Transcription
back. I don't know that we're done with this case. I think there will be a second bite at the apple.
Turned out but Kohberger is obviously advocating for another bite at the apple. An appeal we need to give him his second bite at the apple.
Yeah, some people want the second bite at the apple. I'd love to have the second shot at at the you know the accused murderer.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you.
Listen to Pavarotti.
Can I [music] be your superhero?
Hello. Welcome to the revealing. I am your host Pavarotti. And I'm here to discuss the Idaho 4 case. And you know as things start to happen it just is amazing to me the reaction from everybody out there. It seems like everybody out there is really shocked both on the Pro Burger side and the Gilter side. They're really shocked at this filing from Brian Kohberger and the things that I hear everybody say the Gilter side. Oh my goodness, the mainstream morons. Oh, they are up in arms and they don't even know what to do. Kohberger has no chance at this. I can't believe he filed it. I thought he wasn't going to be able to file. He has no chance at this. They should have got him to allocute or you know that I knew when he got didn't get him to allocute something was going to happen. It's like they know or they I mean they've sit there and said the same things over and over for years now. He can't be never going to file. He can't file. Second he files then they just go into shock. Well, he can't he he'll never go through. But then they'll all every one of them will stop and go. They should have made him allocute. Why didn't he make him allocute? Oh my goodness, they should have made him allocute because they know in their heart of hearts where this thing is going. But then again, I listened to the pro-Burger side. And Taylor, screwed him. And Taylor team, they screwed him. Brian Kohberger fired him, and he's doing this all on his own. And it was Anne Taylor and team equally as oblivious to everything. I mean, it it's amazing to me because I know a lot of them watch my videos, and they have to understand what I've put out. And I'm not saying that I'm the one end-all, be-all. Okay? This is all just my opinion. But, my opinion for a long time has been very clear that this was pre-planned right after the plea deal. I mean, right before the plea deal, after the Dateline leak. It was pre-planned. Everything you're seeing take place today is pre-planned by the Kohberger defense team. So, for everybody that's hating on the Kohberger defense team specifically, Anne Taylor, well, you need to watch this video. And you need to watch it with an open mind. And you need to watch it and see what it is you're actually talking about and actually speaking against. Okay? If you truly want justice for Brian Kohberger. Because my theory has always been it is a plan. Brian Kohberger could not use his current attorneys to file post-conviction relief. That's not how it works. He has to file it himself. He has to file for a appellate attorney to handle post-conviction relief. He can't file post-conviction relief on ineffective counsel with his ineffective counsel. Okay? But, there is a lot of caveats to everything around that. And what I'm trying to get people to understand is if you hate on Anne Taylor, you're going to end up understanding eventually that it's Anne Taylor and team that can make this either work or make it go away completely. So, a lot hinges on Anne Taylor and team, I assure you, and I'm going to get into a lot of detail in this video about it because I know a lot of people at this point are thinking, "Well, what happens next?" Well, because I am very disappointed in, you know, a lot of the attorneys that I hear out there covering this case, I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to lay this stuff out for you because, you know, Bob really dives in before I start talking on a video to bring you some information. So, by the end of this video, everybody's going to be very clear about all the steps in the process, what must take place, and why the last people you should be hating on right now is Anne Taylor and team, okay? You're just going to have to trust me, bro. No, you don't have to trust me, bro. Watch all of this video, and if you keep an open mind and you can comprehend and you can pick up what I'm putting down, you'll understand by the end. Hold on to your hats, folks. It's time to show you how things are going to be really real in this case.
Now, y'all know my theory has always been and continues to be to this very day that all of this was planned in advance after the Dateline leak, behind closed doors with all parties aware of what has taken place right now. That includes all of the Coburger defense team, Coburger himself, likely even Judge Hippler. Backroom deals.
It almost makes me wonder like if this was all kind of planned on their side.
You know, I don't know. I mean, who knows what goes on behind closed doors?
