Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger And His Experts In DNA And Digital Evidence (8/29/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger And His Experts In DNA And Digital Evidence (8/29/26) · Beyond The Horizon

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. Brian
0:04
Speaker 1: Koberger had another hearing on Thursday and we heard testimony
0:08
Speaker 1: from Brian Koberger's digital expert as Koberger and his team
0:12
Speaker 1: continue to try to challenge how the evidence was collected
0:16
Speaker 1: against them. The question is, is there any there there?
0:20
Speaker 1: And in my opinion, there's not. And the reason that
0:22
Speaker 1: you see them attacking this information with such a frantic
0:26
Speaker 1: pace is because they understand that this DNA evidence is
0:29
Speaker 1: what's going to sink their client. So they're going to
0:32
Speaker 1: do everything in their power to try and get it
0:34
Speaker 1: thrown out. And you can't blame them for doing that.
0:37
Speaker 1: Is it annoying? It is. But it's the process. And
0:40
Speaker 1: while I think that Brian Koberger is guilty, as far
0:43
Speaker 1: as the evidence has shown us thus far, I'm not
0:46
Speaker 1: willing to just, you know, shrug my shoulders and be like, oh, well,
0:49
Speaker 1: the government's right. Certainly not willing to do that. We've
0:52
Speaker 1: seen the government screw up way too many times. But
0:55
Speaker 1: so far, I haven't seen even a trace of that
0:57
Speaker 1: when it comes to Kohlberger. So let's get to this
1:00
Speaker 1: article from the Idaho Statesman and let's see what the author,
1:03
Speaker 1: Kevin Fixler, has for us. Headline, Defense for Defendant Brian
1:08
Speaker 1: Kohlberger Signals Evidence Challenges in Idaho Murder Case. Like I said,
1:13
Speaker 1: this article was published by the Idaho Statesman and the
1:16
Speaker 1: author is Kevin Fixler. State prosecutors in the University of
1:20
Speaker 1: Idaho student homicide case relied on a federal grand jury
1:24
Speaker 1: and to obtain dozens of subpoenas to build their case
1:27
Speaker 1: against suspect Brian Koberger, it was revealed for the first
1:30
Speaker 1: time at a hearing on Thursday. Okay, and what's your point?
1:35
Speaker 1: This is exactly what they do. When they don't want
1:38
Speaker 1: to tip their hand, they're going to go to a
1:40
Speaker 1: grand jury, and that's how they're going to get the indictment.
1:42
Speaker 1: As many as 71 sealed federal subpoenas produce potential evidence,
1:46
Speaker 1: Latah County Senior Deputy Prosecutor Ashley Jennings disclosed in court
1:51
Speaker 1: in the case against Koberger who is charged with four
1:54
Speaker 1: counts of first degree murder and faces the death penalty
1:56
Speaker 1: if convicted. The material from those subpoenas has all been
2:00
Speaker 1: turned over to the defense, she said. And of course,
2:03
Speaker 1: the defense is saying that that's not true. We haven't
2:05
Speaker 1: gotten this. We haven't gotten that. They're slow walking the discovery.
2:10
Speaker 1: And it's pretty typical for a case that's this high stakes.
2:14
Speaker 1: Both sides are going to lob allegations at each other.
2:17
Speaker 1: Both sides are going to accuse each other of slow-walking
2:21
Speaker 1: evidence or not doing this, that, or the other thing.
2:24
Speaker 1: And it's all posturing, right? And it's all about trying
2:27
Speaker 1: to get your arms around the narrative. But Koberger's public
2:30
Speaker 1: defense team said it wants the subpoenas themselves and demanded
2:34
Speaker 1: that the judge in the case order the state and
2:36
Speaker 1: the federal government, acting on its behalf, to turn them over.
2:40
Speaker 1: The federal grand jury, overseen by the U.S. Attorney's Office,
2:44
Speaker 1: led to what could prove to be pivotal evidence at
2:46
Speaker 1: trial and is included in the probable cause affidavit for
2:49
Speaker 1: Koberger's arrest, the defense said. The defense is trying to
2:53
Speaker 1: cause some waves here. That's it. They're trying to get
2:56
Speaker 1: pundits talking, and they're trying to get people to run
2:59
Speaker 1: with their narrative. Not going to work on this podcast. Sorry,
3:02
Speaker 1: nice try. If you have something of note, definitely I'll
3:05
Speaker 1: take a look at it and reevaluate my opinions then.
3:09
Speaker 1: But as of now, they've produced nothing. All they've tried
3:12
Speaker 1: to do is challenge the process. They used a subpoena
3:15
Speaker 1: to get one of the most critical pieces of evidence
3:17
Speaker 1: in this case, and they know that, and they are
3:19
Speaker 1: going to use that, Elisa Massoth, one of Koberger's attorneys,
3:23
Speaker 1: told the court at one of two scheduled hearings on Thursday.
3:27
Speaker 1: Massoth did not specify which piece of evidence against Koberger
3:30
Speaker 1: that may be and declined to provide the date of
3:33
Speaker 1: that federal subpoena in the public hearing. So they're so
3:36
Speaker 1: worried about transparency all of a sudden. Let's get rid
3:39
Speaker 1: of the gag order. Let's have full on cameras in
3:41
Speaker 1: the courtroom and let's get rocking. Oh, they don't want
3:44
Speaker 1: to do that. That's because they don't care about transparency.
3:47
Speaker 1: They care about packaging their narrative to try and pitch
3:50
Speaker 1: it as if Kohlberger is getting the short end of
3:53
Speaker 1: the stick here. That way they can drive some views,
3:55
Speaker 1: drive some clicks to their content. We all know how
3:58
Speaker 1: people roll. It's all about the salaciousness, right? People aren't
4:02
Speaker 1: interested in justice. They're not interested in finding out what
4:05
Speaker 1: really happened. They're interested in getting that back. And to
4:08
Speaker 1: do that, you got to have that salacious bullshit to
4:10
Speaker 1: gas people up with. And it never fails that whenever
4:12
Speaker 1: a defense team in a trial like this files some
4:15
Speaker 1: documentation or makes allegations that the prosecution is up to
4:19
Speaker 1: no good, then of course that narrative is going to
4:22
Speaker 1: get picked up by the media and they're going to
4:24
Speaker 1: run stories about it. But keep in mind, just because
4:27
Speaker 1: one side or the other files a document, that doesn't
4:30
Speaker 1: mean that the document is canon, right? That doesn't mean
4:33
Speaker 1: that the document is true. Those are the allegations. That's
4:36
Speaker 1: the motion. And until the judge orders one way or
4:40
Speaker 1: the other, that's all it is, a motion. But these
4:43
Speaker 1: defense attorneys are smart. They know what's going on. And
4:46
Speaker 1: considering there's a gag order in the case, they know
4:48
Speaker 1: that the only way to get their narrative out there
4:51
Speaker 1: that Koberger is getting railroaded is to make these allegations
4:54
Speaker 1: in open court. and inside of the court filings. What
4:57
Speaker 1: I can tell you is that for the majority, we
5:00
Speaker 1: did state search warrants, and we've received many of these
5:03
Speaker 1: records that way, Jennings responded. U.S. Attorney for the District
5:07
Speaker 1: of Idaho, Josh Hurwit, and his office did not respond
5:10
Speaker 1: Thursday afternoon to email and phone requests for comments from
5:14
Speaker 1: the Idaho statesman. Kohlberger, 29, is accused in the stabbing
5:18
Speaker 1: deaths of four U of I students and at an
5:21
Speaker 1: off-campus home on King Road, Moscow, in November of 2022.
