In a recent episode of the podcast "Hidden Killers," host Tony Brueski sat down with retired FBI Special Agent and Chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program, Robin Dreeke, to dissect the ongoing defense tactics surrounding Brian Kohberger.
 
Brueski started the segment commenting on Kohberger's defense strategy, noting the repeated delays and use of seemingly fabricated terms. He humorously remarked, "It seems like the Kohberger strategy of his defense lately has been make things up. Stall, make up things, install and make up some more things." One of these terms, "phantom matches", piqued Brueski's interest, prompting him to do his own research on its prevalence and significance outside the confines of this case. While the term did exist, Brueski struggled to find substantial reference to it elsewhere.
 
Dreeke commended Ann Taylor and her defense team for inventively crafting a term that might make potential jurors doubt the prosecution's case. The primary goal appears to be creating uncertainty regarding DNA evidence, despite the incredibly low probability of a phantom match, estimated to be around a 1 in 5.37 octillion chance. He explained, "This is what you're supposed to be doing. You sowed seeds of doubt. And it sounds like she's collecting she wants these massive disclosure lists of all these people, of all the tests."
 
The discussion soon shifted to expert witnesses. With DNA evidence and phantom matches at the forefront of the defense strategy, the qualifications and credibility of these experts are under scrutiny. Dreeke voiced concerns about the legitimacy of some experts, suggesting that having a degree or prior experience doesn't necessarily equate to expertise in the case's specific context. He said, "Do they have experience doing that? And does then the cross-examinee nation have the ability to refute it, to refute their behaviors?"
 
The theatrical aspect of courtroom proceedings wasn't lost on either Brueski or Dreeke. The latter remarked, "The courtroom drama. That's reason why they call it courtroom drama. And that's because it comes down to, it's a show."
 
However, perhaps the most salient point of their discussion revolved around the jury. Given the high-profile nature of the Kohberger case, especially in Moscow, Idaho, finding impartial jurors might prove challenging. Brueski expressed doubts about potential jurors' obliviousness: "Is that a good thing that that one had been removed so far from one of the biggest murder cases in the State's history in a small town to, to be a juror? Does that not almost show, you know, almost a lack of something?"
 
Dreeke acknowledged this, highlighting the challenges in finding completely uninformed jurors. The ideal juror, in his view, would be one who could remain dispassionate and heed the judge's instructions. He concluded, "Just because someone is found not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent."
 
With defense tactics in full swing, and the role of expert witnesses and jurors under debate, the Kohberger trial underscores the complexities and intricacies of high-profile courtroom battles. As the case unfolds, the legal community and the public alike await its resolution with bated breath.
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com