Chad Daybell’s Prison Letters The Death Row “Prophet” Speaks in His Own Words-WEEK IN REVIEW

“It’d Be Easier If Dan Wasn’t Here”: Wendy Adelson Leak Explained by Jeffrey Lacasse In this deep-dive, we analyze a pivotal stretch of the Jeffrey Lacasse police interrogation and the candid round-table that follows—unpacking what it reveals about Wendy Adelson, Charlie Adelson, and Donna Adelson in the Dan Markel case. The conversation focuses on behavioral forensics: emotional regulation, “leakage,” narcissistic injury, family systems, and coercive control—terms that help map motive and mindset without relying on speculation alone. Lacasse recounts late-night talks in which Wendy lamented feeling trapped in Tallahassee by custody litigation and let slip a chilling line: life would be “more convenient” if Dan weren’t around. He adds that Wendy referenced Charlie looking into “how it would be done” and “how much it would cost.” In the interrogation room, these statements land with weight—not as jokes, but as actionable disclosures that align with later courtroom narratives. We break down why Lacasse reads as credible: consistent tempo of disclosure, congruent affect, and high recall—alongside the caveat that his lingering attachment to Wendy could color certain interpretations. The panel then probes Charlie Adelson’s persona construction—his habit of posturing with “tough” circles, talk of military-adjacent acquaintances, and proximity to people comfortable with criminal enterprise. Is this insecurity, narcissism, or a lifelong rehearsal of dominance learned at home? We examine how Donna Adelson’s alleged top-down control may have shaped the siblings’ communication style—emotion-first, consequence-later—and why that can result in catastrophic “leakage” (unguarded admissions, careless phone chatter, reckless bravado). We also discuss cognitive dissonance inside tightly bound families: why challenging the matriarch would threaten the children’s own identity narratives, and how “safety” can be misdefined as allegiance to dysfunction. Finally, we situate these insights within the legal framework—murder-for-hire theory, motive arising from custody and relocation conflict, and credibility markers detectives scrutinize in major-case interrogations. If you follow the Markel murder timeline, this segment adds crucial psychological context to evidence already tested in court. It’s a guided tour through behavior, motive, and family dynamics—where every “offhand” comment may carry forensic weight. Hashtags #WendyAdelson #CharlieAdelson #DonnaAdelson #DanMarkel #JeffreyLacasse #TrueCrime #MurderForHire #BehavioralAnalysis #LegalAnalysis #Interrogation Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

3 Syys 11min

Echo Chamber of Control: Robin Dreeke Breaks Down the Adelson Family Psychology In this explosive deep dive, retired FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke, former head of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program, joins Hidden Killers Live to unravel the tangled psychology of the Adelson family. At the center of this discussion: Donna Adelson’s obsessive control, Charlie Adelson’s dangerous insecurities, and Wendy Adelson’s revealing slip-ups that pointed investigators toward a murder-for-hire plot. The episode begins with comparisons between Jackie Fulford, Donna’s so-called “doppelgänger attorney,” and the broader Adelson pattern of surrounding themselves with mirrors of their own self-image. Dreeke describes this as the classic “echo chamber” — a family environment where validation replaces reality, breeding narcissism, paranoia, and control. From there, the conversation turns to the police interrogation of Dr. Jeffrey Lacoste, Wendy Adelson’s ex-boyfriend. His testimony is not only haunting but also deeply telling. Lacoste recalls Wendy confiding that her brother Charlie had “looked into options” for getting rid of Dan Markel. He describes Charlie openly talking about money, hitmen, and how much it would cost — chilling disclosures that made Charlie the first suspect to enter his mind when news of Dan’s murder broke. Robin Dreeke dissects Lacoste’s credibility, noting his remarkable memory for dates, his consistent disclosure tempo, and his vulnerability as a man still under Wendy’s spell. Dreeke explains how narcissistic family systems thrive on manipulation, impulsivity, and a desperate need for external validation — traits seen across Donna, Wendy, and Charlie. The discussion also explores Charlie Adelson’s bizarre associations with Green Berets, criminal circles, and the Latin Kings, questioning why a wealthy dentist would gravitate toward such company. Dreeke suggests this was Charlie’s way of masking insecurity, rebelling against his mother’s dominance, and fabricating an image of power. This is not just a story of one murder — it’s a case study in how toxic family dynamics, unchecked narcissism, and impulsive decisions can escalate into tragedy. Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