5:24
Speaker 1: The victims were seniors Madison Mogan and Kaylee Gonsalves, both 21,
5:30
Speaker 1: and juniors Anna Kernodle and freshman Ethan Chapin, both 20.
5:34
Speaker 1: Judge John Judge of Idaho's 2nd Judicial District in Latah County,
5:39
Speaker 1: who is handling the case, has yet to set a
5:41
Speaker 1: trial date. The defense presses for more video footage. More
5:45
Speaker 1: than 100 search warrants were obtained by Moscow and Idaho
5:48
Speaker 1: State Police detectives in their investigation into the student homicides
5:52
Speaker 1: that shocked the rural college town, the state, and the nation.
5:56
Speaker 1: The FBI assisted with the investigation, including with producing DNA
6:00
Speaker 1: evidence that police and prosecutors said links Kohlberger to the
6:04
Speaker 1: crime scene. Well, how does he explain the DNA on
6:07
Speaker 1: the sheath? Now, unless there was some serious issue with
6:12
Speaker 1: the process here, then Kohlberger's as good as cooked. Until
6:16
Speaker 1: they can explain the DNA on the sheath, all the
6:19
Speaker 1: other stuff is BS. Now, the procedure matters, right? And
6:24
Speaker 1: if the prosecution was out of line, that's going to
6:26
Speaker 1: come into play. But besides that happening, there is zero
6:30
Speaker 1: way that Kohlberger is going to be able to challenge
6:32
Speaker 1: the DNA on the sheath. And that's why they're making
6:35
Speaker 1: such a big stink out of it. A separate closed-door
6:37
Speaker 1: hearing was held later in the day, so the two
6:40
Speaker 1: sides in the case could make arguments before Judge oversealed
6:44
Speaker 1: evidence records. The defense aimed to have some of the
6:46
Speaker 1: DNA records from the FBI, use of an advanced police
6:51
Speaker 1: technique known as investigative genetic genealogy, or IgG, be made public,
6:55
Speaker 1: which prosecutors opposed. During the three-hour early afternoon hearing, Koberger's
7:00
Speaker 1: defense lawyers said they're working toward filing several motions to
7:04
Speaker 1: suppress search warrants and evidence against their client. Largely based
7:07
Speaker 1: around the timeline of police work leading up to Koberger's arrest,
7:11
Speaker 1: he was taken into custody in Pennsylvania on at his
7:14
Speaker 1: parents' house, seven weeks after the student deaths. The information,
7:17
Speaker 1: including the dates of those federal subpoenas, will help the
7:20
Speaker 1: defense establish that timeline and justify attempts to have evidence
7:24
Speaker 1: tossed from the case, blocking its use from the eventual
7:27
Speaker 1: trial and consideration by the jury. Timing is everything in
7:31
Speaker 1: the case. For the defense, Massoth said, we are desperate
7:35
Speaker 1: to find out the timeline in this case and when
7:38
Speaker 1: the state knew what and when. She told the court,
7:41
Speaker 1: there's no question that motions to suppress are coming. Well, good.
7:45
Speaker 1: File all the motions you want. Doesn't mean they're going
7:48
Speaker 1: to go anywhere. Through the legal process known as discovery,
7:51
Speaker 1: Koberger's defense also is seeking from the prosecution more video
7:55
Speaker 1: footage that police obtained from around the Moscow community in
7:58
Speaker 1: the days and weeks after the killings. Security and surveillance
8:02
Speaker 1: camera footage was acquired during the investigation from approximately 79
8:07
Speaker 1: area businesses and 10 private residences that contributed to investigators'
8:12
Speaker 1: suspicion of Koberger as the alleged perpetrator. And just to reiterate,
8:16
Speaker 1: if you pay attention here, they're not saying the evidence
8:19
Speaker 1: is bad, they're saying the way it was collected is bad,
8:22
Speaker 1: and that there was an improper investigation launched into Koberger.
8:27
Speaker 1: And Taylor, Koberger's lead public defender, said her team still
8:30
Speaker 1: lacks a number of those videos, some of which may
8:33
Speaker 1: include evidence that could help her client's defense. Two Moscow
8:36
Speaker 1: police officers, who were integral to the investigation, testified, one
8:41
Speaker 1: last week and one today, that they were each unaware
8:44
Speaker 1: where the missing footage may be. Well, there's no doubt
8:46
Speaker 1: that that's concerning. They should have all this stuff ready
8:49
Speaker 1: to go. Why is the footage missing? And where is it?
8:51
Speaker 1: Who has it? Who is in charge of the chain
8:53
Speaker 1: of custody? And let's see all of the documentation, right?
8:57
Speaker 1: Somebody has to be in charge of the evidence. And
8:59
Speaker 1: if somebody isn't, that's a big problem. And I've said
9:02
Speaker 1: it once and I'll say it again. If there's prosecutorial misconduct,
9:07
Speaker 1: I don't care how much evidence you have against somebody.
9:09
Speaker 1: The person being accused at that point has to be
9:12
Speaker 1: let off because the state has so much power at
9:15
Speaker 1: their fingertips that if they don't follow the rules, if
9:18
Speaker 1: they don't do the right thing, then not only should
9:20
Speaker 1: the person who has been indicted be let off, then
9:23
Speaker 1: there should be issues for the prosecutors themselves. They should
9:27
Speaker 1: face all kinds of blowback. They should face all kinds
9:29
Speaker 1: of issues, maybe even ding their pension or whatever. look,
9:33
Speaker 1: you have to do the right thing as a prosecutor.
9:35
Speaker 1: You're given a lot of power, right? And a lot
9:37
Speaker 1: of lateral ability to do what you have to do.
