of coverage surrounding the murders. The court eventually agreed that the trial should be moved, and Ada County became the new venue, shifting one of the most closely watched murder prosecutions in the country away from the community where the killings had occurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The order granting Bryan Kohberger's motion for a change of venue concluded that the extraordinary level of publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders, combined with the relatively small population of Latah County and the intense local connection to the case, created too great a risk that an impartial jury could not realistically be seated in Moscow. Judge John Judge emphasized that the issue was not simply whether residents had heard about the case, but the degree to which the murders had saturated the community and affected people personally through the university, local businesses, law enforcement, friends and family. The court also considered defense polling and expert testimony showing that potential jurors in Latah County were significantly more likely to have formed strong opinions about Kohberger's guilt and, in some cases, about whether he should receive the death penalty. Although prosecutors argued that careful jury selection could address those concerns, the judge ultimately determined that voir dire alone was not enough to eliminate the risk of prejudice.The court therefore ordered the trial moved out of Latah County, finding that a larger population center would provide a substantially broader jury pool and reduce the influence of the intense local atmosphere surrounding the killings. The Idaho Supreme Court subsequently assigned the case to Ada County and District Judge Steven Hippler, effectively transferring the prosecution from Moscow to Boise. The ruling was a major victory for Kohberger's defense, which had argued for months that Ada County offered the best chance of assembling jurors who were less personally connected to the case and less saturated by local coverage. The order did not suggest that every potential Latah County juror was biased; rather, it concluded that the combination of community impact, pretrial publicity, the size of the jury pool and the stakes of a capital murder prosecution made relocation necessary to better protect Kohberger's constitutional right to a fair trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The scientific work submitted on Bryan Kohberger's behalf in support of moving his trial out of Latah County had focused on whether years of publicity, community involvement and emotional exposure to the murders had created a jury pool that could realistically be considered impartial. Defense experts examined media saturation, public attitudes and psychological research concerning how people formed and retained opinions after repeated exposure to highly emotional information. Social psychologist Dr. Amani El-Alayli explained that greater exposure to publicity about Kohberger was associated with stronger negative attitudes toward him and a greater tendency to view him as guilty. She also emphasized that fear and anger could make initial beliefs unusually resistant to later contradictory information, because people tended to favor information that reinforced opinions they had already formed. In her assessment, the problem in Latah County went beyond whether prospective jurors consciously believed they could be fair; residents had lived much closer to the murders, the University of Idaho and the investigation itself, creating emotional and psychological connections that could influence them even without their recognizing it. She concluded that the safest way to provide Kohberger with an impartial jury was to select people who were both physically and psychologically removed from Latah County.The defense also relied heavily on survey research conducted by trial consultant and social psychologist Dr. Bryan Edelman, who compared prospective jury populations in Latah, Ada, Canyon and Bannock counties. His research found widespread familiarity with the case throughout Idaho, including 98 percent recognition among Latah County respondents, while 67 percent of those familiar with the case there said they believed Kohberger was guilty. Although similar levels of presumed guilt appeared elsewhere, Edelman explained that Latah County's much smaller population dramatically reduced the number of potentially unbiased jurors available, while a county such as Ada offered a vastly larger pool from which an impartial jury could be selected. More importantly, his research found significantly greater levels of fear, stress, anxiety and personal connections to the University of Idaho and local law enforcement among Latah County residents. Dr. Veronica Dahir separately evaluated Edelman's methodology and testified that the surveys had been conducted according to accepted standards and produced sound results. Taken together, the scientific evidence supported the defense's argument that the combination of intense publicity, a small population and the community's personal and emotional connection to the killings created a reasonable likelihood of prejudice in Latah County, an argument Judge John Judge ultimately found persuasive when he granted the change of venue.