3 Syys 56min

FBI Expert Exposes Donna Adelson’s Psychological Grip on Her Family Was Donna Adelson the doting grandmother—or the emotional architect of a murder plot? In Part 2 of our conversation with retired FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke, we dive into the toxic family dynamic behind the headlines. This isn’t just a story about guilt—it’s a case study in lifelong emotional programming. Robin reveals how Donna used fear, guilt, and manipulation to control her children—especially Charlie—and why decades of emotional obedience may have played a bigger role in this murder than any wiretap ever could. From Wendy’s courtroom defense of her mother (“I don’t think you can care too much”) to the gradual unraveling of the Adelson family’s loyalty under pressure, this episode breaks down how Donna’s influence shaped every decision, every silence, and every betrayal. Why didn’t the kids push back? How did Donna blur the lines between control and love? And what happens when the person you’ve spent your whole life protecting... throws you under the bus? This is psychological warfare, true crime style—and it’s happening inside the Adelson family tree. Don’t miss this deep dive from Hidden Killers with Tony Brueski. Hashtags: #DonnaAdelson #FamilyControl #DanMarkel #RobinDreeke #FBIExpert #EmotionalAbuse #HiddenKillers #TrueCrimeToday #Manipulation #Codependency Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

3 Syys 16min

Family Killer or Master Manipulator? Inside Alex Murdaugh’s Trial Performance In one of the most dramatic true crime trials in American history, Alex Murdaugh took the stand to defend himself against charges of murdering his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul. His testimony became a masterclass in denial, deception, and psychological performance. On Hidden Killers Live, Tony Brueski, Stacy Cole, and Todd Michaels break down the key courtroom moments that shaped the jury’s view of Murdaugh. From his emphatic opening line—“I did not shoot my wife and son”—to the bizarre body language that contradicted his words, every detail mattered. Nodding while denying guilt, shifting stories, and a sudden admission that he lied about his whereabouts on the night of the murders painted a portrait of a man desperate to control the narrative. Murdaugh’s defense leaned heavily on claims of opioid addiction, paranoia, and distrust of law enforcement as explanations for why he misled investigators. But can addiction truly justify lying about your presence at the kennels—the exact crime scene—on the night your family was killed? Legal analysts, forensic psychologists, and true crime experts have weighed in, and our panel explores those arguments in depth. Viewers will also see Murdaugh’s infamous “snot cry” apology, where he addressed his surviving son, Buster, and other family members. Was it grief, guilt, or simply a performance? The cadence of his testimony, his colloquial language, and his attempts to appear relatable raise questions about whether his emotions were genuine or strategically rehearsed. Beyond the murders, the episode digs into Alex’s history of fraud, financial exploitation, and betrayal of trust, showing how patterns of manipulation extended far beyond the courtroom. Was this trial ultimately about murder, or about a narcissistic collapse—an unraveling of control that ended in familial destruction? Join us as we dissect every gesture, every inconsistency, and every calculated move from Alex Murdaugh’s time on the stand. This is courtroom theater, psychological warfare, and the anatomy of a high-profile true crime trial. 🏷️ Hashtags  #AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughTrial #TrueCrime #CourtroomDrama #ForensicPsychology #Narcissism #LegalAnalysis #MurdaughMurders #CrimeCommentary #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