9:42
Speaker 1: And if you're out here abusing that power, there needs
9:44
Speaker 1: to be sanctions. There needs to be some sort of
9:47
Speaker 1: punishment for people who think it's okay to abuse their office. Now,
9:52
Speaker 1: with that said, I haven't seen any of that take
9:54
Speaker 1: place here. And I haven't seen any evidence presented to
9:58
Speaker 1: us by Ann Taylor of it taking place. But if
10:01
Speaker 1: her and the team can prove it, it's going to
10:03
Speaker 1: be very troubling, and it's going to be very difficult
10:06
Speaker 1: for the prosecution to overcome it. I need to know
10:10
Speaker 1: where these videos are, Taylor said Thursday. They've been collected,
10:13
Speaker 1: but nobody can tell me where. Among other pieces of evidence,
10:17
Speaker 1: Koberger's public defense said, There are still due from prosecutors
10:20
Speaker 1: are some highly technical cell phone tower data and reports
10:24
Speaker 1: missing work product from Moscow police detectives and FBI investigators
10:28
Speaker 1: and all other information that the state relied upon for
10:31
Speaker 1: each affidavit used to justify all the warrants. That's like
10:35
Speaker 1: a big one. Judge quipped. Some of the defense discovery
10:39
Speaker 1: requests are for records that either don't exist or the
10:41
Speaker 1: state prosecution is still working to retrieve, including from the FBI.
10:46
Speaker 1: Jennings said. The state will deliver everything that prosecutors are
10:50
Speaker 1: required to provide to the defense under Idaho criminal rules
10:53
Speaker 1: and court precedents, she said. We can't give over what
10:57
Speaker 1: we don't have, Jennings told the court. So the back
11:00
Speaker 1: and forth is on when it comes to Moscow, and
11:03
Speaker 1: you can expect a whole lot more of this. There's
11:05
Speaker 1: going to be a whole lot more of this. There's
11:07
Speaker 1: going to be a lot of allegations, law back and
11:09
Speaker 1: forth as we make our way towards this trial. The
11:13
Speaker 1: question is, can Brian Kohlberger's team prove any of these
11:16
Speaker 1: allegations that they're making? Or is it just a big
11:20
Speaker 1: stunt to try and control the narrative? And unfortunately, as
11:23
Speaker 1: of now, we don't have the answer to that question.
11:26
Speaker 1: But we're going to continue following along. And when we
11:28
Speaker 1: have more information to share, we'll make sure that it
11:30
Speaker 1: gets added to the catalog. All of the information that
11:33
Speaker 1: goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
11:37
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
11:41
Speaker 1: this episode, we're spinning back up to Idaho and we're
11:43
Speaker 1: going to talk a little bit more about Brian Koberger
11:46
Speaker 1: and the alibi and the alibi expert that his team
11:50
Speaker 1: has brought on. Now, as you all know, I don't
11:53
Speaker 1: think this alibi is going to stick and I think
11:56
Speaker 1: it's a shot in the dark. But what else is
11:59
Speaker 1: this team going to say or do? They have nobody
12:02
Speaker 1: to corroborate what Brian Kohlberger was up to. They never did.
12:06
Speaker 1: If they had a strong alibi, we would have known
12:09
Speaker 1: about it a long time ago. But instead, all we
12:12
Speaker 1: got was muddy water from Brian Kohlberger's legal team talking
12:16
Speaker 1: about this alibi or that alibi and how they're going
12:19
Speaker 1: to provide it later on down the road. Only to
12:23
Speaker 1: come in with an underwhelming performance like this? Not exactly
12:26
Speaker 1: the bombshell that they were hoping for. So let's dive
12:30
Speaker 1: into this article from NBC News and let's see what
12:34
Speaker 1: they have for us. Headline, University of Idaho Murder Suspects Alibi,
12:39
Speaker 1: Defense Puts Spotlight on Cell Phone Data Analyst. This article
12:44
Speaker 1: was authored by Eric Ortiz. And when we first talked
12:48
Speaker 1: about the alibi, I gave you a profile of Mr.
12:51
Speaker 1: Ray and what his background was. And there's no doubt
12:54
Speaker 1: that it's pretty impressive. but you can guarantee that the
12:57
Speaker 1: state's going to have somebody that's equally impressive throwing cold
13:02
Speaker 1: water all over everything that Mr. Ray has to say.
13:07
Speaker 1: When Brian Koberger's lawyers filed an updated alibi defense last
13:10
Speaker 1: week suggesting cell phone tower data will show the man
13:14
Speaker 1: suspected in the slayings of four University of Idaho students
13:18
Speaker 1: was not in the area of the crime when they
13:20
Speaker 1: were killed, they said they planned to turn to an
13:22
Speaker 1: Arizona-based cell data analyst for key testimony. Now, remember, leading
13:28
Speaker 1: up to this, the shoe was on the other foot,
13:31
Speaker 1: and the prosecution had a ton of digital cell phone
13:34
Speaker 1: data that doesn't look good for Brian Koberger. All you
13:37
Speaker 1: heard from the defense and people that were, you know,
13:40
Speaker 1: championing Brian Koberger, if you will, that the data is
13:44
Speaker 1: not really that reliable. Now, all of a sudden, the
13:47
Speaker 1: data is reliable, and we should rely upon that data
13:51
Speaker 1: to for Brian Koberger's alibi, but not for putting him
13:55
Speaker 1: at the scene of the crime. Is that really what
13:57
Speaker 1: you're pitching to me? Now, with that said, I am
14:00
Speaker 1: more than willing to look at this evidence. I have
14:03
Speaker 1: no vendetta against Brian Koberger one way or the other,
14:06
Speaker 1: and my opinions about what happened here is based solely
14:09
Speaker 1: on the evidence that we have seen. Now, of course,
14:12
Speaker 1: we have a long way to go, and there might
14:14
Speaker 1: be something that gets presented that changes everything, but as
14:18
Speaker 1: of now, nothing that I have seen from Koberger's defense
14:21
Speaker 1: team makes me pause and say to myself, well, maybe
14:25
Speaker 1: they're onto something here. In fact, it's the other way around.
