October 15, 2025 • 29 mins
Groundbreaking DNA technology from forensic lab Othram helped identify Bryan Kohberger in the Idaho murders. Forensic investigative genetic genealogy is now revolutionizing criminal investigations — solving cold cases, catching previously untraceable offenders, and transforming the future of forensic science.
Check us out online:
www.tiktok.com/@officialktstudios
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 (00:03):
Authram is really good at analyzing DNA that previously was
thought to be unanalyzable.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
If they're not in the criminal database, they're not going
to get caught, even though they leave tons of DNA behind,
And now we can do that through FIG.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
I mean, what can you say? The technology that authram
utilized in this case took it to a whole other level.
Speaker 4 (00:32):
This is the Idaho Massacre A production of KT Studios
and iHeartRadio, Season three, episode nine, Sheath of Evidence. I'm
Courtney Armstrong, a producer at KAT Studios, with Stephanie Leidecker,
Alison Bankston, and Gabriel Castillo. One of the unsung heroes
(00:54):
of the Brian Coberger case wasn't a detective, a judge,
or even a prosecutor. It was a laboratory nestled in
the Bucolic suburb of Woodlands, Texas. Sits Authrum, a company
that has quickly become a world leader in forensic science.
AUTHORAM is renowned for pioneering some of the most advanced
(01:16):
techniques in forensic investigative genetic genealogy, also known as FIG
or sometimes IgG. Initially, in this case, the FBI was
enabled to find a match for the single source male
DNA recovered from the ninth sheath found in Madison Mogan's
bedroom using COTIS, the Combined DNA Index system which links
(01:37):
DNA profiles to known offenders. At that point, investigators turned
to AUTHRM, and it was this decision that blew the
entire case wide open. On today's episode, where Spotlighting a
podcast we all admire America's Crime Lab, We're joined by
its host, journalist Alan Lance Lesser, to learn more about
(02:01):
the groundbreaking work her show is covering. Aileen has the
inside scoop on how authorm's cutting edge methods changed the
game and how this lab helped identify the man who
brutally murdered Madison Mogan, Kylie Gonsalvez, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin.
Aileen's joined by Katie's Studio's producer, Alison Bankston.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
America's Crime Lab focuses on the intimate stories of victims
and their families from some of the most heinous crimes
in America and crimes that are being solved by a
specific lab that exists just outside of Houston called Authrum
that's using new DNA technology and I think basically Authrum
the Lab wanted to get this information out there because
(02:51):
the more people know about it, the more that detectives
will know, hey, we can use this technology in this
case where we simply can't figure out who left their
DNA at a crime scene. And so it almost is
a matter of spreading the word while also telling these
really riveting stories.
Speaker 5 (03:07):
That's incredible, and I agree. I think it's great to
get the word out on this amazing technology and to
raise awareness about what it is and you know how
effective it really can be. I understand it was started
by Kristin and David Middleman, to geniuses in their own right,
and you know you work closely with them. Can you
tell me a little bit about who these two are.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Kristin and David Middleman. They have been working in genetics
for years. They actually met in grad school and started
working together on projects. And they're actually also married and
have a family, and they kind of spend all their
time together and they're really devoted to this work. And
essentially they had this background in genetics. I think David
(03:48):
first started studying the genome project and then went on
from there and they just felt that there was a
hole that needed to be filled that they had ability
to make this technology and not just study genetics, but
actually use their knowledge of genetics to help people and
families who are victims of horrible crimes. They're passionate about
(04:12):
the fact that even there are so many unidentified human
remains out there, you know, people who have passed away,
and you know, to their families it's like they've disappeared.
They don't know where they are, but the government hasn't
even identified who they are, which is the first step
in any investigation if it's a murder or something. And
so basically they've made this their life's work and they
(04:34):
literally are working all the time. Like I think I
work hard, No, they work hard. They like live and
breathe their science and just doing everything they can to
make sure their science is at the most rigorous level.
But then also they're trying to get the word out
there and they're trying to help as many people as
they can.
Speaker 4 (04:57):
Authroom specializes in forensic investing negative genetic genealogy, a cutting
edge science that uses public genealogy databases to connect unknown
DNA to profiles already uploaded by everyday people to help
us break down what FIG is and how Authroom's approach
differs from the traditional DNA testing done in most law
(05:20):
enforcement labs. We brought in renowned expert doctor Gray Comikian.
Doctor Hamikian is the founder of the Idaho Innocence Project
and a former professor at Boise State University. He travels
all over the world offering his forensic insight on complex
criminal cases. He's joined by Katie Studios producer Alison Bankston.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Investigative genetic genealogy is really a giant leap forward using
some tools that have been around for a while. So
the first tool, and I think the kind of novel
thing that was brought into forensics, was the traditional genealogist
folks who would work out a libraries and newspapers and
court documents trying to construct family trees. And that was
(06:10):
done before DNA was done, and was used in the
courts principally to show who's related to who for the
purposes of inheritance. Then with the advent of molecular biology
and DNA sequencing in particular, we were able to combine
two fields, my field, which is sequencing DNA and reading
(06:32):
sequences or reading lengths of DNA, and these folks working
newspapers and documents and all these great records from hundreds
of years back. So what we're looking for is a
long piece of DNA. We want to find the longest
piece of DNA we can that the person of interest
has in common with other people in the database. So
(06:55):
if the person of interest is actually a piece of
evidence from a crime seeing, the police will load that
up into a database and treated as if it is
a person looking for their true parents, you know, and
orphan looking for their true parents, and the.
Speaker 5 (07:12):
DNA needs to be in a certain format, right you know.
Most law enforcement agencies use the STR profile which stands
for short tandem repeat and these types of profiles can
be read through CODIS, whereas labs like AUTHROM, you know,
they have the capability to convert these DNA samples into
SNIP profiles which stands for single nuclear polymorphism profiles, and
these types of SNIP profiles can be analyzed.
Speaker 6 (07:33):
Into genetic databases.
