Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Murder In Moscow: The Experts Behind The case Against Bryan Kohberger (Part 10) (9/4/26)

Transcript

Murder In Moscow: The Experts Behind The case Against Bryan Kohberger (Part 10) (9/4/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 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 start taking a look at
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: the responses and rebuttals to the reports issued by the
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: experts lined up against Brian Koberger. And the first response
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: and rebuttal to report issued by Matthew Nodal on January 22nd, 2025.
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: Responses to rebuttal items in a report by Matt Nodal,
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: dated January 22nd, 2025. 1. Sutton Report, page 10. it
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: should be noted that there were no drip trails of
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: blood noted on the bedroom floor. Drip trails are indicative
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: of movement by a bleeding individual. Nodal comment. Drip trails
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: when present can represent movement of a bleeding person or
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: movement of an object with wet blood of sufficient volume
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: to continue to drip after blood acquisition, i.e. a bloody weapon,
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: can create a drip trail from the weapon being carried
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: away from a bloody source. Sutton response. Drip trails can
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: certainly indicate movement of an object with enough wet blood
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: to create drips, but this type of drip trail is
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: typically characterized by a small number of drips due to
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: the lack of a replenishing blood supply. In comparison, a
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: bleeding individual can create a longer, more continuous drip trail.
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: The comment made in my report was intended only to
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: address whether or not a continuous drip trail indicative of
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: bleeding individual was observed. 2. Sutton Report, page 22. A.
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: Marker 42 in image DSC 4585 and DSC 4587 depicts
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: a pattern transfer stain near the hinge side of the
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: exterior surface of the third level bedroom door. B. A
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: pattern transfer is created when a patterned object, which was
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: wet with liquid blood, made contact with the surface. The
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: appearance of this stain is consistent with diluted blood creating
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: this pattern transfer. Diluted blood is created when blood is
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: mixed with another liquid. C. Subsequent testing at marker 42
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: showed the DNA of Kelly Gonsalves. Notal comment. A. This stain,
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: as depicted in the Sutton report, image 4587, is an
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: altered blood stain. The appearance depicted in this image represents
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: what was left of the stain after the initial sampling
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: conducted by Detective Talbott. B. Original images of this stain
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: show it to be smaller spatter, black and white numbered
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: placard 42 of Talbott. The sample was then collected, likely
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: with excessive water applied to the swab, altering the original
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: appearance of the stain. Days later, when ISPFS laboratory processed
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: the scene, a yellow sticker, 42, was placed and the
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: after-collection appearance photographed C-figure 26, C. The stain was never
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: DNA tested and therefore it cannot be attributed as originating
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: from any specific individual. The misidentification of this sample may
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: be associated with with the renumbering system employed by Detective Payne.
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: Sutton response. Regarding alteration of stain 42. My description of
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: stain 42 was based on its appearance in image 4587. Mr.
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: Nodal had the advantage of seeing stain 42 in SITU.
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: If the original stain was in fact collected using excess water,
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: I agree with Mr. Nodal's opinion of it being an
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: altered spatter stain. Regarding the DNA profile of stain 42.
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: I was unaware of the change in numbering system as
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: it correlated to the description of the agency number in
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: the ISPFS worksheet described by Mr. Nodal. Bates 003289 The
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: misidentification of this sample may be associated with the renumbering
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: system employed by Detective Payne. After further investigation, I removed
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: any DNA results from stain 42, as it appears not
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: to have been tested. 3. Sutton Report, page 16 ISP
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: 5149 depicts the underside of the shelf above the headboard
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: of the bed. Spatter associated with impact are noted on
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: the underside of the shelf. These spatters represent the termination
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: of the spatters associated with impact seen on the wall
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: above the bed over the head. Notal comment. This part
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: of the assessment should also be considered cast off from
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: a body object being swung upward and towards the northeast
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: corner of the bed. Sutton response. While I agree that
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: a cast-off pattern may be intermingled with the impact spatters
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: on the underside of the shelf above Mogan's bed, it's
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: my opinion that a simple call of impact spatter is
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: more conservative. Sutton report page 30. Zanaker Nodal was injured
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: in proximity to this table. Nodal comment. As a single
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: drop deposited with potential dilution, it cannot be determined when
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: this drop arrived or what specific mechanism generated it. The
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: Sutton Report incorrectly reported that stain F revealed the DNA
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: of Xanakernodal. However, no record of this stain having been
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: tested for source DNA was located in the provided data.
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: No additional or accompanying blood stains, patterns, or transfers from
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: Kernodal are demonstrated in this area, so there is no
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: data to suggest Kernodal was injured at or near this table.
