Unheard: True Crime in Their Own Words - The DNA Solving “Unsolvable” Cases (Including Kohberger) | Othram Labs

Episode Date: May 4, 2026

There are cases that sit for years, sometimes decades, with no answers. No suspect, no clear direction, and no path forward.But that’s starting to change.In this episode, Justin sits down with Dr. Kristen Mittelman, Chief Development Officer at Othram Labs, to break down how advanced DNA technology is being used to solve cases that were once considered unsolvable.Othram specializes in working with extremely limited or degraded DNA, evidence that, until recently, would have gone nowhere. Their work has helped identify unknown victims, generate new leads in cold cases, and push investigations forward when traditional methods failed.That includes playing an instrumental role in the process that helped connect DNA evidence to Bryan Kohberger in the Idaho four case, using an incredibly small amount of touch DNA.In this conversation, Dr. Mittelman explains how this technology works, what people often misunderstand about DNA evidence, and how forensic science is rapidly evolving.More importantly, this episode looks at what all of this means for the future, where cases that once had no path forward may now have one.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This will be one of the most interesting conversations you'll hear, especially when it comes to forensic science. Today we're talking about the work being done at Othrum Labs, the same lab whose technology was instrumental in connecting the DNA that ultimately led investigators to Brian Coburger and the Idaho Four murders, which if you remember right, was an incredibly small amount of touch DNA. And that's just one example. There are crimes that have sat unsolved for decades. Victims whose identities were never known, cases that were written off as having no path forward or even unsolvable. But now some of those same cases are being solved with amounts of DNA so small, so minute, that most people wouldn't even think it was usable. In today's episode of Unheard, we're speaking with Dr. Kristen Middleman, Chief Development Officer

at Othram Labs, and let me tell you, what they're doing at Othrum pushes the edge of what's possible in forensic DNA. They're taking cases that had nothing left to give in finding answers using technology that didn't exist when those investigations started. We get into how it actually works, what people get wrong about DNA, and how this is changing investigations in real time. But more than anything, this is about where the science behind DNA is headed and what that means for cases people thought would never be solved. All right, guys, let's get into it. Thank you for joining me today, Dr. Middleman.

Hi, Kristen, thank you so much for joining me. If you don't mind, tell the people a little bit about what you guys do yourself and what you guys do at Autrum. Yeah, so I'm Dr. Kristen Middleman. I have spent the last two and a half decades working on DNA, using DNA to make the world a better place, mostly in biomedical science prior to forensics. But seven years ago, my husband and I started a company named Othrom. Othrum is purpose-built to build infrastructure necessary so that every crime can get answers if there's any DNA at the crime scene. So we build everything from the laboratory methods so that they can be more inclusive to the different types of evidence that is found at crime scenes. Crime scenes are complicated places to collect DNA from. As you've seen in the news lately, you have mixtures, you have a lot of people that may be part of the crime scene and we have walked into the house or the room or the field where the body was found.

animal DNA, plant DNA, contamination. And a lot of these victims are exposed to elements, cold, hot, they're thrown into an ocean, the bottom of a lake. You can think about it, we've probably seen it. And we don't think it's just as if it only works on easy pieces of DNA. And so we've created methods that can read DNA

regardless of all of those conditions and still give you an answer. The other part that we created is prior to our type of method, forensic-grade genome sequencing, DNA in a forensic crime scene, was used to either compare against known perpetrator database. And the known perpetrator database is filled with anyone that has been convicted of a crime in the United States, usually.

But many of your unidentified victims are not in their obviously, and many, most of the time, the perpetrators are not in there either. So you just get a dead end, no answer. So you have to have a suspect in order to be able to actually compare the DNA and say, yes, this person committed to crime. But in many crimes, I know the Guthrie case is really big right now, and everyone's watching that on the news, there is no suspect. So when you don't have a suspect, how do you do that?

You can't do it. You have to wait. And so we built a technology that it looks instead of 20 markers, at hundreds and thousands of markers at each DNA profile. And it can infer identity. So you don't have to be in any known database. You don't have to have, the perpetrator never has had to give in their DNA anywhere, but you can still get that person's identity because we're all related.

And so we're looking at really distant relationships, six cousins, fifth cousins, fourth cousins, and we're related in different ways. And so it becomes a DNA so not. You are able to say the person that left the DNA at the crime scene is this far away from this person and this far away from this person and this far away from this person. And therefore, they belong on this family tree at this generation. And that lead goes back to law enforcement. And then law enforcement contextualizes it within the investigation.

If it's one of these three brothers, which one knew of it. Which one might have owned the type of car that was seen in the crime scene or the type of weapon that was used? And then they go ahead and collect DNA and do the traditional DNA test. The third part of author is creating the AI and software infrastructure to be able to do this quickly. It is important to infer identity, but especially in live investigations, when there's a victim that could still be alive or perpetrator that's out there that's going to commit the next crime. How long it takes you to infer that identity is life-changing. life-changing for everyone involved.