Now, the first step in this process would have always been, as I have predicted, Brian Kohberger himself filing for post-conviction relief. Now, I hear everybody out there saying, "Brian Kohberger fired his attorneys and he filed himself. We need to get him an attorney." Good grief, y'all. Pay close attention as we go through this. Brian Kohberger has to file that for himself. That's the process. He cannot file for ineffective assistance of counsel with help of his current counsel knowingly helping him file. Okay? That was That's That's would be improper. He has to file it by himself and he has to file for a appellate attorney, which I will explain a little bit more in detail here in a minute what the appellate attorney in this situation is for. For people that think he needs an appellate attorney to actually conduct a trial, you're not very familiar with the law and that's why I'm very disappointed in the attorneys that actually cover this case. So, step number one is he files for post-conviction relief. And then he will file for an appellate attorney to assist him in the post-conviction relief portion of this. Now, all of the Pro-Kohbergers out there that want to hate on Anne Taylor and team, they are playing checkers. All right? I hate to say it, but they're just all playing checkers. And the mainstream morons and gilters out there, they're not even playing checkers. They're playing go fish. And we know how much credibility they have. How long have they told us a trillion times, "Kohberger can never file an appeal. Kohberger, it's over. He can't do anything. He waived his rights to appeal." They still look perplexed to this day even after this happened.
And it does make people a little bit nervous that the Idaho courts have said before, oh dear, remember that guy who pleaded guilty and you know, waived his right to an appeal, we need to give him his second bite at the apple. They've done that before. Does that mean that Kohberger's going to get it? No.
for given false expectations that there would be no appeal because he waived that right.
I kind of think there likely will be a hearing and maybe it will end there. Because remember, he agreed not to appeal.
I mean, watching all of them just melt down saying over and over on 20 different podcast and mainstream [ __ ] channels about Kohberger, he wasn't supposed to be able to appeal. How is this happening? Good grief, we've said it every day and they're perplexed by it. Blows my mind. But, remember, we're a little bit more advanced in this community and that's not to brag, it's the truth. And when we look at all this, I need y'all to look at it with me not even from a perspective of chess. Because to really comprehend everything that I'm about to explain, you got to understand, we're not playing chess here. We're playing 3D chess. It's a step above. Pay close attention.
Now, one of the things that Kohberger is able to do and it really depends on how this law is interpreted. I've had it interpreted 20 different ways now, really two different ways 20 different times. And that is how many days that Kohberger told by filing his post-conviction relief and what that means is for an additional filing chance for habeas corpus. Right? So, this is this is where I'm at on this, but it could be that the habeas corpus expires July 23rd, 2026. But, I believe this is the correct timeline under the AEDPA and the Idaho law, and that is since there was a judgment of conviction on July 23rd, 2025, the appellate rule 14 gives 42 days for you to file an appeal, and that extends the window out even for post-conviction relief. Therefore, the post-conviction relief deadline would be September the 3rd to the 4th September of 2026. So, essentially by filing his post-conviction relief before the deadline, every day that's left, if he doesn't uh get his post-conviction relief granted, gives him that many days told to file for habeas corpus. And he's okay either way. Here's why. Because in his affidavit for post-conviction relief, he actually did this at the prison, dated it and signed it July 22nd, 2026. So, he dates and signs it on the 22nd, hands it to the prison personnel. Hopefully, he got some kind of documentation that he handed it to him on the 22nd cuz he will need that. Because what they did was likely just mail it to the county clerk. So, by doing that though, he tolls 43 days on the federal clock for habeas corpus, or at the very least 1 day. If it goes if the if the ruling ends on a July 23rd, 2026, he filed post-conviction relief on the 22nd. So, at the very least, he told one day for post-conviction I mean for habeas corpus. At the very best, he told 43 days. But, we'll talk about this here in just a second. Um now, the um summary of everything that we can't get, but apparently people on X can, shows that his post-conviction relief posts to the summary on the 27th, along with his affidavit in support of appointment of counsel that posted on the 27th, as well. And when you go to those documents for post-conviction relief and for the motion to appoint counsel, the clerk dated them July 27th, 2026. I've researched this thoroughly. Once the clerk received his petition, that's when they put the date on there, but the date that actually goes towards his original filing in the tolling days for habeas, is the date that he actually handed it to the prison personnel to be mailed off. Hopefully, he got documentation of that. Should have been July 22nd, which it would give him at the very least one day, at the very most 43. So, hope that's not clear as mud. But, so, he filed a petition for an appellate attorney, and this is what I was talking about, right? He files for post-conviction relief. He has to do that himself. His current attorneys can't do that for him, because it would look really bad for them helping him fill out a filing for ineffective counsel, okay? But, he files a petition for an appellate attorney. That appellate attorney is only to help him with the post-conviction relief process. Now, that appellate attorney, if the post-conviction relief process fails, could continue to help him in appeals after that on that particular process, but if he was to win the post-conviction relief, that appellate attorney goes away. They're no longer going to be likely his attorney for the trial. So, that's where everybody gets really confused on this stuff. And this is where it gets really important to pay attention. Also, the appellate attorney, once he is granted one, which I believe he will be, they have the ability to add to his petition. All right, so his petition that he filed was bare-bones. The appellate attorney has the ability to add certain things to that petition, that as I'm going to show you will need to be added. So, that's all the documentation on both of those filings.
