Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: The DNA/Genetics Battle Between Kohberger And The State (8/12/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: The DNA/Genetics Battle Between Kohberger And The State (8/12/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: And welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: going to talk about how the FBI uses genetic genealogy
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: to trace suspects like the accused murderer Brian Coberger. And
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: to do that, we have an article from the Daily
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: Mail headline revealed how the FBI used genetic genealogy to
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: trace suspects like Brian Coohberger. Cops track distant relatives, then
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: secretly collected DNA and compared it to unidentified samples at
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: the crime scene. Now, I know there was a lot
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: of confusion about how this DNA works and how all
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: of it's collected and then cross referenced, and then if
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: somebody's not in codis it makes things so much more difficult.
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: But there certainly are other ways that the authorities are
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: able to check this DNA, and this is certainly one
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: of them. This article was authored by Jennifer Smith. The
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: FBI tracked down Idaho murder suspect Brian Coober by tracing
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: his distant relatives through genetic genealogy databases, then secretly collected
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: a sample of his DNA which they matched to that
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: found at the crime scene. Experts revealed today and we
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: were kind of discussing this a little bit, and I
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: figured this was going to be the way that they
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: had to go about this. If he's not in CODIS,
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: it's obviously impossible for them to match it up with
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: people in the system.
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: So they have to go a little bit deeper. They
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: have to go a little bit harder.
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: And when you collect unknown DNA at the crime scene
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: and then you get into possession of someone's DNA like
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: Brian Cooeberger's, like they did, and you cross reference that
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: and it's a match, well, that tells you, at the
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: very least that Brian Cohberger was at the scene of
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: these crimes. Now it's going to be up to the
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: prosecution to hammer that home and make sure that the
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: jury understands that he wasn't only at the scene, he
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: was the one who committed these crimes. And that might
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: seem like an easy feat, like an easy task, but
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: we all know, oh that it's not. Getting an arrest
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: is one thing, getting a conviction is another. Coburger was
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: arrested on Friday in Pennsylvania, twenty five hundred miles from
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: the crime scene in Moscow, Idaho, where he is accused
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: of murdering the four students and a stabbing frenzy on
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: November thirteenth. He is due in court in Pennsylvania today
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: for an extradition hearing that will send him back to Idaho,
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: and as we've learned, he's not going to challenge that.
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: He's waiving that and he's ready to be extradited to
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: handle the charges against him. He says he is going
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: to be exonerated, and I thought that was an interesting
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: use of that word, by the way he would think
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: somebody would say, look, I'm gonna I'm not guilty of this.
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: I'm gonna be found not guilty, but he uses the
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: word exonerated. Now, I might be reading too much into that.
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: Very possible, but I think it's interesting when you have
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: somebody who is as well educated as a guy like
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: Brian Koberger, I think it's important to listen to the
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: words that they use. Police had been tight lipped about
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: their investigation, but confirmed over the weekend that he was
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: tracked down using a combination of DNA tracing and investigative work.
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: Coburger has no prior criminal record, which means as DNA
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: was not in any law enforcement database, so they have
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: to move into a different realm right. They have to
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: get creative as investigators when they're looking for people like
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: this and they're looking to get a conviction. So if
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: they're not in the codis, then you have to move
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: on to the next phase, and that's surveillance. If you
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: know the person you're looking for and then you follow
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: them around, You wait for them to go into a store,
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: You wait for them to drop a cigarette whatever it
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: is that has their DNA on it. You grab it,
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: you bring it back, you process that DNA, and then
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: you cross reference it. And according to the sources, that's
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: exactly what happened here. Instead, he was found through a
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: method known as genetic genealogy, an increasingly popular and useful
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: method of investigation where law enforcement trace suspects relatives on
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: ancestry websites. Cc Moore, chief genetic genealogist at Parabon and
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: founder of DNA Detectives, who has helped law enforcement solve
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: more than two hundred and forty crimes, did not work
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: on the case, but is widely considered the most authoritative
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: expert in the industry. She explained to daily mail dot
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: Com the process the FBI likely followed based on her
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: own understanding of the case and passwork with law enforcement.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: Number one, finding the sample at the crime scene. The
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: first step in the investigation is finding a DNA sample
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: at the crime scene. And we know that wasn't hard
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: here because it said it was just a complete mess
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: as far as the crime scene goes, and they said
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: they had DNA evidence all over the place. Now, they
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: didn't elaborate on whose DNA, but you would have to
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: think that the killer left something. In the Idaho case,
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: the alleged crimes were so physical and brutal that it
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: would have been easy for the killer to accidentally leave
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: their own blood, let alone hair fibers or any other
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: less obvious bodily fluid. If this is the killer, then
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: I'm sure he sure tried very hard not to leave
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: behind a sample, given his background in forensics. But it's
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: almost impossible not to even if he was suited up
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: like Dexter, And she's not wrong. We leave DNA traces
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: everywhere we go. We're pretty much leaving a DNA footprint,
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: so it's very difficult to not leave DNA, especially with
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: the close nature of a crime such as this. It
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: would have been a lot harder for investigators if these kids,
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: say we're shot. Somebody walked in the house, had a
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: silencer on their gun, opened the door, and shot them
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: while they were in their beds. Very very difficult to
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: DNA that and to trace that back. Now, of course
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: the person might have dropped a hair or left some DNA,
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: but nowhere near the amount you're going to leave. With
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: an up close and personal attack like we saw here,
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: when you're in a frenzy's stabbing someone, it's extremely common
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: for the knife to slip and for you to get cut.
