Bryan Kohberger Pled Guilty — So Why Is His Expert Talking Now

Añadido: 2026-05-09

[00:00:00]This is the big breakdown. A long look [music] back at some of the biggest stories we're covering for you at the Hidden Killers Podcast and True Crime Today.

[00:00:10]This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski [music] and Robin Dreeke.

[00:00:19]Bryan Kohberger, we're going to talk about him today because there's news.

[00:00:23]There's There's smoke out there in the ether. So, let's let's identify if there's a fire or if it's a time to bring out the extinguisher. Four University of Idaho students obviously killed in their beds. You probably know the story. The man who admitted to doing it is serving four consecutive life sentences. The families were told it was over and now a forensic expert hired by Kohberger's own defense is going public with claims that the most important physical evidence in the case may have been mishandled. And I'm underlining the word may there. And that he warned the defense before the plea. What's coming out is raising questions that a courtroom was supposed to answer but never really did because well, they accepted a plea from Bryan Kohberger.

[00:01:10]Joining us to have this conversation as always my co-host Robin Dreeke, retired FBI special agent, chief of the counterintelligence behavioral analysis program with the FBI. And Eric Fattis, former prosecutor and defense attorney.

[00:01:23]The man. Yeah, kind of a It's getting some headlines here. Kohberger's defense said a forensic expert telling them the knife sheath allegedly, the only physical evidence carrying his DNA might have been challengeable at trial. That's the claim that is coming out of this new book anyway and the former expert. And they they took the plea deal anyway.

[00:01:46]Let's Let's for a moment say, okay, maybe this is a challengeable. Eric, you've been a prosecutor building a case and on evidence like that and the defense attorney is trying to tear it apart.

[00:02:02]Does this decision make any sense to you that if they if this expert had come to Ann Taylor earlier on or maybe he did come to Ann Taylor as I believe he claims he did and then says, "No, let's take the plea anyway." What what does that what does that say to you about what was going on behind the scenes here?

[00:02:19]Sure. So, a lot of unknowns, a lot of moving parts there, but um you know, typically what what as defense counsel when you're deciding whether to take a plea and to advise your client to do that, uh you got to look at all of the evidence. So, if some expert comes to you and they say, "Hey, um there might be an issue with this piece of evidence and it's an important piece of evidence." You certainly have to thoroughly consider that, uh but uh you know, just the fact that it may be challengeable doesn't mean that you'll prevail on that challenge. It doesn't mean that it proves his innocence necessarily and I'm wondering if if defense counsel looked at that and said, "Yeah, but uh look at the substantial weight of all this other evidence, um they could try to kill him and this plea agreement spares his life. On the balance, it's still a good deal for the client." I'm just wondering if that was uh the analysis of the defense counsel.

[00:03:12]Yeah, that's a good point, too, because it still spares his life and I remember first of all, I got to say, I really hate this. Uh I I don't I we were talking about before the show. I I am such a victim's advocate and the Gonzalveses and all the families that are involved that shame on these people doing this.

[00:03:31]Um but that aside now, um yeah, I I'm with you, Eric, in in the fact that it spared his life, which is was on the balance and at the same time, I mean, remember the plea police department and the prosecutor, every time Ann Taylor kept coming back and trying to challenge the DNA or the night shift and every all the motions that making, I remember very clearly the prosecution saying, "We're good without it. Do whatever you want." That they they were so steady with their confidence with what they had irrespective of this one thing that it it I don't get, and that's my question here is I don't get why they're trying to make a deal of this now.

[00:04:11]Yeah, you know, I it's a little bit unclear. You know, I think you mentioned that this assertion is contained within a book from this expert who might have a personal interest in making money off that book and sensationalizing what he believes his opinion was. Uh but um yeah, it it it just I I think it's extraordinarily unlikely to change things, but you never know what a court might do with that. We haven't seen a motion to withdraw the plea yet, but could we see that? You know, that could be coming down the pike, and there could be a host of new legal issues in this years-long saga. Is it I I know sorry, Tony. You don't need me to keep doubling up. Is that even a possibility that they can withdraw that that that plea?

[00:05:00]It's a possibility that they could file a motion to try to do that, but but doing that is extraordinarily difficult. It is almost never granted, especially after a sentence has been imposed. There are very limited exceptions.