Now, this is interesting, and this is what Kohberger put out in the public statement. This was basically to all of us. And he said, "Over a year later, it's self-evident that in the state versus Kohberger, justice was not served." And absolutely, it wasn't. "Unanswered questions seem to multiply with each piece of discovery unsealed." Right, not one piece is unsealed and actually shown any evidence towards Kohberger. "And the public demands the truth." And when he talks about the public, he's talking about everybody in the true crime community that keep an open mind, not the public that are closed-minded and don't want the truth. "Unfortunately, the truth shall never be derived from the state's myopic narrative, a work of fiction, which is yet to evolve since the PCA was released nearly 4 years ago, and its faulty premises that were never challenged at trial, circumnavigated by broken plea."
Now, this is Kohberger actually um giving a shout-out to Chris Chris Whitcomb's book. So, I think that absolutely pulls Whitcomb and Turvey into the mix of everybody that's involved in this thing, y'all. If it's a backroom deal with many players, well, I believe Cy Ray, Turvey, Whitcomb, I believe they're all players in this and Kohberger let us know that. So, I will concede. Now, I've given them a lot of grief, but I will concede. The trial never provided the public the clarity conducive to closure and shall and justice shall remain objectively miscarried unless that plea is withdrawn. So, this is him with a public statement letting the public know he wants to withdraw his plea. So, all those people out there that demanded the death penalty and were very upset with the plea deal on the guilty side, especially the families, like the Gonsalves, should be jumping for joy and screaming at the top of their lungs, yes, let's go to trial. That's what they've always asked for. I noticed that's not what they're saying now. They try to act like they're saying it, then they take it back away real quick and say they don't want to cost taxpayers and I don't owe any more money. Which then makes me think about all the money talk here lately. But, I hereby declare my intention to enter a not guilty plea, welcome the state the opportunity to prove their case at trial, as well as to again file for the death penalty. He says, bring it on and bring your death penalty on with it. My actual innocence is my truth. It's our truth as well, Kohberger, because we've done the work. And the plea hinged on by false promises and blatant disinformation must be withdrawn. Thank you for all who believe in my innocence and continue to critically analyze the case. And don't worry, we will analyze it until every last thread is overturned. I send my love to my family who have never wavered in their belief in who I am. Their belief in my innocence. We always knew Kohberger's family believed that he was innocent. And we had to pick up breadcrumbs along the way until finally we were absolutely slapped in the face with statements they made that they could never believe Kohberger did it. So, that was a message to all of us letting us in on some things. Thank you, Kohberger, for doing it.