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: Even if he had on gloves. One thing I will
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: say is they have cutproof gloves. You can get gloves
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: where a knife won't cut through them. So until we
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: have all of the evidence and know exactly what he
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: was wearing, if he was suited and booted, we just
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: don't know. The blood could have been mixed in with
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: the victims. When that happens, you have to convolute it
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: that could be what had happened. We also know that
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: one of the victims put up the fight of her life,
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: and if that is true, she maybe was able to
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: scratch him and they could have collected DNA from her fingernails.
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: And this is one of the surefire ways to nail
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: somebody with DNA. If you murder somebody and then their
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: DNA is found under your fingernails, you're pretty much cooked.
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: And then you add to that, if there's a murder
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: weapon that's found, forget it. You have no chance. So
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: that's why I don't think we're ever gonna find a
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: murder weapon here. Now.
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: Don't need the murder weapon.
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: To get the conviction, but it sure does help. Number
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: two building a DNA profile and running it through police databases.
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: When DNA is found at the scene of a crime
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: that does not belong to the victims, the first thing
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: police do is run it through their own database of
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: previous offenders. This test twenty DNA markers enough to identify
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: the person if their own DNA is already in the system,
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: or if their immediate relative is in the system, meaning
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: a parent or a sibling or something like that. If
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: both strikeout, investigators have to look to genetic genealogy. Number three.
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: Genetic genealogy testing. Unlike police DNA databases, those of commercial
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: genealogy companies can search for up to one million DNA markers,
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: creating a much wider pool of relatives to sift through
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: than what any police search could produce. But while there
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: are many commercial ancestry websites only to allow law enforcement
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: to search their databases openly. According to More, and this
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: is where the privacy issue comes in for a lot
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: of people. I know a ton of folks who just
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: won't give up their genealogy to these companies because they
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: don't feel like it's safe or secure for whatever reason.
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: There's a huge misconception that we use ancestry dot com
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: and twenty three in me, but they don't allow it.
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: Only the two smallest databases, ged match and family Tree
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: DNA do allow it, and they deal with around two
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: million people, so it's a small pool, right those two
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: companies compare to ancestry dot Com and twenty three in me.
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: Those are the two big powerhouses in the industry. But
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: the smaller companies here, well, they're the ones who allow
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: the police to go through the database. And if you
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: want to go through the database for twenty three in
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: me and ancestry dot Com, it looks like you'll have
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: to get a warrant to do that. So with that
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: you have to either get lucky or be really skilled.
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: Coberger's likely matches from the databases or second third and
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: fourth cousins, according to More, not as close relatives. In
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: most criminal cases, She said, the suspect who is eventually
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: identified has likely never even met most of the people
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: he or she shares DNA with. You get a match
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: list which will have hundreds or even thousands of people
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: on it, and most will only share tiny amounts of DNA.
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: You're really hoping for a second cousin, but probably in
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: this case they were working with third, fourth, and fifth cousins.
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: Sometimes you get lucky and it's a first cousin or
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: even a sibling or a parent, but it's very rare.
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: You're looking for patterns and commonalities, and you need to
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: find that one person who is related to all of
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: the people at the top of the list. So before
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: we find who they are, we need to find out
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: what all of the other people on the list have
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: in common and who they have in common. So it's
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: definitely not as easy as just typing a few things
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: into a computer day database and figuring it out right.
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: The investigators had their work cut out for them, and
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: it certainly seems like they were up to the task.