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Matt Murphy Exposes the Kohberger Evidence: What They Aren't Telling You  Would prosecuting the Kohberger case as a death penalty case have prevented his request for a new triaL. What were the risks vs the upside? Was the reason a plea was offered and accepted that Bill Thompson the prosecutor for Latah County was against the death penalty? Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Bryan Kohberger's defense attorney, Anne Taylor, accused the FBI of interfering with defense witness Gabriella Vargas, a genetic-genealogy expert who had questioned aspects of the investigative genetic genealogy used to identify Kohberger. Taylor told the court that two FBI agents had visited Vargas at her home and questioned her about her testimony after she appeared for the defense. Taylor argued that the encounter had intimidated the witness and potentially undermined Kohberger's due-process rights by placing federal pressure on someone assisting his legal team.Latah County prosecutor Bill Thompson disputed the suggestion that the FBI had improperly targeted Vargas. He said investigators had contacted her because questions had emerged about whether her testimony accurately reflected her expertise and opinions, characterizing the interview as a legitimate investigative step rather than witness tampering. The dispute added another fight over the FBI's role in the case, particularly its use of genetic genealogy to connect DNA from the knife sheath found at the crime scene to Kohberger's family.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger Update: FBI Accused of Interfering With Witness on Case (newsweek.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Neither of these cases will ever answer the question that matters most to the families in them.Tony Brueski and Robin Dreeke, a retired FBI Special Agent with twenty-one years reading behavior under pressure, cover the Lindsay Clancy trial openings and Bryan Kohberger's petition to withdraw his guilty plea.On Clancy, this works through Patrick Clancy's testimony about the last ordinary day, including the photos traded that morning and his line that she was having one of her best days. It also covers the hospital stay, and the discharge he testified he never knew she had asked for. Cora, Dawson and Callan died in January 2023. Criminal responsibility is the only live question, and the Commonwealth owns that burden.On Kohberger, this covers the handwritten petition filed in Ada County District Court, his claim of actual innocence, and his assertion that he was convinced to falsely confess. It also covers the letter Latah County prosecutors sent the families of Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin, promising the plea would spare them decades of post-conviction appeals. There was never a trial and there has never been a motive on the record.In Plymouth, a chain of licensed professionals made every call and faces nothing. In Boise, an office traded away a trial and guaranteed an ending it could not deliver. One family will never hear why. The other is watching a man they were told was finished file paperwork to start it all again.The Clancy trial has weeks to run and the Kohberger petition is still pending, so neither of these ends here. Subscribe to True Crime Today for the next development in each case.END LINKSJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodDISCLAIMERThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.HASHTAGS (10)#LindsayClancy #BryanKohberger #TrueCrimeToday #ClancyTrial #IdahoStudentMurders #PostpartumPsychosis #ActualInnocence #TrueCrime #RobinDreeke #PostConvictionRelief

One episode, two cases, and the same question running through both.Tony Brueski and Robin Dreeke, who led the FBI's Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program, cover the Lindsay Clancy trial openings and Bryan Kohberger's move to undo his guilty plea.The Clancy portion covers Patrick Clancy's testimony about January 24, 2023. A doctor's appointment with Cora. Photos traded by text. A snowman in the yard. His statement that she was having one of her best days. It also covers the discharge he did not know she had requested, granted days before their daughter's fifth birthday party. Cora, Dawson and Callan died in January 2023 and the circumstances are not in dispute. Criminal responsibility is the entire fight, and Massachusetts puts that burden on the state.The Kohberger portion covers the handwritten petition he filed on his own in Ada County District Court, in which he claims actual innocence and says he was convinced to falsely confess. It also covers the letter Latah County prosecutors sent the families before the plea, promising it would spare them decades of post-conviction appeals. Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin were killed in November 2022, and there has never been a motive on the record.The two are connected without pretending they are the same crime. In one, every clinical decision was made by someone who will never be a defendant. In the other, an office made a guarantee it had no authority to make. Neither institution will be cross-examined. Both of them decided how these cases would go, and both of them told the families it was handled.Both sets of families were left with the same feeling. Neither of these is finished. Subscribe to Hidden Killers for the next stage of each.END LINKSJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodDISCLAIMERThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.HASHTAGS (10)#LindsayClancy #BryanKohberger #HiddenKillers #ClancyTrial #IdahoStudentMurders #PostpartumPsychosis #ActualInnocence #TrueCrime #RobinDreeke #PostConvictionRelief