But, here's where it gets down to the nitty-gritty, y'all. Because there are steps to this. Now that Kohberger has filed for post-conviction relief, step one of that is to get an evidentiary hearing. Without an evidentiary hearing, then the post-conviction relief will be denied. The judge that is going to rule on this, and it's about 99% is going to be Hippler himself. Hippler, the Ada County District Court, Fourth Judicial District, is the most likely judge to rule on the petition under 19-49-07. And since he is still holding his seat and he's active, they will absolutely have Judge Hippler rule on this. Which I think is an interesting part because I believe Hippler was in on it with everybody else in the deal behind the closed doors. Everybody else is probably going to think I'm crazy. But, hold on to those thoughts for just a second. Because here's what happens, and this is why the evidentiary hearing and winning the post-conviction relief is so important. Because if Hippler was to rule against it, right? If the district court denies it, including by summary dismissal without an evidentiary hearing, he just takes it and denies it. That denial is appealable. So, what that means is just because the judge denies it, doesn't mean that Kohberger could automatically file for habeas corpus. They have to actually exhaust every option. So, if he denies it, that means he will then have to appeal to the court of appeals in Idaho, and then they deny it, and then he'd have to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, they deny it, and then he would have the ability to file habeas corpus. So, my point is if the PCR claim is not upheld, then we are looking at years before he can even file habeas corpus. So, everything is contingent on an evidentiary hearing. And that's why I say it's so important for you Anne Taylor haters out there to open your eyes and shut your mouth and listen to what I'm saying in this. Because here's what will happen based on what Kohberger has put in his post-conviction relief filing. You see, Kohberger did not add any evidence to his filing. It's just his statements at this point. So, in step one to get the evidentiary hearing, Kohberger is going to have to provide evidence to back up his claims, which means he's going to have to provide some type of documentation proving his claims or affidavits from witnesses to back up his claims. Now, affidavits from his family who he said was actually there during most of this, may be enough to at least get an evidentiary hearing, but likely not. And here's why. Because if he provides affidavits to back up his claims just from his family members, the judge is going to require that whatever counsel that he's referring to that was involved in this coercion, actually supply an affidavit of their own. And if the affidavit that they supply is in contrast to Coberger's claims, you can bet money Judge Hippler would dismiss it with a summary dismissal, and then that long years and years and years process begins. That's why I say this has to be a plan by all parties involved from the beginning. And I think the person that explains actually this uh better than anybody is Steve Gee's attorney. I'm not kidding. Uh he really explains this very well. If the defense team was to fight back, and this wasn't an inside deal, here's how easy it would be for them to get it dismissed.
ineffective assistance of counsel. I've had, you know, defendants claim it all the time, and then you have to just basically develop your own affidavit and said, "I talked with them about the facts of the case. I went through the discovery on the case. I advised them of what the options were. We were ready for trial. They chose to take the plea. I advised him on the plea and all the things that go with the plea. I advised him about jail and what that looked like, and any credit for time served or programs that could be available for, and my client decided to take the plea."
So, for you and Taylor and team haters out there, know that all they have to do is file an affidavit and say they advise counsel accordingly in all matters, and the judge will absolutely dismiss it without an evidentiary hearing. But, if old Pubs' prediction is correct, and it's the same prediction that I've been making this entire time, I will point out that I have been proven correct on Coburger filing the post-conviction relief, and many people wanted to argue against that daily that it would never happen. Yeah, okay. It happened. Not toot my own horn, but y'all know, y'all been with me. But, I've also said that this was a plan. So, for this to work, that means one of these three, and it only has to be one, will do what I call falling on the sword. One of them's going to have to fall on the sword. And I don't know which one it is because in Coburger's affidavit, he just said counsel, counsel, counsel. He never said which one of the counsel it was. But, one of these attorneys will need to fall on the sword. And this is where me and Steve G's attorney disagree wholeheartedly.
I don't think any of the defense attorneys in this case are going to fall on their sword and say, "You're right. We were dumb. We didn't go over that with him. We were stupid. You should give him a new trial."