3 Syys 14min

Donna Adelson Trial — Georgia Cappleman’s Blistering Cross of Defense Legal Expert on “Contentious” Divorce  This raw courtroom clip captures Assistant State Attorney Georgia Cappleman going toe-to-toe with defense family-law expert Linda Bailey over one deceptively simple question: Was the Wendi Adelson–Dan Markel divorce “contentious” or just another typical case in the trenches of family court? Bailey, called by the defense to cool the temperature, testified that the divorce looked much more amicable than many she’s seen and that nothing in Donna Adelson’s involvement struck her as unusual. Cappleman then launched into a pointed, methodical cross—pressing Bailey on whether “contentiousness” can look very different to lawyers than it does to the actual people living it, and whether high-stakes motions (like the so-called “grandmother motion”) might land as a five-alarm fire to a layperson even if an attorney views it as routine. You’ll hear the prosecution challenge the expert’s framing, arguing that in the real world—outside the safe confines of legal jargon—custody, relocation, and grandparent access can feel like the “most important thing in the whole wide world.” Bailey holds the line, reaffirming her view that the divorce was fundamentally typical and that the grandmother-related filing wasn’t likely to succeed or restrict Donna’s unsupervised time. The exchange matters because the state’s motive theory leans on a heated backdrop: long-running conflict, relocation battles, and a family culture of control. If jurors accept Bailey’s narrative, the defense gains leverage to argue the divorce itself was not a powder keg. If they embrace Cappleman’s, the emotional stakes around Markel’s parenting and Wendi’s move remain powerful context for what happened next. This segment also unfolds amid a procedural wrinkle: outside the jury’s presence, the court addressed concerns that Bailey had watched prior testimony (a no-no under the witness rule). Judge Stephen Everett ultimately allowed her to testify, and the jury returned to hear Cappleman’s cross in full. That backdrop adds a layer of credibility chess to what you’re watching: the prosecution probing not just what the expert believes, but how she arrived there and whether that lens truly matches the lived experience of the people at the center of this case. For trial-trackers focused on motive, credibility, and juror perception, this is one to study—tight questions, firm answers, and the kind of back-and-forth that can tilt how a jury reads every email, motion, and text that comes next. (Donna Adelson is charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy, and solicitation, and has pleaded not guilty.) #hashtags #DonnaAdelsonTrial #DanMarkel #GeorgiaCappleman #LindaBailey #TrueCrime #CustodyBattle #LegalAnalysis #Courtroom #TrialUpdate #Tallahassee Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

3 Syys 19min

“I’d Like to Kill That MF” Charlie Adelson’s Chilling Repeated Threats In this gripping analysis from Hidden Killers Live, Tony Brueski, Robin Dreeke, and Stacy Cole, and Todd Michaels, examine one of the most damning sections of Jeffrey Lacasse’s interrogation—the part where Charlie Adelson’s casual threats, reckless talk, and family dynamics intersect with murder-for-hire reality. According to Lacasse, Charlie Adelson wasn’t shy about voicing his hatred for Dan Markel. These weren’t offhand grumbles; they were repeated, venomous statements—“I’d like to kill that motherf***er”—said so often they stuck in Lacasse’s memory. Unlike normal venting, Charlie went further, asking how much it would cost. That step from emotional ranting into cost-benefit analysis marked a chilling escalation. The panel dissects why this behavior fit a pattern: Charlie’s lack of impulse control, a trait he likely inherited from Donna Adelson, combined with years of unchecked arrogance. In his safe family bubble, he felt untouchable, rehearsing bravado for immediate gratification with no thought of repercussions. This impulsivity, coupled with Donna’s enmeshment and Wendy’s complicity, set the stage for tragedy. We also examine Charlie’s strange double life: a wealthy South Florida dentist with a Ferrari, yet constantly surrounding himself with “tough” gym buddies, ex-military acquaintances, and shady characters. Was this insecurity, narcissistic posturing, or a deliberate attempt to outsource the dirty work he lacked the nerve to do himself? Adding to the suspicion is Wendy’s sudden no-contact email to Lacasse, allegedly at her therapist’s direction, just days before Dan Markel was killed. Was this standard breakup strategy, or part of an Adelson plot to frame Lacasse as the “abusive male” and potential fall guy? The timing is hard to ignore. This episode also explores how family enmeshment and narcissistic validation needs created a toxic system where Charlie and Wendy were extensions of Donna’s will. The Adelsons may have rationalized their plot as a crusade to “protect the children,” but to outsiders, it was reckless and criminal. From hot tub bragging about hiding money to leaked threats overheard by boyfriends, Charlie’s downfall was paved by his own mouth. As Lacasse says, within 20 seconds of hearing about Markel’s murder, he thought of Charlie. That instinctive reaction speaks volumes. Hashtags #CharlieAdelson #WendyAdelson #DonnaAdelson #DanMarkel #JeffreyLacasse #MurderForHire #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #ForensicPsychology #CourtroomDrama Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

