Monster’s motives for killing 4 students still unknown; Grandma orchestrates murder-for-hire plot

What this episode is about

The content delves into notable criminal cases from 2025, highlighting the high-profile trial of hip hop mogul Shaun Diddy Combs, who faced serious charges but ultimately received a five-year sentence with acquittals on more severe counts. The discussion reflects on the implications of his case within the context of cultural perception and the potential for ongoing civil litigation.

Key takeaways

• Diddy's trial lessons: In overreach lies the danger; prosecutors aiming high often miss the mark entirely.
• Acquitting on racketeering but convicting on lesser charges? A legal paradox that leaves prosecution's credibility in shambles.
• Jurors struggle with 'consent' in complex cases, showcasing the fine line between legal definitions and public perception.
• Cultural icons in court: Diddy's case proves even fame can't shield one from the relentless glare of justice.
• The Idaho murders sparked a true crime frenzy, highlighting our hunger for answers in the face of chilling violence.

Who speaks in this episode?

• Joshua Ritter (Host) · 20 min speaking

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 5:00: Shaun Diddy Combmes, Joshua Ritter, True Crime News, Bad Boy Entertainment
2. 5:00 – 10:00: Brian Coberger, Moscow, Idaho
3. 10:00 – 15:00: Donna Adlesen, Dan Markel, Tallahassee, Florida
4. 15:00 – 20:00: Alan Jackson, Angela Craig, Aurora, Colorado
5. 20:00 – 22:25: Joshua Ritter, True Crime News, Courtroom Confidential

Notable quotes from "Monster’s motives for killing 4 students still unknown; Grandma orchestrates murder-for-hire plot"

• Hello and welcome to the sidebar presented by True Crime News, taking you inside the courtrooms of high-profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter.

  about True Crime News · at 0:11

• From the time FBI agents raided the homes of the Bad Boy Entertainment CEO, prosecutors made it clear they were looking to take the hip hop billionaire down in a very public way. However,.

  about Shaun Diddy Combmes · at 1:12

• Monster that had stalked and stabbed victims Madison Mogan, Kaye Gonzalez, Zanna Kernodo, and Ethan Shapen. The arrest of Brian Coberger ignited a legal battle that would carry…

  about Brian Coberger · at 6:29

• And Adlesen was painted as vengeful and manipulative by prosecutors. In the end, jurors convicted the 75year-old in Markel's killing, and she was subsequently sentenced to life…

  about Donna Adlesen · at 11:23

• Arguing towards that. and also teaches the prosecution. Never underestimate the defense. And these defense attorneys were incredibly skilled, led by Alan Jackson. They did a…

  about Alan Jackson · at 16:12

• Ones that stood out to us and gave us a good kind of feel for how the year played out. [snorts] A dentist for Col from Colorado became an unlikely villain after he was…

  about Aurora, Colorado · at 18:10

• ESQ. And if you want to hear my thoughts and coverage on even more true crime cases, please check out my new YouTube channel, Courtroom Confidential. And you can of course find all of our sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcast.

  about Joshua Ritter · at 21:49

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• Joshua Ritter — Person · Host · 2 mentions · first at 0:18
  He narrates and analyzes the year’s major true-crime courtroom outcomes and provides legal commentary from a defense/prosecutor perspective.
• Shaun Diddy Combmes — Person · Referenced defendant (high-profile case subject) · 2 mentions · first at 1:04
  Central figure in the episode’s first recap: a Manhattan federal prosecution discussed as an example of overcharging and mixed verdict/sentencing outcomes.
• Brian Coberger — Person · Referenced defendant (case subject) · 2 mentions · first at 6:36
  Discussed as the accused/convicted killer in the University of Idaho student murders; the episode focuses on the surprising guilty plea and waiver of appeal.
• Donna Adlesen — Person · Referenced defendant (case subject) · 2 mentions · first at 10:51
  Presented as the convicted matriarch/mastermind in the Dan Markel murder-for-hire conspiracy; used to illustrate long-horizon prosecutorial strategy.
• Alan Jackson — Person · Referenced defense attorney · 2 mentions · first at 16:20
  Cited as lead defense counsel who dismantled the prosecution in the Karen Read case; also referenced for other high-profile representations (Weinstein, Nick Rainer).
• Angela Craig — Person · Referenced victim · 2 mentions · first at 18:18
  Victim in the Aurora, Colorado poisoning case; her death is the basis for James Craig’s conviction and sentencing discussed in the episode.
  Poisoning his wife to start a new life with his mistress. James Craig received a life sentence for the death of Angela Craig, the mother of his six children.
• Dan Markel — Person · Referenced victim · 1 mention · first at 10:49
  Victim whose murder anchors the Adelson conspiracy discussion; provides the factual and emotional center for the Tallahassee case recap.
  Adlesen was the last charged defendant in the sprawling conspiracy that left law professor and father of two Dan Markell fatally shot. At the end of the men man's death, he was…

