Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
Speaker 1: this episode, we're headed back up to Moscow, where we're
Speaker 1: going to dive right back in to the IgG transcripts
Speaker 1: that were recently released. Question why did you want AUTHROM
Speaker 1: to do why STR testing? Answer? So, the reason for
Speaker 1: why SDR testing is to utilize different investigative databases that
Speaker 1: might be out there. I don't believe in this case
Speaker 1: we ever did why STR testing. A lot of the
Speaker 1: discussion was around preservation of the sample, or as much
Speaker 1: of the sample as we could preserve, and so our
Speaker 1: recommendation to them was to not proceed with the type
Speaker 1: of testing at this time, to kind of see where
Speaker 1: we were able to go with the traditional SNP testing
Speaker 1: with the whole genome sequencing, and then we would maybe
Speaker 1: potentially revisit why STR testing. I do remember some discussion
Speaker 1: with David Middleman at AUTHRAM about if they were able
Speaker 1: to bootstrap some of the whole genome sequencing in order
Speaker 1: to develop a y profile that could be searchable from
Speaker 1: the data that they had already developed, instead of using
Speaker 1: additional sample to specifically develop a y STR profile or
Speaker 1: any kind of why profile. Question, what does that mean bootstrapping.
Speaker 1: Take me back, they have this DNA sample and then
Speaker 1: do they have have they done those steps to get
Speaker 1: to their SNP before you want bootstrapping done? Or at
Speaker 1: what stage are you talking about? Answer? Essentially, it was
Speaker 1: our understanding that they were in the process of or
Speaker 1: had already obtained the whole genome sequencing profile, and so
Speaker 1: our question to them was, is there a way to
Speaker 1: develop a y STR profile from the genetic information that
Speaker 1: you already have through the other method of testing? Question
Speaker 1: and that's what you mean by bootstrap at a different
Speaker 1: kind of analysis? Answer correct? Question Why would you want
Speaker 1: to do that? Answer again to see if there was
Speaker 1: a potential search why database that might be available out
Speaker 1: there to identify genetic lineages. Question what does that mean
Speaker 1: genetic lineages? Answer? So a why chromosome is passed down
Speaker 1: from father to son, and so we would be looking
Speaker 1: to see if we can identify a family line through
Speaker 1: tracking the y chromosome DNA from father to son, to
Speaker 1: grandfather all the way down to grandson and potentially over
Speaker 1: multiple generations, so it would tie us into a family
Speaker 1: line that could be investigated. Further question, did authorum bootstrap
Speaker 1: and get the y STR for you. Answer. To my knowledge,
Speaker 1: they never did anything with y STR testing, and to
Speaker 1: my recollection, with my discussion with David, that wasn't possible
Speaker 1: with the data that he had at that point. Question
Speaker 1: it was impossible. Answer that it was not possible. Correct question,
Speaker 1: thank you. Answer, I don't believe that was attempted. Again,
Speaker 1: I'm not familiar with the technology that he would have
Speaker 1: had to use to do such a thing, So I'm
Speaker 1: not aware if that was possible, if the technology didn't exist,
Speaker 1: I just don't know. Question Okay, at some point did
Speaker 1: talk to you about the work that they were doing?
Speaker 1: Answer yes, Question and did they have recommendations? Answer? They did,
Speaker 1: They had at least one recommendation that I remember. Question
Speaker 1: When was that conversation? Answer? I don't remember exactly when
Speaker 1: that conversation happened. Question, Well, let's put it between well,
Speaker 1: when did they get the DNA to start with? Answer?
Speaker 1: So they got the DNA November twenty second, I believe.
Speaker 1: Question And when they were notified to stop work. Answer?
Speaker 1: I believe the notification. The official notification was on December tenth,
Speaker 1: if I remember correctly. Question, So, when they came back
Speaker 1: to you with some recommendations where was that in relation
Speaker 1: to the stop work answer, probably early December. I'm guessing
Speaker 1: the actual work the laboratory, what I would call the
Speaker 1: wet work in the laboratory would be the first couple
Speaker 1: of weeks, probably before they would have turned it over
Speaker 1: to the genealogist to be searching in the database and
Speaker 1: those sorts of things. Question to make sure I'm with you,
Speaker 1: wet work means DNA sample to where we get to
Speaker 1: the whole genome sequencing, and then where we get to
Speaker 1: an SMP. I know I'm skipping steps, but that's the
Speaker 1: wet work answer correct. The laboratory work, so anything that
Speaker 1: would be done in the physical laboratory, handling the sample,
Speaker 1: putting it into tubes, adding liquids, things of that nature
Speaker 1: that would be done in the laboratory, sequencing on an instrument,
Speaker 1: that would all be done in the first week, several weeks. Question.
