Speaker 1: And welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about how the FBI uses genetic genealogy
Speaker 1: to trace suspects like the accused murderer Brian Coberger. And
Speaker 1: to do that, we have an article from the Daily
Speaker 1: Mail headline revealed how the FBI used genetic genealogy to
Speaker 1: trace suspects like Brian Coohberger. Cops track distant relatives, then
Speaker 1: secretly collected DNA and compared it to unidentified samples at
Speaker 1: the crime scene. Now, I know there was a lot
Speaker 1: of confusion about how this DNA works and how all
Speaker 1: of it's collected and then cross referenced, and then if
Speaker 1: somebody's not in codis it makes things so much more difficult.
Speaker 1: But there certainly are other ways that the authorities are
Speaker 1: able to check this DNA, and this is certainly one
Speaker 1: of them. This article was authored by Jennifer Smith. The
Speaker 1: FBI tracked down Idaho murder suspect Brian Coober by tracing
Speaker 1: his distant relatives through genetic genealogy databases, then secretly collected
Speaker 1: a sample of his DNA which they matched to that
Speaker 1: found at the crime scene. Experts revealed today and we
Speaker 1: were kind of discussing this a little bit, and I
Speaker 1: figured this was going to be the way that they
Speaker 1: had to go about this. If he's not in CODIS,
Speaker 1: it's obviously impossible for them to match it up with
Speaker 1: people in the system.
Speaker 2: So they have to go a little bit deeper. They
Speaker 2: have to go a little bit harder.
Speaker 1: And when you collect unknown DNA at the crime scene
Speaker 1: and then you get into possession of someone's DNA like
Speaker 1: Brian Cooeberger's, like they did, and you cross reference that
Speaker 1: and it's a match, well, that tells you, at the
Speaker 1: very least that Brian Cohberger was at the scene of
Speaker 1: these crimes. Now it's going to be up to the
Speaker 1: prosecution to hammer that home and make sure that the
Speaker 1: jury understands that he wasn't only at the scene, he
Speaker 1: was the one who committed these crimes. And that might
Speaker 1: seem like an easy feat, like an easy task, but
Speaker 1: we all know, oh that it's not. Getting an arrest
Speaker 1: is one thing, getting a conviction is another. Coburger was
Speaker 1: arrested on Friday in Pennsylvania, twenty five hundred miles from
Speaker 1: the crime scene in Moscow, Idaho, where he is accused
Speaker 1: of murdering the four students and a stabbing frenzy on
Speaker 1: November thirteenth. He is due in court in Pennsylvania today
Speaker 1: for an extradition hearing that will send him back to Idaho,
Speaker 1: and as we've learned, he's not going to challenge that.
Speaker 1: He's waiving that and he's ready to be extradited to
Speaker 1: handle the charges against him. He says he is going
Speaker 1: to be exonerated, and I thought that was an interesting
Speaker 1: use of that word, by the way he would think
Speaker 1: somebody would say, look, I'm gonna I'm not guilty of this.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be found not guilty, but he uses the
Speaker 1: word exonerated. Now, I might be reading too much into that.
Speaker 1: Very possible, but I think it's interesting when you have
Speaker 1: somebody who is as well educated as a guy like
Speaker 1: Brian Koberger, I think it's important to listen to the
Speaker 1: words that they use. Police had been tight lipped about
Speaker 1: their investigation, but confirmed over the weekend that he was
Speaker 1: tracked down using a combination of DNA tracing and investigative work.
