February 13, 2025 • 41 mins
Bryan Kohberger’s attorneys say investigators found blood from an unknown man on a handrail in the victims' home and another person's DNA on a glove outside. Anne Taylor argues this could indicate Kohberger's lack of involvement in the crime. Although court filings acknowledged the unknown DNA samples last year, they did not disclose that at least two of the samples were from blood.
During Kohberger’s last hearing, Taylor accused authorities of withholding information, saying police did not disclose the unidentified blood when obtaining a search warrant for Kohberger's arrest. She argues this omission should invalidate some evidence collected during the search because it was not properly authorized.
Kohberger's attorneys also allege the FBI illegally obtained his DNA, violating the Fourth Amendment's protection against illegal searches and seizures. They argue that submitting Kohberger’s DNA to a public ancestry database was improper because law enforcement cannot legally use the site. The attorneys also claim that police did not submit two other blood samples from the scene to the FBI’s DNA database due to eligibility issues and failed to inform the magistrate judge about them. Taylor argues this omission should disqualify some of the evidence obtained
Joining Nancy Grace today:
- Philip Dubé - Court-Appointed Counsel, Los Angeles County Public Defenders: Criminal & Constitutional Law; Forensics & Mental Health Advocacy
- Dr. Shari Schwartz - Forensic Psychologist (specializing in Capital Mitigation and Victim Advocacy); X: https://twitter.com/TrialDoc; Author: "Criminal Behavior" and "Where Law and Psychology Intersect: Issues in Legal Psychology"
- Chris McDonough - Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective; Host of YouTube channel, "The Interview Room"
- Scott Eicher - A founding member of the FBI’s Cellular Analysis Survey Team (C.A.S.T),Currently with Precision Cellular Analysis handling Criminal, Defense and Civil Cases
- Dr. James Williams - Leading courtroom expert on firing squads; an Emergency Room Physician and a Bioidentical Hormone Therapy practitioner at Anahata Wellness Center; anahatahormones.com
- Dr. Thomas Coyne - Chief Medical Examiner, District 2 Medical Examiner's Office, State of Florida; Forensic Pathologist, Neuropathologist, Toxicologist; X: @DrTMCoyne
- Joseph Scott Morgan - Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University; Author, "Blood Beneath My Feet"; Host: "Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan"; X @JoScottForensic
- Howard Blum - Author: "When The Night Comes Falling, A Requiem for The Idaho Student Murders"; Website: Howardblum.com INSTA: howard_blum_author ; TW/X: howardblum
- Sydney Sumner - CrimeOnline Investigative Reporter
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 (00:00):
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Brian Coburger to get away with murder this after two
mystery men's blood DNA found at the murder scene. I mean'sye, Greece,
this is crime Stories. Thank you for being with us
at this hour. The defense attorney a fleet of lawyers
(00:28):
as a matter of fact, representing Brian Coberger, charged in
the quadruple slave of four Beautiful University Idaho students. The
defense team arguing two mystery men's DNA found at the scene,
and therefore they argue nothing at the scene incriminates their client,
(00:55):
Brian Coburger.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Whoa wait a minute, what about.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Coburger's DNA on the knife sheath the murder weapon, the
sheath of the murder weapon under one of the victim's
dead bodies.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Rut Row that said, listen to this.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Bryan Coberger's attorney say, blood from an unknown man was
found on a handrail in the victim's home and another's
DNA was found on a glove outside, and Taylor says
this can mean Coburger is not related to the crime
at all. In Coburger's last hearing, Taylor criticized authorities, saying
police did not disclose the unidentified blood when obtaining a
(01:38):
search warrant for Coburger's arrest. Taylor argues, this should disqualify
some evidence collected in that search, as it was not
properly authorized.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Okay, let's just kick it off. That's a lie number one.
That DNA was disclosed over a year ago and the
state's filings, and Taylor, all you have to do is
read the filings like we did. That's right, over a
(02:08):
year ago. The unknown DNA samples were disclosed. But still
Coburger's DNA is on the murder weapon sheath under a
dead body.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
I don't know how they're going to get away with that.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
You know what, maybe Ann Taylor got a minor degree
in magic so she can make the jury do this.
Look here not there? Isn't that right, Philip Dubay. Isn't
that what you do in court? You try to get
the jury to look somewhere else other than at the
damning DNA evidence on the sheath of the murder weapon
(02:45):
under the victim's dead body.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
False.
Speaker 5 (02:47):
I try to get the jury to look at evidence
of real guilt and not some spitball. If you will,
of guilt, you have proved that two other people's blood
was at the scene. Is a stark difference between blood
being present and mere presence, And all that sheath might
prove at most is that key or somebody in possession
(03:12):
of that sheath was there. It does not prove the
commission of a quadruple homicide.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
Joining me right now to help me come back, Philip
Dubay with The Truth investigative reporter Sydney Summer, Sidney explained
to me this one question. There's a lot of explaining
to do, but let's start with a very narrow question.
Where is the mystery DNA located at the crime saying,
(03:42):
for instance, was it under one of the victim's dead bodies?
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Sidney lutely not, Nancy.
Speaker 6 (03:48):
One DNA sample was taken from a handrail on the
stairs in the home, and another was found on a
random glove outside. Investigators already been sure the glove was
ever in the house, so or worn by someone who
was ever in the house.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Okay, hold on just a moment.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
We've seen the interiors of the home through windows. All
the crime scene photos have not been disseminated yet, but
we know the victims, the ones that were murdered. There
were two girls living downstairs that were untouched were up
(04:24):
the stairs.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Let's see a shot of the home. Please.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
There are multiple stories to the home, and when you
look at it from the backside you can see it
even better. There was a handrail going up the stairs.
There you go going up the stairs.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
Those are the top two floors.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Is another floor going up the stairs from the basement
or ground floor to the second story where you see
those sliding glass doors, to the third story where you
see the sliding glass doors with the balcony. The mystery
blood DNA on the handrail could, as far as I know,
been all the way down in the basement, nowhere near
(05:05):
the dead bodies of these four students murdered in their
beds now.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
Isn't it true?
Speaker 2 (05:13):
To Chris mcdonnet joining me, Founder director of the Cold
Case Foundation, former homicide detective with over three hundred homicide
investigations under his belt, star of the Interview Room on YouTube,
Chris mcdonnet, isn't it true that when we were out
(05:33):
at the scene, when you were there on your own,
you observed a glove lying out in the parking lot.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Isn't that true?
Speaker 4 (05:43):
It absolutely is.
Speaker 7 (05:45):
Nancy and I was standing on the street near the
trash cans out front, and I looked behind that trash can,
just behind the yellow barrier tape, and there it was
sitting right there in the know. And I talked to
my shelf, Wow, that's out of place. So I called
one of the officers over, and you know, I pointed
(06:08):
it out to them and they collected it.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
As a matter of fact, we're showing a photo of
that glove right now.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
Now.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
This was after the scene had been processed to some degree.
This is after a law enforcement had already come there,
and there was a glove out in the parking lot. Okay,
that's one glove. And when I went to the scene
as well, Guess what I was wearing. I believe we
(06:38):
have a photo h that. Guess what I dropped in
the parking lot that day? This I still have it.
So let's talk about DNA inside a completely unrelated glove
(07:00):
found out in the parking lot Sidney summer. Yes, No,
wasn't the glove found in the parking lot of the home.
Speaker 6 (07:06):
That's correct, Nancy, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Okay, let's go straight back to Chris McDonough. Chris McDonough,
could you explain to me any if any significance of
a random glove in the parking lot, What, if anything,
could that mean. I'm sure the defense is having a
field day with it, but realistically speaking, it wasn't on
(07:32):
the sheath of the murder weapon under the victim's body.
It's out in the parking lot. It could have been
yours or mind for Pete's sake.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
Absolutely.
