August 27, 2025 • 42 mins
The recent release of police bodycam footage from Moscow, Idaho and the interview with Dylan Mortensen answers a lot of questions for those who have followed the case. Joseph Scott Morgan and Dave Mack discuss the latest information on the case including the FBI doing something they publicly said they would never do, and how Othram helped put the monster away for the rest of his life.
Transcribe Highlights
00:00.05 Introduction
01:12.31 Show recorded on August 22, 2025
02:05.82 Discussion about DNA
05:01.99 Kohberger drove around house multiple times
09:51.40 Relating to the families involved
15:06.47 Scream "someone" is in house, mistakes Xana for Kaylee
20:00.77 Sounds made on staircase
25:13.04 DNA Scientist
30:09.48 FBI inserts the agency into the case
35:28.67 Genetic Genealogy is a game changer
42:01.94 Conclusion
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Body Dogs with Joseph Scott More.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
They say that a man is only as good as
his word. I've heard other people say that, you know,
you come into this world with an untainted name, and
how you maintain it throughout life is how you will
be remembered. I don't like to tell untruth. I don't
(00:31):
like to prevaricate. I don't like to lie. So please,
I beg of you right now, give me grace. I
had every intention of never mentioning this person's name again,
because I gotta tell you I'm kind of over it.
(00:53):
But for this episode of Body Bags, I shall relent
and I shall utter the name Ryan Coburger. And this
is why there have been multiple developments over this past week.
As I'm talking to you right now, and I know
(01:15):
this breaks, this violates every rule taping of anything. You're
never supposed to date yourself, but I have to give
it to you. It's August twenty second, twenty twenty five
right now, is I'm stating this, And there's just been
a continuous stream of information coming out. But one thing
that people have kind of passed over that I'd like
(01:38):
to address, among other things in this discussion today. It
has to do with DNA, and it also has to
do with some folks that I hold near and dear
to my heart. And that's author em lapse. So let's
have a chat, shall we? Coming to you from the
(02:02):
beautiful campus of Jacksonville State University. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan
and this is Bodybacks, Dave. I know you heard me
say it said that I wasn't going to say the
name again. I'm going to try to retreat from it,
not mention the name as much as I you know,
(02:24):
there's something within you. You know, you have to reference something specifically,
you have to refer back. I'm just I'm sick to
my back teeth of hearing the name, of hearing about him,
and you know all the goings on and everything else
that we've talked about over this past week, you and
I both have because we've been on multiple platforms. You know,
(02:46):
people ask questions. I'm not going to turn them down
right if I have an opportunity to go on to
the media, But.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
In your defense, I can say something, what's that For
a lot of us, You're the only one that can
explain some of these things in a way that a
I can understand and be entertaining enough so that I
can actually enjoy learning, you know, the science. And that
is what I appreciate about what you do whenever you
(03:19):
are making appearances. Yes, this Coburger case, it just won't stop,
but mainly because when we first came to it, it
was evil that fell on college students and very successful
college students. That's something people have got to remember. In
particular with Maddie and Kaylee. You know, they were both
(03:39):
Kaylee was already gone from college. She'd already gotten her
you know, she already got all the credit she needed
for her degree. Mattie was on track graduating in four years.
Most people don't do it in five. Xana and Ethan
were both doing well, and here they are destroyed in
the middle of the night. In this case, they go
to college and die in the most violent, ambitious way.
(04:00):
And now we know who did it, and I don't
think we know the why, except that sometimes evil exists
in people, and that's it's not a cop out to
say that this is an evil man doing evil things.
And he wouldn't have stopped. I dare say. When we
saw the video Joe of the car the night when
(04:20):
he kept driving around to the block and we'd go
back down. He was building up his courage to go
and attank girls in their sleep.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
Brother, we are so on the same shoot of music
with that, because I felt like the same thing and
it wasn't because we both know that that's the only
explanation for because we both know he did a really
horrid job of surveillance. Because if he, if he had done,
(04:50):
if he had been a success at surveillance, he would
have had an awareness that there was more than one
or two people in the how right, So you know,
he failed miserably at that. But every time I saw
a I called it the other day, I think I
was on some platform or referred to it as a revolution.
(05:12):
You know, it's like a revolution around that spot. And
he kept passing in front of the camera, and I think,
I think you're right. You know, he is trying to
build up the courage in order to do this thing
that in my estimation, he was sitting sitting around you know,
his little hole in the wall apartment there in Pullman Uh,
(05:34):
fantasizing about you know, everything, everything that you know he
wanted he wanted to do, he wanted to accomplish, and
what a horrible marker for an individual to leave behind
that you know you're you're actually just think I twisted it.
Just for a second, just pause, put it on pause,
and just think how twisted this is that you would
(05:57):
sit around and just you know, kind of meditate on this.
And that's what it comes down to, you know, trying
to be focused on it and do all this thing.
And look, I mean a lot of us, you know,
we try to seek out I think, good things to
think about, many of us. I mean, it's a world
that's crammed with anxiety and fear and all those sort
(06:19):
of things. But in the moments that we have a free,
a free moment, you know, you sit there and you think, well,
I wouldn't have really be nice if I could be
with my grandkids right now, or if I could be
at the beach with the ones I love and just
hanging out and listening to seagulls, And you know, you
create this fantasy in your mind. The next thing you know,
your your wife is buying a thousand dollars worth of
airline tickets. But I'm just saying, I'm just saying that,
(06:43):
you know, those are those are the things that I think,
and I'll use the word normal, I don't give to
dand what you think that's what normal people think about,
you know, they think about doing something that's edifying. It
doesn't have to be going to the beach. It could
be improving yourself in some way. And it's parallel existence
that he kind of lived in this fantasy world with.
(07:05):
And I got to tell you, I think that it
was he was acting out of fantasy and it's a
gruesome fantasy and then trying to be this wellspring of
knowledge that he purported to be among all the other
you know, people that are you know, just kind of
you're beneath me kind of thing. And as it turned out, brother,
he he wasn't too damn smart, now, was he? What
(07:27):
an idiot?
Speaker 1 (07:27):
You know, Joe?
Speaker 3 (07:28):
When you and I have looked at this case deeper
than any other case I've done, and I had to
cover it more. And what we have found in there
in the last couple of weeks where Moscow ped is
releasing the information that we would have seen at trial,
they're not releasing things that would not have been in
the public eye. Everything we have on this would have
(07:49):
come out of trial. One of the things that that
actually has come to the forefront this week, of course,
is he's after his first night in jail. He was
complaining because, as we had been told, he was getting
terrorized twenty four to seven different inmates taking turns just
talking to him through the events and saying horrible things.
To believe me, this is a guy who is not
(08:11):
where he thought he was going to be, and you know,
he's been threatened with sexual assault. And I was just
reminded of Kayleganzova's mother passing along what her younger sister
had to say. I think her name's Audrey.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
She said, you know, you.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Might have gotten big AAA might have been you might
have gotten big A pluses in college, but now you're
going to get big d's in prison. And a lot
of us have enjoyed hearing that, you know, knowing what
this man did. There are certain aspects of this investigation, Joe,
because it's one thing to emotionally go through life. It's
another to get a conviction at trial. And when you
(08:46):
go to trial, it can't be well. This guy was
a goober that you know, said weird things to girls
in bars. This guy was just kind of creepy. He
thought he was better than everybody else. You know this guy.
It doesn't matter, It doesn't matter. All those things are
just emotional things or attitudes or opinions about the type
of person he was. When it comes right down to it,
you have to forensically put him in that room, in
(09:09):
that time period, and with the people who are dead,
and with the You've got to have the crime. I mean,
you've got to have the tool of the crime, in
this case, a knife. The only thing they had was
the knife sheath. Yeah, they didn't have the knife. We
still don't have the knife.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
No, we don't. And you know, still Kimming and I
were sitting around talking about over coffee the other day.
