In the most recent episode of "Hidden Killers", podcast host Tony Brueski delved into the controversial and perplexing case of Brian Kohberger, alongside Forensic Psychologist Kate Wallinga. Their discourse revolved around the veracity of Kohberger's alibi and how its evolution seems more perplexing than convincing.
 
Brueski opened the discussion with a tone of bemusement, pointing out the seemingly desperate strategy of Kohberger's defense. "Just throwing randomness into the air is what it feels like. Lately, things that are not based on any sort of fact – claims that are not based in reality, really is what we're talking about here." He emphasized the audacity of the alibi, remarking on the defendant's claim, "Hey, I like to drive at night." A claim made in the face of evidence placing him at the crime scene.
 
Kate Wallinga chimed in with her perspective on the defendant's mindset. "I think he's probably thinking that well, they can't prove a negative. You know, they can't prove I wasn't doing something… but he's starting to sound like a clown by this point." Wallinga's insight into the psyche of Kohberger portrayed a man with inflated confidence in his intelligence, a trait she found all too common in many inmates.
 
The conversation took another intriguing turn when Brueski posed a critical question about Kohberger's attorney, Ann Taylor. He wondered aloud about the source of the defense's seemingly erratic strategy, asking, "What I'm wondering is the attorney, Ann Taylor... How many of these statements do you think are coming from her direction and expertise versus it's the client?"
 
Wallinga, drawing from her familiarity with defense attorneys, posited that Taylor would likely prefer silence at this juncture. "Because anything that she says, whether it's in a deposition or whether it's at a press conference, that becomes fodder for the actual trial," Wallinga pointed out. She highlighted the dangers of being locked into a story before a trial, an angle that could potentially be exploited by the prosecution.
 
Wallinga's conjecture paints Kohberger as a forceful figure, perhaps directing his lawyer's hand. "He strikes me as the type to say, well, if you don't do it, I'll find somebody else who will. You know, I'll write a letter to the news media, or I'll make a phone call." Wallinga said. Adding another layer, she also touched upon Kohberger's study of criminology, emphasizing how it diverges greatly from forensic psychology and law, and how he might be grappling with this realization.
 
Brueski, taking the speculation further, contemplated whether Taylor was being manipulated to some extent by Kohberger. He queried, "Is she being held hostage to a certain extent… She's just kind of like, okay you hang yourself if you want." He considered the possibility of an overarching strategy aimed at the cell phone data, seeking to introduce reasonable doubt by poking holes in its accuracy. He noted the paradoxical nature of the alibi, one that simultaneously sounds "ridiculous" but also potentially weakens the cell phone evidence.
 
Echoing Brueski's sentiments, Wallinga suggested that the defense might be strategically attempting to cut down on the trial's length. She detailed the tedious nature of cell phone data, explaining, "Those of us who watch Dateline or forensics files, we're like, oh yeah. Cell phone tower data, no big deal. But the reality is, in a courtroom, you have to comb through it and be very precise."
 
In closing, Wallinga summarized the situation aptly: "He's a smart guy who sounds stupid." She alluded to the common fallacy where individuals, although experts in one area, fail to recognize the complexities and nuances of another.
 
As the Brian Kohberger case unfolds, the podcast discussion highlighted the fascinating interplay between law, psychology, and strategy and how even the most seemingly 'ridiculous' claims can have profound implications in the courtroom.
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FRE