The Illegal Leaks by an Expert Witness in Bryan Kohberger's Case

There are still numerous people out there who believe that Bryan Kohberger is innocent, despite the fact that he chose to plead guilty in the Idaho 4 case. Some of this is encouraged by creators who are clinging to the case in the hopes that one more development will happen and they can continue to gain clicks from it.

Some of those creators have encouraged conspiracy theories about Kohberger being framed. Others have tried to find ways for him to appeal and be released from prison, again despite his plea deal that said he could not appeal.

Those creators were given a gift by Brent Turvey, an expert witness that the defense hired.

He spoke with several reporters about the case. And shared some insights with author Christopher Whitcomb, who wrote the book Broken Plea: The Explosive Search for Truth Behind The Idaho Murders. Where he questions what really happened the night four Idaho University students were murdered.

Turvey was interviewed by Whitcomb. During these sessions, they discussed evidence and theories that were developed by the expert witness. Things that were supposed to stay confidential.

This is where Kohberger’s defense lawyer, Anne Taylor, takes offense to what happened. She claimed that there was a non-disclosure agreement in place and Turvey violated it.

Further, some content creators allege that he viokated the court had a gag order on the case for anyone involved in it.

Where are things currently?

Taylor wrote an op-ed for The Idaho Statesman about Turvey talking to the media. She let it be known that she was not happy with the expert witness she hired. In so many words, she called him unprofessional and a hack.

She wrote in part, “The agreement with Mr. Turvey was crystal clear that all materials, as well as any opinions that he developed as an expert, were to be kept confidential…”

Within the piece, she elaborated on the NDA and insisted that Turvey was still bound by it. She also alleged that he spoke about topics that were outside his expertise, things that he had no business talking about.

After reiterating that he knew the materials he talked about were confidential, Taylor went in for the kill. She is quoted as saying, “His reliability should be seen through the lens of this conduct.”

That line will be the end of his career, according to fellow expert witness and content creator Amy Santoro. In a video, she theorized that future potential clients of Turvey’s will research him and see Taylor’s op-ed. That will be a deciding factor for them.

For his part, Turvey says this controversy is absurd. His defense is that the court released some of the evidence. He also claimed that nothing he talked about was outside his expertise.

He told The Idaho Statesman, “Bottom line is, in my 30 years I’ve never divulged confidential or case-sensitive material that was outside my realm, or outside my anything… Nothing that I shared was not already public or at least provided in discovery that was actually data-dumped by law enforcement in Idaho.”

As Taylor and Turvey’s feud heats up, there’s another question at stake: Was a gag order violated?

Technically the answer is no. Turvey did not violate a gag order. There was one on the case until July 2025. Just before Kohberger was sentenced, the judge lifted it and allowed participants to talk about the case.

There is a caveat though. Much of the evidence stayed sealed.

The evidence that has made its way to the internet and fueled a million conspiracy theories was unsealed by the court. Some argue that it was fair game for Turvey to talk about and share his opinions on.

However, that ignores the NDA he signed with the defense team. While no one but those involved know the exact wording of the contract, it is safe to guess that there was specific language that banned him from talking about the case altogether.

If there wasn’t, then Taylor would not have felt the need to write an op-ed about it. There would be no war of words between the two of them. In fact, there might have been a different vibe to Whitcomb’s book and Turvey’s role in its development.

What happens next?

That is anyone’s guess. There is usually a financial punishment for breaking an NDA. Turvey will likely fight to minimize or negate any penalty he might face. Assuming Taylor and the defense team try to enforce it at all.

It is nearly certain that there will be more to this story as it plays out in the media and in courtrooms.