I disagree wholeheartedly. I believe it's exactly the opposite of what he just said. I believe one of them is absolutely going to say that, and they're going to say it in their affidavit, and they're going to corroborate Coburger's claims. Now, this is where every attorney out there, and especially the guilters, are going to say, "Are you crazy, pal? No attorney would corroborate those claims because there would be serious repercussions for them both professionally, financially, maybe even criminally if they corroborated his claims." And that's where I do agree to a certain extent. When I say fall on the sword, I don't mean they're going to actually admit to the allegations, but there is a way for them to admit to the allegations, but indemnify themselves to a certain extent, and that's what I believe one of them will do. And again, as you go through Kohberger's actual filing here and what he has written, he never names any of the attorneys. He only names attorney-client discussions, counsel's failure to inform, through counsel constituting threats and promises made to induce a plea agreement. He never says which one it is. So, we can only guess at this point. One of them though, I believe, will fall on that sword, and here's how they'll do it. They can do a narrow, non-intentional framing of any admission. Instead of admitting deliberate coercion, fabrication, or advice to commit perjury, the attorney could limit testimony or just simply produce an affidavit to less damning points such as confirming that the hair evidence existed, was received by the defense, and was not fully disclosed with the client if that is accurate and documented, which it is, acknowledging that certain discussions with the client and family occurred and that specific topics, death row conditions, risks of trial, benefits of the plea were covered. Stating that in hindsight the explanation of death row conditions or the comparative risks was incomplete based on second-hand information or could have been clearer. Admitting a communication failure, strategic misjudgment, rather than intentional misconduct. I believe at the time the advice was appropriate. Looking back, I should have ensured the client fully understood. This kind of limited concession can still corroborate key factual elements of the petition. Existence of the evidence, content of discussions, presence of family, without a full confession of coercion or subordination of perjury. Courts and disciplinary authorities treat in hindsight, I was ineffective, statements far more leniently than admissions of deliberate wrongdoing. That's how they'll fall on the sword. And when I say fall on the sword, I mean it will remove them from ever being able to be part of the case if it is put back to trial status. We'll talk about that more in a minute. But that on its own should be enough to gain an evidentiary hearing. That along with affidavits from Co-Berger's family. See, the net effect on the chances of relief, and I've been working on this non-stop, y'all. No corroboration beyond petitioner's affidavit, high chance of summary dismissal. That's just on getting an evidentiary hearing. Approximate effect on chances of full relief, plea vacated, very low. Add in limited attorney corroboration objective facts plus in hindsight language, it greatly improved the chance of the evidentiary hearing. You add in affidavits from Kohberger's family along with that, and I believe it will be enough to grant an evidentiary hearing. However, even with all of that, the chances of getting full relief granted with just that is still low to low moderate. Something else has to happen, and you know, it's the great Yoli who figured this out, I think a year ago, that will end up having the major impact and put this thing overboard. You see, Kohberger will need one of the attorneys to fall on the sword and partially corroborate his claims, and then once he's assigned his appellate attorney for the post-conviction relief process, that appellate attorney will need to add an impaired mental state to the current claim because Kohberger didn't add it in his own claim. That's what gets us to a new trial, and here's why. Because during the time of the plea deal, Kohberger's attorneys, even the state, had multiple doctors do multiple psychiatric and mental evaluations of Brian Kohberger, and he was officially diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder level one, obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and avoidant-restrictive food intake disorder. Now, I know some people will say, "Well, he was also diagnosed with dexterity issues." And he was, but that doesn't affect mental status, but all of these do. And Judge Hippler was very aware of all of these. And Judge Hippler, although very thorough in the plea hearing, when he went through the colloquy, as they call it. The colloquy, where he says, "Has anybody promised you anything? Did you commit these crimes? Or I mean, is are you admitting to this at your own free will because you did do it all that stuff is the colloquy. And everybody wants to point that out, all the mainstream morons.
Idaho courts generally presume a plea is valid if the judge conducted a thorough plea colloquy, which is what we see in the video that I showed you earlier in this clip, uh which I will uh show you when I post this. Um which is him questioning him, "Do you understand? Do you understand? Do you understand?" That's the colloquy.
So yes, the judge did conduct a thorough colloquy, but he left out one thing, and Yoli figured this out. You see, when you combine the effect on the petition, take it all together, especially with the autism spectrum disorder level one diagnosis, these contemporaneous evaluations provide solid medical grounding for amended claim that the petitioner's mental condition at the time of the plea impaired his ability to enter a fully knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea, and or counsel performed efficiently by failing to ensure the conditions were adequately accounted for in the plea process, or by failing to request a more thorough judicial inquiry once the diagnosis were known to the court. Because the evaluations existed before the plea, were known to the defense, and were disclosed to the judge, yet not explored in the colloquy. They are far more persuasive than a later expert simply offering a retrospective opinion. Which means the defense knew about the mental conditions, the judge was aware of it. They did not ask the judge to expand on it and the judge did not expand on it in his colloquy as Yoli pointed out a year ago.