The Lindsay Clancy trial and the Bryan Kohberger filing, covered together.Tony Brueski and retired FBI behavioral analyst Robin Dreeke work through the opening statements in Plymouth Superior Court and the petition Bryan Kohberger filed in Ada County District Court to undo his guilty plea.The Clancy discussion covers Patrick Clancy's testimony about the last day and Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham's claim that Clancy was not in the throes of psychosis. It then covers the psychiatric hospitalization, including the discharge Patrick testified he never knew his wife had requested. Cora was five. Dawson was three. Callan was eight months old. Both sides agree how they died, and the Commonwealth has to prove criminal responsibility.The Kohberger discussion covers the handwritten petition he filed representing himself, his claim that he is innocent and was talked into a false confession, and the position that puts former defense attorney Anne Taylor in. It also covers the letter Latah County prosecutors sent the families before the plea, promising no decades of post-conviction appeals. Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin died in Moscow in November 2022.Two cases. Two institutions that made the calls. And in each one, a single person left holding all of it. The providers in Massachusetts are witnesses at most. The prosecutors in Idaho are not answering anything under oath. That is not an accident of either case. It is how both systems are built.Both stories keep moving. Plymouth has weeks of medical and psychiatric testimony ahead, and Ada County has a ruling to make. Subscribe to Hidden Killers Live so you get each development as it lands.END LINKSJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodDISCLAIMERThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.HASHTAGS (10)#LindsayClancy #BryanKohberger #HiddenKillersLive #ClancyTrial #IdahoStudentMurders #PostpartumPsychosis #ActualInnocence #TrueCrime #RobinDreeke #PostConvictionRelief

Wil Hendrick was a University of Idaho student pursuing a career in theatre.  In January of 1999, Wil left the residence he shared with his partner to meet up with friends for a party.  What happened after remains a mystery.  Wil's vehicle was later found in downtown Moscow with mud on the tires, and some odd discoveries inside.  The early days of searching turned into months and then years.  Wil's partial remains were eventually found in rural Latah County by some hunters.  Moscow Police are investigating the case as a murder, and both detectives and family members continue to urge anyone with information to please come forward.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a move that was not totally unexpected, prosecutors in Moscow have opted to go the Grand Jury route when dealing with Bryan Kohberger and his indictment by the state. With this superseded indictment, it helps the state bypass any sort of surprises at the preliminary hearing and it also keeps Bethany Funke from having to potentially take the stand.Kohberger will still make his appearance in Latah County court on the 22nd in regard to the Gag order and the challenge made to it by the media and Goncalves family.(commercial at 10:41)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger indicted by secret grand jury and will be arraigned for gruesome quadruple killing | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Dr. Bryan Edelman is a trial consultant and expert on pre-trial publicity who was involved in the Bryan Kohberger trial. Edelman was hired by Kohberger's defense team to conduct a phone survey of potential jurors in Latah County, Idaho. The purpose of the survey was to assess the impact of media coverage on public opinion about the case, which involves Kohberger being charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.The survey, which contacted 400 residents, faced significant criticism from the prosecution. They argued that the questions were too specific and potentially spread false information, thereby contaminating the jury pool. Some questions included details not found in official affidavits, leading to concerns that the survey was prejudicing potential jurors against Kohberger.Edelman defended his work, stating that his aim was to measure the influence of media coverage on public opinion, regardless of whether the information was true or false. He emphasized that such surveys are standard practice in high-profile cases to determine whether a fair trial can be conducted in the current venue or if a change of venue is necessary.The controversy surrounding the survey led the judge to pause its continuation and to schedule further hearings to decide on the matter.In this episode we take a look at his declaration filed with the court.(commercial at 8:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