If you think you if you think I hate saying
his name, oh my lord, my wife, Oh my gosh.
You know, she's a mama. And you know, we've we've
got kids that we've got friends that have kids to sage.
We're right in that sweet spot where you know, all
(09:51):
of our all of our friends that we have, our
network of friends, the lawn share them. Their kids have
either just finished college or they're in the middle of college.
So you know, I cannot and I would not presume
to say that I would ever identify with these families
on any level. However, I can say that you kind
of understand, you know, the anger that rises up in
(10:14):
a generation of folks, you know, like me and my
wife and you you know, we're approximately the same age,
and you know, and you it's it's very real. It's
very real, you know, relative to that. And so we
were talking about it the other day and she, you know,
she had she had talked about I think, what if,
(10:36):
you know, there were these what if scenarios that that
you know, kind of are running, you know, through her mind,
and I've entertained them in the past. What if they
had just taken a turn in another direction from an
evidentiary standpoint, and the whole thing could be lost, you know,
you know, up up and smoke in a second, and
(10:58):
you and what if you know, somebody had mishandled that sheath.
What if they hadn't gone with the data that they
could recover off of that phone. What if some misstep
had happened, you know, if maybe the wrong people got
involved in the investigation along the way, which, by the way,
(11:21):
I'm still waiting on that internal investigation. I want to
know who released that information. And I will never stop
wanting to know about that bit, and they say that
it's it's ongoing, and I've heard that it is something
that's an active investigation, wanting to know who the leaker
was and the prosecutor. Now get this, the prosecutor and
(11:43):
the police are not involved in this, the people that
work the case because they don't know who did it.
So this is a separate investigation that's going on at
this time.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
Talk about it, but that's an actual investigation. We can trust,
I think.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Yeah, I think so, and we'll you know, we'll see,
because look, at the end of the day, there were
a lot of things about this case that you didn't
really I'm not going to say that you mistrusted, are distrusted.
I think that it's a fact that we got so
much information coming at us at one time from various sources.
(12:19):
I got to tell you, you reveal something to me today
that I didn't hear about prior to our conversation. You know,
that started about an hour ago we started chatting, and
that completely changes the complexion of this case. And it's
(12:40):
a prime example of some of the data that was
released at that particular time, or when I say released,
I think that it's data that was pushed out that's
not necessarily accurate, but yet it drove a narrative. It
drove a narrative that a lot of people believed for
(13:01):
a long time until you discover the proof that's truly
in the pudding. David, I don't. I don't ingest everything
(13:25):
that comes in across my desk in the media. You're
much better at it than I am, because it's it's
what you do. You've got so many hats that you
wear and you you literally folks, I don't know if
you know this, Dave. Dave gets granular, I mean incredibly
granular with details because he is tasked with so many things.
(13:47):
I'm the least of things. Just think about having to
do these things for the production of Nancy Show, and
Dave really does deep dives. Uh, And Dave, I had
I had yet to see the bodycam footage and until
just just a bit ago, and you kind of drop
(14:07):
drop some info on me with this, and I was,
I was amazed by it. Can you please expand expand
on the and give us an example of how one
misstep or one wrong word can completely influence.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
The weird part about the bodycam footage that we're talking
about that is now out. First of all, you have
a scene that makes no sense. Six people learn that
how in that home? Four or dead, two or alive?
Speaker 1 (14:43):
What we now know.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
Dylan Mortenson I knew a whole lot more about what
took place and told police on that On that day,
bodycam footag shows Dylan Mortenson talking about what was going
on in the home and she describes hearing She says
it was Kaylee.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
Dylan Mortensen tells the police that she heard Kaylee say
somebody's in the house, and that it wasn't just a silent,
it was a scream. Somebody's in the house, and she
ran up and down the stairs, and Dylan is saying, Kaylee,
and we know that it was just misspoken. It was
not intentional or wilful. It was emotional and you can
(15:26):
hear in her voice she mistaken Zanna or Kaylee. Kayleegan's
office and Madison Morgan were up on the third floor
in that bedroom by themselves. What Dylan heard was somebody
is here in the house, and it wasn't a happy
somebody's here. That was part one, Part two. She heard
(15:50):
Kaylee running up and down the stairs and it was
of course like I said, she says Kaylee crystal clear,
but she meant Xana. It was just a misspeak. But Joe,
the way she's telling the story now, and you know,
this is a eleven forty five, when it's about noon,
twelve thirty somewhere in the day this took place, the
(16:11):
attack took place eight hours before. She's talking to police.
Understand that she's describing something that happened at four fifteen
in the morning, Joe hearing a man is in our house,
hearing Kaylee run down the stairs, hearing her fall, and
(16:33):
then she describes the person that she sees, somebody she
doesn't know, wearing a mask over part of his head,
wearing black and leaves and doesn't call for help. That's
what we now know.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
We know that.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
Here's the other part. When the body cam footage picks up.
The other officers have been on scene. One has already
been in the house, and there are a number of
students at the facility. They're at the house, but they
have not really gone around in there. We know that
one of the young men who came over because the
(17:14):
original description was that a girl has passed out and
she's not waking up like you know, alcohol drunk kind
of thing, and Ethan was in the bed and they
didn't look at him. But when police come in there
a lot of the younger people that have been in
the house already, they don't know what's going on. They
(17:36):
don't know that anybody's dead. They know that something not
good is happening, possibly an overdose. You know, they're not
they don't. There's not blood all over the living room,
there's not blood splatter everywhere that they can see, and
so they're standing and when the police arrived, they actually
get them out of the building, get out out in
the parking lot, and when the officer goes through the house,
(17:58):
he thinks that it's just Xanna and Ethan. It was
only after a police officer went in and decided, well,
we got to clear the whole building. You know, that's
one of the things police do. You don't just take
for granted that you have a dead body here and
everything else is okay. You have to go through room
by room, door by door, closet by closet, everything has
to be opened and cleared.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
It was during that process that they find on the
third floor Kayley and Maddie, and that's when it really
becomes a tough time. And that's when they radio from
inside the house to outside, and the kids across that
are the college kids that are there. Hear them say
we have four dead bodies. Yeah, and then you immediately
(18:42):
hear weeping, the gnashing of teeth because they didn't know and.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
I had no idea, No they had yeah, And look,
I can't listen whatever. However Dylan happened to misspeak at
that point in Tom. I'm not going to cast aspersions,
no doing that, because I can't tell you how I
would react. I've seen how people react, you know, when
they're when when they have borne witness to traumatic events.
(19:11):
And I know that stories can change and they change because,
first off, in that kind of haze in the beginning,
when things are going on, you don't know what's real
and what's not real. I mean, it's it's a surreal.
It's truly a surreal environment to be in. And that's
what you know she's dealing with at that point in time.
(19:32):
And then and then you're having to talk to law
enforcement on top of it. So that's enough to put
anybody's nerves on edge most of the time. So you've
got this frenetic environment. You know, it's me. And then
you introduce more people into the environment and it's you
know you, like you said, weeping, a gnashing of teeth,
this sort of thing, and it kind of drives, drives
(19:53):
a narrative. And imagine this for a long time. Because
this information leaked out, and it was leaked out based
upon what she had said on that tape, we don't
really know what the original what the origin of that was,
or the source of it. But as it turns out,
(20:14):
it wasn't It wasn't Kaylee, it was Anna. And imagine this.