And so we have worked really hard to automate all the parts of this that could be automated so that it can be done quickly. For the Idaho four murders, and I know a lot of your viewers know that case, we were able to build a profile in 24 hours and identify Ryan Colberger, his family, within 48 hours from the time that we got evidence here at off. Well, I know that a lot of people are, you brought that up, so we'll put a pin in that for a second, but definitely want to talk about how you guys, you know,

got involved with Coburger, with the Idaho case, and then the method you guys used to solve that because I know that people have found, you know, the fact that that sheath was there, that was pretty much all that was left and having just a tiny bit of touch DNA. I mean, it's pretty remarkable. But it really is, it's like science fiction what you guys are doing.

The other thing I want to say before we get there, the one thing that we had in a conversation previous to you coming on here, was you were telling me, and I want to do this before I get into the Coburger thing, because I think this is just mind-blowing, that you guys are working on technology that you're able to pull DNA out of the room, just out of literal thin air and determine how long ago the person was there what direction they might have gone. And to me, that is, it's so incredibly fascinating and very, very cool.

So if you wouldn't mind, are you able to speak to that some? A little bit. DNA technologies are advancing, and I'm not the lead scientist here that's working on all of these sort of new directions. But, yeah, there are papers out there that show that you can collect enough DNA from air in a room if a person was in their first. certain amount of time and figure out who it was. We've worked cases with a few cells of DNA from 32 years ago. I'm referring to the case of Stephanie Isaacson. She was a 14-year-old girl

and she was raped and murdered on the way to school, on the path to school in Las Vegas, and then left there. Her father got a phone call from the school saying that she didn't come to school that day. And so he ran out trying to find his daughter, eventually he was found on this path. And people tried to work by case for 32 years, and there were no answers. There were no answers. There was all this testing done on the evidence from the crime scene, but it led to nobody. And it actually, every time you test DNA, you consume it. And so it diminished the amount of DNA that was left up until the point that we got involved. there was only the equivalent of 15 human cells.

If I touch my hand, that's hundreds of cells. So 15 human cells from 32 years ago, and it was a mixture of perpetrator and victim DNA. But we were still able to build a perpetrator profile and identify him. And he actually had committed another crime three years prior to Stephanie Isaacson, that they linked him to other crimes after as well. So he was a serial criminal. So you need a minute amount of DNA to actually be able to identify someone's identity.

And that's pretty incredible. Yeah, it really is amazing. So I know that people are going to are wanting to know. I'm sure a lot of them are listening for the reason to hear about what happened with Koeberger. Would you mind, I guess, speaking to that? There's definitely several things I want to talk to you about, but I know that this one they're listening for. Would you mind kind of sharing that?

Yeah, absolutely. I'm very proud of that case because it was an active investigation. Most of the time we get involved prior to COBURG anyway. We get involved when the case has gone cold. And there are no other ways to get an answer. And there's nothing that can be done other than try this new method. But in this case, law enforcement brought us in actively. Right when the CODA's profile was uploaded and didn't have an answer,

they flipped the case to Othrum. They had used us for some of their cold cases before, so they knew the power of this technology. So they came to Othrope with the DNA, and we were able to build this profile that led to his identity. week. I think that being able to do that real time has huge impact on the community. I know for a fact that there were other houses that he was staking out in his surveillance, like he was taking out the house with the four students that he murdered. And I believe there would have been

other victims that are now whole, not even knowledgeable that they would have been a next victim of a serial killer. And they're going to be able to live perfect, normal lives with their families. You can't change if someone's going to do something wrong, but you can't identify, you can't identify a perpetrator the first time they commit a crime. The first time they rape someone, the first time they murder someone, if there's DNA, there's really no excuse to allow for that second time. There is technology here today and identify them right away. So with the Koeberger case, how long after everything kind of started, started making, you know, the news became viral, for lack of a better word, did you guys get involved?

And then so people kind of know how fast y'all work, how fast you're going, how fast you're were you able to profile or have this profile inferred that linked it back to him? We received the DNA evidence the week of Thanksgiving. I believe it was the day before Thanksgiving. We worked around the clock through Thanksgiving that year and remember that. And we were able to build a profile in the first 24 hours. We're able to start getting matches and giving answers. back to law enforcement within the first 48 hours of the evidence coming to author.

It really is that quick. It's actually quicker now because we've built this software that helps to automate the record searches and the genealogy. And so it's even quicker now. And we've worked so many contemporary investigations in real time with law enforcement agencies to success. And that's incredible. It is. And the reason I wanted to bring that up is because even when you're not looking at a situation like this where you're hunting a potential serial killer like Brian Coburger, when you're looking at even a kidnapping, the first 48 hours are the most critical. So if people have DNA from that and they can get it to you, that could be one of those situations. That could literally be life or death.