Speaker 5 (07:35):
Can you tell us a little bit about the differences
between what most law enforcement crime labs use, which is
STR and SNIP profiles which are needed for forensic investigative
genetic genealogy.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
The chemistry is different, the machines are different, the software
is different, and I think most importantly the mathematics is different.
So in the case of the standard STRs, we're looking
at the length of a piece of DNA, We're only
going to look at about twenty three of those lengths,
and it identifies a person. They allow us to differentiate
(08:06):
from one person to another.
Speaker 5 (08:08):
Right, they can tell us if the person is male
or female, and if it matches someone in codis, then great,
you know there's your answer. But without a match, it's
unfortunately not really going to get you anywhere.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
And the case of the snips, we're looking at hundreds
of thousands of areas in someone's genome. There are three
billion bases, so there's a lot of places you can choose,
and we're reading the actual sequences the single nucleotide bases
at particular areas.
Speaker 7 (08:35):
So it's a very much more information rich, detailed profile
when you do a SNIP, and people are putting their
DNA in these databases.
Speaker 5 (08:49):
Right and willingly, you know, in an effort to find
more about their heritage. Sites like my family Tree, Jetmatch,
my Heritage List goes.
Speaker 6 (08:57):
On for the types of sites these people are uploading to.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
And if we find a relative of someone who matches
that the SNIP profile, police can investigate that family and
then find the perpetrator. In this case. It's just a
wonderful tool because when you have a great DNA fingerprint,
and if they're not in the criminal database, they're not
going to get caught, even though they leave tons of
DNA behind. And now we can do that through fig
(09:21):
forensic investigative genealogies because not those criminals, but their nice
relatives have contributed DNA to public databases. And so yeah,
it's very exciting. It opens up a whole new area.
Speaker 4 (09:38):
Here's journalist American Crime Lab host and authroom insider Alien
Lance Lesser.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
One other really exciting piece of this is also the
technology at AUTHRM is really good at analyzing DNA that
previously was thought to be unanalyzable. But what's cool is,
you know, at a crime scene, it's not like a
clean swab of a mouth the way you might get
when you're sending in your DNA. It's often contaminated, it's degraded,
(10:06):
it's been sitting out in the snow, in the rain,
animals have interacted with it. Maybe there's plant DNA mixed
up with the DNA. Maybe the victims. DNA is mixed
up with the DNA and so quite often you're getting
a really not so good sample to analyze in a
lot of cold cases. And so this technology can handle
that more degraded DNA than other technology has been able
(10:29):
to do previously.
Speaker 6 (10:31):
That's amazing.
Speaker 5 (10:31):
Yeah, I've definitely heard that their major cold case solving pioneers,
which is just so impressive. What are some examples of
cases that really defy the odds? I think before you'd
told me a little bit about the Carla Walker case
being particularly impressive.
Speaker 6 (10:44):
Can you tell us a little bit about that.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
The Carla Walker case happened years ago in nineteen seventy four,
and Carla Walker was a seventeen year old girl. She
was a high school cheerleader, very like spunky, energetic, and
the night of her Valentine's Day dance, she disappeared. She
went to the dance with her boyfriend, Rodney, and later
(11:06):
that night Rodney would later say that they were in
a bowling alley parking lot after the dance doing you
know what teenagers do, kind of sitting in their car
kissing a little bit. Suddenly the door opened and they're
at gunpoint with either one or two men and Rodney
he had just been beaten across the face, but when
he woke up, Carla was gone, and three days later
(11:29):
they found her body in a cattle culvert just outside
of the Fort Worth area. Anyway, through all this they
just don't get enough evidence and the case goes cold
for years and years and years. I do think it's
a case that stayed alive in that community, like people
always wondered what happened to Carla after years and years. Eventually,
(11:54):
of course, DNA technology comes on the scene and they
do luckily have some DNA preserved on Carlo's clothing, and
eventually authroom here is about the case, David and Kristen
and they get involved and they say, we think we
can help solve this case. They did find just a
(12:14):
little bit more DNA on her dress. It was just
I think it was four nanograms, which is like the tiniest,
tiniest amount, like just a matter of a handful of cells.
It was also DNA mixed with other DNA, so again
it's and it's also degraded. At this point, it's forty
six years later, so this DNA has also just been
(12:37):
like sitting around gradually degrading for all those years, but
AUTHROAM says, we're confident we can get a result. So
they do the testing, and they get a result, and
they have a name, Glenn Samuel McCurley junior, and so
police go and find him. They ask for DNA squad,
(12:57):
which he eventually does, and they're able to check if he,
in fact is the person who left this DNA the
seman on Carlos dress and it is a match. And
eventually Glenn Samuel L. McCurley Junior confessed, that is.
Speaker 5 (13:13):
Seriously so impressive forty six years later, very degraded DNA,
only four nanograms of it. AUTHORAM is truly changing the
world here.
Speaker 4 (13:26):
Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
a moment. When the Idaho State Police Lab couldn't get
a hit from COTIS on the DNA found on the
knife sheath, investigators turned to David and Kristen Middleman at
AUTHRM to see if they could process the sample using
(13:48):
forensic investigative genetic genealogy, renowned for solving cold cases. This
marked one of the very first active cases AUTHORM had
been approached about. Here's journalist Alan Lance Lesser explaining how
authoram handled this crucial sample.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
I think when they first were asked to come on,
they were actually a little bit nervous, just because of
how much attention was focused on it and because they
typically have done kind of these older cold cases. But
I think Kristen said when she thought about, we just
have a duty to try to help. I mean, David
and Kristen had a child at the time who was
(14:29):
a sophomore in college, and they were like, what if
something like this happened to our child, Like, we would
absolutely want our technology to be used. So despite some
kind of nerves around that, they jumped right in and
they were able to get DNA from that sheath right
at the snap, because you know, when you snap something,
you like really have to pull at it. Because of that,
there was actually quite a bit of DNA left behind.
(14:50):
It was just like touch DNA. It was a very
clean sample, which was comforting in that it wasn't mixed
with other DNA and there was like a lot of it.