I want to transport everybody back into your mind just
for a second. Think about it. If you've ever lived
in a house with a staircase, Dave looking at you,
because you got kids, you can tell when people are
(20:34):
coming up and down staircases, yep. And I mean all
of us have a particular way of walking. But if
you're in a frantic moment and we've all heard people,
maybe many of us have running down a staircase, can
you imagine this hearing the thump thump thump, thump thump
like that, There's somebody in the house, you know, and
they're screaming this out. Well, you know, you and I
(20:56):
were chatting just just a few moments back, you know
about Yeah, I think Xenna met him on the staircase
and I bought that for a while. And he begins
attacking her, and he's probably attacking her before she ever
makes it back into the bedroom, and she's fighting like
a hellcat, you know. And this is after he's done
(21:17):
everything upstairs, and mind you, after he has forgotten the
sheath that's upstairs, that's laying on the bed adjacent to
the bodies. That bit right there is in my estimation,
I think, and I'll kind of explain this as we
(21:39):
go along, but in my estimation, I believe that if
it were not for that sheath and that bit of
DNA that was found on that snap, it pointed in
such a direction based upon the DNA technology that was
utilized that if that had not been treated with kid
(22:06):
gloves and it had not been examined in the appropriate way,
guess what all of the stuff relative to Celbright that
has come out with the phone, It never would come out.
It never would have come out. And here's what I'm thinking.
(22:27):
This is like a series of dominoes evidentiary dominoes, and
the first domino that had to fall was going to
be that bit of DNA that was recovered in that DNA.
Think about this, we're talking in molecular terms, something that
can't be seen, something you can't see with the unaided eye.
(22:54):
That bit of biological material that was deposited on that
sheath and on that snap was the key to everything
else that turned this case to the point where Coburger
was taken off the streets. I really want to give
(23:29):
credit where credit is due. And one thing that has,
you know, kind of caught my eye is Dave an
interview that jeff Ny the prosecutor, gave in regards to
his involvement with Coburger's case, and you know kind of
how this went down for him. And he had taken
(23:50):
the lead. He's part of the prosecutorial team, and he
had taken the lead really of from the perspective of
the DNA, how was it going to be?
Speaker 1 (24:02):
You know?
Speaker 2 (24:02):
And he I think that he understood that that was
going to be the lynch pin, and he lays it
out really well. And you know, they knew that they
had a sample of DNA, they knew that it was
existent upon upon that sheath they had recovered it from.
Speaker 1 (24:22):
Let me ask you a question about that, Joe.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
All Right, when I think of DNA, I think of
a liquid or some some substance that I can actually
see or you know, it can recognize. But when you're
talking about finding a knife sheath, Yeah, when you go
to search something like that for DNA, what's the process?
Because it's just a leather or plastic thing that has
(24:47):
something and now it's laying there, how do you go
about trying to determine if there's anything on this very carefully?
Speaker 2 (24:55):
Just you look like dusky for friends, smart alec. But yeah,
it's like no, no, not at all. They'll regionalize that
that the sheath itself. They'll literally break it down to
the segments. Okay, And so this is you know, one
of the matter of fact. Greg Hampekian, who I know
(25:19):
who is a DNA scientist at Boise State there in Idaho.
And I've worked with Greg before, actually years ago when
he was still in Georgia. Great, great guy in brilliant mind.
One of his problems with the Idaho case is that
(25:41):
it's the single source that was collected. And you've heard
about the Q tips with Q tip is actually used
to collect you know, to collect this and he's talking,
you know, one of his because DNA is so delicate,
he's he has opined that that bit could have been
(26:03):
picked up from another location. And there's no there's no
foolproof way of saying that you can. It's not like
drawing blood from somebody's arm. Okay, all right, you see
what I'm saying. You can. You can have it like
you sit here, fele the bottomus comes and draws a blood,
you know, from your arm, or you take a sample
blood from the finger or whatever it is that you do,
(26:23):
and you can validate that. But you've got an unknown
and you're introducing this Q tip into this space. Could
it have been drug across another surface where Coburger's DNA
may have been or something similarly, you know, something a
familial relationship in that environment, and it seems really far fetched,
but that's that's the scientific mind working, you know, How
(26:45):
how do you make this fool proof? And he suggests
that it is not a fool proof methodology. They did
a great job of recovering it. And I think that
that's one of the things that n I was looking at,
you know, with this case, could he sell it? And
here's the problem they had. Our friends at AUTHRAM and
you and I talk about them all the time. I'm
(27:07):
an AUTHORAM evangelist. I guess you'd say, because I believe
in what they do. I'll always say that, you know,
because there's nothing like getting the the unidentified identified. But Dave,
most of the cases that AUTHORAM is involved in are
(27:29):
cold cases. As matter of fact, I think the line's
share of them are. And they have helped solve homicides.
We've covered them on this show, have we or have
we have? And it's not just unidentified bodies. They've gotten
involved with old homicide cases that haven't been cleared and
they've found solutions. There's people that have gotten they've gotten
(27:51):
a conviction based upon this IgG the investigative genetic genealogy
process that they've developed. But here's the thing. Authors in
the middle of this thing, and this is kind of
behind the scenes. Look at this, authors in the middle
of doing their examination based upon those open source DNA
(28:16):
databases that we've heard a lot about that that authorm uses. Okay,
they're not going to go into a pay set. You know,
these closed these closed organizations, you know to get it.
And look, this is one of the big things that
people fear. I'll fear it. Man, all right, where if
you donature, are you submitted DNA sample? You know, and
(28:41):
it's a closed loop where nobody else can get access
to it. You know, you're worried that if this creeps out,
they're going to be able to find information about me.
And you'd made we had this conversation. I'd like you.
I take an issue with anybody that says that, you know,
if you have nothing to hide, if you have nothing
(29:02):
to hide, you shouldn't you know, Well, you can take
your logic and stuff it, because it's I don't believe
in that.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
There's always a marked Ferman in the hood.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
There's always a marked Furman behind it brush somewhere with
a bloody glove to drop on you.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Yeah, And so I look at it that way, and
I look at it from the perspective of it's not
just that bit of DNA knowledge that could, you know,
attach somebody to a crime. I'm thinking about all the
other things that it can be used for. Looking at you,
insurance companies. You know, if I have a predisposition to
some kind of genetic problem, you know, relative to a
(29:41):
particular type of cancer. You're going to deny any care.
You know, you get off into all this esterica. It's
not really esterica. I think this is legitimate. So the
author wasn't doing anything wrong. They're doing their same process. Well,
the FBI inserts himself into this, and even though it's
clearly stated in their handbook and in press releases that
(30:04):
they are not going to use non open source methods
of doing you know, investigative genetic genealogy, guess what they did.
They did in this case, and that was with Nie
the prosecutor. That was the big bugaboo for him that
he had to get this past the court and argue
(30:27):
this thing before the judge, because you know, he had
plainly stated that if Hipler the judge had shot this
bit of evidence down, then this was a house of
cards that would fall relative to this evidence. That this
evidence that they're trying to build out. That's the reason
(30:49):
I said the cellbright stuff, okay, because it's from that
one bit of DNA that you find on the button
snap that they may have suspected coburger, but it was
confirmatory to them. So once that's confirmed through, let's just
face it these astronomical numbers that you come back with
(31:10):
with a DNA fingerprint. It's from that point that they
begin going back and pulling cell logs, and they're tracking
this guy now and Celebright. Thing may have never happened.
It may have. I don't know. There's no way to
predict it, but you can see how it could fall.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
It could all circumstantial.
Speaker 3 (31:27):
I've always wondered about a circumstantial case, you know, because
you've got you mentioned Celbright. Let's just stay for the
sake of argument. If they don't have that DNA on
that on that knife sheath, then they don't get him.
