Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Murder In Moscow: Murder In Moscow: The Experts Behind The case Against Bryan Kohberger (Part 4) (8/22/26)
Transcript
- 0:00Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
- 0:03Speaker 1: this episode, we're getting right back to the experts behind
- 0:06Speaker 1: the case against Brian Coberger. Amended supplemental Expert Disclosure Number
- 0:11Speaker 1: five Jade Miller. The State has previously disclosed that Jade
- 0:15Speaker 1: Miller Forensic Scientists three as an expert witness in the
- 0:19Speaker 1: field of forensic biology and DNA, which includes, but in
- 0:23Speaker 1: no way is limited to, DNA extraction, quantification, amplification analysis,
- 0:29Speaker 1: and interpretation analysis, including but not limited to STR data
- 0:33Speaker 1: an STR mixed probabilistic genotyping. The State hereby incorporates its
- 0:38Speaker 1: previous response and attachments fueled on December eighteenth, twenty twenty four,
- 0:43Speaker 1: and is hereby supplementing those responses. As follows, Miller will
- 0:48Speaker 1: provide an explanation of what DNA is. DNA is genetic
- 0:52Speaker 1: material contained in cells that may be utilized for human identification.
- 0:56Speaker 1: DNA may be present on an item in the form
- 0:59Speaker 1: of biological mis materials such as blood, semen, and saliva,
- 1:02Speaker 1: or may be left on an item when it's handled.
- 1:05Speaker 1: Biological evidence and possible potential DNA evidence is collected for
- 1:09Speaker 1: preservation and may be sent for further testing by qualified analysts.
- 1:14Speaker 1: DNA can be collected by swabbing an item or by
- 1:17Speaker 1: taking or cutting directly from an item. Reference DNA samples
- 1:21Speaker 1: can be collected directly from individuals. DNA can be used
- 1:25Speaker 1: to identify individuals, link individuals to crime scenes, link crime scenes,
- 1:30Speaker 1: as well as exclude individuals from DNA profiles. Miller will
- 1:34Speaker 1: explain the four steps of DNA analysis. One the extraction
- 1:38Speaker 1: of DNA from cells by adding chemicals to break open
- 1:41Speaker 1: all the cells to release DNA. Two the quantification of
- 1:45Speaker 1: DNA to determine how much DNA is present in a sample.
- 1:49Speaker 1: Three the amplification of DNA by generating copies of the DNA.
- 1:55Speaker 1: This requires copying the specific location of DNA using chain
- 2:00Speaker 1: reaction for the generation of DNA profile for comparison. This
- 2:05Speaker 1: includes visualizing the DNA profile, which looks like peaks onograph.
- 2:09Speaker 1: Once a DNA profile is created, the data can be
- 2:12Speaker 1: interpreted and comparisons can be made. Miller can be expected
- 2:16Speaker 1: to testify a length about her conclusions and interpretations made
- 2:20Speaker 1: in Report twenty six, which is that DNA profile obtained
- 2:25Speaker 1: from item one point one from Report four bates, pages
- 2:29Speaker 1: five point thirty four through five ninety four matches that
- 2:31Speaker 1: obtained from the known reference sample by Brian Colberger Item
- 2:36Speaker 1: one a weight. Miller's conclusion, as set fourth in Report
- 2:39Speaker 1: twenty six is that DNA profile is at least five
- 2:43Speaker 1: point three octillion times more likely to be seen if
- 2:46Speaker 1: Brian Colberger is the source than if an unrelated individual
- 2:50Speaker 1: randomly selected from the general population is the source. Miller
- 2:55Speaker 1: will also testify about CODIS. COTIS is a database managed
- 2:59Speaker 1: by the FBI that allows state and local crime laboratories
- 3:02Speaker 1: to upload and compare DNA profiles from crime scene evidence
- 3:07Speaker 1: and convicted offenders. Use of this database can help to
- 3:10Speaker 1: provide links between evidence and crimes and evidence and known offenders.