Yeah. I mean, we're talking. I'm just going to say it. We're out here talking about the death rate case. that was a hard case for me because I know we have technology that can give you an answer where other technologies fail right now in criminal forensic investigations and it's not always used in real time it's like knowing you have a cancer treatment they can care of somebody and not being able to use it it's difficult I lost a lot of sleep over that case because when you have a kidnapping, there's just a small amount of time to make a difference. And for me, I'm a victim advocate first. A lot of us here are from left medicine and biomedical science, consumer genomics, to jump

into the forensic field, not because this is a lucrative opportunity. There's a lot of funding in the forensic field. This is completely not understood in unchartered territory, but because we felt like this is where we could make the greatest difference for victims and their families. Many of us have been affected by crime or know someone very close to us that has been affected by crime and didn't get justice. And so we really believe we could build the infrastructure to do this better. and we have. If you look at the recent outcomes, I think, on often.com, there's 11 announced cases this week in the last seven days. We only announced about 10% of the cases that we solve.

There's hundreds of examples on the website that show that this technology works, regardless of input, regardless if we're working with the FBI for the smallest agency. that doesn't even know how to process DNA, we can get the same outcome. We are now on the process of distributing this technology to state labs across the United States so that it's not the only lab they can run this evidence. So then no matter where someone gets kidnapped or murdered or rape, they'll have the same chance of actually having access to this technology.

but unfortunately it's not the case right now. There are contracts, there are jurisdictional rules, and in some cases, we can't get involved fast enough to actually make a difference. And that's tough. So I'm guessing based on what you said, they've not called you in for the Guthrie case, correct? So I can't confirm whether we have been called in

in a specific case until long. enforcement confirms that. And I'm not saying that we weren't called in. I'm just saying the window of time that you have when you have like kidnapping or an active perpetrator out there is very small. And it's easy not to know what's possible. And so that's why I'm actually on the show. That's why I think it's worthwhile to get onto these podcasts, get onto the media and discuss this technology. Because it's not even that people don't want to use it. They don't know it's out there. They don't know what's possible.

They treated forensic DNA one way for decades, for the last 30 years, right, since CODIS was created. And all of a sudden we're saying, look, there's another way. And now we're saying, maybe you should start using this other way. right away rather than wait until the end of an investigation. And so until people are aware of what's possible, it's not going to be used for every investigation in the most, I don't know, efficient way. Maybe that's the right word, the most efficient way. And, you know, when you and I talked last time, you really gave a phenomenal analogy with

that. So, you know, the technology that they're still using, and for the most part with DNA is about 30 years old. And you said, you know, you don't drive a car that's 30 years old. You don't still use a computer that's 30 years old. You're not still using the technology used 30 years ago, for the most part. So why are we still doing something like this when it's come a long way? And that really just makes a lot of sense. And I mean, I realize that when you're talking about state labs, you're talking about federal, you know, federal government or state government, things move at a glacial pace. But at this point in time, 30 years is long enough. And I think that we kind of got into

that discussion talking about the Ramses. And I know that you've been trying to work with, I don't know if I'm allowed to say this. If I'm not, you can tell me and then, you know, we'll cut it out. But with the Ramses, they want you involved in solving the murder of Jean Bonnet. But the struggle has been with Boulder, Colorado, in getting the DNA for you guys to be able to do something with it. Is that accurate?

I'm not allowed to say that. I can't confirm or deny whether you've been asked for the case. I can say that the Ramsey family has very publicly disclosed that they would like for us to get the DNA in the case of help. And I can't say, I think you can say that I don't have the DNA in my possession yet. The reason for that could be meaningful. It's not that agencies don't want to do it. It's maybe they don't know what piece of evidence to use for this technology. Maybe that there's a learning curve on how to do this.

This is new, and I understand that. Most law enforcement agents that I've met, this is actually something that's been healing to me. Most law enforcement agents that I've met over the last seven years of doing this really do want to solve their case. they're working day and night on that case file that people think they're not working on because they do truly genuinely care. The problem is they're not, they don't have the tools that they may need to solve the case. And so it goes into this extra labor to try to figure it out, that extra labor isn't actually leading to a result. I really think that what we built here at Offram is technology that can truly change how forensic investigations are carried in the future. You said that the technology that was built 30 years ago still being used and it hasn't been modified in 30 years.

And that's true. That technology was built to confirm someone's identity. If you read about what it was meant to do, it was to confirm identity, never to infer identity. If you had a suspect, we can confirm that identity. If you have a known perpetrator, you can confirm that they committed multiple crimes. That's what CODIS is meant to do. What we've built is completely different. It's inferring identity.

You are looking at camera feeds. You're looking at licensed plates. all of that visual stuff, maybe GPS locations on phones, you're looking at that visual feed every time you have a crime scene and you're trying to analyze who might have been there. I'm proposing that at the same time in parallel early on, we look at an identity feed and that identity feed is filled with anyone that left DNA at that crime scene. And then you decipher, Were they supposed to be there? Are these family members?

Are this who live in the house? Is this a friend that was invited over? Or is this a stranger's DNA that shouldn't have been there? So just like you look at your camera and you say, that's probative and that's not, I believe that we can use DNA in the same way and actually very accurately, robustly decipher times in time soon very quickly. because DNA is the most robust biometric. You can't change.

You can't hide her men. The Rachel Morin case is a perfect example. She was a mama five. I don't know if you're familiar with the case. She's a mama five in Maryland. She is one of the most affluent areas. She was taking her normal morning job when she was raped and murdered. And the DNA went into COTUS.

It was no match, but it was the same DNA that was put into Codas three months prior in L.A. in the attack of a mom and her nine-year-old. And so we knew the perpetrator had committed two crimes, one in L.A. And one in Maryland within three months, but the identity would have known. So the FBI brought the DNA over to Othrum, and we were able to. to identify him and he was an illegal immigrant that came into this country. He murdered a woman in El Salvador, escaped, crossed over the border illegally. So no documentation, no license, no address, nothing.

And then he started to make crimes across the United States. And we were able to stop that immediately almost. He's in his 20s, I believe. We were able to stop that because he's DNA as a biometric. He was a ghost. There was really no other way to identify him. And now he's in jail and serving probably life in prison, which is incredible. It really is just mind-blowingly incredible technology.

And I want to, just for people listening, so they understand, you all never confirm identity, you always infer identity, correct? Absolutely. So what that means for, and you can correct me if I'm wrong or get any of this wrong or too light on it, but basically what that means, like, Koe Burger's a really good example. They took the DNA, or the DNA, they did everything that they did in their lab, and then they handed it back to Moscow, Idaho, or FBI, whoever was handling that

and said, this is who we believe it could be based on what we've seen and basically it's thrown back to law enforcement for them to do the investigation to determine if there's enough there to make that arrest. Is that about accurate? Absolutely. So we give an investigative lead back to law enforcement, and then they built their investigation. And in fact, it goes one step further. They collect the DNA from the person they think is the most likely in their family unit, the person that might have owned the car. for example, a white Honda,

that laundry, whatever it was in the Colberger case, or the person that lived near Idaho, as the rest of the family was in Pennsylvania. So one person made sense. So they collect a DNA from him, and then they send that DNA

to a traditional forensic state lab to make that confirmation. So we never confirm even the DNA results. We infer the identity using this new technology. And then it's confirmed with the method that has gone to court for 30 years, gives you that one and 17 quintillion chance that it could be you or someone else. And

that is what they can't take into court and allows for the prosecution of that perpetrator. So we are one part. We are the catalyst to giving you an answer. Many of the times we start even earlier on than the murder or the rape or whatever the violent crime is because the law enforcement agency doesn't even know the identity of the victim. Many times people decapitate their victims, cut off their arms so that there are no fingerprints, any recognizable characteristics. They throw them at the bottom of the ocean, a lake, put them in a barrel, treat them with chemicals we've seen it all. And they become unidentified remains. Name is the database of unidentified

remains in the United States. And it's filled with over 14,000 people that don't have a name anymore. They have been left voiceless and removed from the existence. We are able to identify every one of those victims and that helps law enforcement start to seek justice for them. If you don't know who your victim is, how can you work an investigation? Unless someone saw someone put the victim there, you don't have any way to work that crime. You just wait until someone may come forward and say, I think that might be someone I know. It often doesn't happen. And because people take the victims from Michigan and bring them to Texas and dump them here or like I said the ocean carries them somewhere or the lake and then you don't have an answer. For me there should be no reason for someone

to be removed from reality for someone's story to end without an ending. I've met so many families that spend every single day looking for their loved one. They live in the same home, keep the same phone number, go back to their loved one's favorite place, hoping to find them. And they don't. I feel like those victims are not in the known appropriated database. Most of the time, over 99% of the time, they don't get identified with CODIS testing. So for that problem, this solution is the only robust, predictable way to I don't get identified with CODIS testing. is the only robust, predictable way to identify your victim.

We just put out of paper. We looked at the last, I don't remember how many, maybe hundreds of victims that we were able to identify. And it shows that within less than a year, over 25% of the perpetrators were arrested. And so you're actually able to get justice. And I bet if you wait two years, or three years, it'll be a bigger number than that.

But now there's hope for it not just you can bring your loved one home and bury them, but they can go question everyone that saw them in the last few days of their lives and last few weeks and actually bring justice. There's a terrified statistic that was published in the New York Times earlier this summer. It said that if you commit a murder in the United States, States, over half the time, you don't get caught. It's a point toss, flip, you say whether you get caught. And it's even less if you commit a rape, bag of, or robbery, or any other.

That is a terrifying statistic. We live in a world that you can kill someone, and it's a 50-50, whether you get caught. To me, that's completely unacceptable. I really believe, and I hope that this podcast brings that realization of people and helps other people that have minds like people here at Othrom, jump into this field and do something about this. It's devastating. In medicine, we make all of these advancements and they get better and better every year. Cancer treatment today is a lot better than that. it was 30 years ago. Infertility treatment is a lot better than it was 30 years ago. Every

kind of medical treatment has changed because there's thousands, more than hundreds of thousands of people working on making those treatments better. They find that a worthwhile cause. Yet we walk outside and any one of us or a family member could get murdered and we've never, 50-50, whether we get adjusted. And we're okay with that. We shouldn't be. It needs to change. And hopefully, awesome is the beginning of the infrastructure to make that change. That's our dream. That's our hope. Everybody should do this the right way. This shouldn't be a competition over who's working, what case. It should be that the person that can provide the best answer in the quickest way in this case. That's who should work by case.

