Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / Bryan Kohberger: 'I HAVE AN ALIBI,' Plus Cops Planted DNA

Transcript

Bryan Kohberger: 'I HAVE AN ALIBI,' Plus Cops Planted DNA · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

0:05
Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Greece.
0:12
Speaker 2: Brian Coburger, the quadruple murder suspect.
0:17
Speaker 3: In the Idaho Slaves.
0:19
Speaker 2: Of four Beautiful Students, a crime scene like no other
0:26
Speaker 2: crime scene. Texan detectives say they've never seen anything like it.
0:32
Speaker 2: In the face of DNA matching Brian Coburger in the
0:36
Speaker 2: face of selfhone doubt is showing him leaving the scene
0:40
Speaker 2: the night of the murders on the securitist route to
0:43
Speaker 2: his own apartment, in the face of evidence that he
0:49
Speaker 2: had been contacting the young co.
0:52
Speaker 3: Eds prior to the murders. What does the defense do?
0:58
Speaker 2: They claim I wasn't there. It's called, under the law,
1:03
Speaker 2: an alibi defense, and they're playing hide the ball now
1:08
Speaker 2: you see it now they don't. But is there really
1:10
Speaker 2: even a ball or is it just a big lie?
1:14
Speaker 2: Because they're saying that we have an alibi for Brian
1:18
Speaker 2: Cyberger the night of the murders, at the time of
1:22
Speaker 2: the murders, but we're not going to tell you what
1:24
Speaker 2: it is.
1:26
Speaker 3: I'm Nacy Grace. This is Crime Stories.
1:28
Speaker 2: Thank you for being with us here at Fox Nation
1:30
Speaker 2: in series Sex sem one eleven. First of all, take
1:34
Speaker 2: a listen to this our friends at KTVB.
1:36
Speaker 4: The attorney for Brian Coberger, the man accused of murdering
1:39
Speaker 4: four University of Idaho students, has filed a response to
1:42
Speaker 4: the state's demand that he produced an alibi. That response
1:45
Speaker 4: was filed yesterday. In it, his attorney, An Taylor, says
1:49
Speaker 4: evidence corroborating mister Coberger being at a location other than
1:53
Speaker 4: the King Road address will be disclosed pursuant to discovery
1:56
Speaker 4: and evidentiary rules as well as statutory requirements.
2:00
Speaker 5: Defense attorneys for Brian Colberger now suggesting that he had
2:02
Speaker 5: an alibi the nine four University of Idaho students were murdered,
2:06
Speaker 5: and a new court filing, defense attorneys claimed to have
2:09
Speaker 5: evidence the WSU criminology student was not at the home
2:13
Speaker 5: where the murders took place last fall. However, they did
2:16
Speaker 5: not provide any details backing up that story, saying instead
2:19
Speaker 5: that it would come out a trial.
2:21
Speaker 2: Okay, he's got an alibi, a rock solid alibi, but
2:24
Speaker 2: I'm not going to tell you. You were also hearing our
2:26
Speaker 2: friends at Fox thirteen and now take a listen to
2:30
Speaker 2: our friends at crime Online.
2:32
Speaker 6: Even though Brian Coberger was required to submit an alibi,
2:35
Speaker 6: explaining where he was the night four University of Idaho
2:37
Speaker 6: students were murdered. His defense team filed court document showing
2:41
Speaker 6: Coburger is choosing to remain silent, and a document filed
2:44
Speaker 6: with the court Coberger's public defender, An Taylor, said, quote
2:47
Speaker 6: Mister Coberger notes that Idaho Code nineteen dash five p.
2:50
Speaker 6: One ninety four preserves his constitutional right to silence as
2:53
Speaker 6: well as to testify on his own behalf the document
2:57
Speaker 6: filed by his public defender, and Taylor goes on to state,
3:00
Speaker 6: mister Koberger stands firm on his constitutional right as well
3:03
Speaker 6: as the statutory recognition of that right now, even though
3:07
Speaker 6: he has chosen not to explain where he was at
3:09
Speaker 6: the time of the murder. In the court filing, Taylor wrote,
3:12
Speaker 6: it has anticipated this evidence may be offered by a
3:15
Speaker 6: way of cross examination of witnesses produced by the state,
3:17
Speaker 6: as well as calling expert witnesses.
3:19
Speaker 3: You know what, I learned a lot in law school.
3:22
Speaker 2: I learned a lot trying cases for so many years,
3:25
Speaker 2: criminal cases and murder cases. And I can tell you
3:28
Speaker 2: this much. I learned all I need to know about
3:31
Speaker 2: this growing up near a farm. I know bs when
3:34
Speaker 2: I smell it, and that is bs very simply, the
3:39
Speaker 2: law requires you, when you're going to bring up an alibi,
3:44
Speaker 2: to give notice of what the alibi is, just like
3:47
Speaker 2: the law requires the state to hand over its witness
3:50
Speaker 2: list and any scientific evidence it might be using a trial,
3:54
Speaker 2: like DNA evidence or fingerprint evidence. You hand that over
3:57
Speaker 2: at a time so the other side has a fair
4:01
Speaker 2: chance to evaluate it and cross examine it. Same thing
4:05
Speaker 2: with alibi. You hand over your alibi to the state
4:10
Speaker 2: so they have a chance to test the evidence before
4:13
Speaker 2: it comes in at trial. We don't have trial by ambush.
4:18
Speaker 2: That's not what our justice system is about. So what
4:21
Speaker 2: the defense is doing here is arguing two very very
4:26
Speaker 2: valued and protected tenants in our Constitution. Number one, I
4:30
Speaker 2: have a right to bring on an alibi, and I
4:34
Speaker 2: have a right to remain silent.
4:36
Speaker 3: But now the twain shall meet.
4:38
Speaker 2: In other words, if you want to use an alibi,
4:41
Speaker 2: you've got to hand it over ahead of time. The
4:43
Speaker 2: Fifth Amendment right to remain silent does not apply to
4:48
Speaker 2: following legal procedure at court.
4:51
Speaker 3: And oh did I mention?
4:54
Speaker 2: Not only does Coburger claim he's got an alibi which
4:57
Speaker 2: he's keeping a deep dark secret.
5:00
Speaker 3: But he's also.