- 3:15Speaker 1: The coda's database requires that DNA profiles meet specific eligibility
- 3:19Speaker 1: requirements prior to being uploaded. These requirements include that a
- 3:24Speaker 1: crime must have been committed, the profile was developed from
- 3:28Speaker 1: an item related to the crime, and the profile must
- 3:31Speaker 1: be attributable to the perpetrator. DNA profiles from victims, nonprobative individuals,
- 3:37Speaker 1: and items that are not linked to the crime scene
- 3:39Speaker 1: are not allowed to enter The laboratory must justify entry
- 3:43Speaker 1: of every profile put into CODIS, and many factors can
- 3:46Speaker 1: influence eligibility. In regard to mel B, this profile was
- 3:51Speaker 1: not entered into CODIS based on the location of the
- 3:54Speaker 1: profile within the residence and proximity of the profile to
- 3:58Speaker 1: the victims. This was a large redad occupied by several
- 4:01Speaker 1: college students, as well as heavily trafficked by other students
- 4:04Speaker 1: who may not have lived there. This profile was located
- 4:08Speaker 1: on the underside of a hand rail within a stairwell,
- 4:11Speaker 1: which is frequently touched area that cannot be directly linked
- 4:14Speaker 1: to the crime. It would not be uncommon to find
- 4:17Speaker 1: unknown DNA on a hand rail within the residence that
- 4:20Speaker 1: got there in a manner that was not related to
- 4:22Speaker 1: the crime. Also, the proximity of this profile to the
- 4:25Speaker 1: victims makes it difficult to ensure it's attributable to the perpetrator.
- 4:30Speaker 1: Though probative value this profile mel B is not as
- 4:33Speaker 1: high as that of the unknown mal profile MALA obtained
- 4:37Speaker 1: from the knife sheath, as the victims were believed to
- 4:39Speaker 1: have been stabbed to death and the knife sheath was
- 4:41Speaker 1: located next to one of the victims. In regard to
- 4:45Speaker 1: mel D, this profile was developed from a gardening style
- 4:48Speaker 1: glove located outside the residence in a publicly accessible area.
- 4:52Speaker 1: No DNA from the victim was located on this item,
- 4:55Speaker 1: and a direct link to the crime could not be established.
- 4:59Speaker 1: HANA from one or more of the victims been located
- 5:02Speaker 1: on the item, it likely would have been CODIS eligible. Also,
- 5:06Speaker 1: perhaps if this DNA profile had matched mel B from
- 5:09Speaker 1: the handrail inside the residence, there's a possibility it could
- 5:12Speaker 1: have been uploaded because there would have been a link
- 5:15Speaker 1: to a profile found within the crime scene. At the
- 5:18Speaker 1: time CODIS eligibility was determined, mal DNA profiles A, B,
- 5:22Speaker 1: and D were unidentified and it was not possible for
- 5:25Speaker 1: lab staff to know who would ultimately be linked to
- 5:28Speaker 1: any one item. CODIS eligibility determination was strictly made based
- 5:33Speaker 1: on our evaluation of the probitive value of each item.
- 5:38Speaker 1: Exhibits six Amended Supplemental Expert Disclosure and NORD the state
- 5:43Speaker 1: is previously disclosed and NORD forensic scientist and laboratory manager
- 5:47Speaker 1: as an expert witness in the field of controlled substances
- 5:50Speaker 1: and toxicology. The State hereby incorporates its previous responses and
- 5:55Speaker 1: attachments filed on December eighteenth, twenty twenty four, and is
- 5:59Speaker 1: hereby subse lamenting those responses as follows. Nord may testify
- 6:03Speaker 1: to the laboratory process and procedure for receiving, storing, handling,
- 6:08Speaker 1: and returning evidence and what was done in this case
- 6:11Speaker 1: with regards to LAB item number seventy one. The analyst
- 6:15Speaker 1: may testify to the laboratory method for testing controlled substances,
- 6:19Speaker 1: which may include identification of drugs detected in the sample
- 6:23Speaker 1: and sample waging. The analyst may testify to the result
- 6:27Speaker 1: of testing in this case and the process for approving
- 6:31Speaker 1: and reporting results. Nord may testify regarding her involvement in
- 6:35Speaker 1: the case in which Nord tested LAB item seventy one
- 6:38Speaker 1: ziplockbag with trace of blue powder. Nord's conclusion was the
- 6:43Speaker 1: item was anphetamine. Nord will explain how she came to
- 6:46Speaker 1: the conclusion and what method she used to test item
- 6:49Speaker 1: seventy one. Nord tested Item seventy one using Idaho State
- 6:54Speaker 1: Police Controlled Substance Analytical Method Revision thirteen, specifically three and
- 7:01Speaker 1: AM six. A copy of that method is available online.
- 7:05Speaker 1: Item seventy one was analyzed by preparing two separate samples
- 7:09Speaker 1: by diluting the blue powder and methanol and running each
- 7:13Speaker 1: of those on a gas chrometograph mass spectrometer GCMs consists
- 7:20Speaker 1: of two analytical techniques run in tandem. The gas chromatograph
- 7:26Speaker 1: is used in separate compounds and provides selectively based on
- 7:29Speaker 1: physical and chemical characterizations. The mass spectrometer provides selectively based
- 7:34Speaker 1: on the compounds chemical structure. The results from those run
- 7:38Speaker 1: were compared to a non standard of amphetamine that was
- 7:42Speaker 1: run under the same conditions. Nord will testify that the
- 7:45Speaker 1: comparison of the extracts to the non standard. She concluded
- 7:49Speaker 1: that the sample contained amphetamine. Due to the limited sample amount,
- 7:54Speaker 1: more than half of the sample was consumed in analysis.
