Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Idaho Student Slay Suspect Bryan Kohberger's Defense Claims OTHER MALE DNA FOUND AT SCENE

Episode Date: June 29, 2023

As Bryan Kohberger’s murder trial becomes a death penalty case, the prosecution and defense spar over evidence.  The state says thousands of pages of documents and photos have been turned over to the defense. The defense says it still doesn't have it all.  Defense Attorney Anne Taylor is asking for more, including records related to police officers’ training, cell phone investigations and genealogy information used to identify Bryan Kohberger's DNA. Taylor says her requests are “not a fishing expedition,” to see the prosecution's evidence. 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    Chris McDonough - Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective, & Host of "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  Alexia Petrovic - Host for LiveNOW from FOX; Twitter: @lexie_petrovic, Facebook: AlexiaBPetrovic   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Bombshell in the prosecution of Brian Koberger in the slaughters of four beautiful University of Idaho students, in the last days, we learned the defense for Brian Koberger has asserted that male DNA belonging to at least three other males other than Brian Koberger has been found at the crime scene. Repeat, according to the defense, DNA belonging to some other guy other than Koberger

has been found at the murder scene. Is this a torpedo to the state? 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 our friends at KMVT. A lawyer for suspect Brian Kohlberger filed a court document that says no connection exists between Kohlberger and the four victims. The defense argued investigators found DNA evidence of two other men at the house where the victims died last November. And Koberger's lawyer argued the defense has been kept in the dark

about testing done on those samples and the genetic genealogy method used to link Koberger to the murders. Prosecutors have argued Koberger has no right to the FBI data collected from the method. I have a really hard time believing the defense has evidence being withheld from them about the DNA because they're the ones that have brought up the allegation that DNA belonging to three other guys has been found at the scene. Joining me in all-star panel but first I want to go to Alexia Petrovich, host for Live Now from Fox, and you can find that at livenowfox.com. Alexia, thank you so much for being with us.

You've been on the case from the very beginning. Now, we just heard the number two. Two other guys, or as I always called it, the sod defense. Some other dude did it. We're hearing now that DNA from three other guys, not two, but three, has been found at the scene. Is it a torpedo to the state? I'm not so sure that it is, but you tell me, Alexia, where's the DNA coming from? Well, Nancy, of course, the DNA that the defense is now bringing up, anything that they can say that will help their case is relevant at this point.

Oh, girl, stop. Stop. Alexia Petrovich, you are so right. You know, my husband always says, I'm like, why does so-and-so do so-and-so? And he always says, it's a rat on a sinking ship. They'll grab onto anything just to try to live. I'm so glad you said that. But there's always this scary spectacle possibility that maybe they're right. Okay.

Sorry. Go ahead. I just had to get the rat on a sinking ship thing out there. Go ahead. That's a great, great observation. And for them to be able to show jurors at some point that there were three other bits of DNA at the scene, two inside of the home and another bit of DNA found on a glove outside

of the home days after the murder, that could cast reasonable doubt for jurors to think that maybe there were other people that police didn't look enough into outside of Brian Koberger. At this point, they continue to say that there was no connection between him and the victim. So you have to remember that the biggest piece of evidence still remains the DNA on the knife sheath that was not only found at the crime scene, but also underneath the body of one of the victims, Maddie Mogan. And it was not only on the knife sheath case, but it was also on the button of that knife sheath. You think about it, whoever did this, whoever committed this crime, obviously, prosecutors say it's Koberger,

touched the knife sheath, took it off, touched that button piece on the knife sheath case, and that was found directly under a victim at the crime scene. Okay, I'm dissecting everything you just said because that was a lot of information. First of all, there's so many places to go from what you just said, but first I want to clarify, not that you're wrong, you're right, but I want you to clarify what you're talking about to everybody that hasn't seen the knife sheath when you say DNA was found on the button? So a knife sheath case is essentially a slip that goes over it. So when you take it out of the case, there's a button that holds it in place. They had to pop off that button.

