Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Bryan Kohberger: 'I HAVE AN ALIBI,' Plus Cops Planted DNA

Episode Date: July 26, 2023

Brian Kohberger's attorney the accused quadruple murder suspect has an alibi, but it will not be revealed before the trial. In court documents, his attorneys say there is evidence he was somewhere else at the time of the November 2022 crime, and all the information will come out as state witnesses are cross-examined, as well as the defense expert witnesses.   The attorneys have also cast suspicion that the DNA links Kohberger to the crime was planted, to build a "rigged case.  The defense team has also attacked the DNA evidence, and the tools used to match it to Kohberger.  Joining Nancy Grace Today: Tara Malek – Bosie, ID, Attorney and Co-owner of Smith + Malek; Former State and Federal Prosecutor; Twitter: @smith_malek Dr. Bethany Marshall – Psychoanalyst (Beverly Hills, CA); Twitter: @DrBethanyLive Sheryl McCollum – Cold Case Investigative Research Institute Founder; Host of new podcast, “Zone 7;” Twitter: @ColdCaseTips Chris McDonough – Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective, & Host of YouTube channel, “The Interview Room” Dr. Michelle DuPre – Forensic Pathologist, Medical Examiner and Detective: Lexington County Sheriff’s Department; Author: “Homicide Investigation Field Guide” & “Investigating Child Abuse Field Guide;” Forensic Consultant Toby Wolson – Forensic Consultant Specializing in DNA, Serology and Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Rachel Schilke- Breaking News Reporter for The Washington Examiner; Twitter: @rachel_schilke See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Brian Koberger, the quadruple murder suspect in the Idaho slays of four beautiful students. A crime scene like no other crime scene. Texan detectives say they've never seen anything like it. In the face of DNA matching Brian Koberger, in the face of cell phone data showing him leaving the scene the night of the murders on a securitist route to his own apartment. In the face of evidence that he had been contacting the young co-eds prior to the murders. What does the defense do? They claim, I wasn't there. It's called under the law an alibi defense.

And they're playing hide the ball. Now you see it, now they don't. But is there really even a ball? Or is it just a big lie? Because they're saying that we have an alibi for Brian Koberger, the night of the murders, at the time of the murders, but we're not going to tell you what it is. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111. First of all, take a listen to this, our friends at KTVB. The attorney for Brian Koberger, the man accused of murdering four University of Idaho students, has filed a response to the state's demand that he produce an alibi.

That response was filed yesterday. In it, his attorney, Ann Taylor, says evidence corroborating Mr. Koberger being at a location other than the King Road address will be disclosed pursuant to discovery and evidentiary rules as well as statutory requirements. Defense attorneys for Brian Koberk are now suggesting that he had an alibi the night four University of Idaho students were murdered. In a new court filing, defense attorneys claim to have evidence that a WSU criminology student was not at the home where the murders took place last fall. However, they did not provide any details backing up that story, saying instead that it would come out at trial. Okay, he's got an alibi, a rock-solid alibi, but I'm not going to tell you.

You're also hearing our friends at Fox 13. And now, take a listen to our friends at Crime Online. Even though Brian Koberger was required to submit an alibi explaining where he was the night four University of Idaho students were murdered, his defense team filed court documents showing Koberger is choosing to remain silent. In a document filed with the court, Koberger's public defender Ann Taylor said, Mr. Koberger notes that Idaho Code 19-5194 preserves his constitutional right to silence as well as to testify on his own behalf. The document filed by his public defender Ann Taylor goes on to state,

Mr. Koberger stands firm on his constitutional right as well as the statutory recognition of that right. Now even though he has chosen not to explain where he was at the time of the murder in the court filing Taylor wrote it is anticipated this evidence may be offered by way of cross-examination of witnesses produced by the state as well as calling expert witnesses. You know what? I learned a lot in law school. I learned a lot trying cases for so many years, criminal cases and murder cases. And I can tell you this much. I learned all I need to know about this growing up near a farm. I know BS when I smell it. And that is BS. Very simply, the law requires you, when you're going to bring up an alibi, to give notice of what the alibi is.

Just like the law requires the state to hand over its witness list and any scientific evidence. It might be using it to try to like DNA evidence or fingerprint evidence. You hand that over ahead of time so the other side has a fair chance to evaluate it and cross-examine it. Same thing with alibi. You hand over your alibi to the state so they have a chance to test the evidence before it comes in at trial. We don't have trial by ambush. That's not what our justice system is about. So what the defense is doing here is arguing two very, very valued and protected tenets in our Constitution. Number one, I have a right to bring on an alibi, and I have a right to remain silent, but ne'er the twain

shall meet. In other words, if you want to use an alibi, you've got to hand it over ahead of time. The Fifth Amendment right to remain silent does not apply to following legal procedure at court. And oh, did I mention, not only does Koberger claim he's got an alibi, which he's keeping a deep, dark secret, but he's also claiming, you know that DNA found at the scene that traces back to him? He's also claiming, wait for it, it was planted. Who are they going to bring on as an expert? OJ Simpson? Again, I'm Nancy Grayson.

This is Crime Stories. Thanks for being with us. Straight out to an all-star panel to make sense of what we know right now. And first, I'm going to a veteran trial lawyer joining us from that jurisdiction in Idaho, Tara Malik, high-profile lawyer, co-owner Smith & Malik, and former state and federal prosecutor. She's at smithmalik.com. By the way, I think your name should be first. It should be Malik Smith, but that's for another day. Tara, this is total BS. You can't claim that your right to remain silent supersedes your duty to hand over your alibi. Yeah, you're exactly right. I mean, so it's stinking up the whole studio. Hey, you.

It is a non answer. And the funniest part about it is the court filing that the defense filed says we're going to we're going to disclose this evidence according to Idaho law and the statutes and the rules. And it's like, well, but you didn't. So Idaho law requires, if you're going to provide notice of the alibi to identify the location that you're claiming you're going to be as well as any witnesses that you're going to rely on. And so the defense coming in and saying, well, we may have been somewhere else and we may provide that information through cross-examination of state witnesses really is just a doubling down of their refusal to provide that information in the first place. And if you recall, they asked for more time earlier, early in June, to try and get through the

discovery here. So they've really, it'll be curious to see what the state's response is. And I think they've got an uphill battle for sure. Well, I tell you this right now they're standing on their heads and their faces are turning red that's what's happening right now because this is total BS and it makes me question the lawyer. Now I've never heard any questions regarding her aptitude. I heard murmurs and complaints and grumbling that she had once represented one of the victims family member and now dump that family member to represent Koberger that's a conflict of interest issue that does not bear on the evidence in the Brian Koberger case this does I mean Cheryl McCollum correct

me if I'm wrong Cheryl McCollum, correct me if I'm wrong, Cheryl McCollum is with me, founder, director of Cold Case Research Institute, star of a hit new podcast, Zone 7, and you can find her at coldcasecrimes.org. Cheryl, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't his cell phone caught, it's turned off at the time of the murders, but then it turns on during his drive that night, leaving the crime scene, according to police. Correct. And they also have his car on video going past a film station. Oh, gosh. Wait, wait, wait. Hold this thought, Cheryl McCollum. He also says that's not his car. OK, so that's another thing we've got.

OK, we have I've got an alibi, but I'm going to keep it a deep, dark secret. I wasn't there. And I'll let you catch that bomb when I throw it at you in court. Number two, you planted the DNA, by the way. And number three, yeah, that's not my car. But what about the cell phone? The cell phone, Cheryl McCollum, what, did somebody else have a cell phone driving from the murder scene all the way back to his apartment the night of

the murders? That's right. So instead of the cell phone being on his bedside table at four in the morning and active, this phone is pinging off different towers. And then before the murders, it is engaged by the owner of that cell phone, Koberger, and he puts it on airplane mode, thinking that would not, you know, connect him to that house. It failed. It failed miserably. You know, interesting. And I want to circle back to the whole airplane mode. Try. Hold on. I'd like a note of that. And also, we got to circle back to him claiming it's not his Elantra.

Joining me is Rachel Schilke, breaking news reporter for the Washington Examiner on Twitter. She's at Rachel underscore Schilke. And that's, if you want to find her, S, not spelled the way it sounds, S-C-H-I-L-K-E. Schilke. Rachel, thank you for being with us. Let me just detour one minute off the alibi and the DNA. What is he saying about his car, that it's not his car? Well, I think the defense is using that there's a lot of cars registered in the area and that there is a lot of chances that that couldn't be his. But I think all the corroborating evidence shows that, you know,

it's leading in that direction that it is very unlikely that he wasn't there. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. So he's finding that there is, that there are a lot of cars, a lot of white Elantras. And you know what's funny, funny, odd. You know, Chris McDonough joining me, director at the Cold Case Foundation, former homicide detective and host of an incredible YouTube channel called The Interview Room. That's where I found him. And you can find him at coldcasefoundation.org. Chris, ever since

we heard about a white Elantra speeding away from the scene, that's all I can see. Everywhere I go, I see Elantras, white Elantras. So that's going to be argued to the jury. You see a white Elantra everywhere you go. Just like with the phenomenon of child molesters darting off in a what? A white van. Everybody knows it. And they're going to argue that to the jury. How many times have you seen a white Elantra speed by? We don't know it's his white Elantra.

That's what they're going to argue. I'm shriveling up and dying right now. I can't believe this is happening. Yeah. And Nancy, you called it from the very now. I can't believe this is happening. Yeah. And Nancy, you called it from the very beginning. I mean, this is smoke and mirrors. And they're utilizing, you know, the court to get a narrative out there into the public.

I think it's terrible. Oh, wait. I like that idea. Okay. They're using the court to get a narrative out there. Okay, I think what you're saying in regular people talk is that they're using these motions to get their defense disseminated to the public and take the jury pool. And you know what? That's okay. That's okay.

They have a right to file these motions. We have a right to talk about it. And then in court, they must find a jury that while they may have heard all this, will keep an open mind. That's what they have to do. But you're right. This is kind of a test run. I guarantee you, Tara Malik, a high profile lawyer in the Idaho jurisdiction. I guarantee you, Tara Malik, a high-profile lawyer in the Idaho jurisdiction, I guarantee you they're going to watch and listen to every single thing that's said about these defenses. And let me just give you a blueprint. Scott Peterson, in that case, who turned out to be the lead defense attorney, and I would argue every night on Larry King, may God bless his soul, every night.

And they would actually float theories on Larry King, and I'd shoot them down as best as I could, and then they would finally come up with their ultimate theory of defense. Not that that was true, of course, because it wasn't. But they would see what floated. I don't know if you remember, there was the Hawaiian gang, they said to Lacey. There was the theory that another woman was part of her kidnap to cut her baby out of her stomach.

That was a theory. There was the burglars next door theory. There were so many theories about Lacey's disappearance to obfuscate the truth that Scott Peterson killed her. And Mark Geragos, who's a really good lawyer, would test those out on Larry King Live every night and that they would either float or they would sink. And that's what's happening right here. True story. What about it, Tara? Nancy, if I could interject.

Are you Tara? No, you're not. But since you haven't spoken yet, hold on, Tara. Make way for Dr. Bethany Marshall, she who must be obeyed. High-profile psychoanalyst joining us out of Beverly Hills at drbethanymarshall.com. Jump in, Dr. Bethany. I'm sure you're going to give us food for thought. The more simple and paranoid the messaging is, the more it catches fire with the jury pool and the public, like that a gang took Lacey. I mean, it's simple. A gang took her. And the more often it's said on TV and the more often it's said on tv the more often it spreads the most more often it's

said around dinner tables the more mythology becomes the truth in people's minds it's like oj simpson as i said on one show if it fits you must acquit please i'm just about to talk about him and you had to go ahead and ruin my my hot tea with that go ahead hey i was living in brentwood at the time all this went down and we were all talking about the fact that if it fits you must acquit i mean that was the that was the primary thing that everybody was talking about and then conversations spread out from there well whose glove was it and everyone sort of knew the guy that the tenant that was living there so it's not just the simple messaging and how it catches fire. Are you talking about Kato Kaelin?

Yes, Kato Kaelin. Yes. Yes. Okay. Just so everybody knows, Kato Kaelin, who I happen to know, did not do it. He did not do it. Right. But he was such a lovely person and a fun character on TV.

He's a great person. He's like a surfer dude, good guy to have around. He's like, what, murder? What? Exactly. What? That is hysterical. And he is, I mean, I recall that he testified.

And, of course, once the jury saw him and his demeanor, you know, likable, open, funny. No, that was not him. They probably thought, what is he going to do, hit the victim over the head with a surfboard? I mean, he's that kind of a guy. Exactly, exactly. You know, another thing about this, you know what, let me just play our friends at Crime Online. Brian Koberger was supposed to provide an alibi, but has chosen a different path as his public defender, Ann Taylor, provided in a court filing. Taylor said a defendant's denial of the charges against him does not constitute an alibi. But as soon as he offers evidence that he was at some place other than where the crime of which he is charged was committed, he is raising the alibi defense. Mr. Koberger's defense team continues investigating and preparing his case. Evidence corroborating Mr. Koberger being at a location

other than the King Road address will be disclosed pursuant to discovery and evidentiary rules as well as statutory requirements. Bottom line, Taylor says Koberger's alibi should come out in cross-examination of witnesses or through the calling of expert witnesses. Just so you know, you don't have to have a law degree to know that's a bunch of BS. We're not going to tell you the alibi, but we're going to extract it from the state's witnesses. And, you know, they say that they're going to continue to investigate the case. Translation, we're going to keep fishing till we find something, some way to argue an alibi. What I want to go through quickly with Tara Malik, and it is a technical legal issue, is. Okay, how can I say this?

You know, in a case where they don't have it in Idaho, but in most jurisdictions, there is an insanity defense. Okay. Once you raise the insanity defense, you're essentially saying, yes, I did it, but I was insane. Same thing with self-defense. You're saying, yes, I totally shot Jackie, but it was in self-defense. In those cases, you have to admit to the incident and then put up your defense. With alibi, it's similar in that it's somewhat burden shifting. When you go into try cases, the burden's all on you. The defendant can sit there and twiddle his thumbs and do nothing, and that's okay. But once they say, we have an alibi, it seems as if,

kind of like when the defendant takes a stand, like in Alex Murdoch. The jury's like, hmm, I don't know what to think. Then he takes a stand, they're like, he's a total liar. It shifts the burden. And when you put up an alibi defense, if your alibi technical legal term sucks, then you lose. It becomes all about what the defendant is saying. Would you agree with that, Tara? Absolutely. I mean, it is an affirmative style of defense, which is you're putting forward, I wasn't there and here I was instead. You know, I was at this other location and here are the people who are going to be able to say I was at this other location. So you are in a way committing to your storyline and you're committing to it pretty early on. And so that may be one of

the reasons why, you know, they're playing this kind of hopscotch around the issue. Maybe it'll come out, you know, when we cross-examine the state's experts. But I still don't think that this is compliant with what Idaho law requires as far as an alibi defense. You know, curiously, even if they chose to go with this alibi, whatever it may be, wherever he's claiming he was, they're going to have a really tough time explaining his, first of all, his DNA in the home on the ninth sheet, but also his conduct when he was back in Pennsylvania. You know, he had gloves. He was, you know, sorting trash. He had cleaned out his car.

I mean, they've got a real uphill battle here. It's not just I was somewhere else. It's like, well, then why were you acting in those other ways? And I'm sure the state is gathering all of that as well. Nancy, can I jump in? Yes, yes. Go ahead. I want to remind everybody too, the day he was arrested, the minute they put him in the interview room, he had no alibi. He didn't give them this solid piece of evidence that would have excluded him. Why not? And now that he's sitting in jail, he has an attorney saying, hey, you know what? We know we've got this alibi. It's solid. Shows you were somewhere else. But you just sit in that cell for another year. And then when we get to trial,

we'll show them. That makes no sense to anybody. Guys, there's another issue, and the issue is not only are they saying they've got an alibi, but they're not going to tell us. They're also saying, and this is a bombshell, that the state planted the evidence. Take a listen to our cut 529, Crime Online, and Fox 13. Koberger's lawyers have also attacked the dna found at the crime scene which was matched to coberger's genetic material and a motion filed last month as lawyers questioned whether investigators may have planted the dna to frame coberger prosecutors fired back saying that

the genetic genealogy was far from the only evidence used to build their case coberger is set to go on trial in october it's the death penalty if convicted. In the court filing, Koberger's defense suggests someone else may have left Koberger's DNA on the knife sheath. What the state's argument asks this court and Mr. Koberger to assume is that the DNA on the sheath was placed there by Mr. Koberger and not someone else during an investigation that spans hundreds of

members of law enforcement and apparently at least one lab the state refuses to name. With me is Dr. Michelle Dupree, forensic pathologist, medical examiner, former detective, and author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide. Dr. Michelle Dupree, when you go onto a crime scene, what prophylactic measures do you take to make sure you don't contaminate the darn scene? We take all kinds of preventative measures. We sometimes dress in complete tieback suits. We wear booties on our feet. We certainly have on gloves. We may have on masks.

We may have on hairnets. I mean, there are all sorts of personal protective equipment that we use. And this is an absolute ludicrous claim. You know, I mean, who would even try to convince us? Well, that's a really good question. Who would try that? Take a listen to our 533 Crime Online. The O.J. Simpson defense team realized early they had to contest some of the blood results found. At the Bundy crime scene, the team focused on the back gate, where a total of three samples were collected.

The defense pointed out that two were collected on June 13th, but the third droplet was collected on July 3rd, three weeks after the crime scene was washed clean. How did the police find a blood drop three weeks after the scene was clear? The defense also locked into the bloody sock in Simpson's bedroom. That sock contained blood from Simpson and Brown. The defense claimed EDTA was found in the third blood drop at Bundy that was all Simpson and EDTA was found in Nicole Brown's blood on the sock. EDTA is used in the police lab as an anticoagulant. EDTA was found in Simpson's blood drop on the back gate and Nicole Brown's blood on the sock in Simpson's And not just OJ Simpson, may he rot in hell after he dies, but Stephen Avery as well. Take a listen to our cut 537 WISN. The attorney for Stephen Avery just filed new paperwork in an effort to overturn his murder conviction.

Avery is serving a life term in the 2005 murder of photographer Teresa Halbach. That case got worldwide attention in the Netflix series Making a Murderer. Avery's team claims someone else killed Halbach and planted evidence on Avery's property. They say they have new witnesses and evidence. The 46-page document filed today asked the state to grant Avery either an evidentiary hearing or a new trial. The state rejected a similar request last year. So that's two that I can think of just off the top of my head. Joining me now, forensic consultant specializing in DNA, serology, bloodstain,

Toby Wolson at NoSlowForensic.com. Toby, what type of measures are taken so you don't contaminate the scene, especially after O.J. Simpson's debacle? This isn't a contamination argument here, first of all. Contamination means that the evidence was mishandled miss package something was done that caused the DNA of the defendant to be transferred to that item accidentally or on purpose that that is not this is not a contamination argument they're putting forth this is one saying that he's been he's been framed so that they're basically saying the lab or the police had his DNA,

put it on that sheath, or somebody else put it on that sheath, then planted it at the crime scene so that he would ultimately be detected, which becomes a very, in this case, a convoluted situation because, first of all, they had a DNA profile from him long before he ever became the focus of this investigation. They had what we would refer to as a foreign profile from an unknown source. And so if it was planted, first of all, it wouldn't be an unknown source. There'd be some type of profile already in the DNA database or somebody, you know, would have had to have a sample of his DNA to put on there so you know the contamination argument doesn't apply here the planted argument

is so convoluted that it's not realistic so I don't think the jury will fall for something like that so Cheryl in plain talk that you would tell a jury caps capsulize that. So let's take OJ Simpson. In order for the police to have planted blood, his blood, they would have to know that he was injured. If you remember, he went and went to Chicago. They didn't know he was cut. That ain't how they would have set him up. If he would have been set up, a bloody murder weapon would have been there. In the case of Koberger, when the police show up, body cam's going to be running. Wait a minute. You have to have the defendant's DNA to put it in the crime scene to start with. Absolutely. And what Toby is saying, I think,

is they gathered the DNA before Koberger became a suspect. So how would they have the DNA before Koberger became a suspect. So how could they plant his DNA at the scene when he had not been identified as a suspect, unless they're going to argue they had already identified him, that he was going to be the scapegoat. And then that night, the night of the murders, they planted it, which, as Toby Wilson said, and I agree, is totally convoluted. But the reality is, is it worked in Simpson. It did. It worked in Simpson.

Johnny Cochran, my former co-anchor, may God rest his soul, worked his magic on a jury, and it actually worked. So we see the argument of planting evidence, rearing its ugly head. And we got to look at also Chris McDonough, director of Cold Case Foundation, how many people actually went into the crime scene. Was it planted there? Was it planted at the lab? I mean, there's going to be a plethora of arguments, a Pandora's box of how the evidence was planted. Don't you see? Yeah, absolutely. And I think this going down this lane where the defense is headed, Nancy, I think we all agree here on this panel, it's going to be quite, you know, a high mountain to overcome because that's what we thought.

And O.J. Simpson, man. Yeah, I know. I agree. You get one nut on the jury. I mean, one conspiracy theories, Dr. Bethany Marshall. And it's all she wrote. It's over. One bad apple on that jury might fall for this cockamamie.

They planted the evidence theory. And don't even start with me about that Simpson had evidence planted against him. I mean, if that's true, don't you know out of all that police force that worked this case, one person would do a multi-million dollar book deal right now to tell the whole story, right? Yes, that did not happen. This is Toby. Nancy, people are very... Go ahead, Toby.

In Simpson, it's almost in this situation in comparison to apples to oranges. Simpson, the door was open for that defense by the LAPD themselves because one of the lead detectives on the case, at the end of the first day, instead of putting the tube of blood that was collected from OJ into evidence, he took it home and put it in his refrigerator and went to bed. He held it. He held it. That leaves a question with the chain of custody. I hear you, Toby. I hear you. But the reality is that it doesn't matter. I agree with you. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if one of the police makes a horrible mistake like that or a bad call.

They will find a way to bring in this was planted. Yeah, that cop screwed up big time and it helped the jury find a peg to hang their acquittal hat on. But they're going to find a way no matter what if i could interject really quickly even if one of the cops didn't make did not make any error in judgment they're still going to argue it was planted but you are right toby wilson they opened themselves up to it okay what were you saying dr bethany well people are very paranoid of the police right now so we have a culture of anxiety about law enforcement, anxiety about politicians, leaders, and people who align against those who are trying to help society become more and more entrenched. You know what? It's worse than ever. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.

Guys, I'm trying to get to our other news in the case as quickly as I can. We have the alibi claim. We have the they planted the DNA. But they're also claiming that, well, I'll let you hear it from the horse's mouth. Take a listen to our cut 523 NBC. Koberger's lawyers argue for the release of materials. They say they need to defend the suspected killer. Koberger's lawyer also went even further in the court filing saying quote

there is no connection between Mr. Koberger and the victims. There is no explanation for the total lack of DNA evidence from the victims in Mr. Koberger's apartment, home, office, or vehicle. Okay, Chris McDonough, you've worked over 300 homicide scenes. Their other argument is, okay, not only did you plant the DNA, there's also not enough DNA. There's not enough blood on the scene. It's impossible. Well, it's not impossible. But that said, they're claiming there's not enough blood. There should be more blood.

Right. And, you know, here's the problem that they're going to run into, in my opinion. The fact that this was a horrific scene and the fact that we don't have his clothing, we have evidence that he took evasive actions post-incident, i.e., which was pointed out from Cheryl earlier. He's there wearing gloves. He's cleaning his house, et cetera, et cetera. We don't know what kind of blood was on him potentially that evening. You know what?

You just brought up a really good point. Go ahead and finish up, please. No. And that's going to be, you know, something that could be argued extremely powerfully in the court. You know, Cheryl, he's right. Chris McDonough is talking about evasive actions. Think about it. If days and days and days later, he's still cleaning his car. He's still throwing out trash in plastic bags, Ziploc sandwich bags, that kind of bag. He's throwing things away in his neighbor's trash can in the Poconos, you know, 2,000 miles away from the crime scene. What do you think he did immediately after the killings? Evasive actions, countermeasures, of course.

And he's doing all this wearing latex gloves, by the way. So, yeah, I mean, you've got somebody that they've got receipts of him purchasing, you know, certain clothing, dark clothing that the witness said that she saw. It stands to reason they can't find those clothing. Then his car, after the murders, goes a ways away from his apartment before he returns home did he ditch all the stuff yeah but here's the other bottom line when you talk about chain of custody it's not just a matter of us initialing things on a sheet when the law enforcement officers first got to that scene their body cam was on when crime scene shows up they're videotaping. On top of that, if you don't trust the police, the national media was there watching people carry things out that were bagged and tagged and sealed. The chain of custody here is going to be solid.

Yeah, you know what? You're right. They're going to have to argue that anything that was planted was planted. Well, they don't have to, they can argue whatever they want to, at the crime lab, because there's not a camera hovering over the scientist's shoulder as they perform their tests. So I could see that as, you know, easy pickings for the defense. Is it true? No. Are they going to argue it? Yes. So not only are they arguing that the DNA was planted, that there's not enough blood, they're also challenging the methods that were used to analyze the DNA specifically on that knife sheath. Take a listen to our for the prosecution's case. attorneys wrote, quote, Presumably, the defense is expected to accept at face value that the sheath had touched DNA just waiting for testing by all the FBI's myriad resources. Okay, so here's the

other argument. They're really throwing the spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks. They're now claiming that the genetic genealogy testing that was done was too perfect. They're questioning that. The genetic genealogist traced the DNA on the sheath back to Koberger, not only through his father, but through him, through a bugle swab out of his mouth. Now the defense is also going to argue, that's a little too perfect. Okay, to you, Toby Wilson, DNA expert, explain in a nutshell, what is the genetic genealogy, IgG method? It's really very complicated, the method. In fact, the people that do the genetic genealogy.

That's why I told you to put it in a nutshell. Yeah, well, I'm going to. The people that do genetic genealogy. That's why I told you to put it in a nutshell. Yeah, well, I'm going to. The people that do genetic genealogy, well, they specialize in that. That's how they train. They're not regular DNA experts for the most part. So their job is to basically look for certain similarities that will be passed down from generation to generation and connect those similarities up. And in the beginning, it's like a tree. You've got this enormous tree with a bunch of branches.

And what they're doing is looking for the things that can cut off branches so that in the end, you only have one branch left. And then when you get to the bottom of it, to the end of it, there's like X number of people. And you start looking at their history. You start investigating them. You start getting samples of DNA either, you know, secretly or asking them for it.

Usually they'll be asked for and they'll contribute it. And you cancel out whoever doesn't match. So it's a very extensive process. It's not, you know, something where you sit down and say, oh, yeah, look at this. He matches. You're right. It's a very long procedure to build out a family tree, sometimes all the way back over 100 years, and then isolate it all the way down to find out who's in the area, who could it possibly be, who is the right age, who could have committed this crime. And then you get their DNA out of their mouth or surreptitiously like off a pizza crust.

And then you match it up. Hey, Dr. Dupree, I wanted to ask you also, in addition to Chris McDonough, what do you make of their claim that there's not enough blood? I mean, really? Well, Nancy, as you know, we really just need a spec. We can actually multiply that um and you know extrapolate no no they're saying there's not enough blood at on him from the crime scene i mean haven't you been to a lot of bloody crime scenes but you don't walk out drenched in blood oh absolutely absolutely and again we don't know

what he was wearing we don't know about protective clothing and things he was doing so that there was not you know much blood on him you know that's just a red herring. It means nothing. He had a four-week head start to get rid of evidence. The other thing is, as a blood spatter expert, we know that it can be a very bloody scene and the salient can walk out of it with little or no blood on them because what determines how you get blood on you is the direction that the blood is splashed in and thrown in as the activities are taking place. So it was all being thrown or pushed away from the defendant. Guys, not only this, we are learning about bizarre changes in behavior immediately after the murders. Take a listen to our 532 from the King Road Killings podcast.

We had a midterm exam that a lot of people thought was graded unfairly. So we as a class had like a day where we went in and we were all essentially allowed to just like debate him about our grades and try and like earn points back. But, you know, it was a thing where he argued back. And so we were sort of in this weird like debate for the whole class, 50 us against one of him and he was having to field all these questions but brian didn't seem super comfortable and honestly none of us were like super comfortable was a weird vibe that was like a turning point i think for us we felt like when we did that our grades got better coincidentally at the time of the murders and more in 520 abc recent students of his at washington state

university speaking out. One saying his appearance changed around the time the murders took place. He looked a little bit more disheveled. He had like some stubble coming on. His hair was a little messed up or whatever. I remember seeing him and thinking like, oh man, you know, finals must be really getting there. 28-year-old Koberger remained a teacher's assistant, working towards his criminology PhD until the end of the semester.

Not only that, we understand, Rachel Schilke, that he has, quote, found religion behind bars. You know, it's not often that you see a spree killer suddenly find the light, but what do you know about that? Well, apparently he attends mass every Sunday with a local pastor, and they say he's remained a model prisoner while in jail so clearly he's trying to put up a look that he is you know finding the right path or maybe he's completely innocent in this what about that Cheryl McCullough in prison that's straight out of the handbook so what that does it gets him out of his cell he hopefully believes that he's going to be surrounded by people that are good christian people that won't harm him it's a quasi way for him to get some free protection okay just stop i'm going to try to boil

this down when i first started conducting plea negotiations i had one judge that would bring me the prosecutor the defense attorney and the defendant in the same room very small room by the way. One time, one defendant had made a woven yarn cross and I commented, did you make that cross behind bars? And the next week on the pleading arraignment calendar, 150 inmates, about 40 of them had woven crosses this big around their necks because they knew I was a Christian. You know what? I hope he's found the Lord because he's going to need strength to get through his murder trial. We wait as justice unfolds. Goodbye, friend.