5:00
Speaker 2: Claiming, you know that DNA found at the scene that
5:03
Speaker 2: traces back to him. He's also claiming, wait for it,
5:08
Speaker 2: it was planted. Who are they going to bring on
5:11
Speaker 2: as an expert? Oj Simpson again, I mean, I s
5:16
Speaker 2: he gracing. This is crime Stories. Thanks for being with
5:18
Speaker 2: us straight out to an all star panel to make
5:20
Speaker 2: sense of what we know right now. And first, I'm
5:23
Speaker 2: going to a veteran trial lawyer joining us from that
5:27
Speaker 2: jurisdiction in Idaho, Tara Malick, high profile lawyer, co owner
5:33
Speaker 2: Smith and Malick and former state and federal prosecutor. She's
5:36
Speaker 2: at Smith Malick dot com. By the way, I think
5:39
Speaker 2: your name should be first. It should be Malick Smith.
5:42
Speaker 2: But that's for another day. Tara, this is total BS.
5:47
Speaker 2: You can't claim that you're right to remain silent supersedes
5:52
Speaker 2: your duty to hand over your alibi.
5:55
Speaker 7: Yeah, you're exactly right.
5:57
Speaker 3: I mean, it's stinking up the whole studio.
6:02
Speaker 7: It is a non answer.
6:04
Speaker 8: And the funniest part about it is the court filing
6:08
Speaker 8: that the defense file says we're going to We're going
6:10
Speaker 8: to disclose this evidence according to Idaho law and the
6:14
Speaker 8: statutes and the rules and it's like, well, but you didn't.
6:18
Speaker 8: So Idaho law requires if you're going to provide notice
6:21
Speaker 8: of the ALBI to identify the location that you're claiming,
6:26
Speaker 8: you're going to be as well as any witnesses that
6:29
Speaker 8: you're going to rely on.
6:30
Speaker 7: And so the defense coming in and saying.
6:33
Speaker 8: Well, we may have been somewhere else and we may
6:37
Speaker 8: provide that information through a cross examination of state witnesses
6:40
Speaker 8: really is just the doubling down of their refusal to
6:44
Speaker 8: provide that information in the first place.
6:46
Speaker 7: And if you recall, they asked for more time earlier
6:50
Speaker 7: early in June to try and get through the discovery here,
6:54
Speaker 7: so they've really it'll be curious to see what.
6:57
Speaker 8: The state's response is.
6:58
Speaker 7: And I think they've got an uphill battle for sure.
7:01
Speaker 2: Well I can tell you this right now, they're standing
7:03
Speaker 2: on their heads and their faces are turning red.
7:06
Speaker 3: That's what's happening right.
7:07
Speaker 2: Now, because this is total bs and it makes me
7:10
Speaker 2: question the lawyer. Now, I've never heard any questions regarding
7:14
Speaker 2: her aptitude. I heard I heard murmurs and complaints and
7:20
Speaker 2: grumbling that she had once represented one of the victims
7:23
Speaker 2: family member and now dump that family member to represent Coburger.
7:28
Speaker 2: That's a conflict of interest issue that does not bear
7:32
Speaker 2: on the evidence in the Brian Coburger case.
7:35
Speaker 3: This does I mean?
7:37
Speaker 2: Cheryl McCollum, Correct me if I'm wrong. Cheryl McCollum is
7:40
Speaker 2: with me, Founder director, Cold Case Research Institute, star a
7:45
Speaker 2: Hitne podcast Zone seven and you can find her at
7:48
Speaker 2: coldcasecrimes dot org. Cheryl, correct me if I'm wrong. But
7:52
Speaker 2: isn't his cell phone caught? It's turned off at the
7:56
Speaker 2: time of the murders, but then it turns on his
8:00
Speaker 2: drive that night leaving the crime scene, according to police.
8:03
Speaker 9: Direct and they also have his car on video going
8:07
Speaker 9: past a filling station.
8:09
Speaker 2: Oh gosh, wait, wait, wait, hold this thought, Cheryl McCollum.
8:13
Speaker 2: He also says that's not his car. Okay, so that's
8:15
Speaker 2: another thing we've got. Okay, we have. I've got an alibi,
8:21
Speaker 2: but I'm going to keep it a deep, dark secret.
8:23
Speaker 2: I wasn't there, and I'll let you catch that bomb
8:26
Speaker 2: when I throw it at you in court. Number two,
8:29
Speaker 2: you planned the DNA, by the way, and number three, Yeah.
8:34
Speaker 3: That's not my car.
8:36
Speaker 2: But what about the cell phone? The cell phone, Cheryl
8:39
Speaker 2: McComb what did somebody else have a cell phone driving
8:42
Speaker 2: from the murder scene all the way back to his
8:45
Speaker 2: apartment the night of the murders.
8:46
Speaker 9: That's right. So instead of the cell phone being on
8:49
Speaker 9: his bedside tablet four in the morning and active, this
8:52
Speaker 9: phone is pinging off different towers. And then before the murders,
8:56
Speaker 9: it is engaged by the owner of that cell phone, Cob,
9:00
Speaker 9: and he puts it on airplane mode, thinking that would
9:03
Speaker 9: not you know, connect him to that house. It failed.
9:08
Speaker 9: It failed, miserable, you.
9:09
Speaker 2: Know, interesting, and I want to circle back to the
9:11
Speaker 2: whole airplane mode try hold only I can note of that.
9:16
Speaker 2: And also we got to circle back to him claiming
9:18
Speaker 2: it's not his lantra. Joining me is Rachel Shilkey, breaking
9:22
Speaker 2: news reporter for the Washington Examiner on Twitter. She's at
9:26
Speaker 2: Rachel underscore, she'l key and that's if you want to
9:29
Speaker 2: find her.
9:30
Speaker 3: S not spelled the way it sounds s c h
9:34
Speaker 3: I l k E. She'll key. Rachel, thank you for
9:38
Speaker 3: being with us.
9:40
Speaker 2: Let me just detour one minute off the alibi in
9:44
Speaker 2: the DNA. What is he saying about his car and
9:46
Speaker 2: that it's not his car?
9:48
Speaker 10: Well, I think the defense is using that. There's a
9:50
Speaker 10: lot of cars registered in the area, and that there
9:53
Speaker 10: is a lot of chances that that couldn't be his.
9:56
Speaker 10: But I think all the corroborating evidence shows that, you know,
9:59
Speaker 10: lead in that direction that he is very unlikely that he.
10:02
Speaker 11: Wasn't there.
10:14
Speaker 1: Crime stories with Nancy Grace.
10:16
Speaker 3: So he's finding that there is.