Speaker 7 (07:40):
In fact, Nancy could have also belonged to one of
the investigators processing the scene. You know, they could have
accidentally dropped it and nobody saw it. Although you know,
the defense would probably argue, hey, it's in the direction
of where the car allegedly would have been parked according
to the police, that you know, or excuse me, the
(08:00):
prosecution is going to say, you know, this came from
the suspect. My question is is the blood on the
inside or the outside of the glove, because that could
be significant.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Really good point, guys. Another theory has emerged, now wait
for it.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Listen to this.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
When Ryan Coberger was arrested, his response to police, who
else did you arrest? There is much speculation over the comment,
especially now that his defense claims unidentified male blood was
found on a handrail at the King Road crime scene
and on a glove outside. They say this points to
potential other suspects or could be part of an elaborate
(08:40):
plant to stage the crime scene that.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
Are in criminal profilo.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
John Kelly tells news agencies that the remark could have
come from Coburger's expectation that other leads had been followed
by police.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Straight out to special guests joining us. And you know
him well. Howard Bloom is with us who has conducted extensive.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
Research and investigation over.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Months, culminating in his new book, When the Night Comes Falling,
a Requiem for the Idaho Student Murders. And you can
find him at his website Howard Bloom spelled b l
um dot com. Howard, you have recently written an article
in which you stay there are stunning courtroom revelations, and
(09:32):
you know I can't deny this, even though I don't
think the state has arrested the wrong person. Mystery DNA
from two other males at the same blood.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
DNA is going to be a hurdle for the state.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Now when it's explained slowly and carefully and calmly, I
think the jury will see through it.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
But it's a bobshell.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
What do you think about another other experts theory that
Coburger may have even staged it.
Speaker 8 (10:06):
Trials tell stories. I think that's what we have to remember.
The facts really don't matter that much. Here you have
the defense being able to ask the question, how did
that knife sheath get in that bedroom? Could someone have
planted it there other than Coburger? Because remember it's not
blood DNA from Coburger on the knife sheet, it's touched DNA.
(10:28):
They are going to argue that perhaps he touched the
knife sheath at some point and these other two unknown
males planted it there. They're going to try to convince
a jury of this.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Put him up.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Okay, well, I'm sorry, maybe my ife base not working
because I think what I just heard you say is
that someone got the knife sheath from Coburger after he
had touched it in the snap where you app to
take the knife out, got it from Coburger and planted
(11:04):
it under a dead body, and then conveniently left behind
their own blood DNA on the handrail and in a
random glove out in the parking lot.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Query were little green men from Mars?
Speaker 8 (11:20):
Part of this, you can you can say it's facetiously
like that, but the evidence against Coburger. Besides, the DNA
really doesn't stand up. Everything is very weak. We can
go through it again. You know, there's no motive, there's
no picture of them in the life car.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
Actually do let's go through it.
Speaker 4 (11:39):
Hold on.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
His phone pings at his apartment at two forty two
a m.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
The night of the murders. Five minutes later, his phone
is turned off.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Three twenty nine, a m of wh Alantra mass matching
his sedan, passes the murder scene three times, at three
point thirty in the morning. Four it comes back and
stops in front of the house for twenty It leaves,
flying down that crookedly little road leading up to the
(12:12):
murder scene. Then four forty eight it pings south of Moscow,
plowing down State Highway ninety five in the dark. Okay,
let's see to Sydney Sumner joining me Crime online dot
Com investigative reporter Sydney His cell phone pings alone are damning.
(12:39):
His Elantra is spotted there at the scene. We see
him destroying evidence, cleaning out his car meticulously.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Blood places him at the scene.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Excuse me, DNA places him at the scene, and so
much more. Sidney Sumner what evidence is the state using
against Brian Toberger.
Speaker 6 (13:10):
There is so much evidence that the state has to
use against Brian Coberger. A lot of this is circumstantial
at best, but that DNA evidence is absolutely damning. There's
just no explanation for why that knife sheep is in
that house if it isn't the murder weapon, and no
explanation for why coburger DNA would be on that knife
(13:34):
sheep if he was not the murderer.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace straight out to special guests,
joining US doctor Sherry Schwartz, forensic psychologists specializing in capital mitigation.
The idea that Bloom is advancing that somehow two other
(14:07):
males were part of a big murder scheme where not
only did they murder for innocent University Idaho students, but
it was all part of a plan to incriminate Brian
Coburger by somehow getting his DNA on the knife sheath
and planting it. I didn't even mention the searches, the
(14:31):
Amazon searches, which the defense is trying desperately to suppress
so the jury never hears about it. The Amazon searches
many many searches for the weapon, and he finally buys
the weapon with a sheath that exactly matches the one
found at the murder scene under a victim, but the
(14:54):
knife has gone missing, so he bought the knife on
Amazon like a big idiot. Now they're climbing Your Amazon
records are sacred and private and the state shouldn't be
able to access them. Really, But that said, what jury
(15:14):
would buy the argument that too unknown mystery man plan
this whole thing to frame Coburger.
Speaker 9 (15:24):
I think that's a tough sell because the reality is
the simplest explanation is usually the one that's most correct.
This was a college house where the kids had parties.
When I was in college, cleaning up after.
Speaker 10 (15:40):
A party wasn't one of my priorities, And so that blood.
Speaker 11 (15:44):
Could have come from two different meal people who were
in the house. Maybe they were at a party and
cut themselves. You know, who knows how long that it
was there. I think there's a number of explanations, but
that's a really complicated.
Speaker 10 (16:01):
Explanation to say that he was framed and that all
of these steps had to happen to do that.
Speaker 12 (16:08):
I don't like you he did a white collar crime.
Speaker 13 (16:11):
This isn't a white color crime.
Speaker 12 (16:13):
This is This is people you work your whole life
to get them to go to college and then they
get killed while they're sleep that night.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
When this guy like he just like.
Speaker 7 (16:25):
Traded insider trading with his own company stocks, it's not
white collar.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
With every twist and turn in this case, the victim's
family suffer more at this hour a bombshell the defense
claiming two mystery males DNA found at the murder, saying
or four Idaho University students slaughtered in their own beds.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
You were just saying. The parents of Kelly GUNSLV is
speaking out.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Take a listen to what we are learning about the
defense argument.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
Coburger's attorneys claimed d FBI illegally obtained Ryan Coberger's DNA,
breaking the Fourth Amendment on illegal search and seizure. They
say submitting Coburger's DNA to a public ancestry database was
out of bounds when law enforcement is not legally permitted
to use the site. The attorneys are also saying the
fact that police did not only not submit to other
(17:26):
blood samples from the scene to the FBI DNA database
due to not fitting eligibility requirements, agents did not tell
the magistrate judge about them. Taylor claims the omission should
disqualify some evidence obtained joining us.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
Doctor Thomas Coyne, Chief Medical Examiner, District Tie Medical Examiner's
Office in Florida, pathologist, neuropathologist, toxicologist.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
Doctor Coin, thank you for being with us.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Much is being made about the mystery men's to DNA,
two of them unidentified males.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
We understand they're.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Not the same two, they're not the same person. Donor
not just one mystery man, but two mystery men's blood
DNA found at the murder scene. One blood on a handrail.
I'm curious was it dried? Where in the home was it?
There are three stories. The other on a glove discarded
(18:29):
in the parking lot, Doctor Coin. There are many ways
to transfer blood, such as what well.
Speaker 14 (18:41):
I mean, first of all, we're making the assumption of
this is blood, and I don't think that it may
very well not be blood. And the reason being is
that DNA obtained from a nucleated blood cell or a
nucleated cell from your mouth or from anywhere in your
body is going to be the same. So the only
way that you're able to identify that this is blood
is either doing an mRNA profile, which they didn't do here,
(19:03):
or to apply another chemical reagent that will try to
identify this substance that's blood and that generally occurs by
reacting with iron that's president in the humid a little
bit of blood, and you make the assumption, yes, this
is blood, but iron is present in a lot of things. Copper,
iron are all transition medicals excuse me, chemicals that or
(19:24):
metals excuse me, that can make this reaction look positive.