Six weeks later at home, they don't get They don't
follow him and see that he's actually touching garbage with
(31:48):
gloves on and putting it in baggies and zipping it
and putting in other people's trash cans. They don't have
all of this behavior that is really suspect. They don't
have all of the things that they were able to
put together on this guy. Remember remember when his dad
flew to Idaho, drives it with him back from Idaho
to Pennsylvania. Olberger had already lost all of his funding.
(32:09):
He'd already had his PhD funding pull because of the
jerk that he was nothing to do with this case.
He wasn't publicly mentioned at that point. He lost that
on December nineteenth, had his funding pull. He was no
longer going to be a TA. He had lost his PA.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
He was done. He was actually going home for good.
He wasn't coming back.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
It wasn't no comeback, I don't think. I mean, maybe
he was going to come back and collect some of
his things, but you know, his academic life at that
point was dead. At in the state. They wouldn't touch
him with a vaccinated crowbar. No, I'm serious, No, I'm
just saying the staff there because this guy, this guy
(32:48):
is you talk about throwing a wrench into the system.
You know that that whole ecosystem of the PhD environment
can be thrown into total and complete chaos with somebody.
They're not going to take a chance on this guy
any longer.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
So what happens with this Joe.
Speaker 3 (33:03):
You got the DNA and you've got the proof on
the sheath. They had to pull in help from AUTHORAM
to do the genetic genealogy that you.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
Well, yeah, and initially they had them working on this. Okay,
just But then the FBI steps in and they are
using their wanting to use the non open source DNA,
and that's that's how you know it led to this apparently,
and or it's one of the elements that Jeff n
(33:33):
I was considering, you know, when he's he's making this
argument before Judge Heppler, because he knew that this thing
would implode. Perhaps if look, if he if the judge
says no, you can't do this, you can't do this,
everything else collapses around it. And that's isn't it amazing?
Speaker 1 (33:52):
How goodness?
Speaker 2 (33:55):
Maybe I'm being dramatic here, but this one bit of
molecular or material all right, that most people don't even
give a thought of a thought to, and it's hard,
it's even hard many times for me to understand. They
(34:16):
if it wasn't for that little bit, none of the
rest of it would happen in the sequence in which
it did happen. Maybe at some point in time they
would have caught him based upon other evidence it was developed,
or whatever the case might have been. But this little twist,
and we're kind of an interesting crossroads legally, Dave, you know,
(34:37):
moving forward, because the investigative genetic genealogy is game changer.
We know this, you know, just going back to you know,
to Golden State with the Golden State Killer. I mean,
we knew that that was a game changer, just simply
based on that, and how many of these other cases
now after, you know, And I remember several years ago
(35:03):
when I was at crime Con, I was actually on
a panel with four of the surviving members of Golden
State Killer and the daughter of the girl that was
spending the night away. I don't know if you remember
the story. She was spending the night away and both
her her mother and her mother's boyfriend were murdered that night.
(35:24):
I was on a panel with them, and I've got
this great photo of them that I took at crime Con,
and they've all got their backs to the camera and
they're all hanging a bird at the picture of of
they had an image hanging there. This is after they
had caught it an adjudicated thing, and all these victims,
victims are shooting a bird at the image of the
(35:46):
Golden State Killer. It's like this classic image that happened
to capture at that moment time. But going all the
way back to then, we knew that the playing field
had changed. But I tell you, with the the the
FBI kind of changing their rules midstream with this case,
(36:10):
and they really haven't talked about it a lot. They
really haven't at this point about what they did. We
know that there there are internal standards that they have
at the lab where you know, they say, we're not
going to do this, but yet here we are. You
know they did and co workers. Coburger is no longer
among us, you know, you know, he's out living out
his days out there, you know, waiting for whatever come.
Speaker 1 (36:36):
What may.
Speaker 2 (36:37):
You know, I'll put to you this way, I would
not want to be receiving. Uh. I think we were
on the air the other day with the warden guy,
that's the esteemed warden that that the penologist guy, the
PhD guy, forgive me, I can't remember his name, and
they were talking about the special meal that he might
get because prisoners are making the meals. And you know,
(37:00):
he's he's considered now snitch because he's ratting on everybody
that you know, he's complaining. You keep your mouth shut,
you keep a real low profile. And he's he's done
completely the opposite at this point in time, and he
finds himself in a very precarious position. But either way,
he's he's he's now there. And look, I think that,
(37:22):
you know, one of the one of the requirements for
this plea deal was that he can't appeal, you know,
and I know, you know what, I know that it's
it's coming. You know, that's something something will put up there.
My question is, I think one of my questions is
is the DNA going to enter into that that thought process,
(37:43):
you know, with whatever legal mind decides to take this on.
Because there are plenty of attorneys out there that see
this truly, they see this case as a challenge, an
intellectual challenge for them. It doesn't mean that they don't
have sympathy for the families and all that, but lawyers
are going to lawyer. Lawyers do what lawyers do, and
it'll be very interesting to follow this going forward. And
(38:06):
I don't know, I'm I'm I'm kind of interested, you know,
kind of watching, you know, kind of stepping back and
watching this thing developing the wake of the sentencing and everything,
and seeing how how many more data dumps are going
to come about, you know, what else is going to
be out there. I'm sure that this is kind of
a slow release. I was kind of and I'd love
to get your feelings about this. I was kind of
(38:28):
encouraged that they blocked any further images or they've got
to uh what do they call it. They've asked the
judge to put a hold on that for right now
where the police department could release any other images. And
I think it was actually Mattie's mom that was really
(38:48):
the tip of the spear with that. I don't I
don't know that it serves any purpose for for any
of us to see those images, any of us, you know,
I don't know, but I was I was really curious
about what you thought about that.
Speaker 3 (39:04):
You know, Joe, I'm with you that I don't want
to hear about this guy anymore. But I think this
show today is very important because the FBI did something
they've said along they wouldn't do, and they did it.
As for the pictures of the victims, I don't think
(39:25):
if they serve a purpose in helping to solve future crimes,
I would understand it. Other than that, I cannot see
other than preorian interest to see something. I mean, look, man,
there are plenty of images of people who have been
destroyed one way or another.
Speaker 1 (39:41):
I just don't think we need any more of them,
but I do. It's funny.
Speaker 3 (39:45):
I believe in a free society, and so I'm kind
of like, whatever, float your boat, man, if you want
to look at those pictures. It's just at a certain
point you have to have some kind of feeling for
the families. And I just thought of them having to
wake up and see more come on, I just hate
I hate it for them. And then you see something
that this come out.
Speaker 2 (40:06):
And yeah, and these these kids, uh, you know, they
they've had the spotlight thrown on their lives. They didn't
ask for it. I mean, they really didn't. It's it's
it's really a shame. I think back to Dale Earnhardt's
death and the efforts his his wife made down in
Florida because she was she was bounded, determined that none
(40:31):
of none of his autopsy photos were going to be released.
They didn't want dada to come out of that autopsy.
And I think that she wound up achieving the ability
to get or they I think that they actually did
create a law relative to that. And yeah, I mean
from an educational standpoint, you know, I teach at the university,
(40:51):
I teach death investigation, at the university, and I don't
need those images in order to further myself academically, you know,
I mean, I know what I've been told about them.
The case is adjudicated. Why why are they out there
(41:15):
and or why would you want to put them out
there too?
Speaker 3 (41:20):
What?
Speaker 2 (41:20):
What are you trying to satisfy by doing this? I
think it is the big thing. They just serve. They
serve no purpose. But there are a lot of ghastly
things out there that we'd rather not see, you know,
But they're out there, and that that's my and I
guess the cynic in me knows that that it'll it'll
(41:43):
come about. Uh, you know, years ago in my in
my practice in Atlanta, actually had a guide that was beheaded, uh,
fell off of a bridge overpass and being chased by
the police and was impaled on a post. And those
(42:04):
images came out and they weren't the images I took.