So they run the tests, and it takes a little
while to complete the tests, but initially the information they
get from some kind of the preliminary testing is some
basic kind of geographic information about the perpetrator. They find
(15:13):
that it's someone likely of European heritage, of specifically Italian heritage,
and that he probably is connected to kind of a
multi generational family that lives in Pennsylvania. Actually, so they've
got that kind of information going, which also is connected
to the fact that the white Hyundai Elantra that's seen
(15:36):
driving around the crime scene at around the time of
the murders doesn't have a front license plate, which is
common in Pennsylvania cars, and.
Speaker 5 (15:46):
That's such an important clue just even being able to
whittle down the Lantras, you know, it was such a
popular car. It still is. I think at some point
I saw it was reported there are approximately twenty two
thousand white Hondai Launtras.
Speaker 6 (15:57):
In the area. So if you can eliminate the vast.
Speaker 5 (15:59):
Majority of the i but only focus on ones with
no front license plate, that's extremely helpful.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
That's that other connection there again to other evidence. Anyway, Eventually,
once the testing is done, they eventually have a name,
and it's Brian Coburger, and they call up the police
and give them the name. And at first the police
were so shocked they were almost thinking it was almost
a joke. Because they had kept saying, give us a name,
(16:27):
give us a name, that they almost thought it was
like so ridiculous to get one specific name, because again,
I feel like a lot of investigators are used to codis,
where like, if you don't get a match there, you're
not going to get a name. So then they really
let it absorb it and started their investigation and from
there we're able, you know, to track down Brian Coburger
and continue it from there.
Speaker 5 (16:51):
And forensic investigative genetic genealogy is just a lead generator.
Speaker 6 (16:54):
It is a means to a lead.
Speaker 5 (16:56):
It does not directly implicate you, which is something the
prosecution was really trying to hoe in on last winter
when the defense was trying to get the DNA evans
thrown out. You know, they were saying it violet at
privacy laws, that it wasn't effective and in theory, you know,
I guess it's kind of scary to think that if
you have a relative that uploads their DNA to a
heritage site, and let's say your DNA is at a
crime scene, you know, all of a sudden, your relative
(17:17):
has implicated you in a crime, and you know, that
is kind of a scary thing.
Speaker 6 (17:20):
To think about.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
I do think it's interesting how that I think is
the first thought a lot of people have is it's
kind of scary, like almost fearing like, well, I be
caught for something. But I think it's like a comforting
reminder to note, like that you're not committing these crimes,
so you know what I mean, Like I almost want
to say that to listeners sometimes because it's kind of
like this new technology, it feels kind of scary, like
(17:42):
anyone can be identified, but it's it's kind of like
any other piece of evidence. If someone leaves a piece
of evidence at a crime scene and they've like murdered someone, yeah,
I would hope that they can use the evidence that's
there to find out who did it and to stop
them from continuing. So it's funny how we're so immediately
protective of our own DNA, which I think is totally
(18:02):
valid and correct, but I think the way it's being
used is still fairly private, and we're finding killers here.
Speaker 5 (18:12):
One hundred percent, and for a FIG match to even matter,
you have to have some other implicated evidence to even
get a warrant. In the Coburger case, you know he
had the white HOUNDAI lantra. He matched the physical description
of the perpetrator that Dylan Morton's had describes scene in
the night of the murders. You now, there's just a
lot of different things that are piling up against him.
And on top of having other evidence that links you
to the crime, investigators also have to confirm a fig
(18:33):
match with traditionals STR DNA testing STR is the old
gold standard trod and true for matches, whereas forendsic investigative
genetic genealogy, it's newer.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Well, first, Brian Coberger had gone to his family's home
in Pennsylvania, so they got some DNA from the garbage,
which they had also seen Brian Coburger using gloves to
take out garbage, which to me suggests he was being fair,
very careful about DNA. He had actually studied criminology. He
really knew what he was doing. He was really covering
(19:06):
his tracks. But they were able to test DNA and
it was his father's DNA because he was at the
family's house. But then from there they were able to say,
it's this close of a match, let's get a warrant
to get Brian's DNA, and they were able to then
match it up using the traditional str testing.
Speaker 5 (19:24):
Right, which directly matched him to the DNA in the
knife sheath. Authoram's work is so impressive here because they
truly helped defind Brian Coberger quickly. Now he wasn't in
codis So imagine if the sample from the NiFe sheet
didn't get sent in for forensic investigative genetic genealogy. I
think about that often, you know, I'm glad that the
signs is improving so much that we can catch people
faster and get them off the street.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
Many have wondered what would have happened in the Brian
Coburger case if the single source male DNA found on
the knife sheath was never identified, especially since Coburger the
CODA system. We ask legal analyst and former homicide prosecutor
Jarrett Farentino for his thoughts on how this case could
(20:08):
have played out without Authorm's assistance. He's joined by KAT
Studio's producer Alison Bankston.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
I mean, what can you say the technology that Authrum utilized,
the IgG technology in this case took it to a
whole other level. We don't know that Brian Colberger would
have ever been ultimately charged, or that investigators would have
gotten sufficient probable cause to discover all of the evidence
(20:37):
that eventually was found against him. We do know that
IgG technology expedited identifying Brian Coolberger as the likely killer here.
It expedited the probable cause determinations and took him into
custody before he can hurt someone else. And it's him
one in quintillion chance. This guy with his DNA is
(21:00):
also driving a white HONDAEI Landra, his cell phone's hitting
on those towers, he matches the physical description. All of
those things just came to pass tremendously as the case
was put together. If you don't have the DNA, can
you get there? Remember they weren't just challenging the DNA.
They were saying, number one, it was touched DNA. There's
(21:22):
an issue with that, but really it was IgG DNA.
It was a process employed. It's a novel process. It's
not enough to get to probable cause. And if it isn't,
what do you got. You have a largely circumstantial case
against Brian Colberger.