So you're making the assumption that you're applying a reagent
to an area in the house, you're getting a positive hit,
you're swabbing it, you're getting a positive DNA hit, and
now you're saying, yes, this is blood DNA, but there's
DNA all over that house. We shed DNA everywhere constantly,
especially a home that you have tenants that are all
(19:46):
in college. I guarantee you there are multiple male and
females coming in and out of that house on a
regular basis, shedding their DNA everywhere.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
To Justine Scott Morgan, joining US Professor Forensics Say Jacksonville
State University, author of Blood My Feet on Amazon and
star of Body Bags, Joe Scott, you have investigated over
one thousand, one thousand death scenes. You have collected blooded scenes,
(20:17):
you have the observed transfer spatter, pulling droplets.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
You name it.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
You have found the tiniest, tiniest amount of DNA at
scenes and collected it.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
Now the defense is stating.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
That this is male DNA, at least one of them
being blood. I'm curious, Joe Scott Morgan, how is it
that they know it's male DNA.
Speaker 4 (20:47):
Well, it's because of the markers that are contained within
our DNA molecule, the differentiate between male and female. So
that's relatively easily narrowed down, and they still have it.
Is this something they can go back and do for
the test now?
Speaker 1 (21:10):
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
Mactor Howard Bloom joining us, author of When the Night
Comes Falling, a Requiem for the Idaho student murderers. You
stay in your recent article that you fear that Brian
Coberger has, let me quote, committed the nearly perfect crime.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
Why do you say that.
Speaker 8 (21:34):
Because the evidence against him is largely circumstantial except for
the DNA. The only really condemning evidence against him is
after he's arrested, they do a cheek swab the DNA
from that cheek swap matches, the DNA on the knife sheath,
(21:55):
that's it. Everything else the car they never have him
behind the wheel, they never get the life of the car.
The cell phone triangulation, well that's just ten miles the
eyewitness allegedly for Dylan Mortenson. That's been impugned. So on
and on and on, And if the defense can create
a story now with this new blood evidence in telling
(22:18):
another scenario, another possibility to the jury, it could be effective.
In fact, in court it was Judge Hippler himself who said,
after hearing the defense make the statement about the DNA,
are you saying that Coberger had people helping him, that
he had accomplices? He raised this issue and if he
is able to articulate it, it will I think land
(22:41):
very spare in the minds of the jurors.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
Boom, Wait a minute. He only said that, obviously because
and Taylor's argument isn't making any sense. She is saying,
I guess jumping on your train, that too unknown mystery
men either helped or framed Brian Coburger. He's saying it
(23:07):
just like I said. Is that what you're saying? Just
like when I said, what's next little green men from
Mars beamed down and helped out. He is trying to
get his mind around the defense claim. Are you saying
that two men helped Coburger, that this is a big
murder conspiracy, either helped him commit the murder or tried
(23:30):
to frame him. He's saying it just like I'm saying
it right now. Is that really what you're saying. I
don't read anything into that incredulity.
Speaker 8 (23:41):
Because he also raised the question of a Frank's hearing.
He did not rule it out. He had to give
it more thoughts. And I think I'm not saying it's
what happened. I'm saying this is an effective story, and
Taylor is a story held one story.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
You know what a Frank's hearing is, right? Do you
think Frank's hearing is.
Speaker 8 (24:01):
Is to impugne the evidence of the police gathered to
get a search warrant for a probable cause?
Speaker 1 (24:08):
Okay?
Speaker 2 (24:09):
And he responded with incredulity at that very claim that
the search warrant and the arrest warrant were not supported
by constitutional PC probable cause.
Speaker 3 (24:23):
Listen to what Hipler says. Judge Steve Hippler and a
Coborger's league. Defense attorney An Taylor seemed to be at
odds over DNA found at the crime scene. The defense
wants investigative genetic genealogy evidence used to identify her client suppressed,
the question being is there an expectation of privacy for
DNA left at a crime scene? Judge Stephen Hipler says
(24:46):
he struggles with the idea that there's any expectation of privacy.
Hipler added that the DNA found on the knife sheath,
there's probable calls every day and twice on Sunday, and
Taylor disagreed.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
There you have it.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
I mean, bloom, you can sit back and your easy
chair and write books and articles as interesting and as
informative as they are, and try to interpret what the
judge is saying.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
But his words are, DNA.
Speaker 2 (25:16):
On that knife sheath is probable cause every day and
twice on Sunday, babe.
Speaker 4 (25:24):
And what did he say after that?
Speaker 8 (25:26):
He said, hold, your calendar is free because we might
want to have a Frank's hearing. So he hadn't resolved
it as clearly as he would.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
Oh wait a minute, hold on, Philip Doby, can you
just debate? Can you just take off your defense hat
really quickly, okay, and just tell me the truth if this.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
If the defense wants.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
A Frank's hearing before the judge, they're gonna get a
Frank's hearing. Why this is a death penalty case, and
if they want the judge to hear the argument and
then rule of course, hipler's going to do it.
Speaker 1 (26:04):
A judge, especially in a.
Speaker 2 (26:05):
Death penalty case, is not going to say I don't
even want to hear what you've got to say a jailer,
Uh huh, that right, there could be reversible error, So
of course he's going to have a Frank's hearing. A
Frank's hearing is when the judge looks at the probable
cause that supported a search or an arrest warrant and
(26:26):
determines really was there enough PC. PC can be based
on hearsay, it can be based on third party information,
but it has to be enough to support.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
A search or an arrest.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
Do you really think, in any way in any world debate,
that Hippler is not going to allow a Frank's hearing.
For him to say, yes, you can have a Frank's hearing,
that means nothing.
Speaker 5 (26:53):
Of course he's going to allow it, and you should,
because remember, the test is whether or not the affidem
it or probable cause is supported by truthful, accurate facts
that were relayed in the affidavit or probable cause under oath.
If for whatever reason there were factual omissions, misstatements, and
frankly lies, that is grounds to traverse the warrant and
(27:17):
suppress everything recovered as a result of it. Or alternatively,
the court confined that despite the inaccuracies and the omissions,
even if you sever that, there's still ample probable cause
to allow warrant to survive.
Speaker 13 (27:32):
Yeah, I understand your position, which frankly is not well
supported in the law.
Speaker 11 (27:37):
That.
Speaker 13 (27:38):
If hypothetically, here he went to this crime scene, committed
these murders, and left DNA on a piece of evidence
that he now has the ability to object to that
evidence being searched for identification purposes. There's no case that
suggests that that concludes that, and it seems to me
(28:01):
to be an extreme position to.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
Take in light of the case.
Speaker 13 (28:03):
Lawn, I'm trying to understand how you get.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
There, Okate, my notes when the judge was saying that,
when Hippler was saying that is Hippler knows defendant's attorney
is crazy.
Speaker 1 (28:15):
Okay, now what does that mean?
Speaker 2 (28:17):
The defense in this case is arguing that once the
DNA was found on the knife sheath, that the state
illegally had.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
It tested at the crime lab.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
Okay, that's like you find a bullet at the scene
and you send it to the crime lab for ballistics tests.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
That's the equivalent.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
They're actually claiming that that was unconstitutional. And the judge
is saying, like, let me understand again what you're saying here,
and he comes out and says, there's no case to
suggest or support what you're saying.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
You understand that right.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
Anyway, There is another issue sell phone data listen.