10:20
Speaker 2: That there are a lot of cars, a lot of
10:22
Speaker 2: white Elauntris. And you know what's funny, funny odd You
10:26
Speaker 2: know Chris mcdunnad joining me, Director at the Cold Case Foundation,
10:30
Speaker 2: former homicide detective and host of an incredible YouTube channel
10:34
Speaker 2: called The Interview Room. That's where I found him and
10:37
Speaker 2: you can find him at Cold Case Foundation dot org.
10:39
Speaker 3: Chris.
10:40
Speaker 2: Ever since we heard about a white Elantra speeding away
10:45
Speaker 2: from the scene, that's all I can see. Everywhere I go,
10:47
Speaker 2: I see Elantris, white Elantris. So that's going to be
10:51
Speaker 2: argued to the jury. You see a white Elantra everywhere
10:55
Speaker 2: you go, just like with the phenomena of child molesters
11:00
Speaker 2: darting off in a what a white van? Everybody knows it,
11:05
Speaker 2: and they're going to argue that to the jury. How
11:07
Speaker 2: many times have you seen a white launcha speedby? We
11:10
Speaker 2: don't know it's his white Elantra. That's what they're gonna argue.
11:15
Speaker 2: I'm shriveling up and dying right now. I can't believe
11:19
Speaker 2: this is happening.
11:20
Speaker 11: Yeah, and Nancy, you called it from the very beginning.
11:23
Speaker 11: I mean, this is smoke and mirrors and they're utilizing,
11:28
Speaker 11: you know, the court to get a narrative out there
11:32
Speaker 11: into the public. I think it's terrible.
11:35
Speaker 2: Oh wait, I like that idea. Okay, they're using the
11:39
Speaker 2: court to get a narrative out there.
11:41
Speaker 3: Okay. I think what you're saying in regular people Taught.
11:44
Speaker 2: Is that they're using these motions to get their defense
11:51
Speaker 2: disseminated to the public and take the jury pool.
11:54
Speaker 3: And you know what, that's okay, that's okay. They have
11:59
Speaker 3: a right to file these motions. We have a right
12:02
Speaker 3: to talk about it.
12:03
Speaker 2: And then in court they must find a jury that,
12:06
Speaker 2: while they may have heard all this, will keep an
12:09
Speaker 2: open mind. That's what they have to do. But you're right,
12:15
Speaker 2: this is kind of a test run. I guarantee you, Tarmalik,
12:19
Speaker 2: a high profile lawyer in the Idaho jurisdiction, I guarantee
12:23
Speaker 2: you they're gonna watch and listen to every single thing
12:28
Speaker 2: that's said about these defenses, And let me just give
12:30
Speaker 2: you a blueprint. Scott Peterson in that case, who turned
12:36
Speaker 2: out to be the lead defense attorney, and I would
12:39
Speaker 2: argue every night on Larry King, May God bless his soul,
12:44
Speaker 2: every night, and they would actually float theories on Larry King,
12:50
Speaker 2: and I'd shoot them down as best as I could,
12:52
Speaker 2: and then they would finally come up with their ultimate
12:55
Speaker 2: theory of defense. Not that that was true, of course,
12:59
Speaker 2: because it was, but they would see what floated.
13:02
Speaker 3: I don't know if you remember.
13:03
Speaker 2: There was the Hawaiian gang they said to Lacey.
13:08
Speaker 3: There was the.
13:10
Speaker 2: Theory that another woman was part of her kidnapp to
13:14
Speaker 2: cut her baby out of her stomach. That was the theory.
13:18
Speaker 2: There was the burglars next door theory. There were so
13:21
Speaker 2: many theories about Lacey's disappearance to obfuscate the truth that
13:28
Speaker 2: Scott Peterson killed her. And Mark Geragos, who's a really
13:32
Speaker 2: good lawyer, would test those out on Larry King Live
13:37
Speaker 2: every night, and that they would either float or they
13:41
Speaker 2: would sink.
13:42
Speaker 3: And that's what's happening right here. True story. What about it? Tara?
13:47
Speaker 3: Are you Tara, No, you're not.
13:48
Speaker 2: But since you haven't spoken yet Hold on Tara Lake
13:51
Speaker 2: Way for doctor Bethany Marshall, she who must be obeyed,
13:55
Speaker 2: high profile psycho analyst joining us out of Beverly Hills
13:58
Speaker 2: at doctor Bethany Marshall dot com. Jump in, doctor Bethany,
14:04
Speaker 2: I'm sure you're going to give us fade for thought.
14:06
Speaker 12: The more simple and paranoid the messaging is, the more
14:09
Speaker 12: it catches fire with the jewry pool and the public.
14:12
Speaker 12: Like that a gang took Lazy. It's simple, a gang
14:16
Speaker 12: took her. And the more often it's said on TV,
14:19
Speaker 12: the more often it spreads. The most more often it's
14:22
Speaker 12: set around dinner tables, the more mythology becomes the truth
14:26
Speaker 12: in people's minds.
14:27
Speaker 13: It's like O. J.
14:27
Speaker 12: Simpson, as I said on one show, if it fits
14:30
Speaker 12: you must.
14:31
Speaker 2: Quit, please, I'm just about to talk about him, and
14:33
Speaker 2: you had to go ahead and ruin my hot tea
14:35
Speaker 2: with that guy.
14:36
Speaker 12: Hey, I was living in Brentwood at the time all
14:39
Speaker 12: of this went down, and we were all talking about
14:41
Speaker 12: the fact that if it fits, you must to quit.
14:43
Speaker 12: I mean, that was the that was the primary thing
14:46
Speaker 12: that everybody was talking about. And then conversations spread out
14:51
Speaker 12: from there. Well, whose glove was it, and everyone sort
14:54
Speaker 12: of knew the guy that the tenant that was living there,
14:57
Speaker 12: So it's not just this simple messaging and how catches.
15:00
Speaker 2: Fire are you talking about?
15:03
Speaker 12: Yes?
15:05
Speaker 2: Yes, okay, just so everybody knows k too. Kilan who
15:08
Speaker 2: I happened to know, did not do it.
15:10
Speaker 13: He did not do it, but he was such a god.
15:13
Speaker 12: But he was such a lovely person and a fun
15:16
Speaker 12: character on TV.
15:17
Speaker 3: He's a great person. He's like a surfer dude, good
15:20
Speaker 3: guy to have around. He's like, uh huh what what murder?
15:25
Speaker 14: What?
15:27
Speaker 12: That is terrible?
15:30
Speaker 3: And he is I mean and what I recall it?