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: Building a family tree using social media, land records, and
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: more based on the list of partial DNA matches. Eventually,
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: genetic genealogy will lead to an immediate relative of the
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: suspect whose DNA was collected at the crime scene, or
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: at the least a grandparent, according to More Once that
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: stage is reached, detectives look at other methods of narrowing
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: down who the suspect might be. When we get a
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: match in ged match of family tree DNA, the vast
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: majority of the time there is little information there. We
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: have to figure out who this person is, who are
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: their grandparents? Then we're building forward in time. It's really
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: hard work. You have to be a good investigator right
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: and be able to keep things in order here because
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: this has to be a very meticulous process. Once you
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: get past the nineteen fifty census in the US, there
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: aren't any more records, so we have to start using
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: newspaper articles, birth records, and state databases. You can learn
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: a lot from social media too. As you come closer
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: and closer to the present day, it becomes harder. In
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: the US, we have search databases, basically these companies that
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: collect information on all of us and compile it and
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: sell access to these databases like White Pages or Been
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: Verified or US search. You can put their name in
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: and see who they are connected to. It's really difficult
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: and time intensive. In the UK, it would be extremely
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: difficult and impossible sometimes because of the privacy restrictions. In
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: Canada it's extremely difficult for the same reason. In a way,
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: we're fortunate, But on the other hand, if someone is
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: worried about privacy, they should really be thinking about those databases,
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: not the DNA websites. That's pretty interesting. Look, I didn't
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: know any of that, and that's why we we added
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: this article to the catalog because I don't know much
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: about the DNA process and how genealogy even works. So
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: it's always interesting to get a little bit of a
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: look behind the scenes and narrowing down a suspect. Once
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: the genetic genealogy trail is run cold, the investigators start
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: to look at possible suspects based on other factors. Once
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: we narrow it down to say grandparents, you've got to
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: say who are their grandchildren, who is living in the
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: right place at the right time, who's the right age
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: From their DNA we can also predict skin color, hair color,
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: eye color. In this case, it's possible they didn't have
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: enough to get all the way to his immediate family.
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: Then they got to his grandparents and had to look
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: at all of the male descendants. So we were wondering
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: what took so long?
• 12:48
  Speaker 2: This could be it.
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: They had to go through all of this in a
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: meticulous nature and cross everything off and try to get
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: the pay dirt. Then they'd say who drives the white
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: Launtra the vehicles spot in the area around the time
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: of the crime, and who lives in the area. Which
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: man could it be? It's possible they got ten male descendants.
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: They look then at whether any of them fit. Once
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: they found Coburger's white Alantra, it will have been a
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: huge aha moment. Plus the fact he lives just seven
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: miles away. Most of the time, the genealogy leads you
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: right back to the scene of the crime, and it's
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: crazy how accurate of a road map the genealogy will create.
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: All of the science behind all of this is just fascinating.
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: Nailing the suspect by collecting their DNA secretly to compare
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: it to the sample found at the scene. Once the
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: suspect is nailed down, genealogical investigators turn their findings over
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: to police undercover or covert teams then follow the suspect
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: and suripiciously obtain a sample from them in order to
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: compare it to the sample found at the crime scene
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: that was used in the DNA tracing. Moore, who has
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: turned over similar vas evidence to cops two hundred and
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: fifty times through a company, says this part of the
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: process is often carried out the same way it's portrayed
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: in films and TV shows. Genetic genealogy is only a
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: lead generator. It's not evidence. It can't be used to
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: arrest anyone or in a warrant. We'll write a report
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: up explain how we came to this conclusion. Then law
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: enforcement have to take this information and to a full investigation.
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: It's a highly scientific tip, but police still have to
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: start from scratch. Once they get it, they have to
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: go and collect their DNA, which they do by following them.
• 14:36
  Speaker 2: We've heard that's what happened in this case.
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: People don't get arrested based on my work alone, and
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: that's definitely what we've heard. We heard that he was
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: under surveillance, that they were following him, and they followed
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: him all the way across the country. In fact, so
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: chances are they could have collected DNA pretty easily. What
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: they get arrested for is one's law enforcement has collected
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: their DNA surreptitiously and can I parted it against the
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: sample found at the scene using only twenty DNA markers,
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: and the lab says this is a match. Hopefully then
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: they can arrest, prosecute, and hopefully convict. The genetic genealogy
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: portion is not presented to the jury. It is not
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: something that needs to be explained in court. There are
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: teams all over the country doing this on so many occasions,
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: following these suspects that have been identified, collecting cups and napkins,
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: and sometimes they'll go through their trash. They've even used
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: envelopes that have been licked. We leave our DNA behind everywhere.