Speaker 15 (28:59):
Gooberg defense team has hired cell phone expert Sire to
testify and support of Coberger's alibi. The former police officer
and founder of z X bases his analysis on the
pings that a cell phone sends to a nearby tower
using the software tracks, but many have questioned the reliability
of raised data. Many other experts say Trax's methodology is
not based in science, and a Colorado judge has even
(29:22):
banned prosecutors from using the software in their cases.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
What cell phone data number one? We know where his
phone ping. Let's see that graphic one more time, and
we know that at the time of the murders, he
conveniently turned his cell phone off and then.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Turn it on again when he was fleeing the scene.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
According to the State, Scott Eiker is joining a founding
member of the FBI Cellular Analysis Survey Team.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
Let that just sink in.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
Founding member of the FBI sell Analysis Team.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
That says it all.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
You can find him now at PCAs Experts dot com
Precision Cellular Analysis.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
This is what he does all day, every day.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
And as Hipler said twice on Sundays, Scott Iiker, thank
you for being with us. What are they talking about?
They have a cell phone expert that's gonna say.
Speaker 4 (30:17):
What I can tell you, Nancy.
Speaker 12 (30:18):
I've dealt with this cell phone expert, mister siree, and
we have for years and years dealt with him and
how he brings stuff into court. The best way to
exam explain it is that judge in Colorado who basically
said that his software is based on a sea of unreliability.
(30:41):
He found that mister Ray was not credible, claiming that
he was boasting his credentials. Actor claiming he was an engineer,
and they basically said you can't use his stuff or
use him as an expert in Colorado here because it's
baseless and the reason they're doing that, And you know,
(31:03):
I don't know mister Ray personally, but you know we've
dealt with his estimates and misleading information in what he
says about self on stuff numerous times, and it's very
important to make sure you're accurate because it can be
very problematic and misleading. If you don't just state the facts,
(31:25):
you can't expound on those.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
And Guests, Scott Iiker, I want to tell you a
very quick story. I had a medical examiner, and no
offense to you, doctor Coin or to you Joe Scott Morgan,
but this medical examiner I had seen transcripts or he
was totally discredited under oath, and I waited for him
to take the stand for the defense, and then I
(31:49):
remember the look on his face when I started pulling
out all those depositions. At least here the defense is
getting an idea ahead of time that their expert.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
May have a credibility problem.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
Are you are you telling me he claiming to be
an engineer and he's not an engineer that is correct.
Speaker 12 (32:03):
He is not an engineer. He was actually a police
officer or sheriff in I think it was in Texas
or Arizona, and he started working cases around cell phone stuff.
And he has basic knowledge. He's never had any training
from engineers like I have what we did in the FBI.
So he doesn't have the knowledge or the expertise. And
(32:26):
then he's taking the leaps where there's really no facts
to support what he's saying.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
Sometimes, Philip du Bay, that is a major misstep to
put up an expert that's going to be destroyed on
cross examination on credibility alone if that happens in this case.
Speaker 5 (32:46):
Yes, of course, But remember he's putting on an alibi defense.
He is saying that he was stargazing and chanting at Ashram,
sitting in a lotus position with the phone off, and
if he's at one with.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
The universe, praying and saying Noma.
Speaker 5 (32:59):
State, that's defense. Now, will it fly remains to be seen.
Speaker 16 (33:03):
Finally, there was a trash pool in Pennsylvania, and there
was no warrant for that trash pool either your honor.
For the purposes of the Fourth Amendment protections and Article
one Section seventeen of the Idaho Constitution. We are looking
to see if somebody has a privacy interest that society
(33:23):
is ready to support. In this case, if society is
not ready to support suppression of every bit of our
DNA when the government does not have a warrant and
searches it, there is no privacy right left.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Okay, to really focus on what Anne Taylor is saying
to Defense arning Field de Bay.
Speaker 1 (33:48):
She is arguing that when the.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
Trash was taken from Coburger's parents' home in the Poconos
and they got the dad's DNA matched it back to
the knife sheep trash was taken, that was illegal. I
guess she never heard about the abandonment theory. If I
throw out the trash or I throw out gum on
the street, which I would never do, and the cop
comes along gets my DNA off of it, that's abandonment.
(34:13):
Anybody can have it because I threw it away, I
don't need a warrant. She's claiming that the trash pool
was wrong, and she's arguing that Coburger's great great great
grandma has a privacy interest. When they put Coburger's DNA
from the knife sheath into the genetic genealogy. Whose rights
are they violating? Great great granny What.
Speaker 1 (34:35):
That's what she's arguing. You know, that's BS disagree.
Speaker 5 (34:39):
Come on, listen. They just took the DNA profile his
genetic components, put it into a database where they had
no actual or apparent consent to look at it. And
the real test is does he have a subjective and
objective expectation of privacy in his own genetic material as
(34:59):
a opposed to just taking the genetic material of material
and putting it in a government database where you have
a bunch of arrestees and suspects already on file without
actual or apparent consent. It violates sup Forth Amendment and
the remedies you throw out.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
Evidence consent from who.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
None of those people have standing to complain to argue
in court. This is about the defendant's right to privacy
and taking the DNA off that knife sheath and putting
it into genetic genealogy does not violate his rights.
Speaker 1 (35:36):
And as far as the trash pull, the father Coburger's father.
Speaker 2 (35:41):
Throughout trash, it was abandoned under the law according to
the US Supreme Court. Unless you're climbing, they're wrong that
property was abandoned and the police have full access to that.
But hold on, I'm just being joined by a very
special guest joining us regarding the Idaho death penalty and
(36:03):
execution methods, doctor James Williams, leading courtroom expert on firing squads.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
Doctor Williams, thank you for being with us.
Speaker 4 (36:13):
The happy to be here.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
The Idaho Assembly has now determined that the firing squad, again,
of course this has already occurred in Idaho, will be
allowed as the number one choice for execution. How is
that affected? Many people wonder is it automated or are
(36:36):
there actual people firing the gun? How does the firing
squad work in Idaho.
Speaker 4 (36:45):
Well, that's a good question, Nancy. Nobody really knows at
this point. The state has stated that they're still working
on their procedures and protocols, but we do know from
background information that they have drawn heavily on the experience
of the state of Utah, which of course have been
using firing squad as a method of execution since the
middle of the nineteenth century. But there has been speculations
(37:06):
they may use some form of automated system. Automated would
be I think stretching it, but having rifles mounted in
fixtures that would be aimed presumably by human beings prior
to the actual execution, and then they would be fired
by some remote mechanism electronically, well, not really a robot.
(37:31):
It would really it would actually be as I understand, well,
it could be actually just back off on that. Sure,
if they've got a robot that's sophisticated, they may well
use it. But I don't know of anything like that
in existence technologically.
Speaker 2 (37:43):
Okay, let me just try to drink and ingest what
you just said.
Speaker 1 (37:50):
Guys.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
Doctor James Williams is a leading expert on the firing squad.
So you're saying that it's actually being advocated that a
robotic system or digital system be set up to take
perfect aim at Coburger and shoot him dead, as opposed
(38:15):
to five people standing there, one of them has a
blank and they all fire and they can all go
home thinking, oh, I was the one with the blank.
Speaker 1 (38:24):
Why.
Speaker 4 (38:25):
I'm not sure what the reason behind it is. I
think there's a lot of arguments and at this point
really a false speculation. We know that they have been
discussing this in numbers of jurisdictions and Idaho is one
of them. But the actual motives behind doing it that
way are unclear to me.
Speaker 2 (38:43):
Joining me again, Star Body Bags A Joe Scott Morgan,
Joe Scott Have we all lost our minds? An automated
or digital system? So no human actually has to pull
the trigger, because I've got a pretty good idea of
somebody would like to pull the trigger, and that would
be Kelly Gonsolvis, his mom and dad.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
I bet people are lined up to pull Yeah, there
would be.
Speaker 4 (39:08):
There's any number. And how many times have I heard
people say that since since this butchery went down, you know,
just give me an opportunity to do it. But it's
one thing to say that, it's another thing to step
in and facilitate this. But we have to keep in mind,
even with the capital punishment that they decide upon, it's
(39:31):
just like anything else. If you're talking about lethal injection
or as we we've recently used here in Alabama, this
exposure to gas, you know, and we're talking about nitrogen
gas that they're now using, there is a human element.