15:33
Speaker 2: He testified, and of course once the jury saw him
15:36
Speaker 2: in his demeanor.
15:38
Speaker 3: Uh, you know, likable, open, funny. No, that was not him.
15:44
Speaker 12: They probably thought what was he going to do? Hit
15:46
Speaker 12: the victim over the head with the surfboard. I mean,
15:48
Speaker 12: he's that kind of a guy.
15:49
Speaker 3: Exactly, exactly.
15:52
Speaker 2: You know another thing about this, You know what, let
15:55
Speaker 2: me just play our friends at crime online.
15:58
Speaker 6: Brian Koberger was supposed to provide an alibi, but has
16:01
Speaker 6: chosen a different path as his public defender and Taylor
16:04
Speaker 6: provided in a court filing. Taylor said a defendant's denial
16:07
Speaker 6: of the charges against him does not constitute an alibi,
16:10
Speaker 6: but as soon as he offers evidence that he was
16:13
Speaker 6: at some place other than where the crime of which
16:15
Speaker 6: he is charged was committed, he is raising the alibi defense.
16:19
Speaker 6: Mister Coberger's defense team continues investigating and preparing his case.
16:23
Speaker 6: Evidence corroborating mister Coberger being at a location other than
16:26
Speaker 6: the King Road address will be disclosed pursuant to discovery
16:29
Speaker 6: and evidentiary rules as well as statutory requirements. Bottom Line,
16:33
Speaker 6: Taylor says Coberger's alibi should come out in cross examination
16:37
Speaker 6: of witnesses or through the calling of expert witnesses.
16:40
Speaker 2: Just so you know, you don't have to have a
16:42
Speaker 2: law degree to know that's a bunch of bs. We're
16:44
Speaker 2: not going to tell you the alibi, but we're going
16:46
Speaker 2: to extract it from the state's witnesses. And you know
16:49
Speaker 2: they say that they're going to continue to investigate the case. Translation,
16:54
Speaker 2: we're going to keep fishing until we find something some
16:58
Speaker 2: way to argue an out. What I want to go
17:01
Speaker 2: through quickly with Tarmalek, and it is a technical legal issue,
17:06
Speaker 2: is okay, how can I say this, you know, in
17:11
Speaker 2: a case where they don't have it in Idaho, but
17:13
Speaker 2: in most jurisdictions there is an insanity defense. Okay, once
17:18
Speaker 2: you raise the insanity defense, you're essentially saying, yes.
17:23
Speaker 3: I did it, but I was insane.
17:26
Speaker 2: Same thing with self defense, you're saying, yes, I totally
17:30
Speaker 2: shot Jackie, but it was in self defense. It's in
17:37
Speaker 2: those cases you have to admit to the incident and
17:40
Speaker 2: then put up your defense with alibi. It's similar in
17:46
Speaker 2: that it's somewhat burden shifting. When you go into trycases
17:52
Speaker 2: of state, the burdens all on you. The defendant can
17:54
Speaker 2: sit there and twiddle his thumbs and do nothing, and
17:57
Speaker 2: that's okay. But once they say we have an alibi,
18:02
Speaker 2: it seems as if kind of like when the defendant
18:04
Speaker 2: takes a stand like in Alex Murdogg, the jury's.
18:08
Speaker 3: Like, hmm, I don't know what to think. Then he
18:10
Speaker 3: takes a stand there like he's a total lawyer. It
18:13
Speaker 3: shifts the burden.
18:14
Speaker 2: And when you put up an alibi defense, if your
18:17
Speaker 2: alibi technical legal term sucks, then you lose. It becomes
18:25
Speaker 2: all about what the defendant is saying.
18:27
Speaker 3: Would you agree with that?
18:29
Speaker 7: Taura absolutely? I mean it is an affirmative style of defense,
18:34
Speaker 7: which is you're putting forward I wasn't there, and here
18:37
Speaker 7: I was. Instead, you know, I was at this other location,
18:41
Speaker 7: and here are the people who are going to be
18:42
Speaker 7: able to say I was at the other location. So
18:44
Speaker 7: you are, in a way committing to your storyline, and
18:48
Speaker 7: you're committing to it pretty early on. And so that
18:52
Speaker 7: may be one of the reasons why you know, they're
18:54
Speaker 7: they're playing this kind of hopscots around the issue. Maybe
18:58
Speaker 7: it'll come out, you know, when we cross the him
19:00
Speaker 7: and the state's experts. But I still don't think that
19:03
Speaker 7: this is compliant with what Idaho law requires as far
19:08
Speaker 7: as an alibi defense. You know, curiously, even if they
19:13
Speaker 7: chose to go with this alibi, whatever it may be,
19:16
Speaker 7: wherever he's claiming he was, they're going to have a
19:19
Speaker 7: really tough time explaining his first of all, his DNA
19:25
Speaker 7: in the home on the ninth sheet, but also his
19:28
Speaker 7: conduct when he was back in Pennsylvania. You know, he was,
19:31
Speaker 7: he had gloves, he was, you know, sorting trash, he
19:34
Speaker 7: had cleaned out his car. I mean, they've got a
19:37
Speaker 7: real uphill battle here. It's not just I was somewhere else.
19:40
Speaker 7: It's like, well, then, why were you acting in those
19:43
Speaker 7: other ways, and I'm sure the state is gathering all
19:45
Speaker 7: of that as well.
19:47
Speaker 3: Nay, yes, yes, go ahead.
19:51
Speaker 9: I want to remind everybody too, the day he was arrested,
19:55
Speaker 9: the minute they put him in the interview room, he
19:58
Speaker 9: had no alibi. He didn't give a this solid piece
20:01
Speaker 9: of evidence that would.
20:02
Speaker 13: Have excluded him.
20:04
Speaker 9: Why not. And now that he's sitting in jail, he
20:07
Speaker 9: has an attorney saying, hey, you know what, we know,
20:09
Speaker 9: We've got this alibi, solid shows you were somewhere else.
20:13
Speaker 9: But you just sit in that sale for another year
20:16
Speaker 9: and then when we get to trial, we'll show them
20:19
Speaker 9: that makes no sense to anybody.
20:21
Speaker 3: Guys, there's another issue.
20:22
Speaker 2: And the issue is not only are they saying they've
20:25
Speaker 2: got an alibi but they're not going to tell us.
20:27
Speaker 2: They're also saying, and this is a bombshell, that the
20:30
Speaker 2: state planted the evidence. Take a listen to Our Cut,
20:34
Speaker 2: five to nine, Crime Online, and Fox thirteen.