There were images from an Atlanta firefighter and they were
found on a German website. So it does happen. It
does happen. But with all of that said, hopefully we'll
be able to shut the door on this chapter and
put it to rest, because we now know that a
(42:25):
monster is no longer among us. He's secure, he's not
going to harm anybody any longer. We just hope that
the families can heal. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan and this
is Bodybags
Body Dogs with Joseph Scott More.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
They say that a man is only as good as
his word. I've heard other people say that, you know,
you come into this world with an untainted name, and
how you maintain it throughout life is how you will
be remembered. I don't like to tell untruth. I don't
(00:31):
like to prevaricate. I don't like to lie. So please,
I beg of you right now, give me grace. I
had every intention of never mentioning this person's name again,
because I gotta tell you I'm kind of over it.
(00:53):
But for this episode of Body Bags, I shall relent
and I shall utter the name Ryan Coburger. And this
is why there have been multiple developments over this past week.
As I'm talking to you right now, and I know
(01:15):
this breaks, this violates every rule taping of anything. You're
never supposed to date yourself, but I have to give
it to you. It's August twenty second, twenty twenty five
right now, is I'm stating this, And there's just been
a continuous stream of information coming out. But one thing
that people have kind of passed over that I'd like
(01:38):
to address, among other things in this discussion today. It
has to do with DNA, and it also has to
do with some folks that I hold near and dear
to my heart. And that's author em lapse. So let's
have a chat, shall we? Coming to you from the
(02:02):
beautiful campus of Jacksonville State University. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan
and this is Bodybacks, Dave. I know you heard me
say it said that I wasn't going to say the
name again. I'm going to try to retreat from it,
not mention the name as much as I you know,
(02:24):
there's something within you. You know, you have to reference something specifically,
you have to refer back. I'm just I'm sick to
my back teeth of hearing the name, of hearing about him,
and you know all the goings on and everything else
that we've talked about over this past week, you and
I both have because we've been on multiple platforms. You know,
(02:46):
people ask questions. I'm not going to turn them down
right if I have an opportunity to go on to
the media, But.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
In your defense, I can say something, what's that For
a lot of us, You're the only one that can
explain some of these things in a way that a
I can understand and be entertaining enough so that I
can actually enjoy learning, you know, the science. And that
is what I appreciate about what you do whenever you
(03:19):
are making appearances. Yes, this Coburger case, it just won't stop,
but mainly because when we first came to it, it
was evil that fell on college students and very successful
college students. That's something people have got to remember. In
particular with Maddie and Kaylee. You know, they were both
(03:39):
Kaylee was already gone from college. She'd already gotten her
you know, she already got all the credit she needed
for her degree. Mattie was on track graduating in four years.
Most people don't do it in five. Xana and Ethan
were both doing well, and here they are destroyed in
the middle of the night. In this case, they go
to college and die in the most violent, ambitious way.
(04:00):
And now we know who did it, and I don't
think we know the why, except that sometimes evil exists
in people, and that's it's not a cop out to
say that this is an evil man doing evil things.
And he wouldn't have stopped. I dare say. When we
saw the video Joe of the car the night when
(04:20):
he kept driving around to the block and we'd go
back down. He was building up his courage to go
and attank girls in their sleep.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
Brother, we are so on the same shoot of music
with that, because I felt like the same thing and
it wasn't because we both know that that's the only
explanation for because we both know he did a really
horrid job of surveillance. Because if he, if he had done,
(04:50):
if he had been a success at surveillance, he would
have had an awareness that there was more than one
or two people in the how right, So you know,
he failed miserably at that. But every time I saw
a I called it the other day, I think I
was on some platform or referred to it as a revolution.
(05:12):
You know, it's like a revolution around that spot. And
he kept passing in front of the camera, and I think,
I think you're right. You know, he is trying to
build up the courage in order to do this thing
that in my estimation, he was sitting sitting around you know,
his little hole in the wall apartment there in Pullman Uh,
(05:34):
fantasizing about you know, everything, everything that you know he
wanted he wanted to do, he wanted to accomplish, and
what a horrible marker for an individual to leave behind
that you know you're you're actually just think I twisted it.
Just for a second, just pause, put it on pause,
and just think how twisted this is that you would
(05:57):
sit around and just you know, kind of meditate on this.
And that's what it comes down to, you know, trying
to be focused on it and do all this thing.
And look, I mean a lot of us, you know,
we try to seek out I think, good things to
think about, many of us. I mean, it's a world
that's crammed with anxiety and fear and all those sort
(06:19):
of things. But in the moments that we have a free,
a free moment, you know, you sit there and you think, well,
I wouldn't have really be nice if I could be
with my grandkids right now, or if I could be
at the beach with the ones I love and just
hanging out and listening to seagulls, And you know, you
create this fantasy in your mind. The next thing you know,
your your wife is buying a thousand dollars worth of
airline tickets. But I'm just saying, I'm just saying that,
(06:43):
you know, those are those are the things that I think,
and I'll use the word normal, I don't give to
dand what you think that's what normal people think about,
you know, they think about doing something that's edifying. It
doesn't have to be going to the beach. It could
be improving yourself in some way. And it's parallel existence
that he kind of lived in this fantasy world with.
(07:05):
And I got to tell you, I think that it
was he was acting out of fantasy and it's a
gruesome fantasy and then trying to be this wellspring of
knowledge that he purported to be among all the other
you know, people that are you know, just kind of
you're beneath me kind of thing. And as it turned out, brother,
he he wasn't too damn smart, now, was he? What
(07:27):
an idiot?
Speaker 1 (07:27):
You know, Joe?
Speaker 3 (07:28):
When you and I have looked at this case deeper
than any other case I've done, and I had to
cover it more. And what we have found in there
in the last couple of weeks where Moscow ped is
releasing the information that we would have seen at trial,
they're not releasing things that would not have been in
the public eye. Everything we have on this would have
(07:49):
come out of trial. One of the things that that
actually has come to the forefront this week, of course,
is he's after his first night in jail. He was
complaining because, as we had been told, he was getting
terrorized twenty four to seven different inmates taking turns just
talking to him through the events and saying horrible things.
To believe me, this is a guy who is not
(08:11):
where he thought he was going to be, and you know,
he's been threatened with sexual assault. And I was just
reminded of Kayleganzova's mother passing along what her younger sister
had to say. I think her name's Audrey.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
She said, you know, you.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Might have gotten big AAA might have been you might
have gotten big A pluses in college, but now you're
going to get big d's in prison. And a lot
of us have enjoyed hearing that, you know, knowing what
this man did. There are certain aspects of this investigation, Joe,
because it's one thing to emotionally go through life. It's
another to get a conviction at trial. And when you
(08:46):
go to trial, it can't be well. This guy was
a goober that you know, said weird things to girls
in bars. This guy was just kind of creepy. He
thought he was better than everybody else. You know this guy.
It doesn't matter, It doesn't matter. All those things are
just emotional things or attitudes or opinions about the type
of person he was. When it comes right down to it,
you have to forensically put him in that room, in
(09:09):
that time period, and with the people who are dead,
and with the You've got to have the crime. I mean,
you've got to have the tool of the crime, in
this case, a knife. The only thing they had was
the knife sheath. Yeah, they didn't have the knife. We
still don't have the knife.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
No, we don't. And you know, still Kimming and I
were sitting around talking about over coffee the other day.
If you think you if you think I hate saying
his name, oh my lord, my wife, Oh my gosh.
You know, she's a mama. And you know, we've we've
got kids that we've got friends that have kids to sage.
We're right in that sweet spot where you know, all
(09:51):
of our all of our friends that we have, our
network of friends, the lawn share them. Their kids have
either just finished college or they're in the middle of college.