[00:05:15]But, you know, Kohberger, what else what else does he have to lose? He's in prison forever, so I wouldn't be surprised if he sort of tries to avail himself of what appears to be a possible last resort. Especially with the judge kept slapping him down last time, too.

[00:05:29]Anyway, go ahead, Tony.

[00:05:30]>> Well, I mean, this this feels like I mean, feels like it can be dismissed pretty damn quickly, and probably why it it and I'm just guessing here. I'm reading the tea leaves of where this this might have went behind the scenes with this being expressed to Anne Taylor before Coburger ever made the plea of okay, it has been answered as to cuz we're getting down to a chain of custody question. That that's the big thing that is being argued here by this expert. And then the other issue is the fact that he's revealing this and the Anne Taylor saying that it's it's violating a non-disclosure agreement.

[00:06:10]We'll get to that part too. There's two two issues at play. But the the part about the the chain of custody, that I mean, I debunked it 3 minutes this morning when I started digging into it where okay, chain of custody, yes, in in old-school land of evidence and probably in some departments still to this day, you have your sheet and everybody logs it. Whoever has anything to do with this piece of evidence, chain of custody, point A to point B, who has it, you sign it, you date it, there you go. The argument that's being made here so everyone can understand it is that he's saying he looked at the chain of custody receipt basically on the evidence bag for the for the sheath and it looked like it was written by the same person with the same pen on the same day showing a litany of different dates. And in this person's opinion, that person the the author here or the the the expert is saying that well, that that doesn't seem to be right. This looks like not a an authentic chain of custody note. This looks like somebody just wrote it all down.

[00:07:16]Okay, I mean, on its surface, that's kind of interesting because chain of custody should be differently.

[00:07:22]But then we find out oh, oh, the department, they digitally scan everything with barcodes and it's all tracked digitally far more accurately than someone with a pen and a piece of paper. So that piece of paper, the chain of custody list could simply have been somebody taking the digital list and then putting it physically on the paper so someone could reference it without going physically into the digital evidence system, which is privately held by the police department. There you go.

[00:07:50]It's explained. It's not like up in the air for a lot of litigation or questioning. Makes for a great headline, sure, nonetheless, but at the end of the day feels kind of like a nothingburger to me. I don't know. I mean, this, of course, you know, where could that be litigated? Is that Is Is it as clear-cut as it may feel to me, Eric?

[00:08:11]You know, Tony, like you're you're talking about, it's not uncommon for notations to be made after the fact. Look, as as when I was a prosecutor and even as a defense attorney, I tried to take notes contemporaneous with all of my hearings and all of my client communications.

[00:08:28]Sometimes you're in trial, sometimes there are other pressing matters, and you do it at a later time. You sort of reconstruct what has already happened.

[00:08:37]And and that would not be unusual for a police department to do, especially when they have purportedly a digital record of this stuff being checked in and checked out and handled and that that kind of thing. And so I bet and Taylor, you know, when she was presented with this, if she was, kind of said, "Hey, this is not going to make it so that Kohberger is found not guilty." There's just so much more going on. And and in fact, these apparent notation issues can be explained away through department procedures and through customs and standards and uh you know, it doesn't It's not a bombshell to me. It's not something that that that shows he's innocent.

[00:09:21]And the I just don't even like It's a former FBI guy that got out after 15 years that is that wrote this book and is bringing this up. First of all, you know, we had Howard Blum on the show back way back when who wrote the great book and did amazing investigative research on this case. You know, again, it was as as much behind the scenes as you can get with him and it was when the night comes falling I think is what it's called Tony.

[00:09:49]Fantastic read and then you have James Patterson and his sources doing this and then you have this guy coming along and what bothers me is is it's it's poking at something that was already resolved.

[00:09:59]It was already flushed out because because I mean we commented on the show numerous times well. If you're going to have a defense attorney and and Eric I'm curious about you this as well. Do you agree and Taylor? I mean if you're if you need a defense attorney on your side, I want you, I want Bob Motto, or I want Anne Taylor. I mean holy crap. I mean she was flushing this out every single day. I mean she was doing all she could and then then you get this guy who should be a victim's advocate. You know, and I I don't like the what it's doing potentially doing to the families. I mean these are strong families. You know, I I'm fascinated to see what the Gonsalves's might have to say about this. But I do not like the fact that this was brought up not because it it's you know, it was something that was righteous that was missed. No, because it there was nothing missed. Like why are they doing this? Uh anyway.