Companies & orgs

• True Crime News — Company · Host · 2 mentions · first at 0:11
  The podcast is presented by True Crime News, which provides coverage of high-profile cases.
• Bad Boy Entertainment — Company · Case study · 1 mention · first at 1:15
  Company associated with the high-profile trial of its CEO, Shaun Diddy Combmes.
  From the time FBI agents raided the homes of the Bad Boy Entertainment CEO, prosecutors made it clear they were looking to take the hip hop billionaire down in a very public…

Products & tech

• Courtroom Confidential — Product · Secondary_owned · 1 mention · first at 21:56
  Host Joshua Ritter's YouTube channel mentioned at the end of the podcast.
  ESQ. And if you want to hear my thoughts and coverage on even more true crime cases, please check out my new YouTube channel, Courtroom Confidential. And you can of course find all of our sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcast.

Places & events

• Moscow, Idaho — Place · Setting · 1 mention · first at 6:04
  Location where the brutal murders of four University of Idaho students occurred.
  Think, unfortunately, it's going to end here. Let's move on though to Moscow, Idaho. Perhaps no case in recent history struck more fear in the hearts of parents than the brutal…
• Aurora, Colorado — Place · Setting · 2 mentions · first at 17:52
  Location where a dentist was convicted of fatally poisoning his wife.
• Tallahassee, Florida — Place · Setting · 1 mention · first at 10:42
  Location where the murder for hire killing of Dan Markell took place.
  Answer: Yes, that's true. All right, let's move on to Tallahassee, Florida, where a murderer conviction over 10 years in the making left a family matriarch behind bars in the…

Full transcript with timestamps

0:11 Hello and welcome to the sidebar presented by True Crime News, taking you inside the courtrooms of high-profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles and previously an LA County prosecutor for over a decade. We're doing something a little different this week. In this week's episode, we're going to be taking a look back at some of the biggest cases from the year, including salacious headline grabbing trials, plea deals that you never saw coming, and long awaited courtroom conclusions that spent years in the making. You can see I'm not exactly in my same uh studio setup, and I'm I but I did manage to get all dressed up for this special occasion. So, let's go ahead and jump right in and take a look back at the year that was 2025.

1:00 First, out of Manhattan, New York, no case captured the cultural zeitgeist quite like the prosecution of Shaun Diddy Combmes, which dominated conversations from true crime afficionados and pop culture fans alike. From the time FBI agents raided the homes of the Bad Boy Entertainment CEO, prosecutors made it clear they were looking to take the hip hop billionaire down in a very public way. However, despite a high-profile trial, disturbing allegations, harrowing testimony, and some memew worthy evidence, Combmes managed an acquitt on the most serious counts. Despite speculation and likely some irreparable damage to his public image, Combmes received a sentence of just over four years on two counts of transportation for the purpose of prostitution, avoiding convictions for racketeering and sex trafficking. Though allegations against Combmes may carry out in civil court for years to come, this closed the criminal proceedings for