14:28
Speaker 1: And until they can explain the DNA on that sheath,
14:31
Speaker 1: as I've said time and time again, all this other
14:34
Speaker 1: stuff is spinning your wheels in neutral. It wouldn't be
14:37
Speaker 1: the first time that Cy Ray has been asked to
14:39
Speaker 1: be an expert witness in a high-profile murder trial. Although
14:42
Speaker 1: he said Friday that out of the more than 100
14:45
Speaker 1: times he's testified in state and federal cases, it has
14:48
Speaker 1: typically been for the prosecution. Now, Ray's involvement in the
14:53
Speaker 1: case of the four college students fatally stabbed in their
14:56
Speaker 1: off-campus apartment house in November 2022, which continues to stir
15:01
Speaker 1: speculation over why someone would commit the gruesome act, is
15:04
Speaker 1: putting a spotlight on his expertise after past scrutiny over
15:08
Speaker 1: his credentials. So I had never heard of this gentleman previously,
15:13
Speaker 1: but according to this article, there has been some scrutiny
15:16
Speaker 1: over his work. Ray declined to address the Koberger case
15:20
Speaker 1: as a judge issued a gag order last year preventing
15:23
Speaker 1: many involved from speaking publicly, but he said in general
15:27
Speaker 1: that it takes competent experts with adequate experience to interpret
15:31
Speaker 1: call detail records. And this is a big chance that
15:34
Speaker 1: they're taking here, folks. Talking about these cell phone records
15:39
Speaker 1: the way they are, considering how much digital evidence has
15:42
Speaker 1: been collected against Koberger, leads me to believe that this
15:45
Speaker 1: is nothing more than a Hail Mary. Where the challenges
15:48
Speaker 1: come in is when there's a different level of experience,
15:51
Speaker 1: he added, and some of these records can be extremely complicated. Ray,
15:55
Speaker 1: a former Gilbert, Arizona police detective, founded ZX Corp., a
16:00
Speaker 1: company specializing in cellular geolocation mapping. In 2014, in the courtroom,
16:06
Speaker 1: Ray has found himself and his mapping software, Trax, under
16:09
Speaker 1: questions about reliability before. So this is going to be
16:13
Speaker 1: an issue, there's no doubt. If you don't think Thompson
16:17
Speaker 1: and company are going to bring this up, you're crazy.
16:20
Speaker 1: And what they're going to do is they're going to
16:21
Speaker 1: bring in their own experts. And those experts are going
16:24
Speaker 1: to challenge the narrative that's being put forth by the defense.
16:29
Speaker 1: And like I always say, it's going to come down
16:31
Speaker 1: to the jury and their interpretation of the evidence for
16:35
Speaker 1: what it is. And remember the DNA that was sent
16:38
Speaker 1: out in Moscow? They sent it to Othram. And Othram
16:41
Speaker 1: is the premier destination for stuff like this to go down.
16:44
Speaker 1: They are the best in the business when it comes
16:46
Speaker 1: to genealogy, when it comes to old cold cases. Othram
16:51
Speaker 1: is where it's at. And that's who they used here
16:54
Speaker 1: for the DNA. And you notice that they're not talking
16:57
Speaker 1: about the DNA or bringing a expert on to challenge that.
17:00
Speaker 1: What they're doing is trying to go for the technicalities, right?
17:04
Speaker 1: And they know that the digital evidence that's been compiled
17:07
Speaker 1: against Kohlberger is strong. So they're going to have to
17:09
Speaker 1: bring their own expert on to try and muddy those waters.
17:12
Speaker 1: And that's exactly what they're trying to do here. I've
17:16
Speaker 1: seen in previous cases where his credibility has been brought
17:19
Speaker 1: into question, said Mark Foff, a cellular technology expert and
17:23
Speaker 1: former sheriff's detective in El Paso County, Colorado. Foff testified
17:28
Speaker 1: for the defense in a 2022 hearing related to the
17:31
Speaker 1: case of a man accused of stalking an ex-girlfriend. But
17:34
Speaker 1: the judge barred prosecutors from using Ray's software data. So
17:38
Speaker 1: you know that the prosecution in Idaho knows about that.
17:41
Speaker 1: They're going to bring that up. They're going to challenge
17:43
Speaker 1: having this man and the software that he uses. If
17:47
Speaker 1: they've already challenged him or he's been challenged in another case,
17:51
Speaker 1: you know how much prosecutors love precedent. District Court Judge
17:56
Speaker 1: Juan Villazenor ruled that ZX tracks mapping was inadmissible and
18:00
Speaker 1: based on a sea of unreliability after other experts found
18:04
Speaker 1: the technology to be problematic. For one, the court doesn't
18:08
Speaker 1: find Ray credible. Villasenor wrote, adding, he inflated his credentials,
18:13
Speaker 1: inaccurately claiming to be an engineer. He went on to
18:16
Speaker 1: say that Ray has no qualifications, licenses, or credentials to
18:20
Speaker 1: support calling himself an engineer, and that there's no evidence
18:23
Speaker 1: that Ray's taken any engineering classes. All damning. And the prosecution,
18:29
Speaker 1: they're going to bring on an expert that has done
18:31
Speaker 1: all of that. Villasenor writes, also took exception with how
18:35
Speaker 1: the track's algorithm wasn't open to scientific scrutiny. While Ray
18:39
Speaker 1: stands by his formula, it hasn't gained traction in the
18:42
Speaker 1: scientific community, the judge wrote. The methodology and algorithm aren't
18:46
Speaker 1: published or subject to peer review, and they've been routinely
18:49
Speaker 1: labeled as junk science by the relevant scientific community. So
18:54
Speaker 1: this is the guy that they're bringing on to defend
18:56
Speaker 1: Brian Koberger. And when I have my doubts, this is why.
19:01
Speaker 1: You're going to bring on a guy with credibility issues?
19:03
Speaker 1: That's really the way you want to go about this? Okay,
19:06
Speaker 1: I guess. Don't complain, though, when the jury absolutely laughs
19:10
Speaker 1: him out of the courtroom. Ray said on Friday that
19:13
Speaker 1: he agreed with the defense and that there was inaccuracy
19:16
Speaker 1: with the data, but the case was an anomaly. NBC
19:20
Speaker 1: News found other cases, including in Pennsylvania and Michigan, in
19:24
Speaker 1: which Ray's credibility and data were questioned in hearings, but
19:28
Speaker 1: judges ultimately deemed them admissible. I absolutely stand by the product,
19:33
Speaker 1: Ray said. He added that the Colorado judge denigrated his
19:36
Speaker 1: background unfairly and that he was misquoted and misinterpreted about
19:41
Speaker 1: discussing how he and engineers interpret call records. He said
19:45
Speaker 1: he's gone into the field to research how cell phones
19:48
Speaker 1: will connect to certain cell towers. which an engineer would
19:51
Speaker 1: not need to do. In a way, I'm doing something
19:54
Speaker 1: the engineers don't do to figure out how to do
19:56
Speaker 1: this better, he said Friday. Adding that track software is
19:59
Speaker 1: testable by others. It's unclear how many law enforcement agencies
20:04
Speaker 1: currently use TRAX, but Wray in 2022 said he provided
20:08
Speaker 1: training to more than 8,000 law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and
20:13
Speaker 1: defense experts. LexisNexis purchased ZX in 2021. The data analytics
20:19
Speaker 1: company said in a statement that it is proud to
20:22
Speaker 1: support a broad range of law enforcement agencies, but does
20:25
Speaker 1: not disclose customer information. According to a background of Ray's
20:29
Speaker 1: experience filed in court documents by Koberger's defense team, he
20:33
Speaker 1: ended his role as director for LexisNexis Special Services last year.