You mean like a snap? Yes, a snap. So is it a snap? Hold on. Chris McDonough joining me, director of the Cold Case Foundation, former homicide detective, has investigated over 300 homicides, host of The Interview Room on YouTube, which is where I found him. Chris, is it a snap or a button?

It's a snap, right? Yeah, it's a snap. Okay, hold on, hold on. Guys, I know you may think it's crazy. I had never really observed that many people walking around with a knife sheath on their waist until my twins went to Scout Camp. And of course when I heard Scout Camp I'm like, oh no, nobody's going to Scout Camp without me there to guard over them. So I made my husband take the volunteer training along with me, and we went as volunteers to help.

Every adult male and a lot of the young boys, Lucy was there too because girls can now get their Eagle Scout as well, but they all had knife sheets on their belt, and I thought that was a little excessive but once we started all the classes they were really using them to you know cut things and make fires and just all sorts of things so the snap it's got to be something easy it gives you easy access to the knife and there's usually everyone that I looked at because in most of my knife murders nobody had a sheath there are a lot of switchblade murders

and kitchen knife murders no sheath but in every sheath that I saw there and since the co-burger cases happen I've now of course researched them There's a flap of leather or fake leather that goes over the top of the knife and snaps on the front side of that knife sheath. So in order to access the knife, you have to grab it like you're hearing Alexia Petrovich describe. You grab the snap and pull it off. And then when you snap it back, you touch it again. Do I have that right, Chris McDonough? You absolutely do, Nancy. And typically it takes two hands to do that because you have to hold the receiving end and then push on the snap end.

So this DNA on that snap is the elephant in the living room for the defense team here. And that's why we see the two declarations that were declared in reference to the DNA collection processing and the lab processing, obviously. One from the gal out of California, out of Berkeley, and then eventually out of Cornell, and then the other attorney out of Maryland. So they're going to attack. They're on the attack. You know, hold on. Alexia Petrovich joining us from live now at Fox. Tara Malik is with us, high-profile lawyer out of the Coburger jurisdiction,

which is Idaho, and partner of Smith & Malick Law Firm. Tara, thank you for being with us. You know what? I would always work late at the district attorney's office, and there'd be nobody else there by the time I finally left, and I typically didn't want to hear any sound like vacuum cleaners or anything because I'd be trying to read something and I will never forget the whoosh of defense motions coming under my door. I don't know how they got in the DA's office but that would happen a lot at night and I'd look at the motion. It would be a huge stack of motions and they would many of them would be pro forma like I'm challenging the defendant's statement because he didn't have Miranda. I mean, you get that in every single case.

But when you get to court and the hearings begin, it's the issues that hurt them the most that they scream the most about. And that is why this DNA, just like Alexi just told us, that this case may hinge to a large degree on the DNA. That's why they're screaming about it so much because this is the twisting of the knife, pardon the pun to them. This is what's hurting Koberger, is this DNA.

He can explain away a lot of the other stuff, a lot of it, but not the DNA. That's the hardest issue for them. Would you agree, Tara? Absolutely. I mean, I think that, you know, DNA evidence now is generally relied upon, you know, the general public knows what DNA evidence is. It is the strongest piece of evidence, I think, against Cobra, especially in the case, you know, in a case like this where you don't have any sort of admission from him or partial admission from him. So they're going to go after the strongest piece of evidence and they're going to try and poke whatever holes they can. You know, how did you get the DNA evidence? Are you sure it's the right person? How many people did you check?