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: Once you've been identified as a potential suspect, they are
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: going to get your DNA. Police have not yet revealed
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: their evidence against Colberger. He is awaiting extradition from Pennsylvania
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: to Idaho, and once they lock onto you, like it
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: said here, it's only a matter of time before they
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: find out who you are and trace you using this DNA.
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: Moore said. The case highlights the need to run genetic
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: genealogy testing immediately after an unidentified sample is collected in
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: a crime scene. I've been advocating for using this immediately
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: as soon as they don't get the first hit in
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: the police database. It looks like that's exactly what they
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: did here. It can stop criminals in their tracks and
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: prevent other people from being hurt. This can stop serial
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: killers and rapists because we can identify them after the
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: first time. This could have been a Ted Bundy or
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: a Zodiac killer. She said, and she's not wrong. We
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: don't know. We have no idea what was going on
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: in Brian Koberger's brain or what he's capable of. Besides
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: the fact he's capable of four murders, but we don't
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: know what his other motivations were. We don't know what
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: he was thinking about doing next. So it's a good
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: thing in my opinion, that this man is behind bars.
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: If he is the person responsible for these murders the
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: way the police says he is, then he's exactly where
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: he belongs, right behind bars. As far as the article itself,
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: I found it fascinating to get a little bit more
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: context about how this all works. Like I said, I'm
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: not hip to all of the forensic collection and how
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: all of this goes down. So anytime we can add
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: a little bit of context, we'll certainly do that.
• 17:12
  Speaker 2: That's gonna do it for this one.
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: If you'd like to contact me, you can do that
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: at Bobby Kapuchi at proton mail dot com. That's Bo
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: Bby capu Cci at proton mail dot com.
• 17:24
  Speaker 2: You can also find me on.
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: Twitter at Bobby Underscore cap u Cci. The link that
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: I discussed can be found in.
• 17:33
  Speaker 2: The description bot Lucky Lind Casino.
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. The
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: authorities in Moscow have collected a lot of evidence against
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: Brian Coberger, but the strongest evidence they have obviously is
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: the DNA evidence that was left on the knife sheath.
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: And considering that and knowing what we know, it's no
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: shock to anybody that Brian Coberger's team is attempting to
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: poke upon holes in how this DNA was collected. They're
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: hoping for a technicality, they're hoping for a loophole, and
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: they're hoping for something that's going to get Brian Colberger
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: off because so far what they've offered isn't going to
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: do the trick Besides making a few allegations about the
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: investigation itself, Coburger's legal team hasn't really brought anything forward
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: that would make me say to myself, Okay, hold on
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: a minute here, we might be on the wrong track
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: and Brian Coberger could be an innocent man. Now. I
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: understand that the burden of proof is on the state,
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: But when you look at this process and how far
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: we've come already, and as you know, we're following along
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: with the court documents, there hasn't been one time in
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: public or in those court documents where I've thought for
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: a second that the evidence that's been presented doesn't add up,
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: or that something that the prosecution said in the affid
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: David doesn't make sense, because all of it does so far.
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: And then you add on the outside element of the evidence,
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: talking about the cell phone pings and the more circumstantial stuff.
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: And when you add that all up and you mix
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: it up nice and good and then put it in
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: the oven, well what comes out is a almost.
• 19:16
  Speaker 2: Perfectly baked cake.
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: So for me, I always like to look at the
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: totality of the evidence that's presented, rather than getting caught
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: up on just one single piece of evidence that I
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: think is super important because all of the evidence collected,
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: it's all going to go to build that foundation for
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: them to get the conviction that they're looking for. So
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: keeping on that track, we have an article from Newsweek
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: talking about the DNA dispute that's going on between the
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: prosecution and the defense, headline how DNA dispute could impact
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: Brian Coberger's case. This article was authored by Gerard Keonga,
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: an attorney, has explained why Brian Coberger's defense he is
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: attempting to cast out on the DNA evidence the prosecution
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: is relying on in the University of Idaho murder case.
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: On August ninth, doctor Leah Larkin, a genealogist expert working
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: with Coburger's defense team, filed an affid David, calling into
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: question the reliability of the use of genetic genealogy, which
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: investigators used prior to arresting them. Now, look, when you're
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: a drowning man, what are you going to do. You're
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: going to look for any piece of debris that might
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: be floating in the ocean next to you. And that's
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: exactly what's happening here. They're gonna throw as much spaghetti
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: at the wall, hoping that some of it sticks. And
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: what they're looking for is a chain of custody issue.