Speaker 5 (21:46):
Without the DNA, is there more of a chance for
reasonable doubts? Like let's say you're on the jury or
going through trial. I feel like it probably would have
been less of a slam dunk, But how much less
of a slam dunk could have done if the DNA
wasn't here.
Speaker 3 (21:57):
If it all got in front of a jury, your
job at that point is to explain the circumstance away,
and it's much easier if there's not a one and
quintillion chance it's not your guy. You know, you could say, hey,
a lot of phones were in that tower, hundreds of phones,
if not thousands, over those days, and a lot of
people drive a white Hondai Lauantra. You don't have DNA.
(22:18):
Brian never confessed there's no blood in his car. I've
prosecuted a lot of solely circumstantial cases. I've secured convictions
on those cases. They're tougher, don't get me wrong, But
I think you could have still prosecuted Brian Colberger for
this crime, but it would have been a very different process.
Speaker 5 (22:44):
Yeah, I feel like as a juror, and this is
solely my opinion. I am definitely not an expert, but
those points about the Launtra being such a popular car,
that a cell phone was in the area, that he
matches the description for me with the right experts up
on the stand. All of that could have pretty easily
been explained away, Like it's possible that without the DNA evidence,
he would have gotten off or maybe never even gotten caught.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
And ultimately, remember it was the DNA that decision, the
decision that it was coming in that led to the plague.
So you cannot overstate the significance of Authorum's findings in
this case. There's no doubt about it.
Speaker 5 (23:21):
This was authram's first live case, you know, active case
for the used forensic investigative genealogy. Do you think courtrooms
will start seeing more of this since you know there
was success in the Coburger case.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
Absolutely so. When you have a case of this magnitude
covered worldwide and a technology stands the rigors of the
challenges that it was met with in Idaho by Coburger's
defense team, it is a green light to prosecutors across
the country. The law is based on other cases and
(23:52):
the ability to argue it. Once that first impression is
made and the decision is made, that case will be
utilized across the country, maybe the world to argue IgG
technology is sound and it stands the tests that are
applied in corporate so yes, I think it will have
a very, very big impact on convictions solving investigations. But
(24:16):
at the same time, I think it's worth noting this
type of technology has also led to the solving of
cold cases. It's also led to the exoneration of people
that have been wrongfully convicted. So it is a powerful
tool to getting to the truth, whatever that is.
Speaker 4 (24:36):
Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
a moment. Authroom Laboratories in the Woodlands, Texas, is revolutionizing
how DNA evidence is used in courtrooms. What once began
as a tool for genealogists tracing family heritage is now
(24:58):
helping law enforcement a identify criminals with no prior records
like never before. Without Authram, Justice for Madison, Mogen Kallie Gonzalvez,
Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Shapin may have never come. It's
a groundbreaking company that we're proud to feature. Joining us
once again is journalist, authoram Insider and host of America's
(25:21):
Crime Lab, Alan Lance Lesser, along with Katie's Studio's producer
Alison Bankston.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
What's kind of cool to think about, but someone like
Brian Coberger, who had again studied criminology, had even surveyed
criminals about how they committed their crimes, presumably to get
information for how to commit a crime successfully. For him,
at least, that's what where my mind goes that why
he was doing that. And to think he was so careful,
(25:49):
I mean, he really didn't leave other evidence at the
crime scene. It really was this knife sheath. And to
think he was so careful and knowledgeable and yet he
still did lead DNA. I almost feel like it's a
psa to anyone considering committing a violent crime like in
today's world, You're not going to get away with it.
Speaker 6 (26:08):
No, you're not not, even if you don't have a
criminal record.
Speaker 1 (26:12):
And that's a comforting thing, a good message for people
to know that even just having society know that it
might reduce the amount of crimes like this.
Speaker 5 (26:22):
Throughout working on this then this podcast with off from
you know, you kind of have a really cool in
here with this most amazing company.
Speaker 6 (26:30):
What have you personally learned working so.
Speaker 5 (26:32):
Closely with them and establishing this relationship with them.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
I've just learned so much more about the technology. And
also if people listen to our podcast America's Crime Lab,
they will learn a lot more too, but also in
an engaging way, learning about these cases and these stories
and these people, and also being victim centered in that
we talk to a lot of family members and relatives,
close friends. And I think it's useful as I consume
(27:00):
true crime media or you know, learn about cases in
my environment to understand some of this technology and how
can be used. And I think I've just been so
struck by their process and it's kind of almost like
given me hope in science, and I personally have been
inspired by also their devotion to the work and how
so many people at AUTHRAM do have some kind of
(27:21):
personal connection, maybe they had a family member who experienced
a violet crime or just have some kind of personal
stake in these crimes. So I also think authrom is
just full of people who are very committed to this mission. Really,
I feel like our podcast focuses on so many dark things,
as I'm sure you're used to as well, But I
think sometimes in that darkness you see these stories of
(27:44):
human resilience, of people working for cases of people they
don't even know, and being so determined, And I think
that is also very uplifting to me on a personal level.
Working on this show.
Speaker 5 (27:54):
What else can we expect from America's Crime Lab in
the future, What can we look forward to as you
guys continue to make podcast.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
Well, we're still coming out with episodes, so they're coming
out every week. But we're just excited to be getting
these stories out there and to be able to have
this unique relationship with Authorm where we're really getting the
insider view of like how does the lab work, how
do they work these cases? And basically it's a look
into authoram in a way that I think hasn't really
(28:22):
happened before, and it's really exciting stuff.
Speaker 4 (28:28):
You can find Dalen's podcast, American Crime Lab on the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts,
and you can learn more about authorm's impressive work at
authrum dot com. That's ot h r AM dot com.
More on that next time. For more information on the
(28:52):
case and relevant photos, follow us on Instagram at kt
Underscore Studios. The Idaho Massacre is produced by Stephanie Leideger,
Alison Bankston, Gabriel Castillo, and me Courtney Armstrong. Editing and
sound design by Jeff Toois, Music by Jared Aston. The
Idaho Masacre is a production of Katie's Studios and iHeartRadio.