You know, what's the methodology of doing it? So I'm not surprised that they're going after the DNA evidence first. Now, whether or not they're going to be successful here, big question that remains to be seen. And just because there's DNA evidence from, you know, a couple other people in that house doesn't necessarily sink the state's case. You know, what we understand from this house is that it was kind of a party house. It was a typical college house. People were in and out all the time. So not surprising. It's certainly an area that the prosecution will have to ultimately explain if they get all the way

to trial. But something that the prosecution does need to keep their eye on and really work hard to combat that defense strategy. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. I want to go back to Alexia Petrovich, host for Live Now at Fox. Alexia, the reason I'm so interested in where this other male DNA was found, let me give you an example. I learned working with juries, rather than, for instance, read the black and white white letter of the law it's easier to give an example for everybody so Alexia we've had painters in our house okay so let's just pretend my husband is found knife dead poor David he's been killed so many times in the bedroom and of course everybody thinks it's me because it's always the spouse or the

ex or some love relationship. But I can prove that another unknown male DNA has been found in the bedroom where he was stabbed dead. Sorry, David. But as it turns out, it matters where the DNA is. The painters would have removed light switches to paint around the light switch. What if the male DNA was back on the light switch? So, yes, DNA is found at the crime scene, but on the light switch. So who cares? Do we know where the DNA was found? I know on one glove found outside, which may have been the glove you identify, Chris McDonough.

But what about the other two DNA samples, Alexia? All that we've heard so far is that two pieces of DNA were found inside of the house near the crime scene. The only other detail outside of that is that there was a third piece of DNA found outside of the house a few days after the murders and that it was found on a glove. But the defense continues to say, why was this never brought up? You focused your search on Koberger right from the beginning. You were set on him as your prime suspect in this, but did you interview these other people? Because this is obviously very relevant to the case. Okay, so how are we going to combat that? Joining me, Dr. Michelle Dupree, forensic pathologist, medical examiner, former detective, and literally she wrote the book, Homicide Investigation Field Guide.

Dr. Michelle Dupree, how is the state going to handle this? You've dealt with so many DNA cases. Well, I think that this is really, you know, as we've all sort of said, it's a red herring. This is, it's not unusual to find other DNA in the same residence. It's going to be critical where that DNA was found. And I think that they're going to really play up the information that Kohlberger's DNA was found, not just at the crime scene, but where the victim was. That's what's important. If this other DNA is found outside on a glove or, you know, downstairs in the kitchen or wherever it may

have been, that's going to be very important. The location will be very important. Location, location, location. Chris McDonough, you've investigated over 300 homicides. Jump in. So, Nancy, I think the interesting thing here is if they follow the investigative protocol of asking why versus how, then what we're going to see is the question always arises, why is co-birder's DNA on that snap in that bedroom? Now, the glove outside,

that was from Thanksgiving Day. I was up there, you know, looking at the crime scene. I observed this glove outside behind the tape. I notified an officer that was there. They came over and eventually collected it. So the other, you know, piece of this is the video from the body camera of the calls of loud party at that house. So when the officers get there, we see Maddie, she comes out, you know, makes contact with the police and you can see another male, an unknown male with her. So I think, you know, to Dr. Dupree's point there, it is a red herring because there's going to be a lot of male DNA in that house. And we have two videos to prove it from the body camera. You're so right.

So, Dr. Bethany Marshall, I see this as a double-sided, a two-sided coin. Dr. Bethany Marshall is joining us, renowned psychoanalyst, joining us out of Beverly Hills at drbethanymarshall.com. Dr. Bethany, number one, location, location, location. Is the other male DNA found on the kitchen island? Is it found on the front doorknob? Is it found in one of the bedrooms

where the victims were killed? As you get closer to the scene, to the bodies, it matters more. It becomes more critical. We don't know that, much less on a glove outside. I'm not even concerned with an outside glove. When I was there at the scene, I saw a frosty mitten outside. And, you know, what did that mean? Probably nothing. So that matters a lot so

also we've got the fact that the state's going to have to argue it was a party house and thereby the defenses could and they usually do make out the girls to be party girls which has no bearing on this case at all. Nancy, you were so right. My first thought about this, I'm not a crime scene investigator or a homicide detective. I am a psychoanalyst, social psychologist. And my first thought was, this is an attempt to discredit these girls. They're going to say that the DNA was semen, that it was found on the bed or somewhere in the bedroom. And what that's going to do, you know, in the mind of the defense attorneys is discredit the girls,

make them seem, you said party girls, but I'm going to say promiscuous, like lots of men were coming in and out, maybe girls who were impaired, drinking, using drugs, you know, whatever they can do to discredit and humiliate the victim. But, you know, this is the state has such a strong case against Brian Koberger, and there's so much antagonistic sentiment towards him. I think this could backfire on the defense attorneys if they try to discredit the victims. But what it is going to do for the families, Nancy, is it's going to be painful to hear their daughters being painted as promiscuous, as semen in the bed, as all these different men's DNA around the house. You know, it just, it just, it's painful. And it really, you know, it's like opening up a health record

after a victim is gone, after a victim has died. There's all kinds of things in there. The victim would not have wanted their family or the public to know. So it kind of drags the victims through the mud as well. So to maybe the scientists on this panel, it's a piece of scientific evidence. To me, it is a story that drags the victim through the mud again and again and again at the family's expense. Guys, not only is there a claim that other male DNA was found at the scene, it may very well be true. The defense is also claiming there is no connection between Koberger and the victims in this case.

Take a listen to Erin McLaughlin at 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, we're going to have to deal with that as well. That was an OJ Simpson defense as well. That Simpson, if he had been actually guilty, would have been covered in blood. Well,

just let me point out that the victim's blood was found on his socks in his bedroom at home, both victims. So, how was the blood from both victims on his socks in his bedroom in his home. How'd that happen? But the defense argued, and they argued it really well, that he should have been covered head to toe with blood. And that's what's going to be argued here. Okay, back to you, Chris McDonough. How is this going to go down that as of right now, we don't know of any of the victim's DNA, blood or anything else found in his car or apartment? Well, right now, as we know, Nancy, that the prosecution has obviously turned over everything to them. It sounds like because they are, you know, on the offense here. However, they also have to deal with the cellular footprint that ties him to that residence multiple times, 12 times, I believe, as you recall. And so, you know, the fact that there isn't necessarily blood that we know of.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait. Say that again about the evidence found at the scene and say it really slowly. I don't want that to get lost in the sauce. Yeah. So they also have a motion to go after the cast team, the FBI agent who collected all the cellular data, which is going to be another huge footprint for him to overcome. And so the fact that there isn't necessarily any, you know, transferred blood from the crime scene into a vehicle,

we have to take into account he also cleaned that vehicle exceptionally well while he was under surveillance. So they have that testimony of the officers or whoever that surveillance team was to say, yeah, I saw him cleaning that vehicle. So again, we go back to that question, not the how, but why was he cleaning that vehicle? Which is going to be an interesting testimony to hear as the case goes on. You know what? I think, Tara Malik, that it can hurt the state's case that there's no DNA from the victims in his car or his apartment,

if that is in fact true. Yeah, I think certainly the lack of DNA evidence there weakens the state's case a little bit. But, you know, again, I think that there are ways the state can deal with that. In this case, the timeline, you know, it wasn't that Koberger was arrested right away. Koberger was across the country when he was arrested somewhere else. He certainly had enough time to clean out his car if there was any sort of DNA evidence in there. So the state can go and point out things like that to say, yeah, there's no DNA evidence, for instance, in this car or his apartment. But, you know, look at this long delay. You're right. You've got this huge, long delay. But I also want you to hear our cut 513 from NBC. A key part of the case, Koberger's DNA.

While prosecutors say his DNA was at the scene of the murders, Koberger's lawyers argue investigators did not find any victim DNA in his apartment, office, home, or vehicle. There's multiple ways to explain the lack of DNA in his vehicle, in his apartment. There's not a lot of ways to explain his DNA on the sheets of the murder weapon. At the moment, the trial is set to begin October 2nd. Given that this is now a death penalty case, legal experts expect it to be delayed. To you, Chris McDonough, joining us, former homicide detective. Do you agree with Steve Kramer that you just heard his voice with a former FBI lawyer. There's a lot of ways to explain lack of victim DNA in his car or home. There's not a lot of ways to explain his DNA, not just at the scene of the crime, but in the bed with one of the crime victims, Maddie Mogan. And think about it, Chris McDonough. Not only had time passed

before the apartment and the car were searched, a lot of time, by the way, he's a criminal procedure specialist. He's getting his PhD in that. Don't you know he basically hermetically sealed himself to go and commit this crime, he of all people would know how to get rid of evidence. And as far as the DNA from other males at the crime scene, depending on where it was, they may have been people that were there a lot for parties or friends or studying, who knows what. But Koberger, to our knowledge, had never been there. why is his dna there here you attack whichever prong of that you want but jump in man well absolutely nancy i mean how many cases have

you had you know were you you if you had this evidence i could only imagine how you would argue this in front of the jury because he's got to be in a place thinking and the defense knows it they're they're on the they're on the you know attack here to to somehow you know paint this big picture of well there's nothing else you know connecting him to that crime scene i.e away from the crime scene, you know, his apartment, his car, et cetera. But there is this huge, you know, 52 point, whatever it is, octillion, you know, this is the guy got to go to another planet and find him under one of these victims. So, you know, this is, this is just, you know, they're doing their job. The defense is doing their job. But I think it's going to be a very high bar to overcome because of the other evidence that's going to come supporting it.

Well, I've thought about this, and I hate to give the defense any ideas, but it could have been argued that he bought the knife at one of those knife and gun shows, you know, where thousands of people troop through to either look at stuff. They don't have to buy anything. What if they had touched this evidence and then the knife was stolen? How do we even know it was Koberger's knife? So what if Koberger can argue, I went to this knife and gun show. I looked at a lot of knives and a lot of guns.

I didn't buy anything. That's where the knife came from. The perp bought the knife after I touched it. I mean, I know it's a stretch, but all you need is one G.R.R. to hang up the whole verdict, McDonough. Well, you know, and the odds on that, I'd like to see the odds on that, you know, play out. But you are right. He could argue that but again it's a very difficult argument because now you have to say that the universe is on schedule and it somehow went from that

knife show to underneath that poor victim and brian just happened to be the guy you know in the neighborhood 12 separate times through his cell phone technology. Including the night of the murders. Ann had had to try contact with some of the victims before that and never heard back from them. I mean, there's just so much. It's all circumstantial, though. This DNA is the strongest thing they've got. And now, hold on.

I think I heard Dr. Bethany trying to jump in. Bethany? Well, I worry about jurors getting confused, just hearing one thing that they latch on to. And I think that's what the defense is hoping for. You know, this is a very sophisticated discussion we're all having. But we are all human beings where one thing stands out and we think about that one thing again and again. So there's no DNA in the car or again. So there's no DNA in the car or his home. There's no DNA in the car or his home. That gets repeated enough times. It's like

what the public remembers about the Menendez case. The father molested them. The father molested them. Or O.J. Simpson, if it's this, you must acquit. You know, there are these one sentences that become almost hypnotic, mesmerizing. They get drummed into the brain of the public and of the jurors. And so that's how I think about this, that all this, the scientific evidence is one thing, but beliefs that can get inculcated in the jurors are another. And that may be what the defense is hoping for. Back to Alexia Petrovich, host from Live Now at Fox. I was throwing out the knife and gun show as an example of some sort of argument the defense can make, but we know that Brian Koberger bought a K-Bar knife from Amazon

months before the stabbing of the Idaho students. Now, can we match the sheath up to the one he bought on Amazon? Very likely. Alexia Petrovich, can you talk about the K-Bar knife and knife sheath he bought from Amazon seven months before the stabbings? mentioned earlier, the DNA was 5.37 octillion times more likely to be co-burners on that knife sheath than any other random person from the general population. The defense can say there was no evidence at his apartment, there was no evidence in his car, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it was at the crime scene and in a place that was very difficult to discover under one of the victim's bodies. The attorneys, though, at this point are doing anything they can to try to cast doubt here. They're talking about they don't understand how investigators have been able to identify the suspect's car. But there were other pieces of evidence, even outside of the DNA, too.

There was that cell phone data. There was surveillance video. There was neighbor video that began circulating as well, where you could hear some, it was very difficult to listen to, but voices very distantly in the background from the evening that this happened or the early morning that this happened. So there are other pieces, but the DNA is definitely the most compelling. You're right. Nancy. Jump in. Nancy, this is Doc. This is very, to me, it's very analogous to the Alex Murdoch case. There was a defense answer for everything. But in law enforcement, we have this saying that we look at the totality of circumstances. DNA. He bought the K-bar knife, a K-bar knife earlier. When we put everything together, I'm hoping that it's going to be very much like the Murdoch case, that the jury is going to be able to see that, yes, it's circumstantial, but this is just way too many coincidences. The model K-bar

sounds familiar to many legal eagles following this case. It was a specific K-bar sheath left behind at the scene that contained Koberger's DNA on it. And we now know that law enforcement has obtained a record of Koberger purchasing the most crucial piece of evidence so far, a K-bar knife and sheath from Amazon. Now, how likely is it that another exact sheath was found at the scene other than the one he purchased. But are we now facing the horrible possibility that we are losing any other DNA evidence?

Take a listen to our cut 518. Our friends at CrimeOnline.com. The home where four University of Idaho students were murdered has cleaning crews again on site. On Tuesday this week, a large truck was seen at the three-story home. The home now belongs to the University of Idaho. It was gifted to the university by the owner. It is slated to be demolished sometime this summer.

The cleaning company is removing all the items inside the home to return to the victim's family members ahead of a demolition. No timetable has been set yet, but the process may take several weeks. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. To you, Chris McDonough, you have processed a lot of crime scenes, as have you, Dr. Dupree. What, if anything, does this mean? Professional cleaners back at the scene, if there was any DNA that hasn't been found already, it's gone. Yeah. You know, Nancy, I think that is a mistake, just my personal opinion, that this is such a high-profile case, and you can already see the motions going here. I think it would be wise for the prosecution just to hold this scene because they're in there cleaning any biohazard such as blood or any other fluids, to your point, that could potentially, if they had missed it,

there could be something more in there. But more importantly, I think you made the point a while ago about having the jury come down and look at that because you look how powerful it was in the Murdoch case from what Doc Dupree just said. I think this is going to be as powerful, and to tear it down, in my opinion, I think is a mistake. Agree. I agree. But I think that it's probably already contaminated. That's what the defense would argue. Well, contaminated, yes. But what about the possibility of a jury visiting the crime scene? Absolutely. I think that would be priceless. I think for the state, I think it would benefit the state. Guys, not only that, we're learning of another attack by the defense on the DNA evidence.

Take a listen to our cut 506, our friends at Today. In new court documents, Koberger's attorney accusing the state of hiding its entire case. By seeking to protect information about the genetic genealogy investigation, they say led them to Koberger. The state here is using a relatively new kind of DNA technology. So this is exactly the kind, describe the defense motion. Well, give me details regarding their claim that the state is improperly shielding genealogical family tree members from their purview. Also, I'm very, very curious that the defense is also attacking the actual DNA technology that was used because I don't think it's that new. It's been used in many, many other cases. But let's first start with protecting the genealogical members of Koberger's family tree. Explain what's happening.