So you know, I cannot and I would not presume
to say that I would ever identify with these families
on any level. However, I can say that you kind
of understand, you know, the anger that rises up in
(10:14):
a generation of folks, you know, like me and my
wife and you you know, we're approximately the same age,
and you know, and you it's it's very real. It's
very real, you know, relative to that. And so we
were talking about it the other day and she, you know,
she had she had talked about I think, what if,
(10:36):
you know, there were these what if scenarios that that
you know, kind of are running, you know, through her mind,
and I've entertained them in the past. What if they
had just taken a turn in another direction from an
evidentiary standpoint, and the whole thing could be lost, you know,
you know, up up and smoke in a second, and
(10:58):
you and what if you know, somebody had mishandled that sheath.
What if they hadn't gone with the data that they
could recover off of that phone. What if some misstep
had happened, you know, if maybe the wrong people got
involved in the investigation along the way, which, by the way,
(11:21):
I'm still waiting on that internal investigation. I want to
know who released that information. And I will never stop
wanting to know about that bit, and they say that
it's it's ongoing, and I've heard that it is something
that's an active investigation, wanting to know who the leaker
was and the prosecutor. Now get this, the prosecutor and
(11:43):
the police are not involved in this, the people that
work the case because they don't know who did it.
So this is a separate investigation that's going on at
this time.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
Talk about it, but that's an actual investigation. We can trust,
I think.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Yeah, I think so, and we'll you know, we'll see,
because look, at the end of the day, there were
a lot of things about this case that you didn't
really I'm not going to say that you mistrusted, are distrusted.
I think that it's a fact that we got so
much information coming at us at one time from various sources.
(12:19):
I got to tell you, you reveal something to me today
that I didn't hear about prior to our conversation. You know,
that started about an hour ago we started chatting, and
that completely changes the complexion of this case. And it's
(12:40):
a prime example of some of the data that was
released at that particular time, or when I say released,
I think that it's data that was pushed out that's
not necessarily accurate, but yet it drove a narrative. It
drove a narrative that a lot of people believed for
(13:01):
a long time until you discover the proof that's truly
in the pudding. David, I don't. I don't ingest everything
(13:25):
that comes in across my desk in the media. You're
much better at it than I am, because it's it's
what you do. You've got so many hats that you
wear and you you literally folks, I don't know if
you know this, Dave. Dave gets granular, I mean incredibly
granular with details because he is tasked with so many things.
(13:47):
I'm the least of things. Just think about having to
do these things for the production of Nancy Show, and
Dave really does deep dives. Uh, And Dave, I had
I had yet to see the bodycam footage and until
just just a bit ago, and you kind of drop
(14:07):
drop some info on me with this, and I was,
I was amazed by it. Can you please expand expand
on the and give us an example of how one
misstep or one wrong word can completely influence.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
The weird part about the bodycam footage that we're talking
about that is now out. First of all, you have
a scene that makes no sense. Six people learn that
how in that home? Four or dead, two or alive?
Speaker 1 (14:43):
What we now know.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
Dylan Mortenson I knew a whole lot more about what
took place and told police on that On that day,
bodycam footag shows Dylan Mortenson talking about what was going
on in the home and she describes hearing She says
it was Kaylee.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
Dylan Mortensen tells the police that she heard Kaylee say
somebody's in the house, and that it wasn't just a silent,
it was a scream. Somebody's in the house, and she
ran up and down the stairs, and Dylan is saying, Kaylee,
and we know that it was just misspoken. It was
not intentional or wilful. It was emotional and you can
(15:26):
hear in her voice she mistaken Zanna or Kaylee. Kayleegan's
office and Madison Morgan were up on the third floor
in that bedroom by themselves. What Dylan heard was somebody
is here in the house, and it wasn't a happy
somebody's here. That was part one, Part two. She heard
(15:50):
Kaylee running up and down the stairs and it was
of course like I said, she says Kaylee crystal clear,
but she meant Xana. It was just a misspeak. But Joe,
the way she's telling the story now, and you know,
this is a eleven forty five, when it's about noon,
twelve thirty somewhere in the day this took place, the
(16:11):
attack took place eight hours before. She's talking to police.
Understand that she's describing something that happened at four fifteen
in the morning, Joe hearing a man is in our house,
hearing Kaylee run down the stairs, hearing her fall, and
(16:33):
then she describes the person that she sees, somebody she
doesn't know, wearing a mask over part of his head,
wearing black and leaves and doesn't call for help. That's
what we now know.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
We know that.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
Here's the other part. When the body cam footage picks up.
The other officers have been on scene. One has already
been in the house, and there are a number of
students at the facility. They're at the house, but they
have not really gone around in there. We know that
one of the young men who came over because the
(17:14):
original description was that a girl has passed out and
she's not waking up like you know, alcohol drunk kind
of thing, and Ethan was in the bed and they
didn't look at him. But when police come in there
a lot of the younger people that have been in
the house already, they don't know what's going on. They
(17:36):
don't know that anybody's dead. They know that something not
good is happening, possibly an overdose. You know, they're not
they don't. There's not blood all over the living room,
there's not blood splatter everywhere that they can see, and
so they're standing and when the police arrived, they actually
get them out of the building, get out out in
the parking lot, and when the officer goes through the house,
(17:58):
he thinks that it's just Xanna and Ethan. It was
only after a police officer went in and decided, well,
we got to clear the whole building. You know, that's
one of the things police do. You don't just take
for granted that you have a dead body here and
everything else is okay. You have to go through room
by room, door by door, closet by closet, everything has
to be opened and cleared.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
It was during that process that they find on the
third floor Kayley and Maddie, and that's when it really
becomes a tough time. And that's when they radio from
inside the house to outside, and the kids across that
are the college kids that are there. Hear them say
we have four dead bodies. Yeah, and then you immediately
(18:42):
hear weeping, the gnashing of teeth because they didn't know and.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
I had no idea, No they had yeah, And look,
I can't listen whatever. However Dylan happened to misspeak at
that point in Tom. I'm not going to cast aspersions,
no doing that, because I can't tell you how I
would react. I've seen how people react, you know, when
they're when when they have borne witness to traumatic events.
(19:11):
And I know that stories can change and they change because,
first off, in that kind of haze in the beginning,
when things are going on, you don't know what's real
and what's not real. I mean, it's it's a surreal.
It's truly a surreal environment to be in. And that's
what you know she's dealing with at that point in time.
(19:32):
And then and then you're having to talk to law
enforcement on top of it. So that's enough to put
anybody's nerves on edge most of the time. So you've
got this frenetic environment. You know, it's me. And then
you introduce more people into the environment and it's you
know you, like you said, weeping, a gnashing of teeth,
this sort of thing, and it kind of drives, drives
(19:53):
a narrative. And imagine this for a long time. Because
this information leaked out, and it was leaked out based
upon what she had said on that tape, we don't
really know what the original what the origin of that was,
or the source of it. But as it turns out,
(20:14):
it wasn't It wasn't Kaylee, it was Anna. And imagine this.