20:38
Speaker 5: Colberger's lawyers have also attacked the DNA found at the
20:41
Speaker 5: crime scene, which was matched to Coburger's genetic material and
20:44
Speaker 5: emotion foul last month, as lawyer's question whether investigators may
20:48
Speaker 5: have planted the DNA to frame Coburger prosecutor as far back,
20:51
Speaker 5: saying that the genetic genealogy was far from the only
20:54
Speaker 5: evidence used to build their case. Coberger is set to
20:57
Speaker 5: go on trail in October if it's the death penalty
21:00
Speaker 5: if convicted.
21:01
Speaker 6: In the court filing, Coburger's defense suggests someone else may
21:05
Speaker 6: have left Coburger's DNA on the knife sheath. What the
21:08
Speaker 6: state's argument asked this court and mister Coberger to assume
21:13
Speaker 6: is that the DNA on the sheath was placed there
21:16
Speaker 6: by mister Coberger and not someone else during an investigation
21:20
Speaker 6: that spans hundreds of members of law enforcement and apparently
21:24
Speaker 6: at least one lab the state refuses to name with
21:27
Speaker 6: me is.
21:27
Speaker 2: Doctor Michelle Duprix, forensic pathologists, medical examiner, former detective, and
21:32
Speaker 2: author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide, Doctor Michelle Duprie. When
21:36
Speaker 2: you go onto a crime scene, what prophylactic measures do
21:41
Speaker 2: you take to make sure you don't contaminate the darn scene?
21:46
Speaker 13: We take all kinds of preventative measures. We sometimes dress
21:49
Speaker 13: in complete tiebacksuits. We wear booties on our feet. We
21:53
Speaker 13: certainly have on gloves, we may have on masks, we
21:56
Speaker 13: may have on hairnets. I mean there are all sorts
21:59
Speaker 13: of personal protective equipment that we use, and this is
22:02
Speaker 13: an absolute ludicrous client. You know who I mean, who
22:07
Speaker 13: would even try to convince them?
22:09
Speaker 3: Well?
22:09
Speaker 2: Wait, that's a really good question. Who would try that?
22:13
Speaker 2: Take a list knock five three three crime online.
22:16
Speaker 6: The OJ Simpson defense team realized early they had to
22:19
Speaker 6: contest some of the blood results found at the Bundy
22:22
Speaker 6: crime scene. The team focused on the back gate, where
22:24
Speaker 6: a total of three samples were collected. The defense pointed
22:27
Speaker 6: out that two were collected on June thirteenth, but the
22:30
Speaker 6: third droplet was collected on July third, three weeks after
22:33
Speaker 6: the crime scene was washed clean. How did the police
22:36
Speaker 6: find a blood drop three weeks after the scene was clear.
22:38
Speaker 6: The defense also locked into the bloody sock in Simpson's
22:41
Speaker 6: bedroom that saw contained blood from Simpson and Brown. The
22:44
Speaker 6: defense claimed EDTA was found in the third blood drop
22:48
Speaker 6: at Bundy that was all Simpson, and DTA was found
22:51
Speaker 6: in Nicole Brown's blood on the sock. DTA is used
22:54
Speaker 6: in the police lab as an antiquagulant. DTA was found
22:57
Speaker 6: in Simpson's blood drop on the back gate and Nicole
22:59
Speaker 6: Brown's blow on the sock in Simpson's bedroom. The defense
23:02
Speaker 6: points out EDTA is not naturally occurring and must have
23:05
Speaker 6: come from the LAPD crime.
23:07
Speaker 2: Lab and not just OJ Simpson. Mayhe rotten Hill after
23:11
Speaker 2: he dies, but Stephen Avery as well.
23:16
Speaker 3: Take a listen now cut five three seven.
23:17
Speaker 15: Wisn attorney for Stephen Avery just filed new paperwork in
23:21
Speaker 15: an effort to overturn his murder conviction. Avery is serving
23:25
Speaker 15: a life term in the two thousand and five murder
23:27
Speaker 15: of photographer Teresa Halbach. That case got worldwide attention in
23:31
Speaker 15: the Netflix series Making a Murderer. Avery's team claims someone
23:35
Speaker 15: else killed Halbach and planted evidence on Avery's property. They
23:38
Speaker 15: say they have new witnesses and evidence. The forty six
23:42
Speaker 15: page document filed today asks the state to grant Avery
23:45
Speaker 15: either an evident shary hearing or a new trial. The
23:48
Speaker 15: state rejected a similar request last year.
23:51
Speaker 2: So that's two that I can think, just off the
23:54
Speaker 2: top of my head. Joining me now for as it.
23:56
Speaker 2: Consultant specializing in DNA zerology bloodstain, Toby Wilson at Noslow
24:02
Speaker 2: Forensic dot Com. Toby, what type of measures are taken
24:07
Speaker 2: so you don't contaminate the scene, especially after O J.
24:10
Speaker 3: Simpson's debacle.
24:12
Speaker 14: It's it's a this isn't a contamination argument here. First
24:16
Speaker 14: of all, contamination means that the evidence was mishandled, mispackaged,
24:20
Speaker 14: something was done that caused the DNA of the defendant
24:26
Speaker 14: to be transferred to that item accidentally or on purpose.
24:31
Speaker 14: That that is not this is not a contamination argument
24:34
Speaker 14: they're putting forth. This is one saying that he's been
24:37
Speaker 14: he's been framed, so that they're basically saying the lab
24:40
Speaker 14: or the police had his DNA put it on that
24:43
Speaker 14: sheaf or somebody else put it on that sheath, then
24:46
Speaker 14: planeted at the crime scene so that he would ultimately
24:49
Speaker 14: be detected, which becomes a very common in this case,
24:52
Speaker 14: a convoluted situation because first of all, they had a
24:56
Speaker 14: DNA profile from him long before he ever became the
25:00
Speaker 14: focus of this investigation. They had what we would refer
25:03
Speaker 14: to as a foreign profile from an unknown source, and
25:08
Speaker 14: so if it was Plannet, first of all, it wouldn't
25:12
Speaker 14: be an unknown source. There'd be some type of profile
25:16
Speaker 14: already in the DNA database or somebody you know would
25:19
Speaker 14: have had to have a sample of his DNA to
25:22
Speaker 14: put on there. So you know, the contamination argument doesn't
25:26
Speaker 14: apply here. The planet argument is so convoluted that it's
25:30
Speaker 14: not realistic. So I don't think the jury o'paul or
25:32
Speaker 14: something like that.