Speaker 1: So after that they have a recommendation for you answer correct, question,
Speaker 1: what's their recommendation to you? Answer? Their recommendation to memory,
Speaker 1: to my recall, was that they had several individuals that
Speaker 1: had the potential to be of interest in this investigation,
Speaker 1: so they asked us if to further their family tree building,
Speaker 1: if we could be in contact with individuals and see
Speaker 1: if they were willing to contribute information into the database
Speaker 1: that they were using in order to further the family
Speaker 1: tree building and further the geological work. Question and where
Speaker 1: in a close setting here, I'm going to ask you
Speaker 1: to give me the last name. Answer, I don't recall
Speaker 1: the last name. I'm sorry. Question was it your understanding
Speaker 1: that these were four brothers? Answer? Yes? Question okay, what
Speaker 1: did you do in relationship to these brothers? Answer? So,
Speaker 1: we did some cursory work, just like in publicly accessible
Speaker 1: information literally Google searches and things of that nature. What
Speaker 1: our approach was is we didn't want to be approaching people,
Speaker 1: especially with an investigation of this nature that really had
Speaker 1: nothing to do with anything. We just wanted to make
Speaker 1: sure that there was some reason why Athrom Laboratories was
Speaker 1: asking us to go and ask these individuals to put
Speaker 1: their DNA into the database that law enforcement can search.
Speaker 1: So we just did some work to build just very
Speaker 1: cursory family trees to see what connection these individuals might
Speaker 1: have had and to verify these individuals were indeed brothers.
Speaker 1: Things of that nature. Question, did you verify that the
Speaker 1: four were brothers. Answer, I don't know that we would
Speaker 1: use the word verify, but we believed that the information
Speaker 1: was reliable that they had given us based on the
Speaker 1: publicly accessible information. Question. Now, I know you said you
Speaker 1: can't remember the last name of those brothers. We're here
Speaker 1: today for Brian Coolberger's name, and he has been on
Speaker 1: the news for two years. You know his name. That
Speaker 1: wasn't the last name? Answer, that was not the last name. Question.
Speaker 1: After you did the cursory work and the family tree,
Speaker 1: what was next thing you did in relation to these
Speaker 1: four brothers. Answer? We, at some point, and I don't
Speaker 1: remember exactly when, we had asked our investigator, Detective Vicky
Speaker 1: Gooch with the Idaho State Police, to reach out to
Speaker 1: one of the brothers we believe had put information into
Speaker 1: a genealogical database, ask him if he would be willing
Speaker 1: to upload that into one of these databases so they
Speaker 1: could further build out and use that information. She was,
Speaker 1: I believe, initially able to contact the individual. He was
Speaker 1: skeptical about her contact, and so there was another contact,
Speaker 1: a three way call made between myself, Vicky and this
Speaker 1: individual for purposes of trying to validate this was indeed
Speaker 1: a law enforcement investigation. This was indeed a legitimate request,
Speaker 1: and at that point that individual requested not to be
Speaker 1: contacted again, was not interested in participating. Question During the
Speaker 1: time leading up to that phone call, when you were
Speaker 1: building your family tree, I know none of the four
Speaker 1: brothers had the last name Coburger. That didn't come up
Speaker 1: when you were building the family tree either. Did it
Speaker 1: answer no question? After the brothers said don't contact me again,
Speaker 1: what was the next thing you did answer? So I
Speaker 1: don't remember again exactly when the timeframe was with that,
Speaker 1: but I know that there were active discussions about having
Speaker 1: a phone call with the agency and the prosecutor's office
Speaker 1: about the work that was being done. There were requesting
Speaker 1: updates from us of what is the authorm laboratory doing,
Speaker 1: where are you at in the investigation, those type of things.
Speaker 1: We were giving them updates via telephone, via telephonic conferences
Speaker 1: with them, just giving them updates on we've delivered the sample,
Speaker 1: We've done this, those sorts of updates, and then they
Speaker 1: did a meeting with us to talk about the testing
Speaker 1: question these conferences. Who participated in those answer most of
Speaker 1: the time, to my memory, it was usually Idaho State
Speaker 1: Police detectives. The Prosecutor's office might have also been privy
Speaker 1: to some of those discussions. Again, just general updates about
Speaker 1: where we were in the process. Question, Tell me about
Speaker 1: the meeting. It sounds like there's a big meeting that happens. Answer.