(29:15):
For more podcasts like this, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Authram is really good at analyzing DNA that previously was
thought to be unanalyzable.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
If they're not in the criminal database, they're not going
to get caught, even though they leave tons of DNA behind,
And now we can do that through FIG.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
I mean, what can you say? The technology that authram
utilized in this case took it to a whole other level.
Speaker 4 (00:32):
This is the Idaho Massacre A production of KT Studios
and iHeartRadio, Season three, episode nine, Sheath of Evidence. I'm
Courtney Armstrong, a producer at KAT Studios, with Stephanie Leidecker,
Alison Bankston, and Gabriel Castillo. One of the unsung heroes
(00:54):
of the Brian Coberger case wasn't a detective, a judge,
or even a prosecutor. It was a laboratory nestled in
the Bucolic suburb of Woodlands, Texas. Sits Authrum, a company
that has quickly become a world leader in forensic science.
AUTHORAM is renowned for pioneering some of the most advanced
(01:16):
techniques in forensic investigative genetic genealogy, also known as FIG
or sometimes IgG. Initially, in this case, the FBI was
enabled to find a match for the single source male
DNA recovered from the ninth sheath found in Madison Mogan's
bedroom using COTIS, the Combined DNA Index system which links
(01:37):
DNA profiles to known offenders. At that point, investigators turned
to AUTHRM, and it was this decision that blew the
entire case wide open. On today's episode, where Spotlighting a
podcast we all admire America's Crime Lab, We're joined by
its host, journalist Alan Lance Lesser, to learn more about
(02:01):
the groundbreaking work her show is covering. Aileen has the
inside scoop on how authorm's cutting edge methods changed the
game and how this lab helped identify the man who
brutally murdered Madison Mogan, Kylie Gonsalvez, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin.
Aileen's joined by Katie's Studio's producer, Alison Bankston.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
America's Crime Lab focuses on the intimate stories of victims
and their families from some of the most heinous crimes
in America and crimes that are being solved by a
specific lab that exists just outside of Houston called Authrum
that's using new DNA technology and I think basically Authrum
the Lab wanted to get this information out there because
(02:51):
the more people know about it, the more that detectives
will know, hey, we can use this technology in this
case where we simply can't figure out who left their
DNA at a crime scene. And so it almost is
a matter of spreading the word while also telling these
really riveting stories.
Speaker 5 (03:07):
That's incredible, and I agree. I think it's great to
get the word out on this amazing technology and to
raise awareness about what it is and you know how
effective it really can be. I understand it was started
by Kristin and David Middleman, to geniuses in their own right,
and you know you work closely with them. Can you
tell me a little bit about who these two are.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Kristin and David Middleman. They have been working in genetics
for years. They actually met in grad school and started
working together on projects. And they're actually also married and
have a family, and they kind of spend all their
time together and they're really devoted to this work. And
essentially they had this background in genetics. I think David
(03:48):
first started studying the genome project and then went on
from there and they just felt that there was a
hole that needed to be filled that they had ability
to make this technology and not just study genetics, but
actually use their knowledge of genetics to help people and
families who are victims of horrible crimes. They're passionate about
(04:12):
the fact that even there are so many unidentified human
remains out there, you know, people who have passed away,
and you know, to their families it's like they've disappeared.
They don't know where they are, but the government hasn't
even identified who they are, which is the first step
in any investigation if it's a murder or something. And
so basically they've made this their life's work and they
(04:34):
literally are working all the time. Like I think I
work hard, No, they work hard. They like live and
breathe their science and just doing everything they can to
make sure their science is at the most rigorous level.
But then also they're trying to get the word out
there and they're trying to help as many people as
they can.
Speaker 4 (04:57):
Authroom specializes in forensic investing negative genetic genealogy, a cutting
edge science that uses public genealogy databases to connect unknown
DNA to profiles already uploaded by everyday people to help
us break down what FIG is and how Authroom's approach
differs from the traditional DNA testing done in most law
(05:20):
enforcement labs. We brought in renowned expert doctor Gray Comikian.
Doctor Hamikian is the founder of the Idaho Innocence Project
and a former professor at Boise State University. He travels
all over the world offering his forensic insight on complex
criminal cases. He's joined by Katie Studios producer Alison Bankston.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Investigative genetic genealogy is really a giant leap forward using
some tools that have been around for a while. So
the first tool, and I think the kind of novel
thing that was brought into forensics, was the traditional genealogist
folks who would work out a libraries and newspapers and
court documents trying to construct family trees. And that was
(06:10):
done before DNA was done, and was used in the
courts principally to show who's related to who for the
purposes of inheritance. Then with the advent of molecular biology
and DNA sequencing in particular, we were able to combine
two fields, my field, which is sequencing DNA and reading
(06:32):
sequences or reading lengths of DNA, and these folks working
newspapers and documents and all these great records from hundreds
of years back. So what we're looking for is a
long piece of DNA. We want to find the longest
piece of DNA we can that the person of interest
has in common with other people in the database. So
(06:55):
if the person of interest is actually a piece of
evidence from a crime seeing, the police will load that
up into a database and treated as if it is
a person looking for their true parents, you know, and
orphan looking for their true parents, and the.
Speaker 5 (07:12):
DNA needs to be in a certain format, right you know.
Most law enforcement agencies use the STR profile which stands
for short tandem repeat and these types of profiles can
be read through CODIS, whereas labs like AUTHROM, you know,
they have the capability to convert these DNA samples into
SNIP profiles which stands for single nuclear polymorphism profiles, and
these types of SNIP profiles can be analyzed.
Speaker 6 (07:33):
Into genetic databases.
Speaker 5 (07:35):
Can you tell us a little bit about the differences
between what most law enforcement crime labs use, which is
STR and SNIP profiles which are needed for forensic investigative
genetic genealogy.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
The chemistry is different, the machines are different, the software
is different, and I think most importantly the mathematics is different.