20:38
Speaker 1: He also has appeared on various true crime television shows,
20:42
Speaker 1: including NBC's Dateline, and hosts a true crime podcast with
20:45
Speaker 1: his wife, Socialite Crime Club, in which they discuss their
20:48
Speaker 1: involvement in criminal cases from around the world and what
20:52
Speaker 1: it takes to solve complex investigations. The Idaho Alibi In
20:57
Speaker 1: a 10-page filing Wednesday signed by Ann Taylor, Koberger's lead
21:01
Speaker 1: public defender, his lawyers said they would call on Ray
21:04
Speaker 1: to help corroborate their client's alibi. At the time of
21:07
Speaker 1: the slayings, Koberger was a doctoral student at Washington State
21:11
Speaker 1: University and living in Pullman, Washington, about 10 miles west
21:15
Speaker 1: of Moscow, Idaho, where the University of Idaho is located.
21:19
Speaker 1: In an affidavit following Koberger's arrest weeks after the killings,
21:23
Speaker 1: prosecutors said he was linked to the scene through the
21:26
Speaker 1: DNA discovered on a knife sheath left at the victim's
21:29
Speaker 1: apartment house. And good luck with that. That is the
21:34
Speaker 1: key piece of evidence here, the evidence that, in my opinion,
21:37
Speaker 1: is going to see Brian Kohlberger convicted. In addition, investigators said,
21:43
Speaker 1: they tracked Kohlberger in the area of the home through
21:45
Speaker 1: his cell phone use and surveillance that picked up a
21:48
Speaker 1: Hyundai Elantra that they believed he was driving. Kohlberger's alibi
21:53
Speaker 1: defense said he would go for nighttime drives and that
21:56
Speaker 1: those only increased during the school year. This is supported
21:59
Speaker 1: by data from Mr. Koberger's phone, showing him in the
22:02
Speaker 1: countryside late at night and or in the early morning
22:05
Speaker 1: on several occasions. They wrote, yeah, as he's planning out
22:08
Speaker 1: these murders, finding the new route that he's going to
22:11
Speaker 1: take home. I mean, there's a million different things you
22:14
Speaker 1: can say about this. And if you think the prosecution
22:17
Speaker 1: is just going to sit back and let them run
22:20
Speaker 1: roughshod over them, you're crazy. The phone data includes numerous
22:23
Speaker 1: photographs taken on several different late evenings and early mornings,
22:27
Speaker 1: including in November, depicting the night sky. In the early
22:31
Speaker 1: morning hours of November 13th, 2022, when Kaylee Gonsalves, 21,
22:36
Speaker 1: Madison Mogan, 21, Zanna Kernodle, 20, and Kernodle's boyfriend, Ethan Chapin, 20,
22:42
Speaker 1: were killed, Koberger was out driving in an area south
22:45
Speaker 1: of Pullman and west of Moscow. Yeah, might as well
22:48
Speaker 1: have been on the moon. Yeah, bro, I was on
22:51
Speaker 1: the moon doing a moonwalk. That's about how reliable this
22:56
Speaker 1: alibi is. Nobody can corroborate this one either. But the
22:59
Speaker 1: defense team added Ray's testimony intends to show that Koberger's
23:03
Speaker 1: mobile device did not travel on the East Moscow-Pullman Highway
23:07
Speaker 1: in the early morning hours of November 13th and thus
23:10
Speaker 1: could not be the vehicle captured on video along the
23:13
Speaker 1: Moscow-Pullman Highway near Floyd's Cannabis Shop. They said that Ray
23:18
Speaker 1: would be able to share further analysis That would be
23:20
Speaker 1: based on discovery provided by the prosecution. But if such
23:24
Speaker 1: information is not disclosed, Mr. Ray's testimony will also reveal
23:28
Speaker 1: that critical exculpatory evidence further corroborating Mr. Kohlberger's alibi was
23:33
Speaker 1: either not preserved or has been withheld. Yeah, you know what?
23:37
Speaker 1: I'm sure that the Odinites have this evidence too. The
23:41
Speaker 1: Odinites showed up up here in Idaho, stole the evidence,
23:44
Speaker 1: and then framed Brian Kohlberger. Prosecutors had said in its
23:47
Speaker 1: affidavit that a search warrant provided Kohlberger's cell phone data
23:51
Speaker 1: for the 24 hours before and after the incident, and
23:54
Speaker 1: it showed that he left his home two hours before
23:57
Speaker 1: the killings and then turned his phone off, only to
23:59
Speaker 1: turn it on again afterward when he was traveling from
24:02
Speaker 1: Idaho to Pullman. A grand jury last May indicted Kohlberger
24:07
Speaker 1: on four counts of murder and burglary, and a judge
24:09
Speaker 1: entered a not guilty plea on his behalf. A trial
24:13
Speaker 1: was expected to begin last October but has been delayed
24:16
Speaker 1: with a change of venue. Hearing scheduled for June 27th.
24:21
Speaker 1: Cell phone analysis. While further detail about how Ray would
24:25
Speaker 1: support the defense's alibi claim is unclear, the use of
24:28
Speaker 1: such cell phone mapping technology and forensics has become a
24:32
Speaker 1: sought-after capability in legal proceedings, experts say, as prosecutors attempt
24:36
Speaker 1: to prove a defendant was at the scene of a crime.
24:39
Speaker 1: Defense teams, as well, may bring on their own experts
24:42
Speaker 1: to refute law enforcement's analysis. And that's for sure how
24:45
Speaker 1: it happens. Every single time you have a trial and
24:49
Speaker 1: there's any kind of question about technology, everybody's bringing their
24:52
Speaker 1: own expert on board. And then those experts are going
24:56
Speaker 1: to get in front of the jury and they're going
24:58
Speaker 1: to explain why they feel the narrative that they're pitching
25:01
Speaker 1: is the narrative that's supported by the evidence. Kevin Horan,
25:05
Speaker 1: a retired FBI agent, and co-founder of Precision Cellular Analysis,
25:10
Speaker 1: an Ohio-based firm that consults in legal cases, said mapping
25:14
Speaker 1: software generally works the same. It matches cell site information,
25:18
Speaker 1: known as call detail records, with a list of cell
25:21
Speaker 1: towers and plots it onto a map. He said analysts
25:24
Speaker 1: can determine from which side or sector of a cell
25:27
Speaker 1: tower a cell phone utilized. In criminal cases, he added,
25:31
Speaker 1: investigators can use that information to analyze whether the phone
25:35
Speaker 1: was in a certain vicinity or of where the crime happened. Ultimately,
25:39
Speaker 1: the question of where the phone was during the date
25:41
Speaker 1: and time in question is answered by the jury, who
25:44
Speaker 1: must decide based on all the available evidence if the
25:47
Speaker 1: defendant and his phone were at the crime scene. Horan said,
25:51
Speaker 1: cell phone evidence like this simply helps the jury draw
25:54
Speaker 1: these types of conclusions. A properly trained cell phone expert
25:58
Speaker 1: will never testify that, based on the cell phone data,
26:01
Speaker 1: the defendant or his phone were at a crime scene.
