Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Murder In Moscow: The Experts Behind The case Against Bryan Kohberger (Part 11) (9/7/26)

Transcript

Murder In Moscow: The Experts Behind The case Against Bryan Kohberger (Part 11) (9/7/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to get back to the rebuttal
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: of Matthew Nodal's report up in Moscow. In a report
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: prepared by Matt Nodal dated January 22nd, 2025, the following
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: results were reported. The following excerpts from the Nodal report
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: are included here to provide further interpretation or assessment considerations
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: beyond what was presented in the Nodal report. 1. Nodal Report,
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: page 40 Bates 003287, regarding the findings of secondary transfer
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: in the vehicle or residence of Mr. Kohlberger. The comprehensive
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: search of Brian Kohlberger's vehicle did not locate any blood
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: or specific evidence in connection with the events that took
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: place at 1122 King Road. On December 30, 2022, representatives
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: from the Idaho State Police Forensic Services Laboratory examined Brian
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger's apartment at 1630 Northeast Valley Road in Pullman, Washington.
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: In total, the search resulted in testing 51 positions in
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: the apartment for indications of blood, with only four of
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: these indicating presumptive positive for the presence of blood, none
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: of which connected to the victims at the King Street residence,
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: and all four of which were consistent with the known
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: reference sample of Kohlberger's own DNA. The amount of collected
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: blood distributed within the scene supports the inadvertent secondary transfer
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: of blood would be highly likely. Smudges, smears, and transfers
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: of blood seen on the third floor door, stair, rail,
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: and walls, the second floor rail, and in the room
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: of kernodal are indicators that the assailant had received blood
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: onto themselves or onto objects they possessed. Underlining added, Secondary
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: transfers of blood are common when a particularly bloody scene
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: is encountered. Because these transfers are known to occur regularly,
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: such secondary transfers of blood are purposefully sought during crime
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: scene processing and evaluation. In the textbook Principles of Bloodstain
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: Pattern Analysis, the author wrote, Smudge, wipes, and transfer patterns
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: of victim's blood are frequently produced on and within an
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: assailant's vehicle while leaving the scene. Door handles, steering wheel,
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: gearshift apparatus, console, and floor pedals should be examined carefully
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: for these types of bloodstains. Sutton comments, As Mr. Nodal stated,
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: inserted below, The evidence that the assailant did have blood
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: on their person and or on objects in their possession
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: and the secondary transfer of blood inside the house did occur. Smudges, smears,
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: and transfers of blood seen on the third floor door,
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: stair rails, walls, the second floor rail, and in the
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: room occur nodal are indicators that an assailant had received
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: blood onto themselves or onto objects they possessed. To predict
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: that the amount of secondary transfer blood would be highly likely,
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: as stated in the quotation inserted below, does not agree
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: with the relatively small number and quantity of blood in
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: secondary transfers which were found within the scene. Even during
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: the activity associated with an assault, when the perpetrator was
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: focused on the assault instead of exercising caution not to
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: create secondary transfers, only a limited amount of blood was
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: transferred outside of the bedrooms. The amount of collective blood
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: distributed within the scene supports that inadvertent secondary transfer of
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: blood would be highly unlikely. While spatter was widely distributed
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: in both bedrooms involved, the amount of spatter in the
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: surrounding area where a perpetrator would be located as to
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: create a void. If a perpetrator had been covered in blood,
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: it seems a void would be identifiable. There was no
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: visible footwear transfer associated with any of the possible exits
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: from the scene. Even though it can be established that
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: the perpetrator left the scene, they did so without leaving
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: visible footwear transfer stains. The significance of the lack of
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: secondary transfer in a vehicle purportedly used when leaving the
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: scene must take into consideration what is applicable to the
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: particular scene in question. One must consider, first, that there
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: was limited amount of secondary transfer within the scene itself,
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: which is attributable to someone other than Mogan, Gonsalves, Carnotel,
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: or Chapin. Secondly, one must consider how much, if any,
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: wet blood would still be exposed when the secondary contact
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: was made. An assailant can easily remove protective clothing and
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: shoe covers or place unstained coverings over stained clothing or
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: shoes before they contact their vehicle or residence. Cleaning or
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: wiping off excess blood before making contact with secondary surfaces
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: is also possible. Regarding secondary footwear transfers, there are no
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: visible footwear transfers associated with any of the possible exits
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: from the scene. Even though it can be established that
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: the perpetrator left the scene, they did so without leaving
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: visible footwear transfer stains. Even if secondary transfers are in
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: fact created, there is also the possibility that the vehicle
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: or residence has been cleaned before a documented search of
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: the vehicle occurred. Refer to historic article entitled Absence of
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: Evidence is Not Evidence of Absence, Kish P.E. McDonald H.L.