In 2022, Bryan Kohberger murdered University of Idao students Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Ethan Chapin, and Xana Kernodle at a home in Moscow, Idaho. Kohberger pled guilty and received four life sentences. He was also ordered to pay restitution to the victims' families for funeral expenses. On November 5, 2025, Kohberger's defense team, Latah County prosecutor Bill Thompson, and Judge Steven Hippler had a hearing about further expenses. Find discounts for Murder Sheet listeners here: https://murdersheetpodcast.com/discountsCheck out our upcoming book events and get links to buy tickets here: https://murdersheetpodcast.com/eventsOrder our book on Delphi here: https://bookshop.org/p/books/shadow-of-the-bridge-the-delphi-murders-and-the-dark-side-of-the-american-heartland-aine-cain/21866881?ean=9781639369232Or here: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Shadow-of-the-Bridge/Aine-Cain/9781639369232Or here: https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Bridge-Murders-American-Heartland/dp/1639369236Join our Patreon here! https://www.patreon.com/c/murdersheetSupport The Murder Sheet by buying a t-shirt here: https://www.murdersheetshop.com/Check out more inclusive sizing and t-shirt and merchandising options here: https://themurdersheet.dashery.com/Send tips to murdersheet@gmail.com.The Murder Sheet is a production of Mystery Sheet LLCSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The scientific report on the effects of media coverage on prospective jurors in Latah County examined the impact of pretrial publicity on the jury pool for the Bryan Kohberger case. Kohberger, accused of murdering four University of Idaho students, has been the subject of extensive media coverage, which has raised concerns about the potential bias among jurors.Key points from the report include:Media Influence: The report highlighted how pervasive media coverage can shape public perception, often leading to preconceived notions of guilt or innocence. This is particularly problematic in high-profile cases like Kohberger's, where intense media scrutiny can taint the jury pool.Survey Findings: A survey conducted by a trial consultant on behalf of the defense indicated that the more someone knew about the case, the more likely they were to believe Kohberger was guilty. This survey included questions that incorporated both true and false information to gauge the extent of misinformation and its effect on potential jurors.Pretrial Publicity: The report underscores the difficulty of finding unbiased jurors in Latah County due to the saturation of media coverage. It suggests that prospective jurors exposed to extensive pretrial information are more likely to have formed opinions about the case.Defense Strategy: The defense team used the survey data to argue for a change of venue, claiming that an impartial trial would be difficult to achieve in Latah County. They contended that the media coverage had created a presumptive bias against Kohberger, necessitating the trial to be moved to a different location to ensure fairness.Judicial Response: The court acknowledged the potential impact of media coverage on jurors and temporarily halted the survey to review its methodology and ensure compliance with non-dissemination orders. The defense argued that continuing the survey in other counties was crucial for a comparative analysis to determine an appropriate venue for the trial.These findings reflect the complex interplay between media coverage and the judicial process, emphasizing the need for careful consideration to maintain the integrity of the legal proceedings​.(commercial at 7:41)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protomail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

The scientific report on the effects of media coverage on prospective jurors in Latah County examined the impact of pretrial publicity on the jury pool for the Bryan Kohberger case. Kohberger, accused of murdering four University of Idaho students, has been the subject of extensive media coverage, which has raised concerns about the potential bias among jurors.Key points from the report include:Media Influence: The report highlighted how pervasive media coverage can shape public perception, often leading to preconceived notions of guilt or innocence. This is particularly problematic in high-profile cases like Kohberger's, where intense media scrutiny can taint the jury pool.Survey Findings: A survey conducted by a trial consultant on behalf of the defense indicated that the more someone knew about the case, the more likely they were to believe Kohberger was guilty. This survey included questions that incorporated both true and false information to gauge the extent of misinformation and its effect on potential jurors.Pretrial Publicity: The report underscores the difficulty of finding unbiased jurors in Latah County due to the saturation of media coverage. It suggests that prospective jurors exposed to extensive pretrial information are more likely to have formed opinions about the case.Defense Strategy: The defense team used the survey data to argue for a change of venue, claiming that an impartial trial would be difficult to achieve in Latah County. They contended that the media coverage had created a presumptive bias against Kohberger, necessitating the trial to be moved to a different location to ensure fairness.Judicial Response: The court acknowledged the potential impact of media coverage on jurors and temporarily halted the survey to review its methodology and ensure compliance with non-dissemination orders. The defense argued that continuing the survey in other counties was crucial for a comparative analysis to determine an appropriate venue for the trial.These findings reflect the complex interplay between media coverage and the judicial process, emphasizing the need for careful consideration to maintain the integrity of the legal proceedings​.(commercial at 7:41)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protomail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