Speaker 1: There was a meeting to my knowledge, and I don't
Speaker 1: remember exactly when, but probably the morning of December tenth,
Speaker 1: when we had a meeting telephonic meeting is my memory,
Speaker 1: with representatives from Moscow Police Department. I believe FBI had
Speaker 1: representatives on the phone call ISP. I believe myself ISP
Speaker 1: legal counsel, and I believe that the kernel of the
Speaker 1: state Police was also on that phone call. Question and
Speaker 1: what happened on that phone call? Answer. In that phone call,
Speaker 1: we were asked to turn over any kind of investigative
Speaker 1: records that we had, any kind of information that we
Speaker 1: had to the FBI team. They provided me with an
Speaker 1: email address to be able to provide that they were
Speaker 1: requesting from us, which was to my memory, it was
Speaker 1: the two the login information essentially, and it might have
Speaker 1: been other things I'm not aware of, like packets and
Speaker 1: things I'm not aware of the technical terms. But basically
Speaker 1: they were asking us to provide that information to the
Speaker 1: FBI investigator. Question and did you do that? Answer? Yes?
Speaker 1: Question do you know what you provided to the FBI investigator? Answer? So,
Speaker 1: what we asked for to be provided were the two
Speaker 1: database searches of information so that those could be independently searched,
Speaker 1: and we also asked them to cooperate and provide any
Speaker 1: information that they needed to be able to further investigate. Question.
Speaker 1: When you say two databases, do you mean two genetic
Speaker 1: genealogy databases that allow law enforcement to search? Answer? Yes,
Speaker 1: to my knowledge, these samples were searched in two genealogical
Speaker 1: databases that allow searching by law enforcement. So ged match
Speaker 1: and Family Tree DNA, I believe were the two that
Speaker 1: were searched, and we were asked to provide those credentials
Speaker 1: that information to the FBI. Question do you know what
Speaker 1: ged match has? Two different databases ged match andged match
Speaker 1: pro Answer yes, question is it because one of those
Speaker 1: allows law enforcement and the other doesn't? Answer? I believe
Speaker 1: that is correct. Question Okay, Idaho State Police Forensics Lab
Speaker 1: direction that allow law enforcement search? Is that right? Answer?
Speaker 1: Our direction to them was to follow the interim policy
Speaker 1: per contract with them and any other communication we would
Speaker 1: have had with them would be to follow the interim policy.
Speaker 1: Question does that mean yes, you expected them to only
Speaker 1: search the allowed databases? Answer? I believe that is what
Speaker 1: would have been communicated. That's our understanding of what the
Speaker 1: interim policy means is they would search those databases that
Speaker 1: are allowable to be searched by US as a law
Speaker 1: enforcement entity. Question. After AUTHORM turns over whatever they turn
Speaker 1: over to the FBI and you get the real pot
Speaker 1: and they get paid, is that the end of it
Speaker 1: with AUTHORAM for this case? Answer? So they provided us
Speaker 1: a report after we had asked them to turn over
Speaker 1: all of the information to the investigating agency and to
Speaker 1: the FBI. They provided us with what was identified as
Speaker 1: a preliminary report. I believe they titled it that because
Speaker 1: it was not a final report the testing. We had
Speaker 1: asked them to terminate the testing, but they were not
Speaker 1: at a final result of a named to provide to
Speaker 1: us an investigative lead to provide to us. Question why
Speaker 1: was the decision made for the FBI to take this
Speaker 1: over and not let AUTHORAM finish? Answer? I don't know.
Speaker 1: I can't speak to that question. In that meeting, there
Speaker 1: was nothing stated about why we were going to do this. Answer.
Speaker 1: I don't recall specific reasons, but they had to ask
Speaker 1: us to transfer everything to the FBI. Question Okay, did
Speaker 1: you take a look at the two profiles, the FBI
Speaker 1: SNP profile and Authrum's SNP profile? Have you ever looked
Speaker 1: at those? Answer? Do we look at those? Or did
Speaker 1: I look at those? Question? Did you answer? I did not?
Speaker 1: Question have you seen them? Answer no? Question would it
Speaker 1: surprise you to know that the FBI profile was over
Speaker 1: twice as big as authrooms? Answer again, I have no
Speaker 1: knowledge of what the FBI did or didn't do. I
Speaker 1: had no knowledge or yeah. Question how involved were you
Speaker 1: with the FBI's process of their genetic genealogy Answer? I
Speaker 1: was not involved other than to provide the samples to
Speaker 1: where they asked us to send those samples to and
Speaker 1: then from that point, I was not involved in the process.
Speaker 1: Question have you become aware that they search databases that
Speaker 1: are not allowed to be searched by law enforcement? Answer?
Speaker 1: Pure speculation is all I know, but I have no
Speaker 1: firsthand knowledge of anything. Question okay, fair enough, thanks for that,
Speaker 1: Miss Taylor, your honor. If I can have just a moment,
Speaker 1: question I have a couple of questions for you about
Speaker 1: some documentation. Answer sure, question the document that gave recommendations
Speaker 1: for you to call some of the four brothers, Where
Speaker 1: is that air? So I believe that that was provided
Speaker 1: to us telephonically. I don't think there was like an
Speaker 1: official report. I don't think there was an email. I
Speaker 1: think it was names provided telephonically, and then those names
Speaker 1: were actually provided as part of the report that came
Speaker 1: out several days after the conclusion of the testing. Question Okay,
Speaker 1: so you recognize those names from the report. Answer yes,
Speaker 1: those had been provided to us beforehand. Question the work
Speaker 1: that you were doing before trying to call one of
Speaker 1: the brothers, where did you keep your documents for that? Answer?