- 7:58Speaker 1: Due to this, the extras were packaged and returned in
- 8:02Speaker 1: the evidence envelope with the original item Exhibit seven amended
- 8:07Speaker 1: supplemental expert disclosure Rilean NOWLN. The state is previously disclosed
- 8:12Speaker 1: Idaho State Police Forensic Services Laboratory Manager Riylean NOWLN, as
- 8:16Speaker 1: an expert witness. The state hereby incorporates its previous responses
- 8:20Speaker 1: and attachments filed on December eighteenth, twenty twenty four and
- 8:24Speaker 1: February sixteenth, twenty twenty five, and is hereby supplementing those
- 8:28Speaker 1: responses as follows as previously disclosed. Now then will testify
- 8:33Speaker 1: about the day to day operation of the forensic lab
- 8:36Speaker 1: specifically one accreditation, two ensuring quality control, three evidence receipt
- 8:41Speaker 1: into the laboratory, and four evidence handling and storage at
- 8:45Speaker 1: the laboratory and adhering to appropriate standards in the field.
- 8:50Speaker 1: One Accreditation the process of creating compliant methods and a
- 8:56Speaker 1: quality system. Accreditations applicable and forensic science specifically ISO seventeen
- 9:04Speaker 1: twenty five and the Forensic Supplemental Document Are twenty two
- 9:08Speaker 1: one A two LA document and the FBI Quality Assurance
- 9:12Speaker 1: Standards for forensic casework Labs and Forensic database Lab accreditation assessments,
- 9:18Speaker 1: including frequency, the process of external assessors reviewing all documents
- 9:23Speaker 1: and observing casework being performed, as well as the process
- 9:27Speaker 1: and frequency of FBI Quality Assurance audits. Two Ensuring quality
- 9:32Speaker 1: control annual training, annual manual reviews, and quality control activities
- 9:38Speaker 1: including quality control tests and controls for reagents, instrumentation, and methods,
- 9:44Speaker 1: and required certification for all scientists in their specific discipline.
- 9:49Speaker 1: Three Evidence receipt into the laboratory. Pre log of evidence
- 9:52Speaker 1: by customers into the Idaho Laboratory Information Management System, evidence
- 9:57Speaker 1: review of information on the item compar to the pre
- 10:01Speaker 1: logged information, assignment of the case, an item number in
- 10:05Speaker 1: ILM S for a storage of evidence in the laboratory,
- 10:10Speaker 1: transfer of evidence in the laboratory, proper storage conditions of evidence,
- 10:14Speaker 1: and storage of evidence while at the laboratory. In addition,
- 10:17Speaker 1: now Lyn will testify regarding the general structure of the
- 10:20Speaker 1: Idaho State Police Forensic Services Laboratory. This includes three laboratories Meridian, Cordelaine,
- 10:28Speaker 1: and Pocatello within the system, with a fourth drome plan
- 10:33Speaker 1: for twenty twenty five. Now Lynn discusses the discipline offered
- 10:36Speaker 1: in each lab. Now Lynn will discuss the DNA casework,
- 10:39Speaker 1: analysis and DNA database exclusively performed at the laboratory in Meridian, Idaho,
- 10:45Speaker 1: and the types of evidence submitted for each discipline will
- 10:48Speaker 1: also be discussed. Now Lynn will also testify to touch
- 10:52Speaker 1: DNA and transfer of DNA Specifically, now Lynn will testify
- 10:56Speaker 1: to the characteristics and nature of touch DNA, including house
- 11:00Speaker 1: deposited and transferred to an item of evidence, and methods
- 11:03Speaker 1: used to collect and preserve touch DNA samples from items
- 11:07Speaker 1: of evidence, the procedures and protocols used by forensic scientists
- 11:12Speaker 1: to extract and analyze touch DNA, the manner in which
- 11:15Speaker 1: results from touch DNA samples are interpreted, and the reliability
- 11:19Speaker 1: of touch DNA analysis and its acceptability in the field
- 11:23Speaker 1: of forensic science. Now, then, will also testify to the
- 11:26Speaker 1: potential for DNA to transfer between an individual and an object,
- 11:31Speaker 1: including the distinction between primary and secondary transfer and the
- 11:35Speaker 1: factors influencing the likelihood of transfer. All right, folks, that's
- 11:40Speaker 1: going to do it for this one. In the next episode,
- 11:42Speaker 1: dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up with
- 11:44Speaker 1: our exceed All the information that goes with this episode
- 11:47Speaker 1: can be found in the description box.