26:04
Speaker 1: And that's true. They can only say that they were
26:07
Speaker 1: near a crime scene, and that's because the cell phone
26:10
Speaker 1: pinged to the tower, but that's not an absolute. It
26:13
Speaker 1: just goes along with the totality of the evidence that
26:16
Speaker 1: has already been presented. Horan said that Ray's tracks mapping
26:21
Speaker 1: software has stood out from other programs because it includes
26:24
Speaker 1: an estimated coverage area of a cell site, which he
26:27
Speaker 1: finds highly problematic and misleading, and that only a test
26:31
Speaker 1: drive in which scanning gear is used can help determine
26:34
Speaker 1: a cell site's full coverage area. Ray said the company
26:38
Speaker 1: he founded has a database in which every cell site
26:41
Speaker 1: in the U.S., hundreds of thousands have been mapped, updated,
26:45
Speaker 1: over time, and archived. We've been drive testing since 2014,
26:49
Speaker 1: and every drive test we do, we archive, Ray said.
26:53
Speaker 1: Nobody will ever be able to drive test every cell site.
26:56
Speaker 1: It's an impossible task. Horne said, in general, it's imperative
27:00
Speaker 1: for the data collected to be accurate and interpreted correctly.
27:04
Speaker 1: People's lives, their liberty, is on the line, and we
27:07
Speaker 1: certainly don't want to convict someone who's innocent or use
27:09
Speaker 1: evidence that's questionable and could come back at a later time,
27:12
Speaker 1: he said. And there's no doubt about that. So I'm
27:15
Speaker 1: glad to see that Kohlberger has an expert here. That way,
27:18
Speaker 1: later on, when he's trying to appeal the conviction that
27:21
Speaker 1: I believe is coming, he can't say that he didn't
27:23
Speaker 1: have all the proper representation or the proper experts, none
27:27
Speaker 1: of that nonsense. So as we get closer to the trial,
27:31
Speaker 1: my guess is you can expect more stuff like this
27:33
Speaker 1: to pop up. More issues, more experts, and more back
27:37
Speaker 1: and forth between both sides as the battle for the
27:40
Speaker 1: narrative in Moscow fully gets underway. Alright folks, that is
27:44
Speaker 1: a wrap for this one. All of the information that
27:47
Speaker 1: goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
27:52
Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. Brian
27:56
Speaker 1: Koberger and his legal team have brought on a genealogist,
28:01
Speaker 1: and according to this genealogist, named Leah Larkin, the DNA
28:06
Speaker 1: evidence that's been provided by the prosecution is not as
28:10
Speaker 1: strong as they'd like you to believe. Now, we have
28:14
Speaker 1: to take everything Leah Larkin says with a grain of
28:17
Speaker 1: salt as well. Remember, she's been hired to do a
28:21
Speaker 1: job here. She's been hired as a witness for the defense.
28:25
Speaker 1: And she's going to do her best to try and
28:28
Speaker 1: poke holes in what the prosecution has come up with.
28:31
Speaker 1: And that's exactly what she's trying to do in this filing.
28:35
Speaker 1: And as we have seen many times before, it's all
28:38
Speaker 1: going to come down to a battle of the experts.
28:41
Speaker 1: Which experts do the jury believe more? Which experts come
28:45
Speaker 1: with a better narrative about what happened? And where does
28:50
Speaker 1: the truth lie? That is what's really going to matter
28:53
Speaker 1: when all is said and done. And Brian Kohlberger's team, well,
28:57
Speaker 1: they're bringing in the genealogist, and they're hoping that this
29:00
Speaker 1: genealogist is able to sway the jury towards their version
29:05
Speaker 1: of events. So, let's get to this article from the
29:08
Speaker 1: Daily Mail, and let's see what Germania Rodriguez-Polio has come
29:13
Speaker 1: up with. Headline, Brian Kohlberger Update. Genealogist Hired by Defense?
29:20
Speaker 1: cast doubt on the reliability of genetic genealogy in Idaho
29:25
Speaker 1: murder's investigation. The lawyers for Idaho murder suspect Brian Kohlberger
29:31
Speaker 1: have put forward testimony by a genealogist that cast doubt
29:36
Speaker 1: on the reliability of genetic genealogy, which investigators used to
29:41
Speaker 1: arrest him. So their whole entire line of thinking here
29:45
Speaker 1: is let's go after the testing method. Let's go after
29:49
Speaker 1: how this DNA was put through the system. And what
29:52
Speaker 1: do we call that, kids? That's right. Loopholes and technicalities.
29:58
Speaker 1: Those are the tools of the guilty. When you're innocent,
30:01
Speaker 1: you don't need to use loopholes. You don't need technicalities.
30:04
Speaker 1: Do you know why? Because you have the evidence on
30:07
Speaker 1: your side. And none of these people that we talk about,
30:10
Speaker 1: Brian Kohlberger or Alex Murdaugh or Lori Vallow or Ghislaine Maxwell,
30:16
Speaker 1: none of them have had the truth on their side.
30:19
Speaker 1: So when they go into court and they try and
30:22
Speaker 1: provide these experts and their expert opinions, well, they get
30:26
Speaker 1: absolutely chomped up by what the prosecution has, because the
30:30
Speaker 1: prosecution witnesses aren't just showing up with their opinion. They're
30:35
Speaker 1: showing up with these little pesky things called facts, and
30:39
Speaker 1: that's what the jury wants to hear. Not the what-could-have-beens,
30:43
Speaker 1: not the what-ifs, and they certainly don't want to hear
30:45
Speaker 1: that it was Slenderman who committed these murders. the jury
30:49
Speaker 1: is not going to take that very well. They're going
30:52
Speaker 1: to look at all of these facts, they're going to
30:54
Speaker 1: look at everything that's been provided, and they're going to
30:57
Speaker 1: know the BS from the real. Detectives relied on genetic
31:02
Speaker 1: genealogy to build their case against the 28-year-old as they
31:07
Speaker 1: used the method to build a DNA profile from the
31:10
Speaker 1: DNA left on a knife sheath at the scene and
31:13
Speaker 1: then match that profile to Koberger's dad before his arrest.