1:58 the hip hop magnate for the time being. Well, couple things to go through about this one. First of all, if you're the prosecution, how do you view this case? How do you feel about the results? I got to say, having been a prosecutor, I don't care that this ended up with a conviction in the win col column at the end of the day. Technically, at the end of the day, beyond technically, I think they view this as a fail. This was an incredibly high-profile case and I think it's important to to understand the psyche a little bit as it were of the US Attorney's Office. They don't put their neck out there very often. They're not like state prosecutors who might try something a little more um outside the box, a little more they might be a little more riskadverse as you might say. Um, the US Attorney's Office usually doesn't bring a case, bring charges unless they feel that they have everything buttoned down. And for them

2:59 to make bring the kind of charges that they did in this case and not get convictions on the more serious charges, I think is nothing but an absolute fail for them, especially with the entire nation watching. And why is that? Well, I think end of the day, they made the big mistake of really overcharging this. They got too aggressive. It's not like the US attorney's office. They just simply overcharged and overextended themselves. Racketeering. Racketeering. When you're dealing with one man, one man who Yes. Sounds like he was running a muk. Sounds like he was acting with impunity for decades. Sounds like he was absolutely committing crimes. But is that racketeering? When we think of raketeering, we think of the mob. Mafia. mafiosos. We think of an entire criminal enterprise all operating to do something, gambling or running guns. We don't think about one man just kind of interested in his own sexual

4:01 exploits. And I think that's where they may have lost track of themselves in this case. If you're the defense, I think you look at this the exact opposite way as a as a win. I realize that Shawn Holmes is in prison as we speak and he's going to be there for a couple years more, but he was looking at life. I remember when this case first broke and when he was denied bail, I thought that's the last breath of fresh air Shawn Combmes will ever take. And boy was I wrong. And I think more than anything, the way that the defense was able to do this was one, they pointed out, yes, this probably was overcharging. No, this doesn't look like traditional racketeering. But then they went back to some of the allegations themselves and I think they were able to effectively point out how as despicable as this conduct may have been, it was borderline consensual. And when we talk about consensual, it's important

4:56 to understand what we mean from a criminal and legal perspective. It's what would an outside observer believe was taking place. You have people who, according to even some video evidence presented, look like they were consensually participating in some of this activity. You have people sending text messages afterwards talking about how they enjoyed participating in the activity, even perhaps setting up future activity. Even though what may have been taking place in the minds of these individuals was certainly not consensual and I believe they are being honest from an outside observer objectively looking in. I think it was just hard for jurors to wrap their heads around. Lastly on this, could Diddy mount some sort of comeback?

5:43 Well, all I have to say is don't be surprised. I mean, literally, what else does he have? Well, you could say he's got millions of bucks. Shut up. Sit at home. Stay at home. let we don't want to ever hear from you again. And I agree, but this man has made his entire career, his entire life, his entire identity by being in the spotlight. And I don't think, unfortunately, it's going to end here. Let's move on though to Moscow, Idaho. Perhaps no case in recent history struck more fear in the hearts of parents than the brutal murders of four University of Idaho students. The case immediately made national headlines, fueling theories of online sleuths and leaving many wondering if the local police were in above their heads.

6:24 Finally, a coordinated investigation brought a collective sigh of relief when the authorities put a face to the monster that had stalked and stabbed victims Madison Mogan, Kaye Gonzalez, Zanna Kernodo, and Ethan Shapen. The arrest of Brian Coberger ignited a legal battle that would carry on for months as both sides squabbled over the admissibility of evidence and prosecutors boldly announced that they would seek the death penalty against the killer. Surprisingly, as the case was headed for a public trial with the eyes of the nation looking on, Coberger plead guilty on all counts, confessing to taking the lives of the four victims while sparing his own from the ultimate punishment. Though the killer will spend the rest of his life behind bars, many are left questioning the killer's motives and the lives of multiple families are forever changed.

7:12 How did it end up like this? How could this case possibly have ended up in a plea deal? I am still a little shocked. Even when I understand it, I'm a little shocked. This, you got to think if any case is deserving of the death penalty, this would be it. Putting aside how you may feel about the death penalty, if it's on the books, it's reserved for a case exactly like this. But I think you have to think from a prosecutor's perspective, too. This is something that is very real. And I'm basing this off of my own um experience. No trial is given.