I want to transport everybody back into your mind just
for a second. Think about it. If you've ever lived
in a house with a staircase, Dave looking at you,
because you got kids, you can tell when people are
(20:34):
coming up and down staircases, yep. And I mean all
of us have a particular way of walking. But if
you're in a frantic moment and we've all heard people,
maybe many of us have running down a staircase, can
you imagine this hearing the thump thump thump, thump thump
like that, There's somebody in the house, you know, and
they're screaming this out. Well, you know, you and I
(20:56):
were chatting just just a few moments back, you know
about Yeah, I think Xenna met him on the staircase
and I bought that for a while. And he begins
attacking her, and he's probably attacking her before she ever
makes it back into the bedroom, and she's fighting like
a hellcat, you know. And this is after he's done
(21:17):
everything upstairs, and mind you, after he has forgotten the
sheath that's upstairs, that's laying on the bed adjacent to
the bodies. That bit right there is in my estimation,
I think, and I'll kind of explain this as we
(21:39):
go along, but in my estimation, I believe that if
it were not for that sheath and that bit of
DNA that was found on that snap, it pointed in
such a direction based upon the DNA technology that was
utilized that if that had not been treated with kid
(22:06):
gloves and it had not been examined in the appropriate way,
guess what all of the stuff relative to Celbright that
has come out with the phone, It never would come out.
It never would have come out. And here's what I'm thinking.
(22:27):
This is like a series of dominoes evidentiary dominoes, and
the first domino that had to fall was going to
be that bit of DNA that was recovered in that DNA.
Think about this, we're talking in molecular terms, something that
can't be seen, something you can't see with the unaided eye.
(22:54):
That bit of biological material that was deposited on that
sheath and on that snap was the key to everything
else that turned this case to the point where Coburger
was taken off the streets. I really want to give
(23:29):
credit where credit is due. And one thing that has,
you know, kind of caught my eye is Dave an
interview that jeff Ny the prosecutor, gave in regards to
his involvement with Coburger's case, and you know kind of
how this went down for him. And he had taken
(23:50):
the lead. He's part of the prosecutorial team, and he
had taken the lead really of from the perspective of
the DNA, how was it going to be?
Speaker 1 (24:02):
You know?
Speaker 2 (24:02):
And he I think that he understood that that was
going to be the lynch pin, and he lays it
out really well. And you know, they knew that they
had a sample of DNA, they knew that it was
existent upon upon that sheath they had recovered it from.
Speaker 1 (24:22):
Let me ask you a question about that, Joe.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
All Right, when I think of DNA, I think of
a liquid or some some substance that I can actually
see or you know, it can recognize. But when you're
talking about finding a knife sheath, Yeah, when you go
to search something like that for DNA, what's the process?
Because it's just a leather or plastic thing that has
(24:47):
something and now it's laying there, how do you go
about trying to determine if there's anything on this very carefully?
Speaker 2 (24:55):
Just you look like dusky for friends, smart alec. But yeah,
it's like no, no, not at all. They'll regionalize that
that the sheath itself. They'll literally break it down to
the segments. Okay, And so this is you know, one
of the matter of fact. Greg Hampekian, who I know
(25:19):
who is a DNA scientist at Boise State there in Idaho.
And I've worked with Greg before, actually years ago when
he was still in Georgia. Great, great guy in brilliant mind.
One of his problems with the Idaho case is that
(25:41):
it's the single source that was collected. And you've heard
about the Q tips with Q tip is actually used
to collect you know, to collect this and he's talking,
you know, one of his because DNA is so delicate,
he's he has opined that that bit could have been
(26:03):
picked up from another location. And there's no there's no
foolproof way of saying that you can. It's not like
drawing blood from somebody's arm. Okay, all right, you see
what I'm saying. You can. You can have it like
you sit here, fele the bottomus comes and draws a blood,
you know, from your arm, or you take a sample
blood from the finger or whatever it is that you do,
(26:23):
and you can validate that. But you've got an unknown
and you're introducing this Q tip into this space. Could
it have been drug across another surface where Coburger's DNA
may have been or something similarly, you know, something a
familial relationship in that environment, and it seems really far fetched,
but that's that's the scientific mind working, you know, How
(26:45):
how do you make this fool proof? And he suggests
that it is not a fool proof methodology. They did
a great job of recovering it. And I think that
that's one of the things that n I was looking at,
you know, with this case, could he sell it? And
here's the problem they had. Our friends at AUTHRAM and
you and I talk about them all the time. I'm
(27:07):
an AUTHORAM evangelist. I guess you'd say, because I believe
in what they do. I'll always say that, you know,
because there's nothing like getting the the unidentified identified. But Dave,
most of the cases that AUTHORAM is involved in are
(27:29):
cold cases. As matter of fact, I think the line's
share of them are. And they have helped solve homicides.
We've covered them on this show, have we or have
we have? And it's not just unidentified bodies. They've gotten
involved with old homicide cases that haven't been cleared and
they've found solutions. There's people that have gotten they've gotten
(27:51):
a conviction based upon this IgG the investigative genetic genealogy
process that they've developed. But here's the thing. Authors in
the middle of this thing, and this is kind of
behind the scenes. Look at this, authors in the middle
of doing their examination based upon those open source DNA
(28:16):
databases that we've heard a lot about that that authorm uses. Okay,
they're not going to go into a pay set. You know,
these closed these closed organizations, you know to get it.
And look, this is one of the big things that
people fear. I'll fear it. Man, all right, where if
you donature, are you submitted DNA sample? You know, and
(28:41):
it's a closed loop where nobody else can get access
to it. You know, you're worried that if this creeps out,
they're going to be able to find information about me.
And you'd made we had this conversation. I'd like you.
I take an issue with anybody that says that, you know,
if you have nothing to hide, if you have nothing
(29:02):
to hide, you shouldn't you know, Well, you can take
your logic and stuff it, because it's I don't believe
in that.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
There's always a marked Ferman in the hood.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
There's always a marked Furman behind it brush somewhere with
a bloody glove to drop on you.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Yeah, And so I look at it that way, and
I look at it from the perspective of it's not
just that bit of DNA knowledge that could, you know,
attach somebody to a crime. I'm thinking about all the
other things that it can be used for. Looking at you,
insurance companies. You know, if I have a predisposition to
some kind of genetic problem, you know, relative to a
(29:41):
particular type of cancer. You're going to deny any care.
You know, you get off into all this esterica. It's
not really esterica. I think this is legitimate. So the
author wasn't doing anything wrong. They're doing their same process. Well,
the FBI inserts himself into this, and even though it's
clearly stated in their handbook and in press releases that
(30:04):
they are not going to use non open source methods
of doing you know, investigative genetic genealogy, guess what they did.
They did in this case, and that was with Nie
the prosecutor. That was the big bugaboo for him that
he had to get this past the court and argue
(30:27):
this thing before the judge, because you know, he had
plainly stated that if Hipler the judge had shot this
bit of evidence down, then this was a house of
cards that would fall relative to this evidence. That this
evidence that they're trying to build out. That's the reason
(30:49):
I said the cellbright stuff, okay, because it's from that
one bit of DNA that you find on the button
snap that they may have suspected coburger, but it was
confirmatory to them. So once that's confirmed through, let's just
face it these astronomical numbers that you come back with
(31:10):
with a DNA fingerprint. It's from that point that they
begin going back and pulling cell logs, and they're tracking
this guy now and Celebright. Thing may have never happened.
It may have. I don't know. There's no way to
predict it, but you can see how it could fall.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
It could all circumstantial.
Speaker 3 (31:27):
I've always wondered about a circumstantial case, you know, because
you've got you mentioned Celbright. Let's just stay for the
sake of argument. If they don't have that DNA on
that on that knife sheath, then they don't get him.
Six weeks later at home, they don't get They don't
follow him and see that he's actually touching garbage with
(31:48):
gloves on and putting it in baggies and zipping it
and putting in other people's trash cans. They don't have
all of this behavior that is really suspect. They don't
have all of the things that they were able to
put together on this guy. Remember remember when his dad
flew to Idaho, drives it with him back from Idaho
to Pennsylvania. Olberger had already lost all of his funding.
(32:09):
He'd already had his PhD funding pull because of the
jerk that he was nothing to do with this case.