Somebody has to press something, somebody has to flip something,
somebody has to initiate the sequence, and you know, the
(39:55):
military has had firing systems for years and years where
they can target a weapon at a specific point. Now,
I think the curious question here is are we talking
about multiple multiple weapons that are being used in a
traditional sense, or are we talking about a single weapon
(40:16):
that is targeted, say, for instance, center mass over the
individual to be executed over their hearts. That's quite quite
something when you begin to think about it.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
You know what, Joe Scott, I love it when you
start talking this way.
Speaker 1 (40:33):
But are you just to put it in a shell.
Speaker 2 (40:38):
They're considering an automated system where quote nobody has to
pull the trigger. Okay, can we just see a shot
of these victims, these four victims with their lives in
front of them, falling to sleep in their own beds.
They were slaughtered like animals getting rendered in at your shop.
(41:03):
If evidence supports Coburger is guilty of these murders in
some bizarre experiment to see what it felt like to
kill people, he may very well be subjected to the
Idaho death penalty if convicted. I guarantee you there would
be a line wrapped around the building to pull the
(41:28):
trigger at this juncture.
Speaker 1 (41:31):
He is innocent until proven guilty. In a court of law.
Nancy Gray signing off goodbye friend,
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Brian Coburger to get away with murder this after two
mystery men's blood DNA found at the murder scene. I mean'sye, Greece,
this is crime Stories. Thank you for being with us
at this hour. The defense attorney a fleet of lawyers
(00:28):
as a matter of fact, representing Brian Coberger, charged in
the quadruple slave of four Beautiful University Idaho students. The
defense team arguing two mystery men's DNA found at the scene,
and therefore they argue nothing at the scene incriminates their client,
(00:55):
Brian Coburger.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Whoa wait a minute, what about.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Coburger's DNA on the knife sheath the murder weapon, the
sheath of the murder weapon under one of the victim's
dead bodies.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Rut Row that said, listen to this.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Bryan Coberger's attorney say, blood from an unknown man was
found on a handrail in the victim's home and another's
DNA was found on a glove outside, and Taylor says
this can mean Coburger is not related to the crime
at all. In Coburger's last hearing, Taylor criticized authorities, saying
police did not disclose the unidentified blood when obtaining a
(01:38):
search warrant for Coburger's arrest. Taylor argues, this should disqualify
some evidence collected in that search, as it was not
properly authorized.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Okay, let's just kick it off. That's a lie number one.
That DNA was disclosed over a year ago and the
state's filings, and Taylor, all you have to do is
read the filings like we did. That's right, over a
(02:08):
year ago. The unknown DNA samples were disclosed. But still
Coburger's DNA is on the murder weapon sheath under a
dead body.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
I don't know how they're going to get away with that.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
You know what, maybe Ann Taylor got a minor degree
in magic so she can make the jury do this.
Look here not there? Isn't that right, Philip Dubay. Isn't
that what you do in court? You try to get
the jury to look somewhere else other than at the
damning DNA evidence on the sheath of the murder weapon
(02:45):
under the victim's dead body.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
False.
Speaker 5 (02:47):
I try to get the jury to look at evidence
of real guilt and not some spitball. If you will,
of guilt, you have proved that two other people's blood
was at the scene. Is a stark difference between blood
being present and mere presence, And all that sheath might
prove at most is that key or somebody in possession
(03:12):
of that sheath was there. It does not prove the
commission of a quadruple homicide.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
Joining me right now to help me come back, Philip
Dubay with The Truth investigative reporter Sydney Summer, Sidney explained
to me this one question. There's a lot of explaining
to do, but let's start with a very narrow question.
Where is the mystery DNA located at the crime saying,
(03:42):
for instance, was it under one of the victim's dead bodies?
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Sidney lutely not, Nancy.
Speaker 6 (03:48):
One DNA sample was taken from a handrail on the
stairs in the home, and another was found on a
random glove outside. Investigators already been sure the glove was
ever in the house, so or worn by someone who
was ever in the house.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Okay, hold on just a moment.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
We've seen the interiors of the home through windows. All
the crime scene photos have not been disseminated yet, but
we know the victims, the ones that were murdered. There
were two girls living downstairs that were untouched were up
(04:24):
the stairs.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Let's see a shot of the home. Please.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
There are multiple stories to the home, and when you
look at it from the backside you can see it
even better. There was a handrail going up the stairs.
There you go going up the stairs.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
Those are the top two floors.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Is another floor going up the stairs from the basement
or ground floor to the second story where you see
those sliding glass doors, to the third story where you
see the sliding glass doors with the balcony. The mystery
blood DNA on the handrail could, as far as I know,
been all the way down in the basement, nowhere near
(05:05):
the dead bodies of these four students murdered in their
beds now.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
Isn't it true?
Speaker 2 (05:13):
To Chris mcdonnet joining me, Founder director of the Cold
Case Foundation, former homicide detective with over three hundred homicide
investigations under his belt, star of the Interview Room on YouTube,
Chris mcdonnet, isn't it true that when we were out
(05:33):
at the scene, when you were there on your own,
you observed a glove lying out in the parking lot.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Isn't that true?
Speaker 4 (05:43):
It absolutely is.
Speaker 7 (05:45):
Nancy and I was standing on the street near the
trash cans out front, and I looked behind that trash can,
just behind the yellow barrier tape, and there it was
sitting right there in the know. And I talked to
my shelf, Wow, that's out of place. So I called
one of the officers over, and you know, I pointed
(06:08):
it out to them and they collected it.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
As a matter of fact, we're showing a photo of
that glove right now.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
Now.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
This was after the scene had been processed to some degree.
This is after a law enforcement had already come there,
and there was a glove out in the parking lot. Okay,
that's one glove. And when I went to the scene
as well, Guess what I was wearing. I believe we
(06:38):
have a photo h that. Guess what I dropped in
the parking lot that day? This I still have it.
So let's talk about DNA inside a completely unrelated glove
(07:00):
found out in the parking lot Sidney summer. Yes, No,
wasn't the glove found in the parking lot of the home.
Speaker 6 (07:06):
That's correct, Nancy, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Okay, let's go straight back to Chris McDonough. Chris McDonough,
could you explain to me any if any significance of
a random glove in the parking lot, What, if anything,
could that mean. I'm sure the defense is having a
field day with it, but realistically speaking, it wasn't on
(07:32):
the sheath of the murder weapon under the victim's body.
It's out in the parking lot. It could have been
yours or mind for Pete's sake.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
Absolutely.
Speaker 7 (07:40):
In fact, Nancy could have also belonged to one of
the investigators processing the scene. You know, they could have
accidentally dropped it and nobody saw it. Although you know,
the defense would probably argue, hey, it's in the direction
of where the car allegedly would have been parked according
to the police, that you know, or excuse me, the
(08:00):
prosecution is going to say, you know, this came from
the suspect. My question is is the blood on the
inside or the outside of the glove, because that could
be significant.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Really good point, guys. Another theory has emerged, now wait
for it.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Listen to this.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
When Ryan Coberger was arrested, his response to police, who
else did you arrest? There is much speculation over the comment,
especially now that his defense claims unidentified male blood was
found on a handrail at the King Road crime scene
and on a glove outside. They say this points to
potential other suspects or could be part of an elaborate
(08:40):
plant to stage the crime scene that.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
Are in criminal profilo.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
John Kelly tells news agencies that the remark could have
come from Coburger's expectation that other leads had been followed
by police.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Straight out to special guests joining us. And you know
him well. Howard Bloom is with us who has conducted extensive.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
Research and investigation over.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Months, culminating in his new book, When the Night Comes Falling,
a Requiem for the Idaho Student Murders. And you can
find him at his website Howard Bloom spelled b l
um dot com. Howard, you have recently written an article
in which you stay there are stunning courtroom revelations, and
(09:32):
you know I can't deny this, even though I don't
think the state has arrested the wrong person. Mystery DNA
from two other males at the same blood.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
DNA is going to be a hurdle for the state.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Now when it's explained slowly and carefully and calmly, I
think the jury will see through it.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
But it's a bobshell.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
What do you think about another other experts theory that
Coburger may have even staged it.