It shouldn't matter who has a contract, who has the relationship, who has this, who has that. If you're very ill and there's another doctor at the hospital that is an expert in that type of illness, your doctor will refer you to that expert because that's the right thing to do. We don't do that in forensics. It's not required. Outcomes aren't measured. All that's measured is whether you, you know, you run the DNA? Well, if you run the DNA and you don't get an answer, are you helping or hurting

the system? You've consumed the evidence and you didn't identify the perpetrator or the victim. And I would argue that you hurt this world because now that perpetrator's off there. We got away with it and they'll likely do it and there'll be another victim. And so for me, I feel like you should all be held to metrics in this field. Again, in medicine, still DNA, it looks a lot of the same. If you use DNA to decide how to treat a patient, or if you use DNA to decide if a patient has a certain disease, you then have to report the outcome of whether that patient survived and for how long.

We should have to report the outcome of every DNA investigation. What method did we use to test the DNA? Did we identify the victim and the perpetrator? And how long did it take? I believe that every victim in their family deserves those answers. We have a bill that's called the Carla Walker Act. We have to hold this up. sits on my desk.

This is the original slip. This is Carla Walker. She was a 17-year-old cheerleader that was abducted, raped, and murdered. After her high school dance, her Valentine's High School dance, her boyfriend was hit on the head. The last thing he heard was, go get my dad. He woke up and drove past the police station to her house and asked for her. her dad, but they took her. They took her. Because he drove past the police station, because it could go a little bit for him to wake up, everyone thought he did it. And so for 46 years,

Rodney exiled himself to Alaska from Texas because he couldn't deal with the fact that the community really believed that he killed Carla. There was tons of documentaries and all of these shows that put the story up and he was the perpetrator in that story. We were able to get DNA from her bra strap 47 years later, and we were able to identify Glenn McCurley as the perpetrator of Carla Walker. Glenn McCurley lived one mile away from a house where Carla grew up. He built, he actually buried his son right next to Carla's. Greg. He got away with it. 47 years. His wife ran the daycare in the community. There were other

murders that were attributed to him. And when he stood trial for this case, it was the first case with our technology to actually go to trial. He denied everything. He denied seeing Carla. Then he said to Carla and Rodney were the right. He helped her. Then he said, It was DNA and his DNA and her because he hugged her. And they told him it was Seaman DNA. And he said she went willingly and let her go. It was crazy, crazy trial. And finally, he confessed.

He was convicted to life in prison. After the DNA was being admissible because they obviously argued that it was new technology and should be thrown out. He had the gun fill in his house and some of Carla's belongings. Her brother has touched my heart more than many family members. He continued to live in the same house for 37 years, hoping that someone could come knock on the door and tell him what happened to his sister. He was 12 years old the day that Carla was taken.

And he would go back to the pulvert while she was found in sleep on Saturday night, hoping that the perpetrator would come back so he could confront him. I met Noah and right after the arrest was made and before the trial. And he changed my life. I have to tell you that he is the reason I decided to join Arthur publicly and become part of this. mission to make a difference. I realize that you don't touch one person. There are hundreds of people that are affected by not getting a number of crime.

Hundreds. And you gave two people their life back with that. That's an incredible story. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but you gave two people their lives back after nearly 50 years. And I saw them made up for the first time in Huff. And Rodney said, said to Jim, I lost you that too.

And he hugged him and he said, I'm sorry. I thought you didn't. Like they didn't know. They just trusted the process. And they lost each other too. And they were like brother as well, because Rodney and Carla were so close. They had promised rings. They were planning and getting married.

It was a small community. And it was more than two people. It was a sister. The two parents had passed away prior to getting the answer. That's devastating. I wish we could have gotten to it sooner. But when we went to Carla's celebration of life, there were hundreds of people from the school, from the community that showed up

just to finally celebrate justice. The ripple effect of the crime is huge. And then there are crimes after Carlas that were attributed to Glenn McCurley that nowadays could have been prevented. And so I sit here today hoping that in Carla's name, we can start to make legislative change that requires outcome. It's not about working at case, it's not about volume and testing every way to get out there. It's about getting the answer for these families, a predictable answer every single time.

We here at all have created truth set, standards, kind of like clinical trials, of the thousands of samples that we have successfully built profiles for and help resolve with longings, right? And we compare any piece of DNA that comes in to those thousands of signals. And if it's something we've done before, we proceed. But if it's not, we stop. And we tell law enforcement we're not ready today. As a for-profit company, we turn away 25 to 30% of our work on purpose, because we're not certain that we can bring value to the investigation today. We have a research part to author

where we actually do not casework for the types of evidence that we are not ready to work yet. And when we're ready, we call up law enforcement and we say we didn't give up and we just moved a protocol into the lab, the accredited lab that we can use. And they send their cases back. There's hundreds of cases.

We've gone back to installs later. but we will not continue evidence or budget if we're not certain that we can bring value. Everyone should be held to that. No doctor is giving you a treatment that they don't think can help you because of a clinical trial out there. You're not just going in and they're hoping you're helping you. They're doing something they know has helped someone with your condition before. This is no different. This is science.