Speaker 1: Coburger has no prior criminal record, which means as DNA
Speaker 1: was not in any law enforcement database, so they have
Speaker 1: to move into a different realm right. They have to
Speaker 1: get creative as investigators when they're looking for people like
Speaker 1: this and they're looking to get a conviction. So if
Speaker 1: they're not in the codis, then you have to move
Speaker 1: on to the next phase, and that's surveillance. If you
Speaker 1: know the person you're looking for and then you follow
Speaker 1: them around, You wait for them to go into a store,
Speaker 1: You wait for them to drop a cigarette whatever it
Speaker 1: is that has their DNA on it. You grab it,
Speaker 1: you bring it back, you process that DNA, and then
Speaker 1: you cross reference it. And according to the sources, that's
Speaker 1: exactly what happened here. Instead, he was found through a
Speaker 1: method known as genetic genealogy, an increasingly popular and useful
Speaker 1: method of investigation where law enforcement trace suspects relatives on
Speaker 1: ancestry websites. Cc Moore, chief genetic genealogist at Parabon and
Speaker 1: founder of DNA Detectives, who has helped law enforcement solve
Speaker 1: more than two hundred and forty crimes, did not work
Speaker 1: on the case, but is widely considered the most authoritative
Speaker 1: expert in the industry. She explained to daily mail dot
Speaker 1: Com the process the FBI likely followed based on her
Speaker 1: own understanding of the case and passwork with law enforcement.
Speaker 1: Number one, finding the sample at the crime scene. The
Speaker 1: first step in the investigation is finding a DNA sample
Speaker 1: at the crime scene. And we know that wasn't hard
Speaker 1: here because it said it was just a complete mess
Speaker 1: as far as the crime scene goes, and they said
Speaker 1: they had DNA evidence all over the place. Now, they
Speaker 1: didn't elaborate on whose DNA, but you would have to
Speaker 1: think that the killer left something. In the Idaho case,
Speaker 1: the alleged crimes were so physical and brutal that it
Speaker 1: would have been easy for the killer to accidentally leave
Speaker 1: their own blood, let alone hair fibers or any other
Speaker 1: less obvious bodily fluid. If this is the killer, then
Speaker 1: I'm sure he sure tried very hard not to leave
Speaker 1: behind a sample, given his background in forensics. But it's
Speaker 1: almost impossible not to even if he was suited up
Speaker 1: like Dexter, And she's not wrong. We leave DNA traces
Speaker 1: everywhere we go. We're pretty much leaving a DNA footprint,
Speaker 1: so it's very difficult to not leave DNA, especially with
Speaker 1: the close nature of a crime such as this. It
Speaker 1: would have been a lot harder for investigators if these kids,
Speaker 1: say we're shot. Somebody walked in the house, had a
Speaker 1: silencer on their gun, opened the door, and shot them
Speaker 1: while they were in their beds. Very very difficult to
Speaker 1: DNA that and to trace that back. Now, of course
Speaker 1: the person might have dropped a hair or left some DNA,
Speaker 1: but nowhere near the amount you're going to leave. With
Speaker 1: an up close and personal attack like we saw here,
Speaker 1: when you're in a frenzy's stabbing someone, it's extremely common
Speaker 1: for the knife to slip and for you to get cut.
Speaker 1: Even if he had on gloves. One thing I will
Speaker 1: say is they have cutproof gloves. You can get gloves
Speaker 1: where a knife won't cut through them. So until we
Speaker 1: have all of the evidence and know exactly what he
Speaker 1: was wearing, if he was suited and booted, we just
Speaker 1: don't know. The blood could have been mixed in with
Speaker 1: the victims. When that happens, you have to convolute it
Speaker 1: that could be what had happened. We also know that
Speaker 1: one of the victims put up the fight of her life,
Speaker 1: and if that is true, she maybe was able to
Speaker 1: scratch him and they could have collected DNA from her fingernails.
Speaker 1: And this is one of the surefire ways to nail
Speaker 1: somebody with DNA. If you murder somebody and then their
Speaker 1: DNA is found under your fingernails, you're pretty much cooked.
Speaker 1: And then you add to that, if there's a murder
Speaker 1: weapon that's found, forget it. You have no chance. So
Speaker 1: that's why I don't think we're ever gonna find a
Speaker 1: murder weapon here. Now.
Speaker 2: Don't need the murder weapon.
Speaker 1: To get the conviction, but it sure does help. Number
Speaker 1: two building a DNA profile and running it through police databases.
Speaker 1: When DNA is found at the scene of a crime
Speaker 1: that does not belong to the victims, the first thing
Speaker 1: police do is run it through their own database of
Speaker 1: previous offenders. This test twenty DNA markers enough to identify
Speaker 1: the person if their own DNA is already in the system,
Speaker 1: or if their immediate relative is in the system, meaning
Speaker 1: a parent or a sibling or something like that. If
Speaker 1: both strikeout, investigators have to look to genetic genealogy. Number three.
Speaker 1: Genetic genealogy testing. Unlike police DNA databases, those of commercial
Speaker 1: genealogy companies can search for up to one million DNA markers,
Speaker 1: creating a much wider pool of relatives to sift through
Speaker 1: than what any police search could produce. But while there
Speaker 1: are many commercial ancestry websites only to allow law enforcement
Speaker 1: to search their databases openly. According to More, and this
Speaker 1: is where the privacy issue comes in for a lot
Speaker 1: of people. I know a ton of folks who just
Speaker 1: won't give up their genealogy to these companies because they
Speaker 1: don't feel like it's safe or secure for whatever reason.
Speaker 1: There's a huge misconception that we use ancestry dot com
Speaker 1: and twenty three in me, but they don't allow it.
Speaker 1: Only the two smallest databases, ged match and family Tree
Speaker 1: DNA do allow it, and they deal with around two
Speaker 1: million people, so it's a small pool, right those two
Speaker 1: companies compare to ancestry dot Com and twenty three in me.
Speaker 1: Those are the two big powerhouses in the industry. But
Speaker 1: the smaller companies here, well, they're the ones who allow
Speaker 1: the police to go through the database. And if you
Speaker 1: want to go through the database for twenty three in
Speaker 1: me and ancestry dot Com, it looks like you'll have
Speaker 1: to get a warrant to do that. So with that
Speaker 1: you have to either get lucky or be really skilled.
Speaker 1: Coberger's likely matches from the databases or second third and
Speaker 1: fourth cousins, according to More, not as close relatives. In
Speaker 1: most criminal cases, She said, the suspect who is eventually
Speaker 1: identified has likely never even met most of the people
Speaker 1: he or she shares DNA with. You get a match
Speaker 1: list which will have hundreds or even thousands of people
Speaker 1: on it, and most will only share tiny amounts of DNA.
Speaker 1: You're really hoping for a second cousin, but probably in
Speaker 1: this case they were working with third, fourth, and fifth cousins.
Speaker 1: Sometimes you get lucky and it's a first cousin or
Speaker 1: even a sibling or a parent, but it's very rare.
Speaker 1: You're looking for patterns and commonalities, and you need to
Speaker 1: find that one person who is related to all of
Speaker 1: the people at the top of the list. So before
Speaker 1: we find who they are, we need to find out
Speaker 1: what all of the other people on the list have
Speaker 1: in common and who they have in common. So it's
Speaker 1: definitely not as easy as just typing a few things
Speaker 1: into a computer day database and figuring it out right.
Speaker 1: The investigators had their work cut out for them, and
Speaker 1: it certainly seems like they were up to the task.
Speaker 1: Building a family tree using social media, land records, and
Speaker 1: more based on the list of partial DNA matches. Eventually,
Speaker 1: genetic genealogy will lead to an immediate relative of the
Speaker 1: suspect whose DNA was collected at the crime scene, or
Speaker 1: at the least a grandparent, according to More Once that
Speaker 1: stage is reached, detectives look at other methods of narrowing
Speaker 1: down who the suspect might be. When we get a
Speaker 1: match in ged match of family tree DNA, the vast
Speaker 1: majority of the time there is little information there. We
Speaker 1: have to figure out who this person is, who are
Speaker 1: their grandparents? Then we're building forward in time. It's really
Speaker 1: hard work. You have to be a good investigator right
Speaker 1: and be able to keep things in order here because
Speaker 1: this has to be a very meticulous process. Once you
Speaker 1: get past the nineteen fifty census in the US, there
Speaker 1: aren't any more records, so we have to start using
Speaker 1: newspaper articles, birth records, and state databases. You can learn
Speaker 1: a lot from social media too. As you come closer
Speaker 1: and closer to the present day, it becomes harder. In
Speaker 1: the US, we have search databases, basically these companies that
Speaker 1: collect information on all of us and compile it and
Speaker 1: sell access to these databases like White Pages or Been
Speaker 1: Verified or US search. You can put their name in
Speaker 1: and see who they are connected to. It's really difficult
Speaker 1: and time intensive. In the UK, it would be extremely
Speaker 1: difficult and impossible sometimes because of the privacy restrictions. In
Speaker 1: Canada it's extremely difficult for the same reason. In a way,
Speaker 1: we're fortunate, But on the other hand, if someone is
Speaker 1: worried about privacy, they should really be thinking about those databases,
Speaker 1: not the DNA websites. That's pretty interesting. Look, I didn't
Speaker 1: know any of that, and that's why we we added
Speaker 1: this article to the catalog because I don't know much
Speaker 1: about the DNA process and how genealogy even works. So
Speaker 1: it's always interesting to get a little bit of a
Speaker 1: look behind the scenes and narrowing down a suspect. Once
Speaker 1: the genetic genealogy trail is run cold, the investigators start
Speaker 1: to look at possible suspects based on other factors. Once
Speaker 1: we narrow it down to say grandparents, you've got to
Speaker 1: say who are their grandchildren, who is living in the
Speaker 1: right place at the right time, who's the right age
Speaker 1: From their DNA we can also predict skin color, hair color,
Speaker 1: eye color. In this case, it's possible they didn't have
Speaker 1: enough to get all the way to his immediate family.
Speaker 1: Then they got to his grandparents and had to look
Speaker 1: at all of the male descendants. So we were wondering
Speaker 1: what took so long?
Speaker 2: This could be it.
Speaker 1: They had to go through all of this in a
Speaker 1: meticulous nature and cross everything off and try to get
Speaker 1: the pay dirt. Then they'd say who drives the white
Speaker 1: Launtra the vehicles spot in the area around the time
Speaker 1: of the crime, and who lives in the area. Which
Speaker 1: man could it be? It's possible they got ten male descendants.
Speaker 1: They look then at whether any of them fit. Once
Speaker 1: they found Coburger's white Alantra, it will have been a
Speaker 1: huge aha moment. Plus the fact he lives just seven
Speaker 1: miles away. Most of the time, the genealogy leads you
Speaker 1: right back to the scene of the crime, and it's
Speaker 1: crazy how accurate of a road map the genealogy will create.
Speaker 1: All of the science behind all of this is just fascinating.
Speaker 1: Nailing the suspect by collecting their DNA secretly to compare
Speaker 1: it to the sample found at the scene. Once the
Speaker 1: suspect is nailed down, genealogical investigators turn their findings over
Speaker 1: to police undercover or covert teams then follow the suspect
Speaker 1: and suripiciously obtain a sample from them in order to
Speaker 1: compare it to the sample found at the crime scene
Speaker 1: that was used in the DNA tracing. Moore, who has
Speaker 1: turned over similar vas evidence to cops two hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty times through a company, says this part of the
Speaker 1: process is often carried out the same way it's portrayed
Speaker 1: in films and TV shows. Genetic genealogy is only a
Speaker 1: lead generator. It's not evidence. It can't be used to
Speaker 1: arrest anyone or in a warrant. We'll write a report
Speaker 1: up explain how we came to this conclusion. Then law
Speaker 1: enforcement have to take this information and to a full investigation.
Speaker 1: It's a highly scientific tip, but police still have to
Speaker 1: start from scratch. Once they get it, they have to
Speaker 1: go and collect their DNA, which they do by following them.
Speaker 2: We've heard that's what happened in this case.
Speaker 1: People don't get arrested based on my work alone, and
Speaker 1: that's definitely what we've heard. We heard that he was
Speaker 1: under surveillance, that they were following him, and they followed
Speaker 1: him all the way across the country. In fact, so
Speaker 1: chances are they could have collected DNA pretty easily. What
Speaker 1: they get arrested for is one's law enforcement has collected
Speaker 1: their DNA surreptitiously and can I parted it against the
Speaker 1: sample found at the scene using only twenty DNA markers,
Speaker 1: and the lab says this is a match. Hopefully then
Speaker 1: they can arrest, prosecute, and hopefully convict. The genetic genealogy
Speaker 1: portion is not presented to the jury. It is not
Speaker 1: something that needs to be explained in court. There are
Speaker 1: teams all over the country doing this on so many occasions,
Speaker 1: following these suspects that have been identified, collecting cups and napkins,
Speaker 1: and sometimes they'll go through their trash. They've even used
Speaker 1: envelopes that have been licked. We leave our DNA behind everywhere.
Speaker 1: Once you've been identified as a potential suspect, they are
Speaker 1: going to get your DNA. Police have not yet revealed
Speaker 1: their evidence against Colberger. He is awaiting extradition from Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: to Idaho, and once they lock onto you, like it
Speaker 1: said here, it's only a matter of time before they
Speaker 1: find out who you are and trace you using this DNA.
Speaker 1: Moore said. The case highlights the need to run genetic
Speaker 1: genealogy testing immediately after an unidentified sample is collected in
Speaker 1: a crime scene. I've been advocating for using this immediately
Speaker 1: as soon as they don't get the first hit in
Speaker 1: the police database. It looks like that's exactly what they
Speaker 1: did here. It can stop criminals in their tracks and
Speaker 1: prevent other people from being hurt. This can stop serial
Speaker 1: killers and rapists because we can identify them after the
Speaker 1: first time. This could have been a Ted Bundy or
Speaker 1: a Zodiac killer. She said, and she's not wrong. We
Speaker 1: don't know. We have no idea what was going on
Speaker 1: in Brian Koberger's brain or what he's capable of. Besides
Speaker 1: the fact he's capable of four murders, but we don't
Speaker 1: know what his other motivations were. We don't know what
Speaker 1: he was thinking about doing next. So it's a good
Speaker 1: thing in my opinion, that this man is behind bars.
Speaker 1: If he is the person responsible for these murders the
Speaker 1: way the police says he is, then he's exactly where
Speaker 1: he belongs, right behind bars. As far as the article itself,
Speaker 1: I found it fascinating to get a little bit more
Speaker 1: context about how this all works. Like I said, I'm
Speaker 1: not hip to all of the forensic collection and how
Speaker 1: all of this goes down. So anytime we can add
Speaker 1: a little bit of context, we'll certainly do that.
Speaker 2: That's gonna do it for this one.
Speaker 1: If you'd like to contact me, you can do that
Speaker 1: at Bobby Kapuchi at proton mail dot com. That's Bo
Speaker 1: Bby capu Cci at proton mail dot com.
Speaker 2: You can also find me on.
Speaker 1: Twitter at Bobby Underscore cap u Cci. The link that
Speaker 1: I discussed can be found in.
Speaker 2: The description bot Lucky Lind Casino.
Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. The
Speaker 1: authorities in Moscow have collected a lot of evidence against
Speaker 1: Brian Coberger, but the strongest evidence they have obviously is
Speaker 1: the DNA evidence that was left on the knife sheath.
Speaker 1: And considering that and knowing what we know, it's no
Speaker 1: shock to anybody that Brian Coberger's team is attempting to
Speaker 1: poke upon holes in how this DNA was collected. They're
Speaker 1: hoping for a technicality, they're hoping for a loophole, and
Speaker 1: they're hoping for something that's going to get Brian Colberger
Speaker 1: off because so far what they've offered isn't going to
Speaker 1: do the trick Besides making a few allegations about the
Speaker 1: investigation itself, Coburger's legal team hasn't really brought anything forward
Speaker 1: that would make me say to myself, Okay, hold on
Speaker 1: a minute here, we might be on the wrong track
Speaker 1: and Brian Coberger could be an innocent man. Now. I
Speaker 1: understand that the burden of proof is on the state,
Speaker 1: But when you look at this process and how far
Speaker 1: we've come already, and as you know, we're following along
Speaker 1: with the court documents, there hasn't been one time in
Speaker 1: public or in those court documents where I've thought for
Speaker 1: a second that the evidence that's been presented doesn't add up,
Speaker 1: or that something that the prosecution said in the affid
Speaker 1: David doesn't make sense, because all of it does so far.
Speaker 1: And then you add on the outside element of the evidence,
Speaker 1: talking about the cell phone pings and the more circumstantial stuff.
Speaker 1: And when you add that all up and you mix
Speaker 1: it up nice and good and then put it in
Speaker 1: the oven, well what comes out is a almost.
Speaker 2: Perfectly baked cake.
Speaker 1: So for me, I always like to look at the
Speaker 1: totality of the evidence that's presented, rather than getting caught
Speaker 1: up on just one single piece of evidence that I
Speaker 1: think is super important because all of the evidence collected,
Speaker 1: it's all going to go to build that foundation for
Speaker 1: them to get the conviction that they're looking for. So
Speaker 1: keeping on that track, we have an article from Newsweek
Speaker 1: talking about the DNA dispute that's going on between the
Speaker 1: prosecution and the defense, headline how DNA dispute could impact
Speaker 1: Brian Coberger's case. This article was authored by Gerard Keonga,
Speaker 1: an attorney, has explained why Brian Coberger's defense he is
Speaker 1: attempting to cast out on the DNA evidence the prosecution
Speaker 1: is relying on in the University of Idaho murder case.
Speaker 1: On August ninth, doctor Leah Larkin, a genealogist expert working
Speaker 1: with Coburger's defense team, filed an affid David, calling into
Speaker 1: question the reliability of the use of genetic genealogy, which
Speaker 1: investigators used prior to arresting them. Now, look, when you're
Speaker 1: a drowning man, what are you going to do. You're
Speaker 1: going to look for any piece of debris that might
Speaker 1: be floating in the ocean next to you. And that's
Speaker 1: exactly what's happening here. They're gonna throw as much spaghetti
Speaker 1: at the wall, hoping that some of it sticks. And
Speaker 1: what they're looking for is a chain of custody issue.
Speaker 1: Maybe somebody didn't catalog something correctly. Maybe somebody you know,
Speaker 1: didn't dot an I here or didn't cross the tee there.
Speaker 1: That's the sort of thing that they're looking for to
Speaker 1: try and get this DNA evidence tossed out. And the
Speaker 1: reason that they're so concerned about this DNA evidence is
Speaker 1: because they know as lawyers that it's very strong and
Speaker 1: powerful evidence against their client. Criminal defense attorney Rachel Faset,
Speaker 1: managing partner of Los Angeles based Zwyback, Facet and Zaldonado,
Speaker 1: spoke to Newsweek and said the defense hopes to confuse
Speaker 1: the jury regarding the issue of DNA science and its
Speaker 1: reliability in this case. Yeah, good luck, good frickin' luck
Speaker 1: doing that. I don't think there's anyone amongst us at
Speaker 1: this point who doesn't understand that DNA evidence is the
Speaker 1: strongest evidence that you could possibly have short of having
Speaker 1: a bunch of eyewitnesses. What else puts somebody at the
Speaker 1: scene better than their DNA And I had a hunch
Speaker 1: that this would be the strategy. This is what I've
Speaker 1: said from the beginning. I haven't seen any evidence from
Speaker 1: Coburger or any evidence overall.
Speaker 2: That would lead me to believe that they have the
Speaker 2: wrong guy.
Speaker 1: So when that happened and somebody like Coburger has been
Speaker 1: arrested on these charges and they don't have anything to
Speaker 1: go on, it becomes a game of loopholes and technicalities.