[00:10:50]>> Yeah, in my in my appraisal Anne Taylor was very diligent, very thorough, explored all possible avenues. And and and when talking about the legal issues of this, chain of custody, well, the those can be issues raised at trial. The burden to to admit evidence for a chain of custody purposes is very low. It's it's like essentially an authenticity standard. Is there credible evidence that this is that this piece this item is what it purports to be? And if there are some notation issues regarding it, a judge is probably going to say, "Hey, you can cross-examine on those notation issues, but I'm letting it in." And I bet Anne Taylor said, "Gosh, this is coming in either way and it's going to to damning." I Should Anne Taylor have not written a a response to this cuz I'm I'm almost thinking like Anne Taylor responding and and I and I I'm trying to understand why she did and I think I see why she did because it almost questions her ability as an attorney of well, oh my gosh, if this blazing piece of evidence is right here and you didn't act on it and you didn't even give him a chance to to argue this in court, what what's wrong with you? I can see why one as an attorney would be like, okay, no, this This is not what it appears to be or what you're claiming it is, but at the same point making that statement brought a ton of attention back over here to the case with a book >> [snorts] >> that may probably really I mean there's been a lot of Kohberger books that have come out. Nobody really pays much attention.

[00:12:18]They're going to keep coming. They will keep coming forever. I mean it feels like publicity stunt that we're going to trigger Anne Taylor to have to make this response to defend herself and then at the same point that brings us a lot of attention to our book. I don't know. That's kind of my conjecture as I'm looking at this.

[00:12:36]That's mine.

[00:12:37]Yeah, I hear you Tony and and you know, I can't speak for Anne Taylor, but speaking for myself and nearly all the attorneys I know, some of them have egos and some of them you know, when someone challenges you and and your legal work, you know, you went to law school, you have a doctorate, you're you're proud of what you do and when someone calls that into question, I can understand feeling compelled to defend oneself and to defend their work. One of the biggest things on the ethics list serve that I'm on is when someone leaves a bad review, how can the attorney respond because they're so giddy to to sort of react to to those kinds of accusations about their professional ethics and and their professional character. So not surprising that she did this, but I agree that it had an inadvertent consequence to bring more attention to it. Yeah, yeah, I mean I I get why she I don't blame her for doing it at all. Um but yeah, I think the inadvertent consequences there.

[00:13:32]>> Yeah, and I don't think she needed to. I mean, I don't think anyone in the world watching this or witnessing it as deeply as we did or anyone else that covered it would say that she was incompetent or missed anything in any way. I mean, matter of fact, I mean, it was really pretty striking. It was fearful for people that really thought he was guilty um before proven in a court of law. I'm not saying I was, but um I mean, she did a very, very thorough job. I mean, more so than we saw in most cases. Matter of fact, we we comment every single case after for a while was like, "Oh, they need to get Ann Taylor."

[00:14:02]>> Yeah. Let let let's talk about the non-disclosure aspect of this because that seems to be I mean, really what what brought Ann Taylor to to speak about this. Um they're saying that he violated the non-disclosure and that still is in effect even after this trial. Uh he's saying, "You know what?

[00:14:18]This is all public information that has been in document dumps. I'm just commenting on it." What are your thoughts on the non-disclosure on a case that's already been uh you know, it's been settled. Uh it is settled uh law. This is all done and over. Um but yeah, non-disclosures uh still do exist, but but is that the case here? Is he Is he really violating it or what's your take?

[00:14:40]You know, it would depend uh on the specific language of the non-disclosure agreement, Tony. But one thing I'll mention is that uh NDAs are rather uncommon in this in this set of circumstances. So, when there is a especially a public defender representing somebody uh and they consult with an expert, um you usually don't make the expert sign an NDA. Now, this case, you know, it has uh uh coverage throughout the world. Uh and so, perhaps she was just trying to be diligent and thorough as she has been uh with the NDA piece. But um but also, like you said, if if it is public information, um I don't know that you can prevent somebody from simply commenting on public information. You could prevent like secret or private communications from being disclosed. I'm just not so sure there's a lot of traction on this allegation of a violation of an NDA. And let's talk about that NDA for a second, too, Eric, if we could, because I mean, Jim Bob Duggar uses NDAs like they're falling out of his butt. And a lot of people I we use them in the FBI, I remember, with the confidential human sources a lot. And remember, and I I want your legal opinion on this because we would go to our attorney sometimes when we gave it to a source.