25:33
Speaker 2: So Cheryl and Plane taught that you would tell a
25:38
Speaker 2: jury capsulize that.
25:41
Speaker 9: So let's say, go Jay Simpson. In order for the
25:44
Speaker 9: police to have planted blood his blood, they would have
25:48
Speaker 9: to know that he was injured. If you remember he
25:51
Speaker 9: went and went to Chicago. They didn't know he was cut.
25:55
Speaker 9: That ain't how they would have set him up. If
25:57
Speaker 9: he were have been set up, a bloody murder weapon
26:00
Speaker 9: would have been there. In the case of Coburger, when
26:03
Speaker 9: the police show up, body cam is going to be running.
26:05
Speaker 2: Wait a minute, you have to have the defendants DNA.
26:08
Speaker 12: You have to have the.
26:09
Speaker 2: Time saying to start with absolutely, And what Toby is saying,
26:14
Speaker 2: I think is they gathered the DNA before Coburger became
26:19
Speaker 2: a suspect.
26:20
Speaker 3: And so how would they have his DNA?
26:23
Speaker 2: So how could they plant his DNA at the scene
26:26
Speaker 2: when he had not been identified as a suspect unless
26:30
Speaker 2: they're going to argue they had already identified him, that
26:33
Speaker 2: that he was going to be the scapegoat, and then
26:35
Speaker 2: that that night, the night of the murders, they planted it, which,
26:40
Speaker 2: as Toby Wilson said, and I agree, is totally convoluted.
26:44
Speaker 2: But the reality is is it worked in Simpson, It did.
26:50
Speaker 3: It worked in Simpson.
26:52
Speaker 2: Johnny Cochrane, my former co anchor, May God rest his soul,
26:57
Speaker 2: worked his magic on a jury and it actually worked.
27:01
Speaker 2: So we see the argument of planting evidence rearing its
27:07
Speaker 2: ugly head. And we got to look at also, Chris McDonagh,
27:10
Speaker 2: director Cold Case Foundation, how many people actually went in
27:15
Speaker 2: to the crime scene.
27:17
Speaker 3: Was it planted? There? Was it planned at the lab?
27:21
Speaker 2: I mean there's going to be a plethora of arguments
27:24
Speaker 2: the Pandora's box of how the evidence was planted, don't
27:28
Speaker 2: you see.
27:28
Speaker 11: Yeah? Absolutely, And I think this going down this lane
27:32
Speaker 11: where the defense is headed. Dancy. I think we all
27:35
Speaker 11: agree here on this panel it's going to be quite,
27:38
Speaker 11: you know, a high mountain to overcome.
27:41
Speaker 3: Because that's what we thought in oj Simpson.
27:43
Speaker 11: Man, Yeah, I know, I agree.
27:45
Speaker 2: You get one nut on the jury, I mean one
27:48
Speaker 2: conspiracy theorist doctor Bethany Marshall, and it's all she wrote.
27:52
Speaker 2: It's over one bad apple on that jury might fall
27:56
Speaker 2: for this cockamami. They planted the evidence theory. And don't
27:59
Speaker 2: even stir with me about that Simpson had evidence planet
28:04
Speaker 2: against him. I mean, if that's true, don't you know
28:08
Speaker 2: out of all that police force that worked this case,
28:10
Speaker 2: one person would do a multimillion dollar book deal right
28:13
Speaker 2: now to tell the whole story.
28:16
Speaker 3: Right. Yes, that did not.
28:18
Speaker 14: Happen, Toby.
28:19
Speaker 12: People are very.
28:20
Speaker 3: Go ahead, Toby.
28:22
Speaker 14: In Simpson, it's almost in this situation in comparison to
28:26
Speaker 14: Apples to Orange is Simpson. The door was opened for
28:29
Speaker 14: that defense by the LAPD themselves because one of the
28:33
Speaker 14: lead detectives on the case at the end of the
28:35
Speaker 14: at the end of the first day, instead of putting
28:39
Speaker 14: the tube of blood that was collected from Oj into evidence,
28:43
Speaker 14: he took it home and put it in his refrigerator
28:45
Speaker 14: and went to bed.
28:46
Speaker 11: He held it, He held it.
28:47
Speaker 14: Leaves that leaves a question with the chain of customers.
28:50
Speaker 3: I hear you, Toby, I hear you.
28:52
Speaker 2: But the reality is that it doesn't matter.
28:56
Speaker 14: I agree with you. It doesn't matter.
28:58
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter.
28:59
Speaker 2: If the one of the police makes a horrible mistake
29:03
Speaker 2: like that or a bad call, they will find a
29:06
Speaker 2: way to bring in This was planted Yeah, that cops
29:11
Speaker 2: screwed up big time and it helped the jury find
29:16
Speaker 2: a peg to hang their acquittal hat on.
29:18
Speaker 3: But they're going to find a way no matter.
29:21
Speaker 12: Well, I really quickly.
29:24
Speaker 3: Even if one of.
29:24
Speaker 2: The cops didn't make did not make any error in judgment,
29:28
Speaker 2: they're still going to argue it was planned. But you
29:31
Speaker 2: are right, Toby Wilson, they opened themselves up to it. Okay,
29:34
Speaker 2: what were you saying, doctor Bethany.
29:35
Speaker 12: Well, people are very paranoid of the police right now.
29:38
Speaker 12: So we have a culture of anxiety about law enforcement,
29:42
Speaker 12: anxiety about politicians, leaders and people who align against those
29:49
Speaker 12: who are trying to help society become more and more entreessed.
29:53
Speaker 2: You know what, it's worse than ever.
30:09
Speaker 1: Time stories with Nancy Grace.
30:15
Speaker 2: Guys, I'm trying to get to our other news in
30:19
Speaker 2: the case as quickly as I can. We have the
30:22
Speaker 2: alibi claim, we have the they plant of the DNA,
30:28
Speaker 2: but they're also claiming that well, I'll let you hear
30:32
Speaker 2: from the horse's mouth.
30:34
Speaker 3: Take a listen our cut five two three NBC.
30:36
Speaker 16: Coburger's lawyers argue for the release of materials they say
30:39
Speaker 16: they need to defend the suspected killer. Coburger's lawyer also
30:43
Speaker 16: went even further in the court filing, saying, quote, there
30:47
Speaker 16: is no connection between mister Coburger and the victims. There
30:50
Speaker 16: is no explanation for the total lack of DNA evidence
30:54
Speaker 16: from the victims in mister Coberger's apartment, home, office, or vehicle.