3 Syys 33min

Donna Adelson Trial — Wendi Adelson’s Former Divorce Attorney Says the Divorce Was “Not Contentious”   In today’s testimony Kristin Adamson—the family-law attorney who represented Wendi Adelson during her divorce from Dan Markel—told jurors the initial divorce proceedings were “not contentious.” Her account undercuts the notion that the legal split itself was a nonstop conflagration; instead, Adamson drew a distinction between a relatively typical divorce process and what came after it. Under further questioning, she acknowledged that post-divorce filings by Markel became more personal and hostile, a shift the state says fed resentment and control battles that ultimately form the backdrop to this murder conspiracy case. Why it matters: motive and narrative framing. Prosecutors have long argued that a bitter custody fight and relocation dispute set the stage for the homicidal plot that killed Markel in 2014. If the jury accepts Adamson’s framing—that the core divorce looked fairly standard while later filings grew heated—it subtly reshapes where the real friction lived and when it peaked. That matters for assigning intent and pressure points to the Adelson family’s decisions in the months leading up to the murder.  Adamson also faced questions about parental involvement in divorce logistics (how often parents attend client meetings, who shows up in hearings), as the defense tries to downplay the idea of Donna Adelson meddling in legal strategy—arguing that what looked like interference may have been normal family presence during a stressful time. The prosecution, by contrast, wants jurors to see those same moments as control—a pattern consistent with its broader theory of a family mobilized to remove Markel as an obstacle. For viewers tracking continuity across witnesses, this clip is a calibration tool: it doesn’t prove or disprove the murder-for-hire plot, but it helps jurors locate the temperature of the Adelson–Markel legal conflict on a timeline—cooler during the divorce itself, hotter in the aftermath. That timeline will echo through testimony about relocation, custody, wiretaps, and alleged conspirators, as the court weighs whether Donna Adelson crossed the line from family advocacy to criminal orchestration. (Donna Adelson is on trial for first-degree murder, conspiracy, and solicitation; she has pleaded not guilty.) #hashtags #DonnaAdelsonTrial #DanMarkel #WendiAdelson #KristinAdamson #TrueCrime #CustodyBattle #LegalAnalysis #Courtroom #MurderForHire #Tallahassee Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

3 Syys 1h 8min

Bryan Kohberger’s Prison Meltdown: Complaints, Control & Collapse Bryan Kohberger once carried himself like the smartest man in the room — the criminology PhD student who thought he could outthink investigators, classmates, maybe even the law itself. But the mask has slipped, and the picture we’re seeing from inside Idaho’s maximum-security prison is one of collapse. Within weeks of being placed in J-Block, Kohberger began flooding staff with handwritten complaints. He demanded “full trays” of vegan food, griped about substitutions on his meals, and accused inmates of screaming threats at him through the vents. He even begged for a transfer out of his unit, describing the environment as unbearable. The man who once studied criminal minds with detached superiority now obsesses over cafeteria menus and taunts from other inmates. Psychotherapist and author Shavaun Scott joins Tony Brueski to analyze why killers like Kohberger unravel so quickly when stripped of control. Prison life magnifies every psychological crack. For narcissistic and obsessive personalities, humiliation is poison — and in Kohberger’s case, it’s everywhere. The taunts, the food, the rigid schedule he cannot bend to his will — they all chip away at the illusion of control he’s clung to for years. What does this mean for his mental future? Will he deteriorate into psychosis, like others have in solitary confinement? Or will he remain trapped in an endless cycle of petty grievances, a man who once imagined himself as a criminal mastermind reduced to fighting over mashed peas? This episode takes you inside Kohberger’s prison meltdown — and shows how confinement doesn’t just punish the body, but shatters the fragile ego of a man who thought he’d never be caged. Hashtags: #BryanKohberger #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #MoscowMurders #Idaho4 #PrisonLife #KohbergerPrison #ShavaunScott #TrueCrimePodcast #KohbergerComplaints Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

3 Syys 10min