[00:15:54]And we'd have them sign an NDA. And our our attorneys would say, "Yeah, it's more of a psychological block for them talking than a legal block because there's really not a lot of teeth behind them. So, can you tell me what exactly the consequences for violating an NDA are and what the law would say about it?"

[00:16:11]So, there usually two ways that the consequences are handled. One way is within the NDA. And it usually will say, "Hey, if there's a violation of this NDA, you're going to owe this amount.

[00:16:22]And if you violate it a second time, you're going to owe a greater amount."

[00:16:25]Uh sometimes it's written into the NDA in that fashion. Other times, it is not.

[00:16:30]And and that's a little messier because you've got to talk about what are the damages that result from a violation of this NDA. Uh did someone lose money because of this disclosure? Probably not. Um did someone sustain uh reputational harm because of this? Mm Possibly. Like and how do you quantify that? And so, I think it just kind of goes to your point, Robin, that uh these are these have a psychological compulsion, but not not always a legal compulsion. Are they about as challenging to prove as a defamation case, do you think?

[00:17:06]Uh it it it depends because uh in the NDA context, at least you have a written document. You know exactly what the rules are, what you can and cannot say, hopefully. Whereas with um defamation, it can be a little murkier. You know, defamation opinions aren't defamation. It has to be a statement of fact. If there's a public official involved, it has to be actual malice.

[00:17:27]There's all these other conditions. Whereas with the NDA, it's kind of in black and white, hey, what you can and can't do. But the enforceability of that NDA can really become an issue in court.

[00:17:39]Thank you.

[00:17:40]Lots of questions on this. And and I I think it's, you know, it's a story that's going to probably come and go here pretty quick.

[00:17:48]But yeah, another it's red meat to the pro-burgers out there.

[00:17:54]The the problem with it is it's it's it's something that's just one element of a much larger cornucopia of evidence against Brian Kohberger.

[00:18:07]And it's already kind of debunked. So the folks that are are looking at this going, "See? See? It's something." It's like, yeah, still still really not something.

[00:18:18]Just because somebody over here says it's something, doesn't mean it actually is something. Brian Kohberger said he liked to look at the stars for a long time, too, till he said, "Yes, I killed those four people one after another in a courtroom."

[00:18:29]So. Yeah, and remember, and we're just looking at the case in its entirety anyway. It was They were going to, I remember the police department said this numerous times, the DNA on that knife sheath helped, but it wasn't what gave them everything. And it's a huge piece of it, which was fantastic for the case and the prosecution. But again, they had the car on video. They had his location. They had the cell phone triangulation. They had They had DNA before this. You know, anyway. And you just got Kohberger. You look at him for like 5 minutes, you're like, yeah, that's a creepy [ __ ] >> bar said I was [laughter] going to do this. Exactly. Yes. Kohberger being Kohberger said he was going do this. I mean so because remember I don't know where it stands right now. The Gonsalves' were filing the lawsuit against the university for missing all the red flags and warning signs and not firing him already because of all the creepy crap he was doing to all the students there.

[00:19:27]I mean there is a plethora I mean I mean there's I mean just think of this there's mounds of my visual stuff I love there's mounds of crap that says he's guilty and and it's why he played is and admitted it.

[00:19:38]And now write a book around one thing that's a conjecture.

[00:19:44]Hey when there's money to be made Yeah no kidding. there's people who will go for it. Your thoughts in the comments section on Substack and YouTube we'd love for you to weigh in and we'll continue the conversation right there.

[00:19:55]Want more on this case and others? Then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true crime coverage from Tony [music] Bruski and the Hidden Killers Podcast.

[00:20:07]This is Hidden Killers with Tony Bruski.

[00:20:10]Here now Tony Bruski.

[00:20:14]Bryan Kohberger's defense team just broke their silence not to talk about justice for the University of Idaho students he admitted to taking the lives of not to address the family still living inside that grief. Their first public appearance public statement rather since the sentencing the first words Anne Taylor and her team have put on record since Kohberger was handed four consecutive life terms was aimed squarely at one of their own. A forensic scientist they hired.