Speaker 8 (10:06):
Trials tell stories. I think that's what we have to remember.
The facts really don't matter that much. Here you have
the defense being able to ask the question, how did
that knife sheath get in that bedroom? Could someone have
planted it there other than Coburger? Because remember it's not
blood DNA from Coburger on the knife sheet, it's touched DNA.
(10:28):
They are going to argue that perhaps he touched the
knife sheath at some point and these other two unknown
males planted it there. They're going to try to convince
a jury of this.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Put him up.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Okay, well, I'm sorry, maybe my ife base not working
because I think what I just heard you say is
that someone got the knife sheath from Coburger after he
had touched it in the snap where you app to
take the knife out, got it from Coburger and planted
(11:04):
it under a dead body, and then conveniently left behind
their own blood DNA on the handrail and in a
random glove out in the parking lot.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Query were little green men from Mars?
Speaker 8 (11:20):
Part of this, you can you can say it's facetiously
like that, but the evidence against Coburger. Besides, the DNA
really doesn't stand up. Everything is very weak. We can
go through it again. You know, there's no motive, there's
no picture of them in the life car.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
Actually do let's go through it.
Speaker 4 (11:39):
Hold on.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
His phone pings at his apartment at two forty two
a m.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
The night of the murders. Five minutes later, his phone
is turned off.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Three twenty nine, a m of wh Alantra mass matching
his sedan, passes the murder scene three times, at three
point thirty in the morning. Four it comes back and
stops in front of the house for twenty It leaves,
flying down that crookedly little road leading up to the
(12:12):
murder scene. Then four forty eight it pings south of Moscow,
plowing down State Highway ninety five in the dark. Okay,
let's see to Sydney Sumner joining me Crime online dot
Com investigative reporter Sydney His cell phone pings alone are damning.
(12:39):
His Elantra is spotted there at the scene. We see
him destroying evidence, cleaning out his car meticulously.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Blood places him at the scene.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Excuse me, DNA places him at the scene, and so
much more. Sidney Sumner what evidence is the state using
against Brian Toberger.
Speaker 6 (13:10):
There is so much evidence that the state has to
use against Brian Coberger. A lot of this is circumstantial
at best, but that DNA evidence is absolutely damning. There's
just no explanation for why that knife sheep is in
that house if it isn't the murder weapon, and no
explanation for why coburger DNA would be on that knife
(13:34):
sheep if he was not the murderer.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace straight out to special guests,
joining US doctor Sherry Schwartz, forensic psychologists specializing in capital mitigation.
The idea that Bloom is advancing that somehow two other
(14:07):
males were part of a big murder scheme where not
only did they murder for innocent University Idaho students, but
it was all part of a plan to incriminate Brian
Coburger by somehow getting his DNA on the knife sheath
and planting it. I didn't even mention the searches, the
(14:31):
Amazon searches, which the defense is trying desperately to suppress
so the jury never hears about it. The Amazon searches
many many searches for the weapon, and he finally buys
the weapon with a sheath that exactly matches the one
found at the murder scene under a victim, but the
(14:54):
knife has gone missing, so he bought the knife on
Amazon like a big idiot. Now they're climbing Your Amazon
records are sacred and private and the state shouldn't be
able to access them. Really, But that said, what jury
(15:14):
would buy the argument that too unknown mystery man plan
this whole thing to frame Coburger.
Speaker 9 (15:24):
I think that's a tough sell because the reality is
the simplest explanation is usually the one that's most correct.
This was a college house where the kids had parties.
When I was in college, cleaning up after.
Speaker 10 (15:40):
A party wasn't one of my priorities, And so that blood.
Speaker 11 (15:44):
Could have come from two different meal people who were
in the house. Maybe they were at a party and
cut themselves. You know, who knows how long that it
was there. I think there's a number of explanations, but
that's a really complicated.
Speaker 10 (16:01):
Explanation to say that he was framed and that all
of these steps had to happen to do that.
Speaker 12 (16:08):
I don't like you he did a white collar crime.
Speaker 13 (16:11):
This isn't a white color crime.
Speaker 12 (16:13):
This is This is people you work your whole life
to get them to go to college and then they
get killed while they're sleep that night.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
When this guy like he just like.
Speaker 7 (16:25):
Traded insider trading with his own company stocks, it's not
white collar.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
With every twist and turn in this case, the victim's
family suffer more at this hour a bombshell the defense
claiming two mystery males DNA found at the murder, saying
or four Idaho University students slaughtered in their own beds.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
You were just saying. The parents of Kelly GUNSLV is
speaking out.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Take a listen to what we are learning about the
defense argument.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
Coburger's attorneys claimed d FBI illegally obtained Ryan Coberger's DNA,
breaking the Fourth Amendment on illegal search and seizure. They
say submitting Coburger's DNA to a public ancestry database was
out of bounds when law enforcement is not legally permitted
to use the site. The attorneys are also saying the
fact that police did not only not submit to other
(17:26):
blood samples from the scene to the FBI DNA database
due to not fitting eligibility requirements, agents did not tell
the magistrate judge about them. Taylor claims the omission should
disqualify some evidence obtained joining us.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
Doctor Thomas Coyne, Chief Medical Examiner, District Tie Medical Examiner's
Office in Florida, pathologist, neuropathologist, toxicologist.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
Doctor Coin, thank you for being with us.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Much is being made about the mystery men's to DNA,
two of them unidentified males.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
We understand they're.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Not the same two, they're not the same person. Donor
not just one mystery man, but two mystery men's blood
DNA found at the murder scene. One blood on a handrail.
I'm curious was it dried? Where in the home was it?
There are three stories. The other on a glove discarded
(18:29):
in the parking lot, Doctor Coin. There are many ways
to transfer blood, such as what well.
Speaker 14 (18:41):
I mean, first of all, we're making the assumption of
this is blood, and I don't think that it may
very well not be blood. And the reason being is
that DNA obtained from a nucleated blood cell or a
nucleated cell from your mouth or from anywhere in your
body is going to be the same. So the only
way that you're able to identify that this is blood
is either doing an mRNA profile, which they didn't do here,
(19:03):
or to apply another chemical reagent that will try to
identify this substance that's blood and that generally occurs by
reacting with iron that's president in the humid a little
bit of blood, and you make the assumption, yes, this
is blood, but iron is present in a lot of things. Copper,
iron are all transition medicals excuse me, chemicals that or
(19:24):
metals excuse me, that can make this reaction look positive.
So you're making the assumption that you're applying a reagent
to an area in the house, you're getting a positive hit,
you're swabbing it, you're getting a positive DNA hit, and
now you're saying, yes, this is blood DNA, but there's
DNA all over that house. We shed DNA everywhere constantly,
especially a home that you have tenants that are all
(19:46):
in college. I guarantee you there are multiple male and
females coming in and out of that house on a
regular basis, shedding their DNA everywhere.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
To Justine Scott Morgan, joining US Professor Forensics Say Jacksonville
State University, author of Blood My Feet on Amazon and
star of Body Bags, Joe Scott, you have investigated over
one thousand, one thousand death scenes. You have collected blooded scenes,
(20:17):
you have the observed transfer spatter, pulling droplets.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
You name it.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
You have found the tiniest, tiniest amount of DNA at
scenes and collected it.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
Now the defense is stating.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
That this is male DNA, at least one of them
being blood. I'm curious, Joe Scott Morgan, how is it
that they know it's male DNA.
Speaker 4 (20:47):
Well, it's because of the markers that are contained within
our DNA molecule, the differentiate between male and female. So
that's relatively easily narrowed down, and they still have it.