The scientific report on the effects of media coverage on prospective jurors in Latah County examined the impact of pretrial publicity on the jury pool for the Bryan Kohberger case. Kohberger, accused of murdering four University of Idaho students, has been the subject of extensive media coverage, which has raised concerns about the potential bias among jurors.Key points from the report include:Media Influence: The report highlighted how pervasive media coverage can shape public perception, often leading to preconceived notions of guilt or innocence. This is particularly problematic in high-profile cases like Kohberger's, where intense media scrutiny can taint the jury pool.Survey Findings: A survey conducted by a trial consultant on behalf of the defense indicated that the more someone knew about the case, the more likely they were to believe Kohberger was guilty. This survey included questions that incorporated both true and false information to gauge the extent of misinformation and its effect on potential jurors.Pretrial Publicity: The report underscores the difficulty of finding unbiased jurors in Latah County due to the saturation of media coverage. It suggests that prospective jurors exposed to extensive pretrial information are more likely to have formed opinions about the case.Defense Strategy: The defense team used the survey data to argue for a change of venue, claiming that an impartial trial would be difficult to achieve in Latah County. They contended that the media coverage had created a presumptive bias against Kohberger, necessitating the trial to be moved to a different location to ensure fairness.Judicial Response: The court acknowledged the potential impact of media coverage on jurors and temporarily halted the survey to review its methodology and ensure compliance with non-dissemination orders. The defense argued that continuing the survey in other counties was crucial for a comparative analysis to determine an appropriate venue for the trial.These findings reflect the complex interplay between media coverage and the judicial process, emphasizing the need for careful consideration to maintain the integrity of the legal proceedings​.(commercial at 7:41)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protomail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

The scientific report on the effects of media coverage on prospective jurors in Latah County examined the impact of pretrial publicity on the jury pool for the Bryan Kohberger case. Kohberger, accused of murdering four University of Idaho students, has been the subject of extensive media coverage, which has raised concerns about the potential bias among jurors.Key points from the report include:Media Influence: The report highlighted how pervasive media coverage can shape public perception, often leading to preconceived notions of guilt or innocence. This is particularly problematic in high-profile cases like Kohberger's, where intense media scrutiny can taint the jury pool.Survey Findings: A survey conducted by a trial consultant on behalf of the defense indicated that the more someone knew about the case, the more likely they were to believe Kohberger was guilty. This survey included questions that incorporated both true and false information to gauge the extent of misinformation and its effect on potential jurors.Pretrial Publicity: The report underscores the difficulty of finding unbiased jurors in Latah County due to the saturation of media coverage. It suggests that prospective jurors exposed to extensive pretrial information are more likely to have formed opinions about the case.Defense Strategy: The defense team used the survey data to argue for a change of venue, claiming that an impartial trial would be difficult to achieve in Latah County. They contended that the media coverage had created a presumptive bias against Kohberger, necessitating the trial to be moved to a different location to ensure fairness.Judicial Response: The court acknowledged the potential impact of media coverage on jurors and temporarily halted the survey to review its methodology and ensure compliance with non-dissemination orders. The defense argued that continuing the survey in other counties was crucial for a comparative analysis to determine an appropriate venue for the trial.These findings reflect the complex interplay between media coverage and the judicial process, emphasizing the need for careful consideration to maintain the integrity of the legal proceedings​.(commercial at 7:41)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protomail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

What was it like to be the lead prosecutor in the Bryan Kohberger case, with the nation watching your every move? 48 Hours correspondent Peter Van Sant speaks with Latah County prosecutor Bill Thompson who opens up about the immense pressure of the Bryan Kohberger case, the emotional toll, and the controversy surrounding the plea deal. Why was there no requirement for Kohberger to reveal crucial information? And what really happened behind the scenes of the case that gripped the country? To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices