Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
Speaker 1: off with the IgG transcript hearing that was unsealed. Once again,
Speaker 1: we have Laya Larkin on the stand, but this time
Speaker 1: mister Ni the prosecutor is going to be cross examining. Question.
Speaker 1: Good afternoon, doctor Larkin. Answer, good afternoon. Question. So you
Speaker 1: testify that when people come to you wanting to do
Speaker 1: genealogy tests, you recommend Ancestry DNA and twenty three and meters.
Speaker 1: Is that correct answer? Yes? Question? And one of the
Speaker 1: reasons you recommend those two is because they have the
Speaker 1: most users in the database. Is that correct answer? Yes, question?
Speaker 1: And the reason why that's important is because when you're
Speaker 1: looking for Ancestry, really the best database for you is
Speaker 1: the one that has the closest relatives in it. Right answer, yes, question,
Speaker 1: But you can't know that until you use the database,
Speaker 1: so you just use the one with the most users. Answer.
Speaker 1: There are two reasons to start with those two companies.
Speaker 1: One is because they have the largest two databases, and
Speaker 1: then because you cannot upload into those databases, you have
Speaker 1: to test with them. You can test at Ancestry and
Speaker 1: then get into my heritage and my family Tree DNA
Speaker 1: and gd match databases for trivial amounts of money, Whereas
Speaker 1: if you're tested at family Tree DNA first, the only
Speaker 1: way you're going to get into the ancestry database is
Speaker 1: by doing another test. So I always recommend starting with
Speaker 1: the biggest and then if you want more databases, you
Speaker 1: can upload into the smaller ones. Question and one of
Speaker 1: the reasons you might want more databases is so you
Speaker 1: can get more matches. Right answer, yes, question. You can
Speaker 1: gather more information that way. Answer uh huh. Question. And
Speaker 1: typically that's why people are coming and asking you about
Speaker 1: these databases is because they want more information about their family.
Speaker 1: Correct answer. People generally come to me because they need
Speaker 1: help interpreting the matches that they have. Question. I want
Speaker 1: to talk a little bit about the number of users
Speaker 1: these databases. So we've been discussing the ones that were
Speaker 1: on that list you read from the document the FBI
Speaker 1: indicated that they used in this case. Do you remember
Speaker 1: that list on that list? Do you remember which of
Speaker 1: those databases has the fewest number of users? Answer? I
Speaker 1: believe Family Tree DNA is currently at about one point
Speaker 1: eight million. It's not an exact number, but I think
Speaker 1: that's probably about where they are right now. Ged matches,
Speaker 1: I think a little over two million, and my Heritage
Speaker 1: recently announced they were at nine million. Question and when
Speaker 1: you say one point eight million, you mean one point
Speaker 1: eight million other people that have utilized their services and
Speaker 1: that you potentially could match with if you utilize that service. Answer? Yes,
Speaker 1: question is that correct? I have a couple of questions
Speaker 1: for you on this. Promothees. You mentioned it costs money
Speaker 1: twelve dollars, I believe you said. Answer, I think it's
Speaker 1: twelve dollars. Question Why would someone utilize that instead of
Speaker 1: just reading their SNP profiles themselves. Answer? The SNP profile
Speaker 1: is basically just a list of there's a location code,
Speaker 1: but it's going to be something like RS two three
Speaker 1: seven four four. And you're not going to know that RS.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what number. I just made that
Speaker 1: number up. You're not going to know what the SNP is.
Speaker 1: You're not going to know what gene it's a part of.
Speaker 1: You're not going to know whether an A or T
Speaker 1: is good or bad. Promotheaes takes the data files and
Speaker 1: references published literature on what those SNPs might impact in
Speaker 1: terms of traits and then produces a report from that question.
Speaker 1: So even you, for example, if you wanted to know
Speaker 1: your medical information and you had your own SNP profile,
Speaker 1: you wouldn't just attempt to read it. You would use
Speaker 1: a service like PROMTHEUS answer. Yes, mister n I, no
Speaker 1: further questions the Court, Thank you, redirect, Miss Taylor, No,
Speaker 1: your honor, thank you, the Court. Thank you. Doctor you
Speaker 1: can step down. Is that the state's last witness on
Speaker 1: this issue, Miss Taylor? Defense, Yes, you're the court. Pardon me, defense.
Speaker 1: I'm used to the state going first on these things.
Speaker 1: I apologize. Does the state have witnesses? Mister Nye, your honor, No,
Speaker 1: We're not going to call doctor Middleman the court. I'm
Speaker 1: trying to recall what I said about arguments on this issue,
Speaker 1: whether I said we could do this publicly or not.
Speaker 1: I want the party's input on that as we make
Speaker 1: the decision whether we can argue the Franks and suppression
Speaker 1: issue on IgG publicly. I know your position is we should,
Speaker 1: But in light of my ruling, can you, Miss Taylor,
Speaker 1: your honor, I'm going to refer to what the FBI
Speaker 1: didn't here. I'm going to refer to the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice interim policy. I can probably not name the four
Speaker 1: brothers that the State lab tested the court, Okay, can
Speaker 1: we avoid talking about the fact of the four brothers understanding.
Speaker 1: I understand that there's but I'm not gathering the import
Speaker 1: of it on the issues at HAD. I think you
Speaker 1: could reference that there was some information that was itself
Speaker 1: insufficient to generate a profile. And I know what you're
Speaker 1: talking about, Miss Taylor. I'm trying to think of how
Speaker 1: I could do it. I want to make sure I've
Speaker 1: made a really good record here. The record is very
Speaker 1: important the court, of course, Miss Taylor. I think I
Speaker 1: can talk about Authrum's recommendation that were attempted to be
Speaker 1: followed but nothing worked. I think I can do that,
Speaker 1: maybe after hearing the evidence. If there's a ground the
Speaker 1: court really wants me to stay away from, other than
Speaker 1: saying the four brothers, maybe that would be helpful to know.
Speaker 1: I'll do my best, your honor, but I really want
Speaker 1: to make a good record for mister Coleberger, the court counsel,
Speaker 1: mister n I, your honor. I think we can probably
Speaker 1: do the argument publicly. I don't need to reference the brothers.
Speaker 1: I don't need to reference any of the specific names.
Speaker 1: As I explained earlier, and as the Court has seen,
Speaker 1: we didn't put on evidence one way or the other
Speaker 1: as to whether the policy was followed, for example, So
Speaker 1: that part of the argument is even assuming from our perspective,
Speaker 1: I think we can probably do the argument publicly the court.
Speaker 1: I thought I made it clear. What I've tried to
Speaker 1: do is open up the evidence, whether for this or
Speaker 1: against the state in this case, that potentially is not
Speaker 1: coming into trial that could influence potential jurors. I didn't
Speaker 1: hear a lot of that today. I think the fact
Speaker 1: that there was investigative genealogy done in this case is
Speaker 1: not necessarily a secret, given that we publicly talked about that,
Speaker 1: and that we're going to talk about that. I think
Speaker 1: the more specific things about what happened within that, it's
Speaker 1: best if we kind of refer to that more generally
Speaker 1: in terms of like the four brothers and whatnot. I think, frankly,
Speaker 1: it's appropriate to discuss how law enforcement handled the profiles
Speaker 1: that they received. I think it's appropriate to talk about
Speaker 1: whether or not those profiles, what privacy is that issue
Speaker 1: in those profiles. I think obviously the state is going
Speaker 1: to talk about standing and other issues and your client
Speaker 1: specific privacy rights with respect to this. So I think
Speaker 1: that's appropriate. I think we're generally okay staying away from
Speaker 1: some of the specifics that I'm not sure that ultimately
Speaker 1: would be admissible at trial. Even if I were to say, well,
Speaker 1: admissible at trial, the whole IgG issue, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: that's going to be admissible at trial. I suspect the
Speaker 1: search the trash pull is going to be admissible at trial,
Speaker 1: and that genetic genealogy match allegedly to mister Colberger's father
Speaker 1: as I understand it, and the lack of an attempt
Speaker 1: to figure out I think what I'm understanding, at least
Speaker 1: from the testimony, the attempt to figure out the mixed profile.
Speaker 1: So I think that's all fine. The preference is staying
Speaker 1: away from the specifics as to what genealogy search has showed.
Speaker 1: More specifically that we talked about the brothers and the
Speaker 1: names of individuals who testified too. If that makes sense,
Speaker 1: Miss Taylor, it does. We had an affidavit attached to
Speaker 1: the back I think of our reply briefing on the
Speaker 1: suppression issue. I want to make sure the court looks
Speaker 1: at that. That's admitted as evidence, and I probably don't
Speaker 1: want to refer to that publicly. Would you like my copy?
Speaker 1: The court? What was the date of that filing, Miss Taylor?
Speaker 1: It should have been the nineteenth of December? The Court?
Speaker 1: What was the name of the document? Replied to objection
Speaker 1: to Miss Taylor? This was the reply to the state's
Speaker 1: objection to the motion to suppress IgG material. The Court.
Speaker 1: It's not showing on the nineteenth. Oh, here we go,
Speaker 1: it was on the twentieth. What is it you want
Speaker 1: a reference in the argument with respect to this, Avid David,
Speaker 1: Miss Taylor is standing, your honor. I don't need to
Speaker 1: reference that particularly. I just wanted to draw the court's
Speaker 1: attention to it. The court in particular, the standing that
Speaker 1: the abid David suggests that the unknown e was mister Colberger.
Speaker 1: Is that what I'm reading, Miss Taylor. No, that's there
Speaker 1: was a sample within the trash that was mister Colberger's.
Speaker 1: The court Okay, I'm not sure the state's arguing that
Speaker 1: there is no standing as to the trash. I think
Speaker 1: the standing argument related to the genetic testing through the
Speaker 1: companies and to the objection to the testing materials found
Speaker 1: at the crime scene. Am I correct about that, mister Ny,
Speaker 1: your honor. We did assert in our briefing standing it
Speaker 1: was kind of in passing in the sense that we
Speaker 1: think the fact that it was a trash pull resolves
Speaker 1: that issue the court. I appreciate the trash pull legal
Speaker 1: issues in terms of privacy standing, but in terms of
Speaker 1: standing of this is not mister Colberger's DNA, So why
Speaker 1: am I hearing from him standing, which is part of
Speaker 1: what you argued on the IgG information, mister and I
Speaker 1: correct the court. There's that issue. I don't see that's
Speaker 1: impacted here because it sounds like some of his DNA
Speaker 1: was in that trash. And then there's the standing issue.
Speaker 1: As I understand it, we're related to the extent that
Speaker 1: the defense is not conceding that the DNA found on
Speaker 1: the knife sheath was mister Colberger's. He has no position
Speaker 1: to object to the testing of the DNA and the
Speaker 1: knife sheath. Mister n I correct the Court. I don't
Speaker 1: see there, frankly, is an argument as to the standing
Speaker 1: issue of not his DNA as it relates to the
Speaker 1: trash pull. That's just how I see it. If you
Speaker 1: think that's different and you need to make that argument,
Speaker 1: you need to let me know so I know what
Speaker 1: you're getting into, mister, and I know your honor, it's
Speaker 1: not different than that. What happened is in the opening
Speaker 1: briefing they asserted there was DNA found in there, including
Speaker 1: an unidentified mill. In the response, I said, well, that's
Speaker 1: not standing. You can't just say unidentified mail. In the reply,
Speaker 1: they attached this saying well, we looked at it and
Speaker 1: it was his. That's sufficient. I don't plan on arguing
Speaker 1: that point the court. All right, are we all square then,
Speaker 1: Miss Taylor? I think so, the court if you have
Speaker 1: a question of doubt as to approach, and we can
Speaker 1: go offline real quick. I would rather err on the
Speaker 1: side of caution than not, Miss Taylor. May I have
Speaker 1: five minutes the court? Oh no, we're going to take
Speaker 1: more than that because I need the public to be notified.