You said earlier, this sounds like science fiction. It's not. It's science fact. And it is just as reliable as every other science we all count on every single day. The only problem is we're not required to expect outcomes yet. So we are all sitting in a field that doesn't have to change. It doesn't have to do better because nothing is tied to an outcome. And the only people that hurt with that are the victims, the families, and law enforcement that doesn't have the ability to solve their case that they work on so hard because they don't have a tool that's predictable and reliable and robust.

So I'm working on legislation that's going to govern what I do and make it harder for me and make me report whether or not I'm doing this right or wrong so that one day we can live in a safer world, what everyone is doing is the right way for everything. And I think we're going to get there. I do. I do too. So two part question. How many cold cases?

Do you have an idea of how many cold cases you all have helped to solve? And what's the oldest one? I think it's over 6,000. And the oldest one is 1848, I believe. Was that the one? Oh, it was where I heard about one from the 1800s not too long ago. It was like an Indiana maybe or Illinois was it one of those states or is that a completely different one? There was one.

I don't remember the state. Maybe it was India. I think you might have been murdered. She was young. Yeah. And she was a 21-year-old school teacher found outside of a war. Yeah. Yes.

Yes. Yes. And we were able to identify her and help lead to resolution in that case. There's quite a few in the 1800s. We identified a man that floated in the ocean in Australia for over 100 years. That was a big feat because saltwater is actually difficult. on DNA that we were still able to get an answer. Time, age, it doesn't matter.

DNA is quite robust. We worked a case. In fact, we just did an episode on it. So it's fresh in my mind. The victim was a 14-year-old girl. We can tell the children cases obviously bother Kristen a lot. But this girl was one of the main. basis for Nick Mac. She was 14 years old and she was found on Texas Highway on the morning

after Halloween so badly abused and beaten as she was unrecognizable. They put her picture on everywhere and no one claimed to know who this girl was. There was a lot of stories out there and eyewitnesses said that she might have come somewhere from Deep Texas, that she was trying to hitchhive to a jail. There was a lot of stuff that came up, but no one could figure out who she was. She was known as the Walker County Jane Doe for decades, I believe 40 years. And we're able to identify her as Sherry Ann Jarrah. Sherry Ann Jarrah. Sherry Ann Jarvis was from Minnesota. So her body being found here in Texas made no sense. That's why I look at connection was never made. Her murder is one of the most brutal murders I have ever looked at a case file. I mean, life changing brutal. And now I spoke to identify her perpetrator. I just spoke with a detective actually today, which provides fresh in my mind. They have a leave. Finally, someone's going to have to answer.

for what they did to this girl 40 years ago. We should be able to do that in real time. No one should get away with murder for 40 years. No case should be cold. Nobody should be a serial anything. We should be able to bring serial crime distinction with this technology. But to do that, everyone has to adopt it and everyone has to use it. One lab can't run every case in the world.

It's not possible and it's never what we wanted. We publish more than universities on this topic. We have a paper out every month. There's nine out this year. Nothing we do here is proprietary or a block box. We publish everything we're doing and we're hoping that everyone starts to adopt it everywhere so that we can live in a better world together. I want to go back and ask just my curiosity is getting me on this one.

When you have cases from like the mid-1800s or the early 20th century, and you identify the people or you identify, you know, to a point that you know what happened, who gets that information? Like what, I don't know how to ask this and not be, not sound, you know, uncaring, but like at this point, no, but you have generations of people removed from this. I actually was shocked too. I don't think you're a mean person for asking this. We identified a little girl.

She was known as Little Miss Nobody. It found in Arizona. I hated the name. We were able to give her her name back. And all of her, I mean, it had been so long that the family had all passed away. And I wondered, who's going to come to this press conference? It was very early on in my three years. here at all. But we flew to Arizona and it was a nephew that actually came and spoke at the press

conference. And he talked about how his mom was there when she was taken because they were all playing outside. They were like five, six, seven years old playing outside and how he was never allowed to go outside and play and that his life had completely changed because his aunt was taken at a very young age and that getting this answer meant the world to him we had identified a woman from a hundred and forty years ago and there was family members there to collect it was a great grandchild to collect bones and have a burial for her and they cared and they wanted to and it meant the world to one and it shows me that the hurt is passed down for generations. until you have that answer.

I don't believe in closure when something terrible happens to you or your loved one. I don't think that closure is a word that will ever come to anyone or that I think we can bring. But I believe the truth allows you to turn the page to the next chapter. Jim Walker, Carla's brother, was broken every single day trying to solve a sister's case. Until 46 years later, we were able to give him an answer. And in giving him that answer, he has been able to turn that page and now advocate that other families have gone through what he's gone through can start to get answers.

And he's built a new life around it. And there's hope that comes with that. And he's found meaning in the darkest moment in his life. And that's not something you can do if you don't have the truth or if you don't have answers. And that's what this technology brings. It's the truth. It's never good news when author identifies your loved one or identifies the perpetrator of your loved one. We're only working in the most terrible cases.