[00:20:45]A man named Brent Turvey and what they said about him carries a kind of fury you rarely see from defense attorneys turning on an expert they personally retained.

[00:21:01]They called his conduct appalling. They accused him of violating a confidential a confidentiality agreement he signed.

[00:21:09]They said he's now speaking publicly about topics that remain confidential, many of which they claim fall outside his area of expertise.

[00:21:18]And the reason this matters, the reason any of this should concern you is what Turvey is actually saying.

[00:21:27]Because at the center of this very public war between the defense team and their own hired gun is the single most critical piece of physical evidence in the entire Coberger case.

[00:21:38]The K-Bar knife sheath found at Madison Mogen's bed.

[00:21:43]And whether it ever should have been allowed into a courtroom at all. That's that's what they're bringing up.

[00:21:52]I'm not here to express this way or that way, although I yes, I think it should have been yeah, admitted and it was going to be admitted, but it it is certainly interesting to hear their backstory, >> [laughter] >> to hear to hear its origin story, if you will.

[00:22:11]And keep in mind, there are far more pieces of evidence in this case than the knife sheath.

[00:22:21]The question was never answered though.

[00:22:22]No judge ruled on it. No jury weighed it because Coberger pled guilty weeks before trial.

[00:22:29]And the door to every unresolved forensic question slammed shut behind him.

[00:22:34]Now Turvey is PRYING IT BACK OPEN WITH HIS COLD LIVING HANDS.

[00:22:39]And the people who hired him want him to stop.

[00:22:44]Interesting. We're going to get into this and as we do, give me your thoughts in the comment section on Substack and YouTube. The links are in the description. Let's talk about who Brent Turvey is and what he says he found because the credentials matter here. Turvey holds a PhD in criminology and a Master of Science in Forensic Science. He's a senior partner at Forensic Solutions LLC, where he's worked cases involving homicides, essays, staged crime scenes, and serial offenses since 1996.

[00:23:13]According to Fox News Digital, he has testified as an expert at more than 70 trials. He's authored multiple textbooks on criminal profiling, forensic victimology, and crime reconstruction published by many, one of the including one of the largest academic publishers in the world.

[00:23:31]Elsevier.

[00:23:33]He's currently serving as a senior forensic advisor to the Dubai Police Criminal Profiling Unit and has consulted for agencies in the United States, Australia, China, Korea, and across Latin America. This is not a commentator with a podcast and an opinion. This is a working forensic scientist with three decades in a field in the field. He's he's credentialed.

[00:23:56]He's experienced.

[00:23:58]And Taylor's defense team retained Turvey specifically for crime scene analysis, and according to their public statement, his role was narrow. Provide an opinion about the crime scene, nothing else.

[00:24:11]He signed a confidentiality agreement on October 30th of 2024. That agreement, the defense says, remains in effect.

[00:24:18]Turvey has not been released from it.

[00:24:22]But what Turvey reportedly found and what he's now discussing publicly goes to the foundation of the prosecution's physical case.

[00:24:31]His core allegation centers on the chain of custody documentation for the knife sheath. That sheath recovered from inside the King Road house, where Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin were fatally stabbed in November 2022, was sent to the Idaho State Police Crime Lab in Meridian.

[00:24:48]Technicians located a single source of male touch DNA on the leather sheath.

[00:24:53]That DNA was later confirmed as Bryan Kohberger's. It was the prosecution's most powerful piece of physical evidence, the link between the man and the crime scene.

[00:25:05]And according to Turvey, the evidence bag that transported the sheath to the lab tells a different story than it should.

[00:25:13]He stated publicly that the chain of custody label, the documentation that tracks every hand that touched that evidence from the crime scene to the lab, appears to have been filled in after the fact by a single person using one pen.

[00:25:29]The label reportedly contains six recorded exchanges spanning November 13th and November 16th, 2022, all in similar handwriting. Standard forensic protocol requires that each person who handles a piece of evidence signs for it in real time, creating a live record of custody. What Turvey describes, again, describes, is the opposite.

[00:25:51]A record allegedly reconstructed from memory?

[00:25:56]Not documented as it happened?

[00:26:00]In his professional opinion, as he told the Idaho Statesman, that documentation would have rendered the knife sheath in the knife sheath inadmissible in most jurisdictions had the case gone to trial.