30:59
Speaker 2: Okay, Chris McDonough, you've worked over three hundred homicide saynes.
31:05
Speaker 2: Their other argument is, Okay, not only did you plant
31:08
Speaker 2: the DNA, there's also not enough DNA. There's not enough
31:13
Speaker 2: blood on the scene. It's impossible. Well, it's not impossible.
31:17
Speaker 2: But that said, they're claiming there's not enough blood.
31:21
Speaker 11: There should be more blood, right, And you know, here's
31:25
Speaker 11: the problem that they're going to run into, in my opinion,
31:29
Speaker 11: the fact that this was a horrific scene and the
31:33
Speaker 11: fact that we don't have his clothing. We have evidence
31:37
Speaker 11: that he took evasive actions post incident, ie which was
31:44
Speaker 11: pointed out from Chryl earlier. You know, he's there wearing gloves,
31:48
Speaker 11: he's cleaning his house, et cetera, et cetera. We don't
31:50
Speaker 11: know what kind of blood was on him potentially that evening,
31:56
Speaker 11: and if you know what.
31:58
Speaker 3: You just brought up a really good point. Go ahead
32:00
Speaker 3: and finish up place.
32:01
Speaker 11: No, and that's going to be, you know, something that
32:04
Speaker 11: could be argued extremely powerfully in the court.
32:08
Speaker 2: You know, Cheryl, he's right, Chris mcdonne's talking about evasive actions.
32:13
Speaker 3: Think about it. If days and.
32:16
Speaker 2: Days and days later, he's still cleaning his car, he's
32:20
Speaker 2: still throwing out trash and plastic bags zip like sandwich bags,
32:24
Speaker 2: that kind of bag. He's throwing things away in his
32:27
Speaker 2: neighbors trash can in the Pocono's, you know, two thousand
32:30
Speaker 2: miles away from the crime. Saying what do you think
32:32
Speaker 2: he did immediately after the killings? Evasive actions? Countermeasures of course.
32:37
Speaker 9: And he's doing all this wearing latex gloves by the way.
32:41
Speaker 9: So yeah, I mean you've got somebody that they've got
32:43
Speaker 9: receipts of him purchasing, you know, certain clothing, dark clothing
32:48
Speaker 9: that the witness said that she saw. It stands to
32:51
Speaker 9: reason they can't find those clothing. Then his car after
32:56
Speaker 9: the murders goes aways away from his department before he
33:00
Speaker 9: returns home, did he ditch all the stuff?
33:03
Speaker 7: Yeah?
33:04
Speaker 9: But here's the other bottom line. When you talk about
33:06
Speaker 9: chain of custody, it's not just a matter of us. Initially,
33:09
Speaker 9: things on the sheet when the law enforcement officers first
33:13
Speaker 9: got to that scene, their body cam was on. When
33:16
Speaker 9: crime scene shows up, they're videotaping.
33:18
Speaker 3: On top of that.
33:19
Speaker 9: If you don't trust the police. The national media was
33:22
Speaker 9: there watching people carry things out that were bagged and
33:26
Speaker 9: tagged and filled. The chain of custody here is going
33:29
Speaker 9: to be common.
33:30
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know.
33:31
Speaker 2: What, You're right, they're going to have to argue that
33:35
Speaker 2: anything that was planted was planted. Well, they don't have to.
33:38
Speaker 2: They can argue whatever they want to at the crime
33:40
Speaker 2: lab because there's not a camera hovering over the scientist's
33:46
Speaker 2: shoulder as they perform their tests. So I could see that.
33:52
Speaker 3: As you know, easy pickings for the defense. Is it true?
33:55
Speaker 2: No?
33:55
Speaker 3: Are they going to argue it?
33:56
Speaker 2: Yes, So not only are they arguing that the DNA
34:02
Speaker 2: was planted, that there's not enough blood, they're also challenging
34:07
Speaker 2: the methods that were used to analyze the DNA, specifically
34:12
Speaker 2: on that knife sheath. Take a listener Cup five to
34:15
Speaker 2: eight Crime Online.
34:16
Speaker 6: The brand Coburger defense team is taking on the DNA
34:20
Speaker 6: in a cord filing. Coburger's defense team goes after the
34:23
Speaker 6: DNA evidence and the investigative genetic genealogy or IgG methods
34:28
Speaker 6: used to match it to Coburger's, suggesting it was a
34:31
Speaker 6: little too perfect for the prosecution's case. In the filing,
34:35
Speaker 6: Coberger's attorneys wrote, quote, presumably the defense is expected to
34:39
Speaker 6: accept at face value that the sheath had touched DNA,
34:43
Speaker 6: just waiting for testing by all the FBI's myriad resources.
34:47
Speaker 3: Okay, so here's the other argument.
34:49
Speaker 2: They're really throwing the spaghetti on the wall to see
34:52
Speaker 2: what sticks. They're now claiming that the genetic genealogy testing
34:59
Speaker 2: that was done was too perfect. They're questioning that they
35:04
Speaker 2: get the genetic genealogists trace it the DNA on the
35:08
Speaker 2: shape back to Coburger not only through his father, but
35:13
Speaker 2: through him through a beagle swap out of his mouth.
35:16
Speaker 2: Now the defense is also going to argue that's a
35:18
Speaker 2: little too perfect. Okay to you, Toby Wilson, DNA expert,
35:24
Speaker 2: explain in a nutshell what is the genetic genealogy IgG method.
35:32
Speaker 14: It's really very complicated of the method. In fact, the
35:36
Speaker 14: people that do the genetic genealogist That's.
35:38
Speaker 3: Why I told you to put it in a nutshell.
35:40
Speaker 14: Yeah, Well, I'm going to the people that do genetic genealogy, well,
35:44
Speaker 14: they specialize in that they go to they that's how
35:46
Speaker 14: they train. They're not regular DNA experts for the most part.
35:51
Speaker 14: So their job is to basically look for certain similarities
35:55
Speaker 14: that will be passed down from generation to generation and
35:58
Speaker 14: connect those similarities. And in the beginning, it's like a tree.
