True crime enthusiasts, bloggers, and pundits always frustrate me. They claim to seek justice but too often undermine its very foundation by injecting bias and speculation into criminal cases. The ongoing saga surrounding the Idaho murder trial of Bryan Kohberger is a textbook example of how outside influences taint our justice system.
On November 13, 2022, four University of Idaho students—Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin—were brutally stabbed to death in their off-campus residence in Moscow, Idaho. Authorities allege the victims were attacked while they slept. A suspect, Bryan Kohberger, was later arrested, with police citing DNA evidence found on a knife sheath at the scene, cell phone tracking data, and witness statements.
From the moment Kohberger was identified, a frenzy ensued. Bloggers, podcasters, and self-styled crime experts wasted no time casting judgment, often ignoring the cornerstone principle of our legal system: the presumption of innocence. Despite pleading not guilty—an act that merely invokes the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—Kohberger became the target of venomous hate and outrage.
Pretrial Publicity: Poisoning the Well
The situation deteriorated further when the local judge approved a change of venue to Boise, Idaho, citing overwhelming pretrial publicity. This decision, intended to ensure impartial jurors, was met with resistance from the true crime community. The same people who demand “justice for the victims” seem to have little understanding of—or respect for—the need for unbiased juries who will base their verdict solely on courtroom evidence.
What’s worse, the dissemination of incomplete or misunderstood evidence fuels speculation. Reports about DNA evidence, cell phone tracking, and eyewitness accounts quickly morph into assumptions of guilt. When experts challenge the reliability or interpretation of this evidence, the public outcry grows louder.
Let’s be honest: in today’s world, jurors are rarely uninfluenced. Despite legal admonitions to avoid external information, many will inevitably Google case details or read media coverage. This reality makes it nearly impossible for defendants, especially in high-profile cases, to receive fair trials.
The Role of Media Pundits
Figures like Nancy Grace—whom I unapologetically dub “Nancy Disgrace”—exacerbate the problem. They parade sensationalized narratives, stoking public outrage and poisoning the well of public opinion. High-profile cases are treated as entertainment rather than serious legal matters, turning trials into media circuses.
For instance, look no further than the Scott Peterson case, where a man was convicted of killing his wife, Laci Peterson, without any actual evidence of her cause of death. Or the Rebecca Grossman case in Westlake Village, California, involving the tragic deaths of two little boys struck by a vehicle. The facts of these cases were obscured by public demand for retribution, often at the expense of objective legal processes.
A Broken System
The Kohberger trial highlights a growing problem in our society: we claim to value fair trials, but our actions say otherwise. True crime fanatics, biased media, and the unrelenting internet chatter all conspire to rob defendants of impartial justice. Even when guilty individuals stand trial, they deserve verdicts rooted in evidence, not in hysteria.
If we are serious about justice, we must take concrete steps to shield our courts from outside interference. High-profile juries should be sequestered from the moment they are selected, stripped of access to smartphones, laptops, and media. Until we address these systemic flaws, the integrity of our justice system will remain under siege, and fair trials will be little more than a hollow ideal.
Comments