Speaker 1: We've seen it a million times before, and we'll see
Speaker 1: it a million times in the future, because it's literally
Speaker 1: your only shot, your only path to avoid conviction. Newsweek
Speaker 1: also spoke to biology professor Greg happy Keian of the
Speaker 1: University of Idaho and co director of the Idaho Innocence
Speaker 1: Project about how the points raised by Larkin are valid
Speaker 1: and the potential issues that can arise with authorities use
Speaker 1: of genetic genealogy in criminal investigations. Well, of course, if
Speaker 1: there's irregularities or misconduct, then any sort of test can
Speaker 1: be thrown out. But to try and act like the
Speaker 1: reliability of the test isn't reliable, well that's just ridiculous
Speaker 1: because we all know that that's not the truth. Detectives
Speaker 1: were able to arrest Brian Cole after a knife sheath
Speaker 1: found that the home where the victims Klee Gonsalves, Madison Mogan,
Speaker 1: Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin were found stabbed to death
Speaker 1: was eventually traced back to him. Coburger twenty eight, is
Speaker 1: the sole suspect in the quadruple killing, and the prosecution
Speaker 1: is said that the suspect broke into the student's home
Speaker 1: in the early morning hours of November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: and fatally stabbed each of the victims. His defense lawyers
Speaker 1: entered a not guilty plea on his behalf back in
Speaker 1: May to the four counts of murder and one count
Speaker 1: of burglary connected to the investigation. Coberger was a PhD
Speaker 1: criminology student and teaching assistant at Washington State University's campus
Speaker 1: at the time of the killings. Newsweek has contacted the
Speaker 1: Cooteney County Public Defender Office via email for comment. You
Speaker 1: know they're not going to comment, and they'll use the
Speaker 1: gag order as the reason why. But under the gag
Speaker 1: order that has been paired back a little bit by
Speaker 1: Judge Judge, these lawyers can talk about things that have
Speaker 1: been filed and things that have happened already. They just
Speaker 1: can't talk about things with prejudice. The defense is doing
Speaker 1: what they can to discredit the DNA evidence that puts
Speaker 1: Coburger at the scene of the crime. The set said,
Speaker 1: casting doubt on the methodology used to collect the DNA
Speaker 1: as well as the reliability of the DNA evidence is
Speaker 1: the best manner they have to do this. The defense
Speaker 1: expert will likely testify to the jury regarding the potential
Speaker 1: of less reliable results when tracing genealogy through DNA as
Speaker 1: opposed to direct DNA sampling. The prosecution, however, will obtain
Speaker 1: a competing expert to debunk the defense expert's opinion. The
Speaker 1: problem for Coburger is that the bugle swab came back hot,
Speaker 1: and the bottles that they took out of the trash
Speaker 1: bins in front of his parents' house, well those pop tots.
Speaker 1: So unless there was some sort of egregious behavior by
Speaker 1: the prosecution, I don't see how they believe that this
Speaker 1: is a path to victory. It looks more to me
Speaker 1: like a hail Mary and a last ditch effort to
Speaker 1: try and get this to a point where the judge
Speaker 1: agrees to a stay, because short of that they're gonna
Speaker 1: have to ask for a delay. The best case scenario
Speaker 1: for the defense is that the expert testimony on each
Speaker 1: side confuses the jury regarding the issue of DNA science
Speaker 1: such that the confusion raises some doubts regarding the damning
Speaker 1: DNA evidence against Coburger. I highly doubt they're going to
Speaker 1: be able to do that. It's not like DNA is
Speaker 1: this mythical procedure that nobody understands. The basic tenets of
Speaker 1: DNA are pretty simple. So you see here again with
Speaker 1: what this lawyer is saying about the potential strategy. It's
Speaker 1: not a strategy of showing you that Brian Kolberger is innocent.
Speaker 1: It's not a strategy of showing you that Coburger wasn't
Speaker 1: there at the time when these murders took place. All
Speaker 1: it is is a strategy that relies on technicalities and
Speaker 1: hopefully the prosecution screwing up along the way. And I
Speaker 1: don't know about you, but if my life was on
Speaker 1: the line, I don't think that would be the strategy
Speaker 1: that I'd be employing, especially if I was an innocent man.
Speaker 1: Before detectives were able to arrest Coburger, they first used
Speaker 1: genetic genealogy to determine he was a suspect, and the
Speaker 1: AFFID David by Larkin scrutinizes this process. What is genetic genealogy.
Speaker 1: Genetic genealogy is the field of genealogy and family history
Speaker 1: research that combines genealogical DNA tests and traditional genealogy methods
Speaker 1: to discover how individuals are related. According to sequencing dot Com,
Speaker 1: a company that provides DNA tests and stores DNA data.