So initially, the DNA that they had gathered was from his family home and connected it to Koberger's father in this. But then most recently, we learned that police had used some of this relatively new and available genetic genealogy. And the FBI also looked into it and were able to determine that it was a statistical match to Koberger directly from a cheek swab. So now the defense is saying, well, you can't do that legally. You're not allowed to do that. You're withholding a lot of evidence in addition to that. And they keep going back to this point of, we don't know why they initially focused this investigation on coberger because

of their claims that they didn't have evidence that was tied to the victims at coberger's home or in his car or in his office so they're continuing to argue that they shouldn't even be allowed to use these websites that can connect coberger in and his DNA to these victims. And then going back even further to their initial argument of, you don't even have information to explain to us of why Koberger was your prime suspect when you didn't look into other people. So this is a two-pronged attack that we're talking about right now on the Koberger DNA. First of all, they're going to claim, well, it's somebody else's DNA has been found on the scene. So you can't really say the killer is Koberger. That's the first attack.

Then they're going to say you didn't investigate the other males whose DNA was found around the house, for one, on a glove outside the house, which we think may have been like an outdoor mitten. Those are two attacks on the DNA. The third attack on the DNA is that the state is withholding members of Koberger's distant family tree that were used in the genetic genealogy match to Koberger. The fourth argument is that emerging technology was used that has not been accepted. That same argument was used for DNA to start with. It was used for fingerprints. It was used for tire casts.

It was used for voice identification. Hey, that's too new. We can't do that. Well, that's all BS. You can use it. And the particular DNA technology that was used in my mind is not that new. It's been used many, many times before. It's called STR, STR analysis. And it's been used over and over. As far as the genetic genealogy argument,

that's been used over and over and has been upheld by appellate courts. Let me point out the Golden State Killer, Joseph D'Angelo. That was one of the first times genetic genealogy had been used to identify the defendant. The reality is, I'm not quite sure how to say this, let me go to Tara Malick, that this is Koberger's DNA. So regardless of the specific type of test used to identify it, it's his DNA. One way or the other, whether it was a direct, let's just say, mitochondrial match through his mother, that's accepted in court, or a direct match regarding his father, which we know there was. Whether they use genetic genealogy or not, it's his DNA. They're not going to win on this, Tara. No, they're not. And I like to call

this the arm-wavy defense strategy. It's like if I wave my arms hard enough and jump up and down, then maybe everyone will be distracted and think about something else. And it is his DNA at the end of the day, Nancy, you're exactly right. So they can sit there and and, you know, throw all these questions out about this new technology and how was it that they actually got this information? But it doesn't change the outcome. The outcome remains the same. And I think the prosecution's job in this type of scenario is to refocus the jury, because the danger is that the jury is going to focus on one of those, you know, kind of speed bumps that the defense is throwing out and say, hmm, maybe that does cause me, you know, to think that there's reasonable doubt here. And so even though I think that it's a red herring, I think you're exactly right. I think that, you know, the DNA is the DNA. It's his. It's no one else's. It's his.

The, you know, the real risk here is, like was mentioned before, confusing the jury to the point and making them hesitate because the state has a really high burden. They've got to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is not all doubt. But, you know, if the defense can create reasonable doubt, they win. Yeah, and I think that's kind of what happened in the Top Mom Casey Anthony case. I think the jury got mired down in the air sample evidence and some of the medical examiner evidence because it was just very confusing when it could have been stated in very simple terms. But I want to remind everyone of a DNA issue in this case. The defense is now claiming that the genetic genealogy info has been hidden from them. But there were two DNA tests in this case. Remember when Koberger was followed to his parents' home for Thanksgiving break, and the state waited, and cops got abandoned trash,

and they got a DNA sample from his father. And they matched that to the DNA on the knife sheath found under a murder victim. And that DNA showed that the only possible donor of the knife sheath DNA had to be the biological son of Koberger's father. Koberger's father only has one bio son, and that's Brian Koberger. After they got that match, they went back and did the STR DNA test. They backtracked and then did genetic genealogy with a family tree. And that is how they came up with the 1 in 5.37 octillion match. So there's two DNA matches to Koberger. There's so much else happening in the Koberger case, but we'll save that for another day.

Goodbye, friend. This is an iHeart Podcast.