[00:26:12]He went further in an interview with Fox News Digital saying, "The sheath should have been ruled inadmissible by any competent jurist." He used the word manufactured to describe the chain of custody. He used the words fabricated and falsified to describe what he believes someone did to the evidence paperwork.

[00:26:33]Again, those are his words.

[00:26:36]Those are his allegations.

[00:26:39]Not court-evaluated or value or validated those claims. No court has done that.

[00:26:46]This is his his take on it, if you will.

[00:26:52]And there may be many reasons for the way that label is. I don't know the answer to that question.

[00:26:59]But I do know whose DNA was on that thing.

[00:27:03]And because somebody maybe didn't fill out a label correctly or they filled it out all later, it doesn't erase the fact that Brian Kohberger's DNA was on the knife sheath.

[00:27:15]Well, what if somebody planted it there?

[00:27:17]Yeah.

[00:27:19]Yeah, not does not buying that at all.

[00:27:23]What about him stalking the house? What about all of it?

[00:27:28]What about all of it?

[00:27:33]There's a lot more to the case than knife sheath.

[00:27:36]>> [snorts] >> If Brian Kohberger thought he had a chance in hell, he wouldn't have agreed to his deal.

[00:27:49]In my opinion.

[00:27:57]But hey, it's important that we hear all the voices, all of the claims, all of the concerns because it is important that facts remain facts. And if this knife sheath was handled incorrectly or documented incorrectly, that's a good point to make.

[00:28:23]This is how so many cases fall apart, how horrible people get set free because of stupid bureaucratic >> [snorts] >> office-like discrepancies.

[00:28:40]T's not being crossed, I's not being dotted essentially.

[00:28:45]All of those little things matter in criminal case to this volume.

[00:28:49]And look, I'm not going to be remotely surprised if the Moscow PD wasn't the greatest at that. They didn't really have [clears throat] a lot of experience in this sort of realm.

[00:29:00]It's not an excuse. It's not a dismissal of that.

[00:29:03]But I'm telling you, wraps, either they have them or you don't.

[00:29:10]And when you don't, stupid mistakes happen. It doesn't invalidate the evidence in that bag because somebody labeled it incorrectly.

[00:29:27]And again, it's an assumption to even say that that was even incorrectly done.

[00:29:31]It could have been the same damn person handling the same piece of evidence over and over with the same handwriting, using a same colored pen at different points in times. That is possible. This is someone's interpretation saying someone's handwriting going, "Oh my gosh, this was done at different times."

[00:29:46]Look, if you look at my notepad here with all of my writing on it, it's going to look like my writing.

[00:29:53]I could have done it all in one day. I could have done it over the course of months.

[00:29:58]That's open to someone's interpretation.

[00:30:00]I can tell you I did it over the course of months, but one could say I did it all in one day.

[00:30:06]I think that's true for anybody's handwriting.

[00:30:09]Now, typically, yeah, you do have multiple people handling these sort of things in larger departments.

[00:30:15]I don't know the answer to this question.

[00:30:18]It's interesting. It's certainly something to be discussed, and that's why I think it's important that we bring this up and and don't mince past it.

[00:30:27]There's even Anne Taylor made a statement about it.

[00:30:31]But I'm curious to get your thoughts in the comments section as we continue to work through this.

[00:30:38]Moscow Police Chief Anthony Dalinger, who was a captain overseeing detectives at the time of the investigation, pushed back on this directly.

[00:30:48]He told the Idaho Statesman that his department hasn't used handwritten chain of custody logs in at least a decade.

[00:30:56]Moscow police run electronic barcodes and green stickers with evidence numbers, and that system, he said, worked properly in this case.

[00:31:04]So, handwriting might just be somebody What does the system say? Okay. Now we have it here on this piece of paper.

[00:31:13]System says this. Okay.

[00:31:15]That's not exactly a flaw. That's just someone taking the digital information and putting it into a physical form on a bag.

[00:31:25]Sorry.

[00:31:28]Idaho legal experts unassociated with the case have also said that Turvey's allegations appear slightly unfounded.

[00:31:39]But Turvey's claim doesn't exist in isolation. They're now embedded in a book.

[00:31:43]And that book is what detonated the entire situation.