So in the case of the standard STRs, we're looking
at the length of a piece of DNA, We're only
going to look at about twenty three of those lengths,
and it identifies a person. They allow us to differentiate
(08:06):
from one person to another.
Speaker 5 (08:08):
Right, they can tell us if the person is male
or female, and if it matches someone in codis, then great,
you know there's your answer. But without a match, it's
unfortunately not really going to get you anywhere.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
And the case of the snips, we're looking at hundreds
of thousands of areas in someone's genome. There are three
billion bases, so there's a lot of places you can choose,
and we're reading the actual sequences the single nucleotide bases
at particular areas.
Speaker 7 (08:35):
So it's a very much more information rich, detailed profile
when you do a SNIP, and people are putting their
DNA in these databases.
Speaker 5 (08:49):
Right and willingly, you know, in an effort to find
more about their heritage. Sites like my family Tree, Jetmatch,
my Heritage List goes.
Speaker 6 (08:57):
On for the types of sites these people are uploading to.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
And if we find a relative of someone who matches
that the SNIP profile, police can investigate that family and
then find the perpetrator. In this case. It's just a
wonderful tool because when you have a great DNA fingerprint,
and if they're not in the criminal database, they're not
going to get caught, even though they leave tons of
DNA behind. And now we can do that through fig
(09:21):
forensic investigative genealogies because not those criminals, but their nice
relatives have contributed DNA to public databases. And so yeah,
it's very exciting. It opens up a whole new area.
Speaker 4 (09:38):
Here's journalist American Crime Lab host and authroom insider Alien
Lance Lesser.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
One other really exciting piece of this is also the
technology at AUTHRM is really good at analyzing DNA that
previously was thought to be unanalyzable. But what's cool is,
you know, at a crime scene, it's not like a
clean swab of a mouth the way you might get
when you're sending in your DNA. It's often contaminated, it's degraded,
(10:06):
it's been sitting out in the snow, in the rain,
animals have interacted with it. Maybe there's plant DNA mixed
up with the DNA. Maybe the victims. DNA is mixed
up with the DNA and so quite often you're getting
a really not so good sample to analyze in a
lot of cold cases. And so this technology can handle
that more degraded DNA than other technology has been able
(10:29):
to do previously.
Speaker 6 (10:31):
That's amazing.
Speaker 5 (10:31):
Yeah, I've definitely heard that their major cold case solving pioneers,
which is just so impressive. What are some examples of
cases that really defy the odds? I think before you'd
told me a little bit about the Carla Walker case
being particularly impressive.
Speaker 6 (10:44):
Can you tell us a little bit about that.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
The Carla Walker case happened years ago in nineteen seventy four,
and Carla Walker was a seventeen year old girl. She
was a high school cheerleader, very like spunky, energetic, and
the night of her Valentine's Day dance, she disappeared. She
went to the dance with her boyfriend, Rodney, and later
(11:06):
that night Rodney would later say that they were in
a bowling alley parking lot after the dance doing you
know what teenagers do, kind of sitting in their car
kissing a little bit. Suddenly the door opened and they're
at gunpoint with either one or two men and Rodney
he had just been beaten across the face, but when
he woke up, Carla was gone, and three days later
(11:29):
they found her body in a cattle culvert just outside
of the Fort Worth area. Anyway, through all this they
just don't get enough evidence and the case goes cold
for years and years and years. I do think it's
a case that stayed alive in that community, like people
always wondered what happened to Carla after years and years. Eventually,
(11:54):
of course, DNA technology comes on the scene and they
do luckily have some DNA preserved on Carlo's clothing, and
eventually authroom here is about the case, David and Kristen
and they get involved and they say, we think we
can help solve this case. They did find just a
(12:14):
little bit more DNA on her dress. It was just
I think it was four nanograms, which is like the tiniest,
tiniest amount, like just a matter of a handful of cells.
It was also DNA mixed with other DNA, so again
it's and it's also degraded. At this point, it's forty
six years later, so this DNA has also just been
(12:37):
like sitting around gradually degrading for all those years, but
AUTHROAM says, we're confident we can get a result. So
they do the testing, and they get a result, and
they have a name, Glenn Samuel McCurley junior, and so
police go and find him. They ask for DNA squad,
(12:57):
which he eventually does, and they're able to check if he,
in fact is the person who left this DNA the
seman on Carlos dress and it is a match. And
eventually Glenn Samuel L. McCurley Junior confessed, that is.
Speaker 5 (13:13):
Seriously so impressive forty six years later, very degraded DNA,
only four nanograms of it. AUTHORAM is truly changing the
world here.
Speaker 4 (13:26):
Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
a moment. When the Idaho State Police Lab couldn't get
a hit from COTIS on the DNA found on the
knife sheath, investigators turned to David and Kristen Middleman at
AUTHRM to see if they could process the sample using
(13:48):
forensic investigative genetic genealogy, renowned for solving cold cases. This
marked one of the very first active cases AUTHORM had
been approached about. Here's journalist Alan Lance Lesser explaining how
authoram handled this crucial sample.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
I think when they first were asked to come on,
they were actually a little bit nervous, just because of
how much attention was focused on it and because they
typically have done kind of these older cold cases. But
I think Kristen said when she thought about, we just
have a duty to try to help. I mean, David
and Kristen had a child at the time who was
(14:29):
a sophomore in college, and they were like, what if
something like this happened to our child, Like, we would
absolutely want our technology to be used. So despite some
kind of nerves around that, they jumped right in and
they were able to get DNA from that sheath right
at the snap, because you know, when you snap something,
you like really have to pull at it. Because of that,
there was actually quite a bit of DNA left behind.
(14:50):
It was just like touch DNA. It was a very
clean sample, which was comforting in that it wasn't mixed
with other DNA and there was like a lot of it.