36:03
Speaker 14: You've got this enormous tree with a bunch of branches,
36:06
Speaker 14: and what they're doing is looking for the things that
36:09
Speaker 14: can cut off branches so that in the end you
36:11
Speaker 14: only have one branch left. And then when you get
36:14
Speaker 14: to the bottom of it, there to the end of it,
36:17
Speaker 14: there's you know, like X number of people and you
36:20
Speaker 14: start looking at their histories, you start investigating them, you
36:24
Speaker 14: start getting samples of DNA, either you know, secretly or
36:27
Speaker 14: asking them for it. Usually they'll be asked for and
36:29
Speaker 14: they'll they'll contribute it, and you cancel out whoever doesn't match.
36:34
Speaker 14: So it's a very extensive process. It's not you know,
36:37
Speaker 14: something where you sit down and say, oh, yeah, look
36:40
Speaker 14: at this, he matches.
36:41
Speaker 2: You're right. It's a very long procedure to build out
36:44
Speaker 2: a family tree, sometimes all the way back over one
36:47
Speaker 2: hundred years and then isolated all the way down to
36:50
Speaker 2: find out who's in the area, who could it possibly be,
36:53
Speaker 2: who is the right age, who could have committed this crime,
36:55
Speaker 2: and then you get their DNA out of their mouth
36:59
Speaker 2: or like off a pizza crust, and then you match
37:02
Speaker 2: it up. Hey, doctor Duprey, I wanted to ask you also,
37:05
Speaker 2: in addition to Chris mcdonna, what do you make of
37:07
Speaker 2: their client that there's not enough blood?
37:12
Speaker 3: I mean, really, what.
37:13
Speaker 13: Nancy, As you know, we really just need a spec
37:16
Speaker 13: we can actually multiply that and extrapolite.
37:21
Speaker 2: No, no, no, they're saying there's not enough blood on him
37:25
Speaker 2: from the crime scene. I mean, haven't you been to
37:28
Speaker 2: a lot of bloody crime scenes? But you don't walk
37:30
Speaker 2: out drenched in blood?
37:30
Speaker 13: Oh? Absolutely absolutely, And again we don't know what he
37:33
Speaker 13: was wearing. We don't know about protective clothing and things
37:35
Speaker 13: he was doing, so that there was not much blood
37:38
Speaker 13: on him. Yeah, that's just a red herring. It means nothing.
37:41
Speaker 14: He had a four week head start to get rid
37:43
Speaker 14: of evidence. The other thing is, as a blood spatter expert,
37:47
Speaker 14: we know that it can be a very bloody scene
37:51
Speaker 14: and the sailing can walk out of it with little
37:54
Speaker 14: or no blood on them, because what determines how you
37:56
Speaker 14: get blood on you is the direction that the blood
37:59
Speaker 14: is splat and thrown in as the activities are taking place.
38:04
Speaker 14: So it was all being thrown pushed away from the
38:07
Speaker 14: dependent guys.
38:08
Speaker 2: Not only this, we are learning about bizarre changes in
38:12
Speaker 2: behavior immediately after the murders. Take a list an hour
38:16
Speaker 2: five three two from the King Road Killings podcast.
38:22
Speaker 17: We had a midterm exam that a lot of people
38:24
Speaker 17: thought was graded unfairly. So we as a class had
38:27
Speaker 17: like a day where we went in and we were
38:28
Speaker 17: all essentially allowed to just like debate him about our
38:31
Speaker 17: grades and try and like earn points back. But you know,
38:35
Speaker 17: was a thing where he argued back, and so we
38:37
Speaker 17: were sort of in this weird like debate for the
38:39
Speaker 17: whole class, fifty of us against one of him, and
38:41
Speaker 17: he was having to field all these questions. But Brian
38:44
Speaker 17: seemed super comfortable, and honestly, none of us were like
38:46
Speaker 17: super comfortable. Was a weird vibe that was like a
38:48
Speaker 17: turning point. I think for us. We felt like when
38:51
Speaker 17: we did that, our grades got better.
38:52
Speaker 3: Concidentally, at the time of the murders and more. In
38:55
Speaker 3: five twenty.
38:56
Speaker 18: ABC recent students of his at Washington State University speaking
39:00
Speaker 18: out one thing. His appearance changed around the time the
39:04
Speaker 18: murders took place.
39:05
Speaker 17: He looked a little bit more disheveled, if he had
39:08
Speaker 17: like some stubble coming on, and his hair was a
39:10
Speaker 17: little you know, messed up or whatever. I remember seeing
39:12
Speaker 17: him and thinking like, oh man, you know, finals must
39:15
Speaker 17: be really getting back.
39:15
Speaker 18: Twenty eight year old Coburger remained a teacher's assistant working
39:19
Speaker 18: towards his criminology PhD until the end of the semester.
39:22
Speaker 2: Not only that, we understand Rachel Schilkey that he has
39:26
Speaker 2: quote found religion behind bars. You know, it's not often
39:30
Speaker 2: that you say a spree killer suddenly find the light.
39:32
Speaker 3: But what do you know about that?
39:34
Speaker 10: Well, apparently he attends mass every Sunday with a local
39:38
Speaker 10: pastor and they say he's remained a model prisoner while
39:41
Speaker 10: in jail. Soku, he's trying to put up a look
39:44
Speaker 10: that he is, you know, finding the right path or
39:47
Speaker 10: maybe he's completely innocent in this.
39:48
Speaker 9: What about that CHERYLN collell in prison? That's straight out
39:51
Speaker 9: of the handbook. So what that does gets he out
39:53
Speaker 9: of his sale. He hopefully believes that he's going to
39:56
Speaker 9: be surrounded by people that are good Christians, people that
40:00
Speaker 9: won't harm him. It's a quasi way for him to
40:03
Speaker 9: get some free protection.
40:04
Speaker 3: Okay, I just stop. I'm going to try to boil
40:06
Speaker 3: this down.
40:08
Speaker 2: When I first started conducting play negotiations, I had one
40:11
Speaker 2: judge that would bring me the prosecutor, the defense attorney,
40:14
Speaker 2: and the defendant in the same room.
40:16
Speaker 3: Very small room, by the way.
40:18
Speaker 2: One time, one defendant had made a woven yarn cross,
40:23
Speaker 2: and I commented, did you make that cross?
40:26
Speaker 3: Behind bars?
40:27
Speaker 2: And the next week on the plain arrayment calendar, one
40:33
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty inmates, about forty of them had woven
40:37
Speaker 2: crosses this big around their necks because they knew I
40:41
Speaker 2: was a Christian.
40:42
Speaker 3: You know what.
40:44
Speaker 2: I hope he's found the Lord because he's going to
40:46
Speaker 2: need strength to get through his murder trial.
40:50
Speaker 3: We wait as justice unfolds. Get by friend,