7:47 I don't care how much evidence you have. Nothing is guaranteed. And when you're looking at a case where you can get guaranteed convictions, putting this man away for life without the possibility of parole, never have to worry about him again. And you've got the victims. I realize some were against it, but some were also in favor of it. The victim's families, as difficult as it may be, you have to kind of put your ego aside and say, "This might be the right thing to And I end of the day it probably was the right right thing to do. But still in doing that I think they made some missteps.

8:27 For instance, many people have asked, "Well, why didn't you make him say something? Say more. Tell why he did it. Tell how he did it. Tell us what his motives were. Where is the knife after all of this?" And yet we're left with nothing. Again, I agree with you. I I think they should have asked for more. Um, but end of the day, I don't think the prosecution thought that's going to really be helpful to their end at all. What is What do we care what Brian Coberger has to say? Do we really want to give him a platform to say why he did what he did? Will that make us feel any better? Will it bring any more comfort to the victim's families in this case?

9:08 Probably not. Yeah, I think I'm with you. I'd like to know where he put the knife. I'd like to know why he picked them. I'd like to know why he did it, but is it worth giving him that platform? Some of you may still be saying yes, and I can't say I entirely disagree with you, but this is where we are. Finally, on this, a lot of people have been asking and they're very nervous. Is it true that he really does not have the right to appeal here? And let me just say this, yes, you can rest easy. He is not going to be appealing this case and getting out.

9:41 Now, does that mean he won't try? Well, that's a very different question. He's entered into a plea deal that says that he waves his right to appeal. Now, that doesn't mean he might not try. And if he does, the prosecution will just enter the plea deal in front of an appellet court and say, "Look, he waved his rights to make any of these arguments." And that will likely be accepted. The only thing the only cav caveat is if he could somehow prove that he didn't understand what was going on and try to withdraw his plea altogether that he wasn't properly abs advised by his attorneys and try to withdraw this whole thing together. But the chances that of that happening are probably even slimmer than the chances of him ever appealing.

10:25 That's why the judge took the plea that he did. That's why it was so drawn out and so specific was to prevent against any of those problems. You ask a lawyer a question, you're going to get a very technical answer. The better answer here is, "Is it true he cannot appeal?" Answer: Yes, that's true. All right, let's move on to Tallahassee, Florida, where a murderer conviction over 10 years in the making left a family matriarch behind bars in the murder for hire killing of her son-in-law. Donna Adlesen was the last charged defendant in the sprawling conspiracy that left law professor and father of two Dan Markell fatally shot. At the end of the men man's death, he was locked in a contentious custody dispute with his ex-wife Adlesen's daughter Wendy. When a judge prevented Wendy from moving the couple's children to South Florida to be closer to the Adlesen's, prosecutors say Donna Adlesen pulled the strings to

11:18 carry out the deadly plot. The controlling [clears throat] mother was a looming figure in the children's lives and Adlesen was painted as vengeful and manipulative by prosecutors. In the end, jurors convicted the 75year-old in Markel's killing, and she was subsequently sentenced to life in prison without any possibility of parole. I got to say my applause and congratulations go out to the prosecutors in this case. It was remarkable what they were able to do. The prosecution that they were able to play off over a decade's worth of time the amount of work. This is an entire career for these prosecutors.

