True Crime Today | Daily True Crime News & Interviews

“If I was divorced right now and ask you to marry me tomorrow, you would?” That’s what Kouri Richins texted her boyfriend three months before she killed her husband. She was already planning a future that required Eric Richins to not exist. In part two of our definitive series, we lay out the full architecture of the murder plan — the yearslong affair, the secret insurance policies totaling $2.2 million, the escalating drug purchases, and the failed poisoning on Valentine’s Day that should have been a warning no one could ignore. Eric told his family that if anything happened to him, Kouri was to blame. He said it clearly. He said it directly. And then he died exactly the way he predicted. The prosecution called it “learning from her mistake.” This episode traces every step of a plan that was never impulsive — it was scheduled.
Join 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/TrueCrimePod
This 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.

#KouriRichins #TrueCrimeToday #EricRichins #FentanylCase #MurderScheme #SecretInsurance #AffairMotiveMurder #UtahMurder #TrueCrimeCommunity #PoisonedDrink

Three cases at distinct stages of the legal process raise overlapping questions about evidentiary standards, investigative procedure, and institutional accountability.
In Los Angeles, David Anthony Burke faces first-degree murder charges with special circumstance allegations of lying in wait, financial gain, and murder of a witness in connection with the death of fourteen-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez. The charges carry the possibility of the death penalty, though the DA’s office has not yet made that determination. Burke has pleaded not guilty, and his defense team maintains he did not cause Celeste’s death. The People’s Brief filed by prosecutors outlines allegations of a sexual relationship beginning when she was thirteen, a killing allegedly motivated by career preservation, and months of alleged evidence destruction.
In Idaho, Bryan Kohberger’s guilty plea to four counts of first-degree murder foreclosed any judicial evaluation of the chain of custody dispute now raised publicly by a former defense expert. The Ka-Bar knife sheath carrying Kohberger’s DNA allegedly had documentation that was retroactive and legally insufficient. The victims’ families have filed a civil lawsuit against Washington State University.
In Indiana, Richard Allen’s defense team filed a reply brief and requested oral arguments before the Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court committed constitutional error by excluding alternative suspect evidence, admitting involuntary confessions, and blocking the defense from presenting a complete case.
Robin Dreeke and Tony Brueski take listener questions on the legal standards at stake in each case, the procedural distinctions between pre-trial, post-plea, and appellate proceedings, and what these cases collectively reveal about the American criminal justice system.
Join 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/TrueCrimePod
This 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.

#D4VD #BryanKohberger #DelphiMurders #TrueCrimeToday #RichardAllen #CelesteRivasHernandez #LegalAnalysis #ListenerQA #TrueCrime #CriminalJustice

Everyone has an opinion about the 1993 Chandler case. Almost nobody has the full timeline. That changes with this episode.
I’m walking through the entire sequence: how Michael Jackson befriended the Chandler family through a car rental encounter. How the sleepovers and international trips began. How a custody dispute between Jordan’s parents turned a friendship into a weapon. How Evan Chandler was recorded threatening to destroy Jackson before his son said a word about abuse. How a psychiatrist’s letter was obtained on a hypothetical before any disclosure was made. How Evan demanded twenty million dollars before filing a police report. How Jackson’s team counter-offered one million as a test. And how, after all of it, Jackson paid approximately twenty-three million and the criminal investigation died because the one witness they needed stopped cooperating.
Then there’s the strip search — the physical evidence that should have been definitive and wasn’t. And there’s Jordan Chandler, who said no to a PI, became the center of the biggest scandal of the nineties, cut ties with both parents, and has not spoken publicly in over three decades. His silence is either the mark of a person destroyed by abuse or a person trapped by a lie. This episode presents both possibilities and lets you decide.
Join 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/TrueCrimePod

This 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.

#MichaelJackson #JordanChandler #Neverland #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #MJAccusations #ChandlerCase #ExtortionTape #StripSearch #KingOfPop

Richard Allen’s appellate defense team filed a reply brief and motion for oral arguments before the Indiana Court of Appeals, characterizing the State’s case as “superficial inference stacking” built on “tunnel vision into the wrong man.” Attorneys Stacy Uliana and Mark Leeman wrote that “the State’s case was a paper tiger, and the trial court systematically barred Allen from lighting a match.”
The defense’s reply responds to the State’s brief filed in March, which argued Allen’s conviction should stand and characterized each alleged error as “harmless.” The defense counters that the cumulative effect of the exclusions denied Allen his Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense.
Key procedural issues include the admissibility of Allen’s confessions, made during conditions the defense describes as producing psychosis. In one statement, Allen described shooting the victims, who were never shot. The defense was allowed to show video of Allen in solitary confinement but was required to mute the audio. The State’s expert characterized the confessions as logical while jurors could not hear what the defense describes as confused ramblings.
The defense also challenges the exclusion of alternative suspect evidence, including an individual whose interview was allegedly recorded over and whose weapon was never collected. Kegan Kline’s catfish account — the last to contact one of the victims — was ruled a separate investigation.
The motion for oral arguments is procedurally significant. The three-judge panel will decide whether to hear the case in person.
Robin Dreeke and Tony Brueski take listener questions on the legal standards governing this appeal, the implications of the defense’s “paper tiger” characterization, and the appellate court’s range of options.
Join 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/TrueCrimePod
This 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.

#DelphiMurders #RichardAllen #TrueCrimeToday #Appeal #ReplyBrief #OralArguments #IndianaCourt #ConstitutionalLaw #ListenerQA #LegalAnalysis

The legal system has a schedule. Grief doesn't. That gap is the story of the Reiner case right now. At his most recent hearing, Nick Reiner said one word, the judge pushed the case to September, and the family that lost Rob and Michele Reiner was told — again — to wait. The autopsy reports aren't finished. The defense needs more discovery. The prosecution needs the Medical Examiner's findings. Nobody's ready. And the preliminary hearing that will determine if this case even goes to trial is still months away from being scheduled.
But the people inside this case can't press pause. Jake Reiner published an essay that laid bare what this loss actually looks like from the inside — the phone call, the Lyft ride, the stolen milestones, the unconditional love, the fear his parents must have felt. Tens of thousands of people read it. Jake wrote it because a grief expert told him it might help. His upcoming birthday will be his first without his parents. His sister Romy hasn't spoken publicly — Jake said she'll tell her story in her own way and in her own time.
And while the family processes what may be the most public grief in America right now, sources say Nick is reportedly planning a revenge tell-all from behind bars — allegedly targeting the family and former friends who've walked away. The same family that, according to sources, is telling prosecutors they oppose the death penalty. Not for Nick's sake. For their father's principles.
Tony Brueski breaks down the hearing, the family dynamics, the legal roadblocks, and what happens when a case this devastating moves at a pace the people inside it can't afford. The system has a timeline. The damage is already done.
Join 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/TrueCrimePod
This 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.
#NickReiner #RobReiner #MicheleReiner #TrueCrimeToday #JakeReiner #ReinerCase #TrueCrime #BrentwoodMurders #DeathPenalty #ReinerHearing