31:18
Speaker 1: Their contention is that the methods that were used, well,
31:22
Speaker 1: they're not methods that are solid, and that there can
31:25
Speaker 1: be errors when you're getting DNA profiles. And while that
31:29
Speaker 1: might be the case, I highly doubt the buccal swab
31:32
Speaker 1: that was taken from Brian Kohlberger is incorrect, okay? And
31:36
Speaker 1: that's why they went after the buccal swab. Not only
31:39
Speaker 1: was it the touch DNA on the knife sheath, but
31:42
Speaker 1: they got that buccal swab from Brian Kohlberger the night
31:45
Speaker 1: he was arrested. Unlike Rex Heuermann, where they had to
31:48
Speaker 1: go and get a court order to get that bugle swab,
31:52
Speaker 1: that was all part of the warrant when they kicked
31:54
Speaker 1: in Kohlberger's door and caught him in his drawers with
31:57
Speaker 1: some rubber gloves on, hanging out sorting trash. While prosecutors
32:02
Speaker 1: claim they matched DNA from the sheath directly to Kohlberger
32:06
Speaker 1: after he was arrested, they first used genetic genealogy. And
32:10
Speaker 1: his defense has so far focused on scrutinizing the process
32:14
Speaker 1: used by investigators to collect evidence and build the DNA profile,
32:19
Speaker 1: arguing it could have been flawed or unconstitutional. Loopholes, technicalities.
32:26
Speaker 1: For those of you who aren't paying attention, that's exactly
32:29
Speaker 1: what they mean here. It's not, look, we have evidence
32:32
Speaker 1: that proves Brian Kohlberger is innocent. Oh, we have a
32:35
Speaker 1: witness that can corroborate his alibi. Oh, no, no, no, no.
32:39
Speaker 1: its loopholes and technicalities. In their latest attempt to request
32:44
Speaker 1: the data and methods used by the investigators to match
32:48
Speaker 1: the DNA evidence to Kohlberger, the defense team filed an
32:51
Speaker 1: affidavit on Wednesday by Dr. Leah Larkin, an expert on
32:55
Speaker 1: the subject, from California. and I already have that episode recorded,
33:00
Speaker 1: and I'll have it uploaded at some point today. I
33:03
Speaker 1: wanted to talk about the actual article first, and then
33:06
Speaker 1: we'll upload the document. In our affidavit, seen by thedailymail.com,
33:11
Speaker 1: Larkin argues DNA profiles built by at-home test companies such
33:16
Speaker 1: as 23andMe and AncestryDNA are not constructed the same as
33:22
Speaker 1: those by specialized laboratories and are not as reliable. Now,
33:28
Speaker 1: that would carry more weight with me if they didn't
33:30
Speaker 1: have the buccal swab already from his cheek. Once they
33:33
Speaker 1: got that buccal swab and the buccal swab matched up
33:36
Speaker 1: with everything else, I think that all of this is
33:39
Speaker 1: just them spinning their wheels in neutral, looking for a
33:42
Speaker 1: way to punch a hole in what the prosecution has
33:45
Speaker 1: done so that they can get the whole entire case
33:47
Speaker 1: thrown out on a, that's right, technicality. A poor quality
33:52
Speaker 1: kit might have too few matches, or it just might
33:56
Speaker 1: have phantom matches that are not real measures of relationship.
34:00
Speaker 1: The document reads, Larkin notes that sites such as AncestryDNA, 23andMe,
34:06
Speaker 1: and MyHeritage prohibit forensic investigative genetic genealogy in their databases,
34:13
Speaker 1: but there isn't really a way to enforce it. In
34:17
Speaker 1: the absence of an effective oversight, forensic genetic genealogies are
34:22
Speaker 1: on the honor system to obey the terms of services
34:25
Speaker 1: and the Department of Justice's interim policy on forensic genetic genealogy.
34:31
Speaker 1: So in layman's terms, they're saying that the company that
34:35
Speaker 1: gave up this information did so illegally, did so without
34:40
Speaker 1: following the parameters that are set out by the Justice
34:43
Speaker 1: Department and their own terms of service. So that's a
34:46
Speaker 1: pretty big allegation, and they're going to have to prove it. Now,
34:49
Speaker 1: you could say whatever you want in these court filings,
34:52
Speaker 1: but after you put it into the court document, the
34:55
Speaker 1: judge and the jury, they're going to expect you to
34:58
Speaker 1: prove what you're talking about. So they better be able
35:01
Speaker 1: to bring the thunder with these allegations. Larkin explains that
35:05
Speaker 1: the science used by these sites is not perfect, and
35:08
Speaker 1: any given centimorgan amount can represent more than one possible relationship.
35:15
Speaker 1: She notes one example that has nearly 20 possible relationship
35:19
Speaker 1: lines listed for a match and says that's considered a
35:23
Speaker 1: close match. Larkin points out that unlike DNA tests that
35:27
Speaker 1: find an individual with your standard forensic STR tests, genetic
35:33
Speaker 1: genealogy testing identifies possible relatives. She then goes on to
35:38
Speaker 1: note cases she's allegedly aware of where genetic genealogy has
35:43
Speaker 1: been wrong. as well as cases where the databases were
35:46
Speaker 1: used improperly by authorities. Look, there's no doubt that law enforcement, investigators, prosecutors,
35:54
Speaker 1: sometimes they cross the line. And when they cross that line,
35:58
Speaker 1: they have to be slapped very hard, in my opinion,
36:01
Speaker 1: because the state has so much power. to throw somebody
36:05
Speaker 1: in prison, that everything they do has to be above board.
36:09
Speaker 1: There can be no missteps, no half steps, and no nonsense.
36:14
Speaker 1: Because if there is, well, it's going to be all
36:16
Speaker 1: bad for the person who's being accused. And remember, just
36:20
Speaker 1: because somebody's accused, it doesn't make them guilty. We might
36:25
Speaker 1: all think Brian Kohlberger is guilty, but until he is
36:28
Speaker 1: proved to be guilty in a court of law, he's
36:30
Speaker 1: an innocent man. So the prosecution has to toe the line.
36:34
Speaker 1: They have to make sure that they're walking the right
36:36
Speaker 1: path and they're not doing anything that could give somebody
36:40
Speaker 1: like Brian Kohlberger wiggle room to get off on a technicality.
36:46
Speaker 1: The FBI tracked down Kohlberger by tracing his distant relatives
36:50
Speaker 1: through genetic genealogy databases and then secretly collected a sample
36:55
Speaker 1: of his father's DNA to confirm his identity. They make
36:58
Speaker 1: that sound like some cloak and dagger shit, but that's
37:01
Speaker 1: not the case. They did a trash grab. So what
37:04
Speaker 1: happens is, if you put your trash bins out in
37:07
Speaker 1: front of your house, there's no more possession of that trash.
37:12
Speaker 1: That trash is now gone. free game. Anyone can come
37:15
Speaker 1: by and look in your trash can the second you
37:18
Speaker 1: put it out on the curb. And what's more, people
37:20
Speaker 1: can go into that trash can and take whatever they want.
37:24
Speaker 1: That includes the police. They do not need a search
37:26
Speaker 1: warrant once you have thrown something out. On the flip
37:29
Speaker 1: side of that, if your trash cans are on your property,
37:32
Speaker 1: they cannot go through them without a warrant. So there
37:35
Speaker 1: certainly was no constitutional rights that were stepped on when
37:39
Speaker 1: the authorities arrested Brian Koberger and when they went through
37:43
Speaker 1: his trash. That was all above board. And that's just
37:46
Speaker 1: how it goes when you're trying to nail somebody on
37:48
Speaker 1: something like this. Kind of the same way they got
37:50
Speaker 1: Rex Uriman, right? The bottles out of the trash, the
37:53
Speaker 1: pizza crust, the DNA on the crust, yada, yada, yada.