11:58 what they were able to do, not just in this case, but in all the ones proceedings, from the shooters to the middlewoman, McBanis to the son, Charlie Adlesen, and finally to the mother. Um, congratulations to them. And this case, Donna's case, was probably the most difficult test of all because it was one degree more removed from the murder itself. You had to go through, like I said, the trigger men, the in the in between person, the this son who orchestrated it and everything, and then finally to the mother who was the mastermind of it all. Again, congrats to the prosecution. Many have asked though, why did they wait? Why did they do it this way? Why did they allow things to play out so long? And why did they wait so long to arrest Donna? Well, I've never seen it really done that way before. I got to admit, it's something even new to me. But perhaps it gave them the ability to focus on each individual

12:52 case and each individual defendant rather than trying to juggle them all at once. Maybe it was just simply patience realizing that they've got an eye on these people and they're not going anywhere. But also it provided, and this might be some 3D chess here, some more evidence because these people were out. In particular, Da Aden, she was they were able to observe her behavior. They were able to listen to her phone calls and some of that was her undoing. What now though? I know that's what everybody wants to know. Is this really the end? What about Wendy? Well, if anything this prosecution has proven us as spectators is that we don't know what's coming next.

13:36 I expect an arrest. I'll just go ahead and and say that I feel like everything we have learned over through all of these trials has shown us that Wendy was likely involved. Now, this prosecution team has demonstrated that they're not shy and that they're not timid. So, if they haven't brought charges, there's probably a very good reason for it, but I expect at least that we probably will be hearing something very soon. on to Damon, Massachusetts. In one of the more surprising true crime spectacles to captivate the public, a Massachusetts woman was acquitted in the death of her police officer boyfriend after a camerafilled retrial. Karen Reed faces a new allnew jury after last year's mistrial and ultimately avoided charges of vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of a collision causing death in the demise of John O'Keefe. While the jury convicted Reed on account of operating under the influence, the woman

14:30 avoided any jail time in favor of a year probation. The case caused quite a stir with many suggesting a vast conspiracy highlighting a distrust of law enforcement that coincided with Reed's prosecution. Reed became a folk hero of sorts with a crowd of supporters following her every court appearance as Reed continued to make the media rounds and even released a documentary about her case. Though Reed has avoided criminal convictions, she faces a wrongful death lawsuit filed by O'Keefe's family. And the woman has responded with her own federal lawsuit against key witnesses and police and the alleged coverup, which may keep Reed in the headlines for some time to come.

15:09 How um did this case unravel for the prosecution? I mean, you you think about it in its most basic terms. You've got a man found in the snow. He's surrounded by pits of pieces pieces of tail light. Those tail light pieces happen to match the tail light of a woman who was with him earlier that night. Just on those basic facts alone, you kind of go, "Well, it looks like she her card hit him." Well, it wasn't one thing alone. It was many things. Many, I think, that you can put at the top of the pile being investigatory missteps. Not to mention one investigator in particular who left a lot of really troubling uh text messages on his phone. Also, I think this case suffered from overcharging.

16:00 You're trying to charge someone for murder where it maybe at best looks very accidental and that might have given uh trouble to jurors just considering that when the prosecution is asking and arguing towards that. and also teaches the prosecution. Never underestimate the defense. And these defense attorneys were incredibly skilled, led by Alan Jackson. They did a masterful job of dismantling the prosecution case. Why did this case become such a phenomenon, though? Why are we talking about it? This these types of things happen all the time that people get run over by automobiles. This didn't involve celebrities. It didn't involved sports stars. Just two people from Massachusetts. I realized it involved a police officer which sometimes gets some news. I don't know if I know really. I think there was the intrigue of the case itself that it did have a lot uh for people to debate about. I think it

16:57 covered topics of mistrust in police which is something that people are always interested in. It also involved these celebrity attorneys, a battle royale in court. Sadly, not so much sadly, but interestingly enough, I think end of the day, it had to do with just having really good access to court, good cameras in court that you were able to watch this play out as an absolute drama. And I think that's why people uh really became interested in this. Side note, speaking about Alan Jackson, has anyone had a bigger year than Alan Jackson between Harvey Weinstein and Karen Reed and now this new case with Nick Reiner? uh he has stayed very busy.