Is this something they can go back and do for
the test now?
Speaker 1 (21:10):
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
Mactor Howard Bloom joining us, author of When the Night
Comes Falling, a Requiem for the Idaho student murderers. You
stay in your recent article that you fear that Brian
Coberger has, let me quote, committed the nearly perfect crime.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
Why do you say that.
Speaker 8 (21:34):
Because the evidence against him is largely circumstantial except for
the DNA. The only really condemning evidence against him is
after he's arrested, they do a cheek swab the DNA
from that cheek swap matches, the DNA on the knife sheath,
(21:55):
that's it. Everything else the car they never have him
behind the wheel, they never get the life of the car.
The cell phone triangulation, well that's just ten miles the
eyewitness allegedly for Dylan Mortenson. That's been impugned. So on
and on and on, And if the defense can create
a story now with this new blood evidence in telling
(22:18):
another scenario, another possibility to the jury, it could be effective.
In fact, in court it was Judge Hippler himself who said,
after hearing the defense make the statement about the DNA,
are you saying that Coberger had people helping him, that
he had accomplices? He raised this issue and if he
is able to articulate it, it will I think land
(22:41):
very spare in the minds of the jurors.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
Boom, Wait a minute. He only said that, obviously because
and Taylor's argument isn't making any sense. She is saying,
I guess jumping on your train, that too unknown mystery
men either helped or framed Brian Coburger. He's saying it
(23:07):
just like I said. Is that what you're saying? Just
like when I said, what's next little green men from
Mars beamed down and helped out. He is trying to
get his mind around the defense claim. Are you saying
that two men helped Coburger, that this is a big
murder conspiracy, either helped him commit the murder or tried
(23:30):
to frame him. He's saying it just like I'm saying
it right now. Is that really what you're saying. I
don't read anything into that incredulity.
Speaker 8 (23:41):
Because he also raised the question of a Frank's hearing.
He did not rule it out. He had to give
it more thoughts. And I think I'm not saying it's
what happened. I'm saying this is an effective story, and
Taylor is a story held one story.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
You know what a Frank's hearing is, right? Do you
think Frank's hearing is.
Speaker 8 (24:01):
Is to impugne the evidence of the police gathered to
get a search warrant for a probable cause?
Speaker 1 (24:08):
Okay?
Speaker 2 (24:09):
And he responded with incredulity at that very claim that
the search warrant and the arrest warrant were not supported
by constitutional PC probable cause.
Speaker 3 (24:23):
Listen to what Hipler says. Judge Steve Hippler and a
Coborger's league. Defense attorney An Taylor seemed to be at
odds over DNA found at the crime scene. The defense
wants investigative genetic genealogy evidence used to identify her client suppressed,
the question being is there an expectation of privacy for
DNA left at a crime scene? Judge Stephen Hipler says
(24:46):
he struggles with the idea that there's any expectation of privacy.
Hipler added that the DNA found on the knife sheath,
there's probable calls every day and twice on Sunday, and
Taylor disagreed.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
There you have it.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
I mean, bloom, you can sit back and your easy
chair and write books and articles as interesting and as
informative as they are, and try to interpret what the
judge is saying.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
But his words are, DNA.
Speaker 2 (25:16):
On that knife sheath is probable cause every day and
twice on Sunday, babe.
Speaker 4 (25:24):
And what did he say after that?
Speaker 8 (25:26):
He said, hold, your calendar is free because we might
want to have a Frank's hearing. So he hadn't resolved
it as clearly as he would.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
Oh wait a minute, hold on, Philip Doby, can you
just debate? Can you just take off your defense hat
really quickly, okay, and just tell me the truth if this.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
If the defense wants.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
A Frank's hearing before the judge, they're gonna get a
Frank's hearing. Why this is a death penalty case, and
if they want the judge to hear the argument and
then rule of course, hipler's going to do it.
Speaker 1 (26:04):
A judge, especially in a.
Speaker 2 (26:05):
Death penalty case, is not going to say I don't
even want to hear what you've got to say a jailer,
Uh huh, that right, there could be reversible error, So
of course he's going to have a Frank's hearing. A
Frank's hearing is when the judge looks at the probable
cause that supported a search or an arrest warrant and
(26:26):
determines really was there enough PC. PC can be based
on hearsay, it can be based on third party information,
but it has to be enough to support.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
A search or an arrest.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
Do you really think, in any way in any world debate,
that Hippler is not going to allow a Frank's hearing.
For him to say, yes, you can have a Frank's hearing,
that means nothing.
Speaker 5 (26:53):
Of course he's going to allow it, and you should,
because remember, the test is whether or not the affidem
it or probable cause is supported by truthful, accurate facts
that were relayed in the affidavit or probable cause under oath.
If for whatever reason there were factual omissions, misstatements, and
frankly lies, that is grounds to traverse the warrant and
(27:17):
suppress everything recovered as a result of it. Or alternatively,
the court confined that despite the inaccuracies and the omissions,
even if you sever that, there's still ample probable cause
to allow warrant to survive.
Speaker 13 (27:32):
Yeah, I understand your position, which frankly is not well
supported in the law.
Speaker 11 (27:37):
That.
Speaker 13 (27:38):
If hypothetically, here he went to this crime scene, committed
these murders, and left DNA on a piece of evidence
that he now has the ability to object to that
evidence being searched for identification purposes. There's no case that
suggests that that concludes that, and it seems to me
(28:01):
to be an extreme position to.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
Take in light of the case.
Speaker 13 (28:03):
Lawn, I'm trying to understand how you get.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
There, Okate, my notes when the judge was saying that,
when Hippler was saying that is Hippler knows defendant's attorney
is crazy.
Speaker 1 (28:15):
Okay, now what does that mean?
Speaker 2 (28:17):
The defense in this case is arguing that once the
DNA was found on the knife sheath, that the state
illegally had.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
It tested at the crime lab.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
Okay, that's like you find a bullet at the scene
and you send it to the crime lab for ballistics tests.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
That's the equivalent.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
They're actually claiming that that was unconstitutional. And the judge
is saying, like, let me understand again what you're saying here,
and he comes out and says, there's no case to
suggest or support what you're saying.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
You understand that right.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
Anyway, There is another issue sell phone data listen.
Speaker 15 (28:59):
Gooberg defense team has hired cell phone expert Sire to
testify and support of Coberger's alibi. The former police officer
and founder of z X bases his analysis on the
pings that a cell phone sends to a nearby tower
using the software tracks, but many have questioned the reliability
of raised data. Many other experts say Trax's methodology is
not based in science, and a Colorado judge has even
(29:22):
banned prosecutors from using the software in their cases.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
What cell phone data number one? We know where his
phone ping. Let's see that graphic one more time, and
we know that at the time of the murders, he
conveniently turned his cell phone off and then.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Turn it on again when he was fleeing the scene.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
According to the State, Scott Eiker is joining a founding
member of the FBI Cellular Analysis Survey Team.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
Let that just sink in.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
Founding member of the FBI sell Analysis Team.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
That says it all.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
You can find him now at PCAs Experts dot com
Precision Cellular Analysis.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
This is what he does all day, every day.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
And as Hipler said twice on Sundays, Scott Iiker, thank
you for being with us. What are they talking about?
They have a cell phone expert that's gonna say.
Speaker 4 (30:17):
What I can tell you, Nancy.
Speaker 12 (30:18):
I've dealt with this cell phone expert, mister siree, and
we have for years and years dealt with him and
how he brings stuff into court. The best way to
exam explain it is that judge in Colorado who basically
said that his software is based on a sea of unreliability.