Speaker 1: Through this method, the FBI was able to track down
Speaker 1: Coburger by tracing distant relatives through genetic genealogy databases. They
Speaker 1: then collect a sample of his father's DNA to confirm
Speaker 1: Coburger's identity in the Affidavid. Larkin stated that genealogy tests
Speaker 1: have become more available in recent years thanks to companies
Speaker 1: like Ancestry, DNA twenty three and Meters and other smaller companies,
Speaker 1: but they are not the same as or as reliable
Speaker 1: as the str short tandem repeat standard forensic tests done
Speaker 1: in laboratories. Unlike standard forensic tests, which are used to
Speaker 1: identify individuals, genetic genealogy testing identifies possible relatives, She said
Speaker 1: in the document, Again, that's all fine and well, but
Speaker 1: what about the buckle swab detectives still have to do
Speaker 1: traditional police work following this and ensure a suspect is
Speaker 1: in the area has a motive and opportunity to commit
Speaker 1: a crime, which authorities have said they have done. In
Speaker 1: Coburger's case, Well, yeah, they have done it. Keep in mind,
Speaker 1: just because they haven't presented the motive yet doesn't mean
Speaker 1: they don't know. One thing that we've learned about Moscow
Speaker 1: PD and the investigators here is that they like to
Speaker 1: keep things close to the vest genealogy and criminal cases.
Speaker 1: Larkin also concluded heraffidavit by raising the point the use
Speaker 1: of genetic genealogy in criminal cases after individuals may have
Speaker 1: knowingly or unknowingly supplied their genetic information, has privacy implications
Speaker 1: that may apply to the Coburger case. Oh yeah, another technicality.
Speaker 2: Huh.
Speaker 1: Never mind that four kids are dead in their house
Speaker 1: or the fact that your bugle swab came back hot.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about this stupidity and this dumb technicality. Professor
Speaker 1: Hapikeen emphasized to Newsweek the importance of scrutinizing the use
Speaker 1: of genetic genealogy in criminal cases. It is possible a
Speaker 1: person could send their DNA to one of these companies
Speaker 1: the police will use it against that person, and they
Speaker 1: never signed up to allow the police to do it.
Speaker 1: He said, is that okay? I think it is okay
Speaker 1: if you are solving a mass murder. I think the
Speaker 1: general public would agree. What if the police are wrong
Speaker 1: in the genealogy and we have a wrongful conviction that
Speaker 1: was based on somebody's DNA that was sent to one
Speaker 1: of the companies there was some sort of mix up
Speaker 1: along the way, then it will become an issue. But
Speaker 1: until then, the FBI and others think it is safe.
Speaker 1: Hampickion also noted that the public has not been made
Speaker 1: aware who sent the DNA in for one of the
Speaker 1: genealogy tests that was later connected to Coberger's family. He
Speaker 1: added that it was even possible the suspect had previously
Speaker 1: used one of the ancestry services. Look, we don't know
Speaker 1: where that came from, and we won't know that until
Speaker 1: later on down the road. But one thing is for sure,
Speaker 1: and the thing that locks it in for me is
Speaker 1: the bugle swab that they took at the time of
Speaker 1: the arrest that coming back hot. That's all I need
Speaker 1: to know. He added that police have said they got
Speaker 1: a sample from coburger and processed it through the non
Speaker 1: genealogical ways in the lab and made a traditional match
Speaker 1: with the DNA found on the knife sheath. He noted
Speaker 1: some defenses in cases do not even raise the point
Speaker 1: of genetic genealogy being used, as they do not see
Speaker 1: it as important to their case. Well, that's all they
Speaker 1: have here, that's it. Brian Coberger has nothing else. He
Speaker 1: has no kind of alibi, He has no witness testimony
Speaker 1: backing up what he's saying. All he has is the
Speaker 1: hope that the prosecution stepped out of line or that
Speaker 1: something went wrong with the genetic testing process. But as
Speaker 1: far as being innocent, the more we learn, the more
Speaker 1: I'm convinced that the police in Idaho got the right guy,
Speaker 1: and that Brian Coberger is going to be found guilty
Speaker 1: when all is said and done. All right, folks, that's
Speaker 1: going to do it for this one. All of the
Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
Speaker 1: the description box.