17:39 I'm wondering though, can he keep this streak going into the new year with this Nick Reiner case that he was just uh retained for. It's a very, very different case than Karen Reed. We shall see. But we're going to have to leave it there for now to our final case out of Aurora, Colorado. And let me just say this, it was hard for us to pick five cases. I realize now as I'm getting towards the end of the list, many of you are going to be saying, "What about this case and what about that case?" And there was a lot to cover this year. We tried to do our best to just find those ones that stood out to us and gave us a good kind of feel for how the year played out. [snorts] A dentist for Col from Colorado became an unlikely villain after he was convicted of fatally poisoning his wife to start a new life with his mistress. James Craig received a life sentence for the death of Angela Craig, the mother of his six children.

18:30 While the couple seemed to have it all from the outside, beneath the surface, James was accumulating crippling debt, a string of infidelities, and an alleged pornography addiction. When he added another mistress to the equation, the father and husband reportedly reached a breaking point, seeking for various ways to to take his wife out of the picture. Unfortunately for Craig and his defense, his extensive research on the topic of killing Angela, along with the delivery of Sinai to his dental practice, left jurors with little sympathy for the convicted killer. Craig's case demonstrates that crimes can happen anywhere, even among the people least suspected to take such drastic action, forever altering the lives of all involved. Talk about a seemingly happy family from the outside. You've got a married couple, been together forever.

19:20 They've got all these beautiful kids, six of them. They're heavily involved in their church. He appears to have this readily successful dentist practice. But underlying all of this is this absolute nightmare, headed up by this sociopath who is all the time planning his escape from this idealic life. I think that's why this case was so capturing to us, why it stood out. It really does present that kind of could these be the people next door sort of a scenario that does seem to be so intriguing to us and how someone who seems to have it all can be so sinister and so evil just underneath the surface.

20:00 The other thing about this case is it really demonstrated the power of digital forensics. It's to the point folks where you almost can't get away with anything anymore. What with the ability to track emails and text messages and geoloccation and Google searches, it seems like a police's job is becoming easier and easier to investigate what people were up to. And it gives us a lot of um recall to the recent case of Brian Walsh where the Google searches in that case seem to be his undoing. But I really feel even in with the strength of all of that evidence, in my view, and I don't know if the jurors felt the same way, but in my view, his actions after the murder were perhaps even more devastating, his actions after his arrest, even the idea that he was trying to get others to lie on his behalf and commit perjury, that he was trying to get others to plant evidence, that he was trying to get

21:06 other another person, another fellow inmate to go about orchestrating the killing of the detective on his case. When jurors hear about this, it goes beyond consciousness of guilt. They're starting to think we've got a full-fledged psychopath on our hands here, and there's no way we're letting him walk out the door free, man. In any case, that was just a look at some of the highlights for the year that was 2025. That is our show for this week. We'd like to thank all of our listeners and viewers for another great year and we want to wish you all a very happy and safe holiday season. I am your host Joshua Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at Joshua Ritter ESQ. And if you want to hear my thoughts and coverage on even more true crime cases, please check out my new YouTube channel, Courtroom Confidential. And you can of course find all of our sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcast.

22:03 and we would love to hear from you. If you've got questions or comments you'd like us to address, tweet us your questions with the #TCN sidebar. And thank you for joining us at the True Crime News Sidebar.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Monster’s motives for killing 4 students still unknown; Grandma orchestrates murder-for-hire plot"?

Joshua Ritter (Host).

What is "Monster’s motives for killing 4 students still unknown; Grandma orchestrates murder-for-hire plot" about?

The content delves into notable criminal cases from 2025, highlighting the high-profile trial of hip hop mogul Shaun Diddy Combs, who faced serious charges but ultimately received a five-year sentence with acquittals on more severe counts. The discussion reflects on the implications of his case within the context of cultural perception and the potential for ongoing civil litigation.

What is mentioned in this True Crime News episode?

13 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Joshua Ritter, True Crime News, Shaun Diddy Combmes, Brian Coberger, Bad Boy Entertainment, Donna Adlesen. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Monster’s motives for killing 4 students still unknown; Grandma orchestrates murder-for-hire plot"?

The episode runs 22 min; the transcript is about 3,833 words in 28 timestamped sections.

More from True Crime News

• All analyzed episodes
• People mentioned on True Crime News