37:58
Speaker 1: The point is, this is how technology works now. And
38:01
Speaker 1: if you're going to be a criminal and you think
38:03
Speaker 1: you're going to get away with it, I have news
38:05
Speaker 1: for you. Eventually, your ass is going to get nailed.
38:09
Speaker 1: Police say DNA found on a knife sheath left at
38:13
Speaker 1: the Idaho murder scene is a statistical match to a
38:16
Speaker 1: cheek swab taken from the suspect after his arrest. A
38:21
Speaker 1: sample of DNA left on the sheath is at least 5.37
38:25
Speaker 1: octillion times more likely to be seen if the defendant
38:30
Speaker 1: is the source than if an unrelated individual randomly selected
38:34
Speaker 1: from the general population is the source, prosecutors said in
38:38
Speaker 1: the filing, so that's very hard to argue with. 5.37
38:42
Speaker 1: octillion times more likely? I'm certainly not a mathematician, but
38:49
Speaker 1: that seems like an enormous number. Koberger had no criminal record,
38:55
Speaker 1: which means his DNA was not in any law enforcement database.
38:59
Speaker 1: Genetic genealogy is an increasingly popular and useful method of
39:04
Speaker 1: investigation where law enforcement traces suspects' relatives on ancestry websites.
39:11
Speaker 1: I could never commit a crime, forget it, if I
39:13
Speaker 1: left DNA at the scene. I'd definitely get nailed. You
39:15
Speaker 1: know why? Well, I have several relatives who are in
39:18
Speaker 1: CODIS because they've been to prison. So your boy would
39:21
Speaker 1: get nailed right away. And that's just the way of
39:24
Speaker 1: it these days. You never know what kind of relative
39:28
Speaker 1: you have out there that's uploaded their DNA. And you're
39:31
Speaker 1: out here committing all these crimes thinking you're going to
39:33
Speaker 1: get away with it. Well, eventually, they're going to nail
39:36
Speaker 1: your ass. And how are they going to nail your ass? Well,
39:39
Speaker 1: with this DNA, with all of this new technology. That's how.
39:44
Speaker 1: When DNA is found at the scene of a crime
39:46
Speaker 1: that does not belong to the victims, the first thing
39:49
Speaker 1: police do is run it through their own database to
39:52
Speaker 1: check if it matches the DNA of any previous offenders.
39:57
Speaker 1: This process is referred to as a short tandem repeat
40:01
Speaker 1: STR comparison and tests the sample against 20 DNA markers.
40:06
Speaker 1: enough to identify the person if their own DNA is
40:09
Speaker 1: already in the system, or, in some cases, if the
40:12
Speaker 1: DNA of an immediate relative is in the system, e.g.
40:16
Speaker 1: a parent or a sibling. If both strike out, investigators
40:21
Speaker 1: have to look to genetic genealogy to perform a wider
40:25
Speaker 1: search for more distant relatives. Unlike police DNA databases, those
40:30
Speaker 1: of commercial genealogy companies can search for up to 1
40:34
Speaker 1: million DNA markers using single nucleotide polymorphisms, not STRs, creating
40:41
Speaker 1: a much wider pool of relatives to sift through. And
40:44
Speaker 1: it's kind of like fishing. If you're using a pole, well,
40:47
Speaker 1: you're going to catch one fish. But if you use
40:49
Speaker 1: a net, chances are you're going to catch more than one, right?
40:53
Speaker 1: So you cast a wide net here and you look
40:55
Speaker 1: to see how many matches there are in these databases.
41:00
Speaker 1: While there are many commercial ancestry websites, only two allow
41:04
Speaker 1: law enforcement to search their databases openly, GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA.
41:12
Speaker 1: Once a suspect is nailed down, a genealogical investigator's turn
41:16
Speaker 1: their findings over to the police. Undercover or covert teams
41:22
Speaker 1: then follow the suspect and surreptitiously obtain a sample from
41:26
Speaker 1: them in order to compare it to the sample found
41:29
Speaker 1: at the crime scene. that was used in the DNA tracing.
41:33
Speaker 1: Koberger is accused of stabbing to death students Ethan Chapin,
41:37
Speaker 1: Madison Mogan, Zanna Kernodle, and Kaylee Gonsalves in Moscow, Idaho
41:43
Speaker 1: on November 13, 2022. Detectives found a K-bar knife sheath
41:49
Speaker 1: on the bed with the bodies of Mogan and Gonsalves.
41:52
Speaker 1: The sheath was partially under Mogan's body and the comforter
41:56
Speaker 1: on the bed, according to court documents filed on June 16.
42:00
Speaker 1: And therein lies the biggest problem for Brian Koberger and
42:03
Speaker 1: his team. This knife sheath being there at the scene
42:06
Speaker 1: of the crime under the body of Madison Mogan. How
42:09
Speaker 1: do you explain that? How do you explain that to
42:12
Speaker 1: a jury? They have no explanation. So you're going to
42:16
Speaker 1: see them rely on loopholes and technicalities because you can't
42:20
Speaker 1: explain the unexplainable. Investigators later closely matched the DNA on
42:26
Speaker 1: the sheath to DNA found in trash cans taken from
42:29
Speaker 1: Kohlberger's parents' home in Pennsylvania, where he was arrested in
42:34
Speaker 1: December of 2022. The bodies of the students were found
42:38
Speaker 1: at a rental home across the street from the University
42:41
Speaker 1: of Idaho campus. The slayings shocked the rural Idaho community
42:46
Speaker 1: and neighboring Pullman, Washington, where Kohlberger was a graduate student
42:50
Speaker 1: studying criminology at Washington State University. Kohlberger is being held
42:55
Speaker 1: at Latah County Jail in Moscow, Idaho, on first-degree murder
43:00
Speaker 1: and burglary charges. His trial is set to begin on
43:03
Speaker 1: October 2nd. He is pled not guilty and faces the
43:08
Speaker 1: death penalty. All right, so this is exactly what you
43:12
Speaker 1: should expect moving forward, folks. Brian Kohlberger's team is going
43:16
Speaker 1: to try and challenge all of the hard evidence that's
43:19
Speaker 1: been found and filed with the courts. The question is,
43:23
Speaker 1: are they going to be able to challenge it successfully?
43:26
Speaker 1: And from what we're looking at so far, they have
43:30
Speaker 1: a long way to go before they get to that point.
43:33
Speaker 1: All right, folks, that's going to do it for this one.
43:36
Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
43:38
Speaker 1: be found in the description box.