[00:31:51]Former FBI agent Christopher Whitcomb released Broken Plea, the explosive search for the truth behind the Idaho murders through Harper Select. Whitcomb spent more than two decades with the bureau, served on the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team, was an early member of the bureau's Violent Criminal Apprehension Program, worked as an on-air analyst for NBC, and co-hosted CNBC a CNBC program that earned a Peabody nomination. For this book, he reviewed thousands of pages of previously undisclosed files, police reports, photographs, body camera footage, laboratory results, autopsy findings, forensic and DNA analysis, unpub- unpublished interviews, surveillance logs, and expert reports that were never presented in court because the case never went to trial.

[00:32:36]Whitcomb's reporting builds on Turvey's chain of custody concerns and goes further.

[00:32:42]He documents what he describes as two separate sets of markings on an evidence bag.

[00:32:47]One set on the sealed tape, another on a label sticker affixed later. The earliest visible date on the bag shows the initials BP, reportedly belonging to the lead detective Brett Payne, and the date 11/14/22 written over the evidence tape. A separate signature appears to be from Shannon Aranda Arredondo, a forensic specialist for the Idaho State Police Crime Lab dated November 16th. The label sticker, according to Turvey's analysis as reported by Whitcomb, was filled in sometime after the fact.

[00:33:20]And then there's the hair.

[00:33:22]According to Turvey and Whitcomb, hair was photographed at the crime scene, reportedly in or beneath Ethan Chapin's hand. Turvey traveled to Moscow, Idaho to review evidence in person and identified that hair, according to his public statements, the FBI lab determined that the hair did not belong to Bryan Kohberger. He told Fox News Digital directly that Kohberger was excluded.

[00:33:43]And according to Whitcomb, that hair has reportedly never been fully processed or tested beyond that exclusion. Whose hair it is remains unknown. The book also documents competing expert conclusions that would have collided at trial.

[00:33:57]T. Paulette Sutton, a forensic scientist specializing in blood spatter analysis who worked for the prosecution, concluded in her peer-reviewed report that there was no physical evidence to exclude a single perpetrator. Turvey reportedly believes there were at least two.

[00:34:16]Whitcomb notes that the defense narrative placed the attacks at under 5 minutes, while Turvey reportedly suspected the crime scene cleanup alone would have taken hours. A timeline that sits uneasily against the prosecution's assertion that Kohberger was inside for approximately 15 minutes. Whitcomb himself has stated that there was no undisclosed evidence beyond what prosecutors outlined and that Kohberger reportedly chose to plead guilty on his own.

[00:34:41]None of these contradictions were ever resolved in a courtroom. Every single one of them died the moment Kohberger entered his plea, which brings us to the war that's now playing out in public.

[00:34:54]Anne Taylor, Elissa Massoth, and Becca Barger, Kohberger's defense attorneys, sent their statements to the Idaho Statesman. Their language was deliberate and cutting. They wrote that the agreement with Turvey was crystal clear.

[00:35:09]All materials and any opinions he developed were to remain confidential.

[00:35:14]They wrote that his public statements fall outside ethical and legal norms applied to experts in criminal cases.

[00:35:20]They said his reliability should be judged through the lens of his conduct, and they made a point of minimizing his role. He was one of many experts hired late in the case with a they narrow scope.

[00:35:32]Turvey responded the same day in an interview with the Statesman. He rejected every accusation. He said nothing he shared was outside of what law enforcement had already released through their own discovery data dump.

[00:35:43]He said the defense team statement was deflection, a way to redirect attention away from the real forensic problems in the case. He challenged Taylor directly to identify specific violations of his confidentiality agreement. And then he said something that landed with an edge, that if Taylor gets too specific about what he allegedly violated, she could get herself into trouble.

[00:36:05]And here's the part that remains the entire conflict. According to the Spokesper the Spokesman-Review, Turvey said he raised his chain of custody concerns to Taylor's defense team before the plea deal, and they did not pursue his findings.

[00:36:21]He says he still has never received a straight answer from Taylor about that decision.

[00:36:26]Think about what that means.

[00:36:28]If Turvey's account is accurate, this isn't a disgruntled expert going rogue after a case closed. This is a forensic scientist who reportedly flagged what he believed was a fatal flaw in the prosecution's most critical piece of evidence, watched the defense team not act on it, watched his client plead guilty, and now saying publicly that he says he told them privately because no one listened.