So they run the tests, and it takes a little
while to complete the tests, but initially the information they
get from some kind of the preliminary testing is some
basic kind of geographic information about the perpetrator. They find
(15:13):
that it's someone likely of European heritage, of specifically Italian heritage,
and that he probably is connected to kind of a
multi generational family that lives in Pennsylvania. Actually, so they've
got that kind of information going, which also is connected
to the fact that the white Hyundai Elantra that's seen
(15:36):
driving around the crime scene at around the time of
the murders doesn't have a front license plate, which is
common in Pennsylvania cars, and.
Speaker 5 (15:46):
That's such an important clue just even being able to
whittle down the Lantras, you know, it was such a
popular car. It still is. I think at some point
I saw it was reported there are approximately twenty two
thousand white Hondai Launtras.
Speaker 6 (15:57):
In the area. So if you can eliminate the vast.
Speaker 5 (15:59):
Majority of the i but only focus on ones with
no front license plate, that's extremely helpful.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
That's that other connection there again to other evidence. Anyway, Eventually,
once the testing is done, they eventually have a name,
and it's Brian Coburger, and they call up the police
and give them the name. And at first the police
were so shocked they were almost thinking it was almost
a joke. Because they had kept saying, give us a name,
(16:27):
give us a name, that they almost thought it was
like so ridiculous to get one specific name, because again,
I feel like a lot of investigators are used to codis,
where like, if you don't get a match there, you're
not going to get a name. So then they really
let it absorb it and started their investigation and from
there we're able, you know, to track down Brian Coburger
and continue it from there.
Speaker 5 (16:51):
And forensic investigative genetic genealogy is just a lead generator.
Speaker 6 (16:54):
It is a means to a lead.
Speaker 5 (16:56):
It does not directly implicate you, which is something the
prosecution was really trying to hoe in on last winter
when the defense was trying to get the DNA evans
thrown out. You know, they were saying it violet at
privacy laws, that it wasn't effective and in theory, you know,
I guess it's kind of scary to think that if
you have a relative that uploads their DNA to a
heritage site, and let's say your DNA is at a
crime scene, you know, all of a sudden, your relative
(17:17):
has implicated you in a crime, and you know, that
is kind of a scary thing.
Speaker 6 (17:20):
To think about.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
I do think it's interesting how that I think is
the first thought a lot of people have is it's
kind of scary, like almost fearing like, well, I be
caught for something. But I think it's like a comforting
reminder to note, like that you're not committing these crimes,
so you know what I mean, Like I almost want
to say that to listeners sometimes because it's kind of
like this new technology, it feels kind of scary, like
(17:42):
anyone can be identified, but it's it's kind of like
any other piece of evidence. If someone leaves a piece
of evidence at a crime scene and they've like murdered someone, yeah,
I would hope that they can use the evidence that's
there to find out who did it and to stop
them from continuing. So it's funny how we're so immediately
protective of our own DNA, which I think is totally
(18:02):
valid and correct, but I think the way it's being
used is still fairly private, and we're finding killers here.
Speaker 5 (18:12):
One hundred percent, and for a FIG match to even matter,
you have to have some other implicated evidence to even
get a warrant. In the Coburger case, you know he
had the white HOUNDAI lantra. He matched the physical description
of the perpetrator that Dylan Morton's had describes scene in
the night of the murders. You now, there's just a
lot of different things that are piling up against him.
And on top of having other evidence that links you
to the crime, investigators also have to confirm a fig
(18:33):
match with traditionals STR DNA testing STR is the old
gold standard trod and true for matches, whereas forendsic investigative
genetic genealogy, it's newer.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Well, first, Brian Coberger had gone to his family's home
in Pennsylvania, so they got some DNA from the garbage,
which they had also seen Brian Coburger using gloves to
take out garbage, which to me suggests he was being fair,
very careful about DNA. He had actually studied criminology. He
really knew what he was doing. He was really covering
(19:06):
his tracks. But they were able to test DNA and
it was his father's DNA because he was at the
family's house. But then from there they were able to say,
it's this close of a match, let's get a warrant
to get Brian's DNA, and they were able to then
match it up using the traditional str testing.
Speaker 5 (19:24):
Right, which directly matched him to the DNA in the
knife sheath. Authoram's work is so impressive here because they
truly helped defind Brian Coberger quickly. Now he wasn't in
codis So imagine if the sample from the NiFe sheet
didn't get sent in for forensic investigative genetic genealogy. I
think about that often, you know, I'm glad that the
signs is improving so much that we can catch people
faster and get them off the street.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
Many have wondered what would have happened in the Brian
Coburger case if the single source male DNA found on
the knife sheath was never identified, especially since Coburger the
CODA system. We ask legal analyst and former homicide prosecutor
Jarrett Farentino for his thoughts on how this case could
(20:08):
have played out without Authorm's assistance. He's joined by KAT
Studio's producer Alison Bankston.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
I mean, what can you say the technology that Authrum utilized,
the IgG technology in this case took it to a
whole other level. We don't know that Brian Colberger would
have ever been ultimately charged, or that investigators would have
gotten sufficient probable cause to discover all of the evidence
(20:37):
that eventually was found against him. We do know that
IgG technology expedited identifying Brian Coolberger as the likely killer here.
It expedited the probable cause determinations and took him into
custody before he can hurt someone else. And it's him
one in quintillion chance. This guy with his DNA is
(21:00):
also driving a white HONDAEI Landra, his cell phone's hitting
on those towers, he matches the physical description. All of
those things just came to pass tremendously as the case
was put together. If you don't have the DNA, can
you get there? Remember they weren't just challenging the DNA.
They were saying, number one, it was touched DNA. There's
(21:22):
an issue with that, but really it was IgG DNA.
It was a process employed. It's a novel process. It's
not enough to get to probable cause. And if it isn't,
what do you got. You have a largely circumstantial case
against Brian Colberger.
Speaker 5 (21:46):
Without the DNA, is there more of a chance for
reasonable doubts? Like let's say you're on the jury or
going through trial. I feel like it probably would have
been less of a slam dunk, But how much less
of a slam dunk could have done if the DNA
wasn't here.