But I've never heard a single family member and I've talked to thousands tell me that, they're not grateful for the answer. Not one. In fact, I got an email today that says that they wake up every morning and check our DNA solves on Facebook hoping that today is the day their loved ones picture pops up and that we bring them hope. And every time a face comes up there, they know that it's a matter of time before it's their turn. And that means the world to me. In fact, someone sent me, I hear that a lot of that. No one sent me a photograph and it says it's a matter of time. And I keep it on my desk because it is a matter of time, no matter when the crime was committed,

no matter when your loved one was lost in time, before your case does have access to this technology and can be solved. I think that we bring hope to cases that have been hopeless for. for years. As long as there's evidence, it's a matter of time. I believe it with my whole heart. And I think I agree with you. You're never going to get closure. And I had Elizabeth Smart on here and she said something that has really rang true to me, which was like, I mean, just really, she's like, you'll never get justice. He's like, we have a legal system, not a justice system. You're never going to get back what was taken from you. That's right. But what I can say, with this is that you you all help in giving answers like I have a person who we actually just dropped

this episode this week um so I've talked to a lot of times in Tennessee her her she's been fighting for 20 almost 25 years now trying to get answers for her sister and her niece um who disappeared they believe they know who did it they've never had bodies returned but they can't get the police to do it they don't know where the bodies are and so they're fighting with with basically no answers. And like you said, there's not really closure, but there is known information. So when you have that information,

you can finally say, okay, well, now we know definitively who did this. Now we know what happened to our loved one. You can begin to heal the best way you're going to heal. But if not, you're going to continue every day of your life fighting for it.

To try to figure it out. Yeah. And even though it's never going to bring your loved one back, it does bring a sense of relief to have answers. Finally, I'm sure after, you know, especially 40, 30, 40, 50 years, you know, the burden of carrying that. I can't, I can't even imagine.

I can't either. I have met as strong as people and I have become close friends to many of them over the last few years. Stacey Chapin, Ethan's mom from the Idaho murders have become a close friend.

That woman is so strong. She knew she had to move on for her other two children. Ethan was a triplet. She knew she had to be there. And she did. She did in the biggest way. But she still advocates for this technology. She realizes that what happened at her case is the exception, not the rule.

And because of all the coverage, because the infinite budget, because everyone said try everything, because we happened to have worked with that agency before and they knew the technology, there was an answer quickly. And her other kids could go back to school and graduate and get their life, turn the page the next chapter a lot faster than most victim families get to. It's amazing to me to see people take something that seems unbearable. I had a child that was the exact same age as the four college students in Idaho. She was a sophomore in college at the same time as my oldest daughter. And of course, I related immediately to what happened, right? It's your biggest fear. Your kids go to college.

It's supposed to be the happiest time in their life, and you get that phone call. I knew that we would never be able to fix this for these families and I've met them, all of them now. And it's devastating. We're never going to bring back those four beautiful children or change what they've lost. But we were able to help them get an answer quickly, make sure it didn't happen again, and now be able to be able to help them get an answer quickly, and now be able to help them. to move past. And even that quickly took two and a half years for that to go through trial, to go through the system. You're right. The legal system, not the justice system, is long and hard. But with concrete evidence like DNA, DNA that's looking at hundreds of thousands of markers,

it's a little bit easier. This was one of the most notorious cases in the United States. And it went through the system as quickly as it could have, even with new technology. And he asked for, he waived his right to a rapid trial, which is why I took two and a half years. I feel like these families have now become the biggest voice for this technology, all of them. I can sit here all day and tell you how important this is, but their voice is so much great. because they actually were able to get answers because of this technology. They're the example. They're the little spark across the United States and the world now.

It'll eventually allow for the fire to catch and everyone to get answers. And to me, that's purpose. That's reason. Crimes are awful. People are awful. We live in a hard world. Most of us have experienced it to some degree. It's really sad. We live in a world where your family or someone you know has likely been affected by crime. Obviously, it's various degrees. That's the world we live in.

We can change that together. And I think that's what Arthur means to us. It's a technology company, yes. But it is a mission. It is a mission to do better, to be better, to be the example, to be those thought leaders, to bring more thought leaders to this field. We work with universities and creating educational programs that will help scientists become exactly what we are. I mean, we are a big mix of engineering, no mix.

traditional for epic testing. Let's teach others to come into this field, bring their minds, their gifts, and make it better. Let's stop competing because the only people who are hurting are these victims. I said very loudly in an interview last week. It is not about equity for vendors to me. I will stand up for what I believe in every single time because it's about equity for victims and their families. And not every case has the same chance of justice in the United States today. And until it does, I'm going to be vocal and argue for the opposite. So when I, in Colorado at CrimeCon, was it you on the stage with Stacy?