Speaker 1: So we're going to take at least fifteen twenty minutes.
Speaker 1: Mister Nye, your honor, can I briefly ask we have
Speaker 1: some of the victims in the hallway. I guess they've
Speaker 1: been told by somebody they can come in when the
Speaker 1: hearing was open the court. I'm not sure who would
Speaker 1: have told them that, Mister and I I don't know either.
Speaker 1: That's just what they're representing to us. We didn't understand
Speaker 1: that to be the court. The court. The problem is,
Speaker 1: I don't want to have to chase them out. Mister Nye,
Speaker 1: absolutely understood completely. The court. Sandra can have a TV
Speaker 1: in the conference room. They can watch it on and
Speaker 1: that's fine, mister Nye. Okay, thank you, your honor. The Court,
Speaker 1: and then my understanding is we can then go into
Speaker 1: the next evidentiary phase without a problem and it can
Speaker 1: be public. Correct mister Nye, Yes, from our perspective, your honor,
Speaker 1: Miss Taylor, your honor. I think our team might be
Speaker 1: a little bit confused about that. I think we thought
Speaker 1: that Franks might be next, but the Court no, after Franks,
Speaker 1: Miss Taylor. Okay, So I'll do suppression IgG and then
Speaker 1: the court will do the argument on that, unless you
Speaker 1: want to just go straight into the evidence and come
Speaker 1: back to the argument on the Frank's IgG. Miss Taylor, Okay,
Speaker 1: the court and do it together with the suppression stuff,
Speaker 1: Miss Taylor, No, I planned to do that when I
Speaker 1: did all of the Franks to address the entire Franks.
Speaker 1: I think I'm confused about when the court wanted me
Speaker 1: to do that. If you want me to take more
Speaker 1: evidence today, if we are going to argue IgG and
Speaker 1: be done, and then if the court wants to finish
Speaker 1: with evidence today, and then I will do the Franks
Speaker 1: tomorrow argument the proper argument the court. So my preference
Speaker 1: is because I don't want to get into evidentiary phase
Speaker 1: of Franks other than the issue of IgG, is to
Speaker 1: argue your Frank's motion next, including the IgG and your
Speaker 1: profit for the other Frank's issues, and then we can
Speaker 1: go into evidence on the suppression issues. Does that make sense,
Speaker 1: Miss Taylor? That does make sense, and that's perfectly fine.
Speaker 1: I might need a minute to pull the box out
Speaker 1: after we're done with the argument, if that's okay the court. Sure,
Speaker 1: you can always have a minute when you need it. Mister,
Speaker 1: and I your honor. I'm sorry to complicate things, but
Speaker 1: just to be clear, so over here we've split that.
Speaker 1: Miss Jennings is handling the Franks and I'm handling the
Speaker 1: direct IgG suppression. Is that okay if we split it
Speaker 1: that way the Court? Sure, mister, and I thank you
Speaker 1: the Court. Again. My thought was we do all of Franks,
Speaker 1: including the IgG stuff next, because I don't want to
Speaker 1: take evidence that is then going to be said is
Speaker 1: part Franks, because if the state then asserting it, I
Speaker 1: think I've cracked the egg on whether or not I
Speaker 1: can decide the issues prior to a Frank's hearing. So
Speaker 1: that's why I want to have it wrapped up before
Speaker 1: I take more evidence. Okay, mister Nye, sounds good. The court,
Speaker 1: all right, will take about twenty minutes to let the
Speaker 1: public have notice. All Right, folks, there it is. That's
Speaker 1: the complete and unadulterated look at the IgG hearing that
Speaker 1: was recently unsealed. And obviously we have plenty of more
Speaker 1: documents to get to and throughout the week we'll be
Speaker 1: diving into some more. But if you'd like to contact me,
Speaker 1: you can do that at Bobby Kopuchi at ProtonMail dot com.
Speaker 1: That's Bobby cap you Cci at ProtonMail dot com, or
Speaker 1: if you prefer, you can find me on x at
Speaker 1: Bobby Underscore cap Ucci. All of the information that goes
Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.