Speaker 3 (21:57):
If it all got in front of a jury, your
job at that point is to explain the circumstance away,
and it's much easier if there's not a one and
quintillion chance it's not your guy. You know, you could say, hey,
a lot of phones were in that tower, hundreds of phones,
if not thousands, over those days, and a lot of
people drive a white Hondai Lauantra. You don't have DNA.
(22:18):
Brian never confessed there's no blood in his car. I've
prosecuted a lot of solely circumstantial cases. I've secured convictions
on those cases. They're tougher, don't get me wrong, But
I think you could have still prosecuted Brian Colberger for
this crime, but it would have been a very different process.
Speaker 5 (22:44):
Yeah, I feel like as a juror, and this is
solely my opinion. I am definitely not an expert, but
those points about the Launtra being such a popular car,
that a cell phone was in the area, that he
matches the description for me with the right experts up
on the stand. All of that could have pretty easily
been explained away, Like it's possible that without the DNA evidence,
he would have gotten off or maybe never even gotten caught.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
And ultimately, remember it was the DNA that decision, the
decision that it was coming in that led to the plague.
So you cannot overstate the significance of Authorum's findings in
this case. There's no doubt about it.
Speaker 5 (23:21):
This was authram's first live case, you know, active case
for the used forensic investigative genealogy. Do you think courtrooms
will start seeing more of this since you know there
was success in the Coburger case.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
Absolutely so. When you have a case of this magnitude
covered worldwide and a technology stands the rigors of the
challenges that it was met with in Idaho by Coburger's
defense team, it is a green light to prosecutors across
the country. The law is based on other cases and
(23:52):
the ability to argue it. Once that first impression is
made and the decision is made, that case will be
utilized across the country, maybe the world to argue IgG
technology is sound and it stands the tests that are
applied in corporate so yes, I think it will have
a very, very big impact on convictions solving investigations. But
(24:16):
at the same time, I think it's worth noting this
type of technology has also led to the solving of
cold cases. It's also led to the exoneration of people
that have been wrongfully convicted. So it is a powerful
tool to getting to the truth, whatever that is.
Speaker 4 (24:36):
Let's stop here for a break. We'll be back in
a moment. Authroom Laboratories in the Woodlands, Texas, is revolutionizing
how DNA evidence is used in courtrooms. What once began
as a tool for genealogists tracing family heritage is now
(24:58):
helping law enforcement a identify criminals with no prior records
like never before. Without Authram, Justice for Madison, Mogen Kallie Gonzalvez,
Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Shapin may have never come. It's
a groundbreaking company that we're proud to feature. Joining us
once again is journalist, authoram Insider and host of America's
(25:21):
Crime Lab, Alan Lance Lesser, along with Katie's Studio's producer
Alison Bankston.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
What's kind of cool to think about, but someone like
Brian Coberger, who had again studied criminology, had even surveyed
criminals about how they committed their crimes, presumably to get
information for how to commit a crime successfully. For him,
at least, that's what where my mind goes that why
he was doing that. And to think he was so careful,
(25:49):
I mean, he really didn't leave other evidence at the
crime scene. It really was this knife sheath. And to
think he was so careful and knowledgeable and yet he
still did lead DNA. I almost feel like it's a
psa to anyone considering committing a violent crime like in
today's world, You're not going to get away with it.
Speaker 6 (26:08):
No, you're not not, even if you don't have a
criminal record.
Speaker 1 (26:12):
And that's a comforting thing, a good message for people
to know that even just having society know that it
might reduce the amount of crimes like this.
Speaker 5 (26:22):
Throughout working on this then this podcast with off from
you know, you kind of have a really cool in
here with this most amazing company.
Speaker 6 (26:30):
What have you personally learned working so.
Speaker 5 (26:32):
Closely with them and establishing this relationship with them.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
I've just learned so much more about the technology. And
also if people listen to our podcast America's Crime Lab,
they will learn a lot more too, but also in
an engaging way, learning about these cases and these stories
and these people, and also being victim centered in that
we talk to a lot of family members and relatives,
close friends. And I think it's useful as I consume
(27:00):
true crime media or you know, learn about cases in
my environment to understand some of this technology and how
can be used. And I think I've just been so
struck by their process and it's kind of almost like
given me hope in science, and I personally have been
inspired by also their devotion to the work and how
so many people at AUTHRAM do have some kind of
(27:21):
personal connection, maybe they had a family member who experienced
a violet crime or just have some kind of personal
stake in these crimes. So I also think authrom is
just full of people who are very committed to this mission. Really,
I feel like our podcast focuses on so many dark things,
as I'm sure you're used to as well, But I
think sometimes in that darkness you see these stories of
(27:44):
human resilience, of people working for cases of people they
don't even know, and being so determined, And I think
that is also very uplifting to me on a personal level.
Working on this show.
Speaker 5 (27:54):
What else can we expect from America's Crime Lab in
the future, What can we look forward to as you
guys continue to make podcast.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
Well, we're still coming out with episodes, so they're coming
out every week. But we're just excited to be getting
these stories out there and to be able to have
this unique relationship with Authorm where we're really getting the
insider view of like how does the lab work, how
do they work these cases? And basically it's a look
into authoram in a way that I think hasn't really
(28:22):
happened before, and it's really exciting stuff.
Speaker 4 (28:28):
You can find Dalen's podcast, American Crime Lab on the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts,
and you can learn more about authorm's impressive work at
authrum dot com. That's ot h r AM dot com.
More on that next time. For more information on the
(28:52):
case and relevant photos, follow us on Instagram at kt
Underscore Studios. The Idaho Massacre is produced by Stephanie Leideger,
Alison Bankston, Gabriel Castillo, and me Courtney Armstrong. Editing and
sound design by Jeff Toois, Music by Jared Aston. The
Idaho Masacre is a production of Katie's Studios and iHeartRadio.
(29:15):
For more podcasts like this, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Hosts And Creators
Stephanie Lydecker
Courtney Armstrong
Jeff Shane
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
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.
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.