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: Guest Editorial, 46-1996, which is attached as Appendix D. I
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: certainly agree with Mr. Nodal's statement inserted below that the
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: vehicle in residence is of any suspect should be examined
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: for blood or other evidence that might have been transferred
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: from the crime scene. Secondary transfers of blood are common
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: when a particularly bloody scene is encountered. Because these transfers
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: are known to occur regularly, such secondary transfers of blood
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: are purposefully sought during crime scene processing and evaluation. The
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: significance of the resultant findings when examining secondary surfaces is
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: such as the vehicle or residence of an accused, must
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: be interpreted considering all available information. As stated in the
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: textbook Principles of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis, page 120, the authors wrote,
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: the lack of bloodstains on an accused person should be
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: viewed as an issue of further inquiry. Often the lack
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: of bloodstains on an accused person or his or her
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: clothing will relate to the types and location of the
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: deceased injuries or actions taken by the accused, during or
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: subsequent to the violent act. Therefore, analysts should exercise caution
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: as to what size of the stains or the quantity
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: of spatter is expected to be present at a scene
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: or on a suspect's clothing. 2. Notal Report, page 14,
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: Bates numbers 00 through 3261, describes renumbering of samples. The
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: initial bloodstain area cataloged by Detective Talbot were identified in
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: scene images with white cardboard numbered placards. Many of these
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: areas were sampled into swabs. Detective Talbot identified swab blood
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: samples as scene placards 23 through 49. These swabs were
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: then turned over to Detective Payne, who remembered, who renumbered
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: the swabs as items 17 through 43. Then, on November 17, 2022,
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: Idaho State Police Forensic Services Laboratory personnel were asked to
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: help process the scene and test the previously labeled areas
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: with a presumptive blood test. The ISPFS laboratory was directed
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: to the location of the previously collected areas and identified
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: these locations with new, yellow-numbered stickers applied to the areas
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: matching the Talbot placard numbers. The individual areas tested by
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: the IFPS laboratory had already been altered from the initial
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: swab collection. The ISPFS laboratory personnel located additional stains and
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: groups of patterns, each of which were identified with yellow
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: alphabet stickers. Samples that were ultimately tested in the forensic
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: laboratory received new laboratory numbers and the notes associated with
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: the new laboratory numbers referenced the Detective Payne renumbering system.
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: Assuming Detective Payne kept the same sequence of blood swab
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: samples as Detective Talbot, one must add 6 from the
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: Payne item number to get to the Talbot on-scene placard number.
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: ISPFS laboratory notes, scene images, and descriptions support the sequence
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: used by Detective Talbot was maintained in the Payne renumbering.
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: Sutton comments, specifically referring to the following excerpts from Matt
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: Nodal's report, page 14, bait 003261. One must add six
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: from the Payne item number to get the Talbot on-scene
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: placard number. ISPFS personnel used yellow stickers, but their numbers
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: match the original numbers that Detective Talbot had used. As
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: a result, if Payne pre-logged a sample into ISPFS system
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: as sample 48, it would actually represent sample 42, as
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: depicted in the scene images taken by ISPFS personnel. The
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: ISPFS then assigned lab number 77 to this stain, and
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: it was shown to be linked to Kaley Gonsalves. I
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: was not initially aware of the situation with the scene
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: placards versus the numbers depicted in the ISPFS laboratory worksheets.
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: All right, now moving on to the rebuttal To Dr.
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: Brent Turvey, report dated January 22, 2025. 1. Turvey comments
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: on lack of blood detected in Kohlberger's vehicle, Bates 004038.
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: Despite an extensively and exhaustive forensic examination of the defendant's
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: vehicle for bloody clothing, blood transfer, and other evidence related
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: to these crimes, down to the metal, none was found.
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: This has essentially excluded the defendant's vehicle as being related
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: to the commission of these crimes. The failure to be
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: absolutely clear and forthcoming about this evidence would be evidence
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: of bias. Sutton comments, The failure to detect blood in
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: the defendant's vehicle does not exclude the vehicle from being
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: related to the commission of these crimes. For reasons previously
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: discussed at Notal Rebuttal, there can be a bunch of
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: reasons blood was not transferred or detected in the defendant's vehicles.
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: These findings need to be understood in the context of
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: all available information. 2. Turvey comments on lack of blood
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: on the sliding door at Floor 2, Bates 004039. On
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: the second floor, there's a sliding glass door, which was
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: found to be open by law enforcement. It's been inferred
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: that this was the location where the suspect or suspects
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: may have entered or at least exited. There's no physical
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: evidence to support this as, again, there would need to
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: be requisite blood transfer. If an intruder left the house
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: through this door, having left it open upon entry, there
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: would need to be bloody footwear patterns on the floors
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: from bloody shoes or feet both leading up to and
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: out of that sliding glass door. Sutton comments, If the
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: sliding glass door was in the open position when the
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: intruder entered, or if it was left in an open
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: position after the intruder entered the residence, there would be
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: no need for the intruder to touch the door when exiting. Therefore,
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: there would be no need for the intruder or the
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: bloodstains on the intruder's person or in their possession to
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: make contact with the sliding glass door. The assailant could
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: have removed bloody gloves or removed bloodstains before leaving. The
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: extent of secondary transfer inside the crime scene by someone
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: other than the decedents is minimal. There are three possible
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: exits from the crime scene, and there are no visible
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: footwear transfer stains or secondary transfer stains at any of
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: the exits. It can be established that the perpetrator had
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: to have used one of the available exits to leave
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: the crime scene, but no secondary footwear transfer stains or
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: secondary transfer stains were created. This seems to negate Dr.
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: Turvey's conclusion that lack of secondary transfer stains would preclude
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: the sliding glass door from being the avenue of exit.
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here.
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: And in the next episode, we're going to pick up
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: with three. Dr. Turvey indicates that Gonsalves and Mogan were posed.
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.