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: Bates 003291 Sutton Response The incorrect data profile Originally attributed
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: to Stain F has been corrected in the body of
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: this amended report. The conclusion stating that the finding of
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: Kernodle's blood on the table in the living room was
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: the basis for my conclusion and that she suffered an
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: injury at or near this table. My original reporting of
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: DNA from Stain F as being blood from Xanakernodle was
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: the result of my mistaken belief that the description of
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: a stain as being collected from the second floor study table.
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: ISPFS 22 Wilth with an alternative description of what I
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: referred to as the beer pong table in the living room.
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: This error has been corrected, and the conclusion drawn as
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: a result of this error has been deleted. Sutton Report,
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: page 56. The appearance of the stains indicated by the
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: yellow oval in DSC 4562 is consistent with diluted blood.
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: Diluted blood is created when blood is mixed with another liquid.
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: The mouth and nose injuries of Xanacranodal As noted in
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: the autopsy report are potential sources of diluted blood. Nodal comment.
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: As occurred with the stain on the third floor door,
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: item 42, this stain was also diluted through the collection
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: process after it had been documented by Detective Talbot. The
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: original deposit was not diluted and therefore does not fit
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: with the source from any mouth or nose injury to
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: occur nodal. The dilution of this stain is an artificial
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: remnant of sampling. Bates 003291. Sutton response. Regarding the alteration
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: of stain depicted in DSC 4562. As occurred with the
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: stain on the third floor door, item 42, my description
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: of this stain was based on its appearance in image
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: DSC 4562. Mr. Nodal had the advantage of seeing this
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: stain in SITU. If it's confirmed that the original stain
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: was collected using excess water, I agree with Mr. Nodal's
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: opinion of it being altered spattered stain. Regarding the conclusion
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: that the mouth and nose injuries of Xenocernodal, as noted
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: in the autopsy report, are potential sources of diluted blood,
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: this statement does not imply a substitute for DNA testing.
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: It is only stated as a potential source and was
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: not intended to exclude other mechanisms. Other evidence demonstrated that
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: only Cernodal and the perpetrator were moving about her bedroom.
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: This statement was meant simply to caution the reader that
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: in this particular instance, An innocuous explanation for diluted blood
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: should be considered in comparison to the dilution of blood
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: discovered in the adjacent living room. I am in complete
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: agreement with Mr. Nodal that potential mechanism other than blood
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: originating from the mouth and nose of the victims should
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: be considered and never intended to imply otherwise. 6. Sutton Report,
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: page 58. The appearance of these spatters is consistent with
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: diluted blood, see DSC 4892 cropped. The mouth and nose
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: injuries of Xanacronodon, as noted in the autopsy report, are
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: potential sources of diluted blood. These spatter stains originated from
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: an impact to a source of exposed blood located approximately
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: 3 feet and 7 inches above the floor. As indicated
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: by the scale, an image DSC 4892 cropped. Nodal comment.
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: This pattern of diluted blood, sample number 29, is consistent
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: in color and appearance to the diluted blood seen on
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: the pony, half wall, and adjacent areas, without source testing.
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: This spatter cannot be assigned as originating from kernodal, nor
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: can it be associated with injuries to kernodal without DNA
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: source testing. Sutton response. The pattern of diluted blood, sample 29,
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: may indeed have been created by the same source as
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: the diluted blood seen on the half wall and adjacent
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: areas in the living room. As is stated in my
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: original report, though, the mouth and nose injuries of Zanacur
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: Notal should also be considered. Sutton Report, page 61. The
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: appearance of these stains indicates that the blood has been
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: diluted with another liquid altering their appearance. The mouth and
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: nose injuries of Zanacur Notal, as noted in the autopsy report,
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: are potential sources of diluted blood. Notal comment. The proximity, height,
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: and location of the deposit is similar to the deposit
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: at position number 29. This is a pattern similar to
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: what was deposited onto the pony half wall and that
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: already diluted blood was deposited onto the door at this location.
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: Without further testing of sample number 29 or area Q,
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: no specific assignment of source or mechanism can be identified.
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: Bates number 003292 Sutton response. My statement that the diluted
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: blood is potentially attributable to the mouth and nose injuries
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: of Xanacarnotl was not meant to imply a substitute for
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: DNA testing. This statement was meant simply to caution the
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: reader that an innocuous explanation for diluted blood should be considered.
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Nodal. that potential mechanisms
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: other than blood originating from the mouth and nose of
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: the victim should be considered and never intended to imply otherwise.
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right there.
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: And in the next episode, we're going to pick up
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: with rebuttal Matthew Nodal report. All the information that goes
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.