(30:41):
He found that mister Ray was not credible, claiming that
he was boasting his credentials. Actor claiming he was an engineer,
and they basically said you can't use his stuff or
use him as an expert in Colorado here because it's
baseless and the reason they're doing that, And you know,
(31:03):
I don't know mister Ray personally, but you know we've
dealt with his estimates and misleading information in what he
says about self on stuff numerous times, and it's very
important to make sure you're accurate because it can be
very problematic and misleading. If you don't just state the facts,
(31:25):
you can't expound on those.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
And Guests, Scott Iiker, I want to tell you a
very quick story. I had a medical examiner, and no
offense to you, doctor Coin or to you Joe Scott Morgan,
but this medical examiner I had seen transcripts or he
was totally discredited under oath, and I waited for him
to take the stand for the defense, and then I
(31:49):
remember the look on his face when I started pulling
out all those depositions. At least here the defense is
getting an idea ahead of time that their expert.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
May have a credibility problem.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
Are you are you telling me he claiming to be
an engineer and he's not an engineer that is correct.
Speaker 12 (32:03):
He is not an engineer. He was actually a police
officer or sheriff in I think it was in Texas
or Arizona, and he started working cases around cell phone stuff.
And he has basic knowledge. He's never had any training
from engineers like I have what we did in the FBI.
So he doesn't have the knowledge or the expertise. And
(32:26):
then he's taking the leaps where there's really no facts
to support what he's saying.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
Sometimes, Philip du Bay, that is a major misstep to
put up an expert that's going to be destroyed on
cross examination on credibility alone if that happens in this case.
Speaker 5 (32:46):
Yes, of course, But remember he's putting on an alibi defense.
He is saying that he was stargazing and chanting at Ashram,
sitting in a lotus position with the phone off, and
if he's at one with.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
The universe, praying and saying Noma.
Speaker 5 (32:59):
State, that's defense. Now, will it fly remains to be seen.
Speaker 16 (33:03):
Finally, there was a trash pool in Pennsylvania, and there
was no warrant for that trash pool either your honor.
For the purposes of the Fourth Amendment protections and Article
one Section seventeen of the Idaho Constitution. We are looking
to see if somebody has a privacy interest that society
(33:23):
is ready to support. In this case, if society is
not ready to support suppression of every bit of our
DNA when the government does not have a warrant and
searches it, there is no privacy right left.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Okay, to really focus on what Anne Taylor is saying
to Defense arning Field de Bay.
Speaker 1 (33:48):
She is arguing that when the.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
Trash was taken from Coburger's parents' home in the Poconos
and they got the dad's DNA matched it back to
the knife sheep trash was taken, that was illegal. I
guess she never heard about the abandonment theory. If I
throw out the trash or I throw out gum on
the street, which I would never do, and the cop
comes along gets my DNA off of it, that's abandonment.
(34:13):
Anybody can have it because I threw it away, I
don't need a warrant. She's claiming that the trash pool
was wrong, and she's arguing that Coburger's great great great
grandma has a privacy interest. When they put Coburger's DNA
from the knife sheath into the genetic genealogy. Whose rights
are they violating? Great great granny What.
Speaker 1 (34:35):
That's what she's arguing. You know, that's BS disagree.
Speaker 5 (34:39):
Come on, listen. They just took the DNA profile his
genetic components, put it into a database where they had
no actual or apparent consent to look at it. And
the real test is does he have a subjective and
objective expectation of privacy in his own genetic material as
(34:59):
a opposed to just taking the genetic material of material
and putting it in a government database where you have
a bunch of arrestees and suspects already on file without
actual or apparent consent. It violates sup Forth Amendment and
the remedies you throw out.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
Evidence consent from who.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
None of those people have standing to complain to argue
in court. This is about the defendant's right to privacy
and taking the DNA off that knife sheath and putting
it into genetic genealogy does not violate his rights.
Speaker 1 (35:36):
And as far as the trash pull, the father Coburger's father.
Speaker 2 (35:41):
Throughout trash, it was abandoned under the law according to
the US Supreme Court. Unless you're climbing, they're wrong that
property was abandoned and the police have full access to that.
But hold on, I'm just being joined by a very
special guest joining us regarding the Idaho death penalty and
(36:03):
execution methods, doctor James Williams, leading courtroom expert on firing squads.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
Doctor Williams, thank you for being with us.
Speaker 4 (36:13):
The happy to be here.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
The Idaho Assembly has now determined that the firing squad, again,
of course this has already occurred in Idaho, will be
allowed as the number one choice for execution. How is
that affected? Many people wonder is it automated or are
(36:36):
there actual people firing the gun? How does the firing
squad work in Idaho.
Speaker 4 (36:45):
Well, that's a good question, Nancy. Nobody really knows at
this point. The state has stated that they're still working
on their procedures and protocols, but we do know from
background information that they have drawn heavily on the experience
of the state of Utah, which of course have been
using firing squad as a method of execution since the
middle of the nineteenth century. But there has been speculations
(37:06):
they may use some form of automated system. Automated would
be I think stretching it, but having rifles mounted in
fixtures that would be aimed presumably by human beings prior
to the actual execution, and then they would be fired
by some remote mechanism electronically, well, not really a robot.
(37:31):
It would really it would actually be as I understand, well,
it could be actually just back off on that. Sure,
if they've got a robot that's sophisticated, they may well
use it. But I don't know of anything like that
in existence technologically.
Speaker 2 (37:43):
Okay, let me just try to drink and ingest what
you just said.
Speaker 1 (37:50):
Guys.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
Doctor James Williams is a leading expert on the firing squad.
So you're saying that it's actually being advocated that a
robotic system or digital system be set up to take
perfect aim at Coburger and shoot him dead, as opposed
(38:15):
to five people standing there, one of them has a
blank and they all fire and they can all go
home thinking, oh, I was the one with the blank.
Speaker 1 (38:24):
Why.
Speaker 4 (38:25):
I'm not sure what the reason behind it is. I
think there's a lot of arguments and at this point
really a false speculation. We know that they have been
discussing this in numbers of jurisdictions and Idaho is one
of them. But the actual motives behind doing it that
way are unclear to me.
Speaker 2 (38:43):
Joining me again, Star Body Bags A Joe Scott Morgan,
Joe Scott Have we all lost our minds? An automated
or digital system? So no human actually has to pull
the trigger, because I've got a pretty good idea of
somebody would like to pull the trigger, and that would
be Kelly Gonsolvis, his mom and dad.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
I bet people are lined up to pull Yeah, there
would be.
Speaker 4 (39:08):
There's any number. And how many times have I heard
people say that since since this butchery went down, you know,
just give me an opportunity to do it. But it's
one thing to say that, it's another thing to step
in and facilitate this. But we have to keep in mind,
even with the capital punishment that they decide upon, it's
(39:31):
just like anything else. If you're talking about lethal injection
or as we we've recently used here in Alabama, this
exposure to gas, you know, and we're talking about nitrogen
gas that they're now using, there is a human element.
Somebody has to press something, somebody has to flip something,
somebody has to initiate the sequence, and you know, the
(39:55):
military has had firing systems for years and years where
they can target a weapon at a specific point. Now,
I think the curious question here is are we talking
about multiple multiple weapons that are being used in a
traditional sense, or are we talking about a single weapon
(40:16):
that is targeted, say, for instance, center mass over the
individual to be executed over their hearts. That's quite quite
something when you begin to think about it.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
You know what, Joe Scott, I love it when you
start talking this way.
Speaker 1 (40:33):
But are you just to put it in a shell.
Speaker 2 (40:38):
They're considering an automated system where quote nobody has to
pull the trigger. Okay, can we just see a shot
of these victims, these four victims with their lives in
front of them, falling to sleep in their own beds.
They were slaughtered like animals getting rendered in at your shop.
(41:03):
If evidence supports Coburger is guilty of these murders in
some bizarre experiment to see what it felt like to
kill people, he may very well be subjected to the
Idaho death penalty if convicted. I guarantee you there would
be a line wrapped around the building to pull the
(41:28):
trigger at this juncture.
Speaker 1 (41:31):
He is innocent until proven guilty. In a court of law.
Nancy Gray signing off goodbye friend,
Host
Nancy Grace
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com