He wasn't publicly mentioned at that point. He lost that
on December nineteenth, had his funding pull. He was no
longer going to be a TA. He had lost his PA.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
He was done. He was actually going home for good.
He wasn't coming back.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
It wasn't no comeback, I don't think. I mean, maybe
he was going to come back and collect some of
his things, but you know, his academic life at that
point was dead. At in the state. They wouldn't touch
him with a vaccinated crowbar. No, I'm serious, No, I'm
just saying the staff there because this guy, this guy
(32:48):
is you talk about throwing a wrench into the system.
You know that that whole ecosystem of the PhD environment
can be thrown into total and complete chaos with somebody.
They're not going to take a chance on this guy
any longer.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
So what happens with this Joe.
Speaker 3 (33:03):
You got the DNA and you've got the proof on
the sheath. They had to pull in help from AUTHORAM
to do the genetic genealogy that you.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
Well, yeah, and initially they had them working on this. Okay,
just But then the FBI steps in and they are
using their wanting to use the non open source DNA,
and that's that's how you know it led to this apparently,
and or it's one of the elements that Jeff n
(33:33):
I was considering, you know, when he's he's making this
argument before Judge Heppler, because he knew that this thing
would implode. Perhaps if look, if he if the judge
says no, you can't do this, you can't do this,
everything else collapses around it. And that's isn't it amazing?
Speaker 1 (33:52):
How goodness?
Speaker 2 (33:55):
Maybe I'm being dramatic here, but this one bit of
molecular or material all right, that most people don't even
give a thought of a thought to, and it's hard,
it's even hard many times for me to understand. They
(34:16):
if it wasn't for that little bit, none of the
rest of it would happen in the sequence in which
it did happen. Maybe at some point in time they
would have caught him based upon other evidence it was developed,
or whatever the case might have been. But this little twist,
and we're kind of an interesting crossroads legally, Dave, you know,
(34:37):
moving forward, because the investigative genetic genealogy is game changer.
We know this, you know, just going back to you know,
to Golden State with the Golden State Killer. I mean,
we knew that that was a game changer, just simply
based on that, and how many of these other cases
now after, you know, And I remember several years ago
(35:03):
when I was at crime Con, I was actually on
a panel with four of the surviving members of Golden
State Killer and the daughter of the girl that was
spending the night away. I don't know if you remember
the story. She was spending the night away and both
her her mother and her mother's boyfriend were murdered that night.
(35:24):
I was on a panel with them, and I've got
this great photo of them that I took at crime Con,
and they've all got their backs to the camera and
they're all hanging a bird at the picture of of
they had an image hanging there. This is after they
had caught it an adjudicated thing, and all these victims,
victims are shooting a bird at the image of the
(35:46):
Golden State Killer. It's like this classic image that happened
to capture at that moment time. But going all the
way back to then, we knew that the playing field
had changed. But I tell you, with the the the
FBI kind of changing their rules midstream with this case,
(36:10):
and they really haven't talked about it a lot. They
really haven't at this point about what they did. We
know that there there are internal standards that they have
at the lab where you know, they say, we're not
going to do this, but yet here we are. You
know they did and co workers. Coburger is no longer
among us, you know, you know, he's out living out
his days out there, you know, waiting for whatever come.
Speaker 1 (36:36):
What may.
Speaker 2 (36:37):
You know, I'll put to you this way, I would
not want to be receiving. Uh. I think we were
on the air the other day with the warden guy,
that's the esteemed warden that that the penologist guy, the
PhD guy, forgive me, I can't remember his name, and
they were talking about the special meal that he might
get because prisoners are making the meals. And you know,
(37:00):
he's he's considered now snitch because he's ratting on everybody
that you know, he's complaining. You keep your mouth shut,
you keep a real low profile. And he's he's done
completely the opposite at this point in time, and he
finds himself in a very precarious position. But either way,
he's he's he's now there. And look, I think that,
(37:22):
you know, one of the one of the requirements for
this plea deal was that he can't appeal, you know,
and I know, you know what, I know that it's
it's coming. You know, that's something something will put up there.
My question is, I think one of my questions is
is the DNA going to enter into that that thought process,
(37:43):
you know, with whatever legal mind decides to take this on.
Because there are plenty of attorneys out there that see
this truly, they see this case as a challenge, an
intellectual challenge for them. It doesn't mean that they don't
have sympathy for the families and all that, but lawyers
are going to lawyer. Lawyers do what lawyers do, and
it'll be very interesting to follow this going forward. And
(38:06):
I don't know, I'm I'm I'm kind of interested, you know,
kind of watching, you know, kind of stepping back and
watching this thing developing the wake of the sentencing and everything,
and seeing how how many more data dumps are going
to come about, you know, what else is going to
be out there. I'm sure that this is kind of
a slow release. I was kind of and I'd love
to get your feelings about this. I was kind of
(38:28):
encouraged that they blocked any further images or they've got
to uh what do they call it. They've asked the
judge to put a hold on that for right now
where the police department could release any other images. And
I think it was actually Mattie's mom that was really
(38:48):
the tip of the spear with that. I don't I
don't know that it serves any purpose for for any
of us to see those images, any of us, you know,
I don't know, but I was I was really curious
about what you thought about that.
Speaker 3 (39:04):
You know, Joe, I'm with you that I don't want
to hear about this guy anymore. But I think this
show today is very important because the FBI did something
they've said along they wouldn't do, and they did it.
As for the pictures of the victims, I don't think
(39:25):
if they serve a purpose in helping to solve future crimes,
I would understand it. Other than that, I cannot see
other than preorian interest to see something. I mean, look, man,
there are plenty of images of people who have been
destroyed one way or another.
Speaker 1 (39:41):
I just don't think we need any more of them,
but I do. It's funny.
Speaker 3 (39:45):
I believe in a free society, and so I'm kind
of like, whatever, float your boat, man, if you want
to look at those pictures. It's just at a certain
point you have to have some kind of feeling for
the families. And I just thought of them having to
wake up and see more come on, I just hate
I hate it for them. And then you see something
that this come out.
Speaker 2 (40:06):
And yeah, and these these kids, uh, you know, they
they've had the spotlight thrown on their lives. They didn't
ask for it. I mean, they really didn't. It's it's
it's really a shame. I think back to Dale Earnhardt's
death and the efforts his his wife made down in
Florida because she was she was bounded, determined that none
(40:31):
of none of his autopsy photos were going to be released.
They didn't want dada to come out of that autopsy.
And I think that she wound up achieving the ability
to get or they I think that they actually did
create a law relative to that. And yeah, I mean
from an educational standpoint, you know, I teach at the university,
(40:51):
I teach death investigation, at the university, and I don't
need those images in order to further myself academically, you know,
I mean, I know what I've been told about them.
The case is adjudicated. Why why are they out there
(41:15):
and or why would you want to put them out
there too?
Speaker 3 (41:20):
What?
Speaker 2 (41:20):
What are you trying to satisfy by doing this? I
think it is the big thing. They just serve. They
serve no purpose. But there are a lot of ghastly
things out there that we'd rather not see, you know,
But they're out there, and that that's my and I
guess the cynic in me knows that that it'll it'll
(41:43):
come about. Uh, you know, years ago in my in
my practice in Atlanta, actually had a guide that was beheaded, uh,
fell off of a bridge overpass and being chased by
the police and was impaled on a post. And those
(42:04):
images came out and they weren't the images I took.
There were images from an Atlanta firefighter and they were
found on a German website. So it does happen. It
does happen. But with all of that said, hopefully we'll
be able to shut the door on this chapter and
put it to rest, because we now know that a
(42:25):
monster is no longer among us. He's secure, he's not
going to harm anybody any longer. We just hope that
the families can heal. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan and this
is Bodybags
Host
Joseph Scott Morgan
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.