There was evidence in the record from mental health professionals who had diagnosed Brian Kohberger as being on the autism spectrum disorder, having obsessive-compulsive disorder, and some kind of neurological coordination disorder. So, I question whether the judge had had an obligation to ask Brian Kohberger, "You Are you aware that you've been diagnosed with such and such?" And Brian Kohberger would say, "Yes." Hopefully. And then the judge would ask, "Are these diagnoses in any way affecting your ability or affecting your decision to plead guilty in this case?" And I would like to know the answer to that. Because obsessive-compulsive disorder is an anxiety disorder. They have intrusive thoughts, compulsive behaviors, and in reading the documents that have just been released by the Idaho Police Department, one of the interviews with one of the people who were housed with Brian Kohberger in the in the cell next to him was annoyed. He said the only thing that was annoying was Brian Kohberger's habits. He would wash his hands like dozens of times a day, take long showers. Well, those are indicative of obsessive-compulsive disorder. And these people who have obsessive-compulsive disorder, they need certainty that they can't they can't handle uncertainty. And so it could possibly have some kind of effect on his his his pleading guilty just to to just relieve the anxiety because obsessive compulsive disorder is an anxiety disorder. So those are the things that I question and I try to ask these things when on when certain channels have um defense criminal defense attorneys on their panel and I try to ask about the OCD obsessive compulsive disorder because people focus on the autism spectrum disorder and they say that's not it's not an intellectual disorder, it's a social disorder and I agree. Uh Bryan Kohberger had a social disorder, he was awkward. But the obsessive compulsive disorder is a psychiatric disorder. And it seems to me well, strike that. I just heard uh Nancy Grace having a mental health professional on on the show that said, "Yeah, Bryan Kohberger's going to suffer because if he sounds like he has a obsessive compulsive disorder." Well, he does have obsessive compulsive disorder and it's in the court record. So she said, "But you know, they'll medicate him." Well, not necessarily. He can refuse medication. And based on what the prisoner that was next to Bryan Kohberger that said he was constantly washing his hands, [clears throat] it sounds like Bryan Kohberger's not medicated. He can refuse medication.
So whether or not that should have been asked by the Judge Hitler about whether or not that would affect is that affecting his decision to plead guilty, whether or not that should have been asked, I don't know. But, it is a psychiatric disorder and it is in the court record. Whether you believe he has that or not, it's in the court record. It's evidence in the court record.
Excellent job pointing that out, Yolie. And also, that should be enough along with the following on the sword, affidavits by Kohberger's family along with adding the mental aspect to it and the fact the judge the judge did not go through that in the colloquy, that should be enough to get this thing back to trial status. Once that happens, again, that appellate attorney is going to go away. They're brought on just for this post-conviction relief process. Then, new counsel will be assigned to Kohberger. Now, when people hate on Anne Taylor and team, I got to tell them, it doesn't appear to me like Kohberger has the money to afford a attorney. So, what would happen is he would be assigned a new attorney that would be another public defender, probably not even as good as his current public defenders. However, because only one of them had to fall on the sword, then Kohberger would be able to actually request the other two attorneys that are already very familiar with the case, and since so much money has already been spent on the defense and they're up to speed on it, I believe that they would absolutely be reappointed to the case, depending on which ones they were. So, that is the procedure of what should take place. And remember, Sirey has an interesting point of view if this goes back to trial status. Let me remind you of what Sirey said in that interview with the Custody Queens. He said it gets back to trial status. They revisit the suppression ruling with the new US Supreme Court ruling from Chatri. The IGG then gets suppressed. All the evidence becomes fruit of the poisonous tree. Case against Brian Kohberger is dismissed and it never actually goes to trial. That's what Sa Rey says. And I believe it was Sa Rey. For those of you that don't believe the defense team is actually involved in everything you're seeing right now, I think he made it clear in that interview what's going on.
Anybody who's like, "I don't know what Anne Taylor's thinking." is playing checkers while Anne Taylor's playing chess. Like, let her do her job. Anybody who's like, "I don't know what Anne Taylor's thinking." is playing checkers while Anne Taylor's playing chess. Like, let her do her job.
Oh, going to give it a shot. Only one of me [music] to shield you all from the enemy. You're a superhero.