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: Maybe somebody didn't catalog something correctly. Maybe somebody you know,
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: didn't dot an I here or didn't cross the tee there.
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: That's the sort of thing that they're looking for to
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: try and get this DNA evidence tossed out. And the
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: reason that they're so concerned about this DNA evidence is
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: because they know as lawyers that it's very strong and
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: powerful evidence against their client. Criminal defense attorney Rachel Faset,
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: managing partner of Los Angeles based Zwyback, Facet and Zaldonado,
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: spoke to Newsweek and said the defense hopes to confuse
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: the jury regarding the issue of DNA science and its
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: reliability in this case. Yeah, good luck, good frickin' luck
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: doing that. I don't think there's anyone amongst us at
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: this point who doesn't understand that DNA evidence is the
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: strongest evidence that you could possibly have short of having
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: a bunch of eyewitnesses. What else puts somebody at the
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: scene better than their DNA And I had a hunch
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: that this would be the strategy. This is what I've
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: said from the beginning. I haven't seen any evidence from
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: Coburger or any evidence overall.
• 21:55
  Speaker 2: That would lead me to believe that they have the
• 21:57
  Speaker 2: wrong guy.
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: So when that happened and somebody like Coburger has been
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: arrested on these charges and they don't have anything to
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: go on, it becomes a game of loopholes and technicalities.
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: We've seen it a million times before, and we'll see
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: it a million times in the future, because it's literally
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: your only shot, your only path to avoid conviction. Newsweek
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: also spoke to biology professor Greg happy Keian of the
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: University of Idaho and co director of the Idaho Innocence
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: Project about how the points raised by Larkin are valid
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: and the potential issues that can arise with authorities use
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: of genetic genealogy in criminal investigations. Well, of course, if
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: there's irregularities or misconduct, then any sort of test can
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: be thrown out. But to try and act like the
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: reliability of the test isn't reliable, well that's just ridiculous
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: because we all know that that's not the truth. Detectives
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: were able to arrest Brian Cole after a knife sheath
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: found that the home where the victims Klee Gonsalves, Madison Mogan,
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin were found stabbed to death
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: was eventually traced back to him. Coburger twenty eight, is
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: the sole suspect in the quadruple killing, and the prosecution
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: is said that the suspect broke into the student's home
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: in the early morning hours of November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: and fatally stabbed each of the victims. His defense lawyers
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: entered a not guilty plea on his behalf back in
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: May to the four counts of murder and one count
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: of burglary connected to the investigation. Coberger was a PhD
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: criminology student and teaching assistant at Washington State University's campus
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: at the time of the killings. Newsweek has contacted the
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: Cooteney County Public Defender Office via email for comment. You
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: know they're not going to comment, and they'll use the
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: gag order as the reason why. But under the gag
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: order that has been paired back a little bit by
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: Judge Judge, these lawyers can talk about things that have
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: been filed and things that have happened already. They just
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: can't talk about things with prejudice. The defense is doing
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: what they can to discredit the DNA evidence that puts
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: Coburger at the scene of the crime. The set said,
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: casting doubt on the methodology used to collect the DNA
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: as well as the reliability of the DNA evidence is
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: the best manner they have to do this. The defense
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: expert will likely testify to the jury regarding the potential
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: of less reliable results when tracing genealogy through DNA as
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: opposed to direct DNA sampling. The prosecution, however, will obtain
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: a competing expert to debunk the defense expert's opinion. The
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: problem for Coburger is that the bugle swab came back hot,
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: and the bottles that they took out of the trash
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: bins in front of his parents' house, well those pop tots.
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: So unless there was some sort of egregious behavior by
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: the prosecution, I don't see how they believe that this
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: is a path to victory. It looks more to me
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: like a hail Mary and a last ditch effort to
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: try and get this to a point where the judge
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: agrees to a stay, because short of that they're gonna
• 25:19
  Speaker 1: have to ask for a delay. The best case scenario
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: for the defense is that the expert testimony on each
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: side confuses the jury regarding the issue of DNA science
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: such that the confusion raises some doubts regarding the damning
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: DNA evidence against Coburger. I highly doubt they're going to
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: be able to do that. It's not like DNA is
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: this mythical procedure that nobody understands. The basic tenets of
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: DNA are pretty simple. So you see here again with
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: what this lawyer is saying about the potential strategy. It's
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: not a strategy of showing you that Brian Kolberger is innocent.