Speaker 1: As far as the records that I'm sorry, I'm confused
Speaker 1: on the question. Question, let me ask it better. You
Speaker 1: did some work, research work before you and Detective Gooch
Speaker 1: made the phone call to one of the brothers and
Speaker 1: kind of built out a family tree and did some
Speaker 1: other research. Where did you keep that? Answer? Those were
Speaker 1: paper copies and those were just retained and then sent
Speaker 1: to AUTHROM as part of us communicating back to them
Speaker 1: basically saying this is the work we did we're providing
Speaker 1: these back to you in case are helpful as you
Speaker 1: continue to build out the family trees. Question do you
Speaker 1: still have a copy of those? Answer yes, Question did
Speaker 1: you document your attempt to get a voluntary sample from
Speaker 1: one of the brothers? Answer? I do not believe so.
Speaker 1: Question do you know if Detective Gooch wrote a police
Speaker 1: report about that? Answer? I don't know. Question did you
Speaker 1: provide any of her notes to you her investigative notes?
Speaker 1: Answer not me. I don't know if she kept notes.
Speaker 1: Question okay, did you watch her write anything down? Answer?
Speaker 1: I did not. We were telephonic. I believe at that point.
Speaker 1: Question it would be hard to see. Then have you
Speaker 1: seen any documentation from that December tenth meeting? Answer not
Speaker 1: to my knowledge. Question okay, any documentation that's come your
Speaker 1: way from the FBI's work. Answer not to my knowledge.
Speaker 1: Question have you turned over your work with the genetic
Speaker 1: genealogy the help you were giving authrom Have you turned
Speaker 1: that over to the prosecutor? Answer? I have not turned
Speaker 1: over physical copies of anything. I believe that our agency
Speaker 1: complied with the discovery or request. I don't know exactly
Speaker 1: what was divided as part of that discovery. Request. Certainly
Speaker 1: it is in an email document from me to AUTH
Speaker 1: from laboratories, and as such, I would assume that that
Speaker 1: would have gone as part of the discovery request. Question.
Speaker 1: Are you talking about the discovery request that the defense made? Answer?
Speaker 1: I'm not exactly sure. We were just asked to comply.
Speaker 1: We know that at any point our emails are discoverable,
Speaker 1: and I believe the way the agency, the way the
Speaker 1: ISP handles discovery requests, large discovery requests especially is to
Speaker 1: do a quote email pull of anything that might be
Speaker 1: related to the case question. I think that the area
Speaker 1: that I'm concerned about, and I do have a lot
Speaker 1: of emails, so thank you for that. The procedures and
Speaker 1: protocols from AUTHROM that you know about that you've read,
Speaker 1: where are they? Answer? So those protocols would have been
Speaker 1: back in twenty twenty one, I believe from when we
Speaker 1: initially did the RFP. I believe it's the RFP of process.
Speaker 1: I'm not completely familiar. It might be an intent to bid.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what you call the process. Regardless when
Speaker 1: that process was going through, they would provide those documents
Speaker 1: to us at that point, and I believe those documents
Speaker 1: likely exist question, okay, any of the work that authoram
Speaker 1: did in getting from DNA sample all the way down
Speaker 1: to SNP profile, where are they? Answer? Where is the
Speaker 1: documentation of that? I don't have that documentation That was
Speaker 1: not provided to us to my knowledge, and I don't
Speaker 1: know everything that was provided back to the laboratory potentially,
Speaker 1: but to my knowledge, we were not provided with that information.
Speaker 1: Question what authorm have it? Answer potentially, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Question the work that they did come up with a
Speaker 1: name to give you for further investigation, where are those documents? Answer?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Question, and your documents some went to authorm,
Speaker 1: but you still have copies of those? Answer I do,
Speaker 1: Miss Taylor. I think that's it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: That's all from me for now, mister and I no
Speaker 1: questions your honor the court. Thank you. You can step
Speaker 1: down now. We're going to wrap up right here and
Speaker 1: in the next episode gonna pick up with the next witness,
Speaker 1: and that is Daniel Hellwig. If you'd like to contact me,
Speaker 1: you can do that at Bobby Kopuci at ProtonMail dot com.
Speaker 1: That's b O B B Y C A p U
Speaker 1: C C I at proton mail dot com or if
Speaker 1: you prefer, you can find me over on x at
Speaker 1: b O b b Y, Underscore c A, p U,
Speaker 1: C c I. All of the links that go with
Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.