It was. Yeah, I thought it was. So that's why I first, for the listeners or viewers, that's when I first, heard about this is I went to one session the entire time I was at Crockcon and it was that one and it was because Nikki Schmidt, the mother of Gabby Petito was like, oh, you know, Stacey's doing this one. You should, you guys should go to that. So myself and another creator, Pascal, who does the Pascal show, we went to that one. And I didn't even, I wasn't even there from the beginning. I came probably halfway through. And I'm just literally sitting there with my, with my mouth agape at what

you guys are talking about in this technology. And so when I started this podcast, I was like, I definitely want to see if I can get you guys on because it's so fascinating. And I think that it's one of those things that, like you were kind of saying, people don't know that this exists. They don't know where the technology is going. And you don't know what you don't know. So I'm like, well, we have this. This is information that has to be out there. Like, people need to know that this exists.

Yeah, I appreciate it. Yeah, I think that giving the technology a voice, sharing the stories of every one of these. We put our logo as the carbon ring of life and the negative space in the middle is the missing person. We put the victims in the carbon ring of life as we tell their stories. Never the perpetrator, whether we identify the perpetrator or the victim, it's always the victim's story for us. Share them. Share them so that maybe local law enforcement can see a story around you. Talk about these victims. They deserve their ending. to their story and they deserve their voice in that.

I feel like the more this becomes commonplace, the more it becomes included in active investigations, and the more that we pass legislation that requires, will you do this right? The faster we're gonna live in a safer world. I know it's a matter of time, but if it's 10 years versus two, we've helped hundreds of thousands of victims I won't become victims.

And if you talk to any victim, including myself, will tell you very quickly that saving one other person from that anguish or pain is worth it. Being able to save hundreds of thousands, it's my purpose today. And so it's my pleasure to be on here and to talk about this. I'd love to answer any questions. My email is really simple.

Kristen at Offgram.com. It's K-R-I-S-E-N. Anyone that has any questions, anyone that wants to be part of the advocacy, anyone that has a case that they think needs to be looked out with this technology, shoot me an email. I want to help,

and I need the help to give this technology a voice. Thank you for having me on. Yeah, absolutely. And I can drop your email in the show notes for anybody who wants to do that. Just don't overly bombard her. But yeah, you know, they might. But you are responsible. And I agree with you, too, on the not showcasing perpetrators. Like so, you know, we talked about Coburger here. But when I do like short videos or I'm live or whatever and I'm talking about him, I only refer to him as inmate 163214. Good, good. He doesn't even, he doesn't deserve a name.

Yeah. I don't want to look at. their pictures. I don't care about them. I don't care what caused them to do what they did. I care about giving families and the remaining people that need those answers, the answers. This technology can prevent victims from passing away. We've worked so many cases where the victims are still alive, and they were able to face their perpetrators in court. And get justice. To me, that's incredible. That's something many people never see. And these women were able to get answers. They were able to see. Jim was able to face Carlos perpetrator in court and look him in the eyes and ask him why. That's incredible. I want to live in a world where that's more normal than 50% of the time for murders or even less rapes. No, I agree.

And I think it's amazing what you're doing. And I so appreciate you taking the time before we close out this show, this episode. Is there anything that I didn't ask you? I mean, I don't know. Also, I don't know what I don't know. So is there anything that I didn't ask you that we should have talked about or that you want to talk about? No, I think that's it. There are so many case examples out there.

Please go read them. The inputs of DNA are all different. The circumstances are different. There's thousands of agencies. So all of that is different. There's still an outcome in every case, in every hopeless place. So I guess what I want people to hear is that there's hope. Even if all other methods failed, there's still hope.

And then I want people to want to be a part of this movement. I want people to help, whether it's advocacy, legislation. We have a big Facebook group called DNA self advocates. It's mostly built of family members that got answers using this technology for people that hope that their case will be worked using this technology. I love the group because it stays positive. We don't talk about perpetrators. We just try to share good stories and good outcomes.

I think that's all. That's the goal of author in a nutshell. That's a good goal. A great goal. Well, Kristen, thank you so much for joining and taking the time today. And for everybody else, we will see you guys next time. Thank you. Before we go, make sure you're following the show on Apple or Spotify and turn notifications on so you don't miss the next episode.

And if you enjoyed the show, please do me a solid and take a second and leave a five-star review. It really does help. Now, next week's episode is one you don't want to miss. I'll be joined by Jesse Weber, who you may know from Law and Crime or News Nation. Jesse is a prominent attorney, legal analyst, host of Jesse Weber Live on News Nation, and host of Sidebar on Law and Crime. Now, if you follow true crime at all, you have probably seen him. But what you may not realize is just how much he actually understands about what's happening behind the scenes in these cases because there's what people think is happening. And then there's what's actually happening inside a courtroom.

Jesse breaks that down in a way most people don't. How juries really think what actually matters to a case versus what just blows up online and where people get it completely wrong when they're following these stories in real time. And I am telling you, once you hear this conversation, you're going to start looking at every case differently. So seriously, make sure you're following because you're not going to want to miss this one. See you guys next week. The views and opinions expressed in this episode are solely those of the individual's speaking and do not necessarily reflect those of the host. Unheard is intended to provide a platform for personal stories and lived experiences,

not to establish facts, determine guilt, innocence, or provide legal, medical, or professional advice. Listeners are encouraged to conduct their own research and form their own conclusions. Thank you for listening to Unheard. Thank you.