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: It's not a strategy of showing you that Coburger wasn't
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: there at the time when these murders took place. All
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: it is is a strategy that relies on technicalities and
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: hopefully the prosecution screwing up along the way. And I
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: don't know about you, but if my life was on
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: the line, I don't think that would be the strategy
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: that I'd be employing, especially if I was an innocent man.
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: Before detectives were able to arrest Coburger, they first used
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: genetic genealogy to determine he was a suspect, and the
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: AFFID David by Larkin scrutinizes this process. What is genetic genealogy.
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: Genetic genealogy is the field of genealogy and family history
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: research that combines genealogical DNA tests and traditional genealogy methods
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: to discover how individuals are related. According to sequencing dot Com,
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: a company that provides DNA tests and stores DNA data.
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: Through this method, the FBI was able to track down
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: Coburger by tracing distant relatives through genetic genealogy databases. They
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: then collect a sample of his father's DNA to confirm
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: Coburger's identity in the Affidavid. Larkin stated that genealogy tests
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: have become more available in recent years thanks to companies
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: like Ancestry, DNA twenty three and Meters and other smaller companies,
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: but they are not the same as or as reliable
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: as the str short tandem repeat standard forensic tests done
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: in laboratories. Unlike standard forensic tests, which are used to
• 27:33
  Speaker 1: identify individuals, genetic genealogy testing identifies possible relatives, She said
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: in the document, Again, that's all fine and well, but
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: what about the buckle swab detectives still have to do
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: traditional police work following this and ensure a suspect is
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: in the area has a motive and opportunity to commit
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: a crime, which authorities have said they have done. In
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: Coburger's case, Well, yeah, they have done it. Keep in mind,
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: just because they haven't presented the motive yet doesn't mean
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: they don't know. One thing that we've learned about Moscow
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: PD and the investigators here is that they like to
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: keep things close to the vest genealogy and criminal cases.
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: Larkin also concluded heraffidavit by raising the point the use
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: of genetic genealogy in criminal cases after individuals may have
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: knowingly or unknowingly supplied their genetic information, has privacy implications
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: that may apply to the Coburger case. Oh yeah, another technicality.
• 28:32
  Speaker 2: Huh.
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: Never mind that four kids are dead in their house
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: or the fact that your bugle swab came back hot.
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: Let's talk about this stupidity and this dumb technicality. Professor
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: Hapikeen emphasized to Newsweek the importance of scrutinizing the use
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: of genetic genealogy in criminal cases. It is possible a
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: person could send their DNA to one of these companies
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: the police will use it against that person, and they
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: never signed up to allow the police to do it.
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: He said, is that okay? I think it is okay
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: if you are solving a mass murder. I think the
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: general public would agree. What if the police are wrong
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: in the genealogy and we have a wrongful conviction that
• 29:14
  Speaker 1: was based on somebody's DNA that was sent to one
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: of the companies there was some sort of mix up
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: along the way, then it will become an issue. But
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: until then, the FBI and others think it is safe.
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: Hampickion also noted that the public has not been made
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: aware who sent the DNA in for one of the
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: genealogy tests that was later connected to Coberger's family. He
• 29:38
  Speaker 1: added that it was even possible the suspect had previously
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: used one of the ancestry services. Look, we don't know
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: where that came from, and we won't know that until
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: later on down the road. But one thing is for sure,
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: and the thing that locks it in for me is
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: the bugle swab that they took at the time of
• 29:55
  Speaker 1: the arrest that coming back hot. That's all I need
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: to know. He added that police have said they got
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: a sample from coburger and processed it through the non
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: genealogical ways in the lab and made a traditional match
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: with the DNA found on the knife sheath. He noted
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: some defenses in cases do not even raise the point
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: of genetic genealogy being used, as they do not see
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: it as important to their case. Well, that's all they
• 30:23
  Speaker 1: have here, that's it. Brian Coberger has nothing else. He
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: has no kind of alibi, He has no witness testimony
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: backing up what he's saying. All he has is the
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: hope that the prosecution stepped out of line or that
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: something went wrong with the genetic testing process. But as
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: far as being innocent, the more we learn, the more
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: I'm convinced that the police in Idaho got the right guy,
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: and that Brian Coberger is going to be found guilty
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: when all is said and done. All right, folks, that's
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: going to do it for this one. All of the
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: the description box.