[00:36:52]He framed his decision to speak in terms of what he called extraordinary exculpatory evidence that has not that was not being brought to light.

[00:37:02]He said information was being misstated and buried by both sides. He said in three decades of forensic work, he has never divulged confidential or case-sensitive material outside his professional scope.

[00:37:15]Now again, it's him using the word exculpatory.

[00:37:23]Evidence bag, chain of custody, when the police department are telling you we don't rely on pen and paper anymore, it's all scanned in, isn't exactly an exculpatory piece of evidence. It's you not understanding how their logging system functions.

[00:37:44]And kind of making a mountain out of a molehill or it's not even a molehill because if everything's digital, then that piece of paper on those bags doesn't mean [ __ ] So you have a defense team saying their expert broke his agreement and is speaking recklessly. You have an expert saying the defense team is trying to silence legitimate forensic concerns.

[00:38:08]You have law enforcement saying the procedures were sound. You have a former FBI agent publishing a book that lays out evidence questions that were never adjudicated. And you have four families who were told this chapter of their lives was finished. And then there's this. According to the spokesman, review Taylor and Massoth are scheduled to give a paid 2 and 1/2 hour presentation at the Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers annual event titled Lessons Learned from Coburger.

[00:38:35]Attendees are reportedly required to pledge to keep all information confidential.

[00:38:40]Yeah, have a big old conference in a conference room with hundreds of people and sign this piece of paper that keeps everybody quiet.

[00:38:50]The antiquatedness of our thinking these days of like what what what what your signature even means, like it's 1890 and it's a sacred bond between you and whoever you're giving it to. It doesn't mean [ __ ] Let's stop pretending it does.

[00:39:07]So, the defense team that publicly condemned Turvey for speaking about the case is also preparing to speak about the case.

[00:39:15]Just behind closed doors to a paying audience under confidentiality rules confidentiality rules that they control.

[00:39:23]That's the part that should sit with you the longest. I'm not saying you can't do that.

[00:39:27]Just saying good luck with your confidentiality.

[00:39:34]And why are we even arguing about confidentiality in this case anymore?

[00:39:38]It's done.

[00:39:41]Coburger pled guilty on July 2nd of 2025, four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary. He was sentenced on July 23rd, 2025 to four consecutive life terms plus 10 years on the burglary charge. No possibility of parole. He waived all rights to appeal.

[00:39:57]He offered no explanation for why he did what he did. He identified no motive. He provided no new information. The murder weapon, a K-Bar style knife, has never been recovered. Investigators never established a direct connection between Coburger and any of his four victims.

[00:40:15]And now, instead of silence, instead of closure, the people who built the defense are tearing it apart in public while the families of Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin watch from the other side of a grief that has no expiration date.

[00:40:34]The question in this case is not whether Bryan Kohberger is guilty. He stood in that courtroom and said the word himself four times, one for each life he took. The question is what the system owes the people it's supposed to serve, the families, the public, the process itself. And when the evidence underneath that plea was never tested, never challenged, and never really explained because Kercher's claim may be valid, it may be overstated, it may be absolutely nothing.

[00:41:03]It may fall apart under the kind of cross-examination that never happened.

[00:41:08]But the reason we don't know the answer to any of that is because the system that was supposed to provide those answers chose a plea deal instead of a trial.

[00:41:18]And now, the only people interrogating the evidence are doing it in book deals and newspaper interviews and podcasts outside the one arena where it actually counts.

[00:41:31]The families deserve finality. The public deserves transparency, and right now, those two things are pulling in opposite directions.

[00:41:39]Driven apart by the very people who were supposed to be on the same side.

[00:41:45]Your thoughts in the comment section and so on Substack and YouTube. Is it anything? Is it a big nothingburger? Is there any weight to any of this? To me, a lot of this gets explained away pretty quick when you're talking about the chain of custody.

[00:41:58]They're like, "Yeah, we don't do that anymore. Um it's all digital. Like anything on that piece of paper, yeah, it may have all been written down once cuz somebody may have just been transcribing it from the digital to that." I don't know.

[00:42:09]It It like we have an explanation, but you know, that doesn't make for a good book when your red flags that you think are pretty big get explained away pretty quick.

[00:42:23]But it used to be like this. Yeah, it used to be, but that's not how they do it.

[00:42:28]So, what you're arguing isn't really a issue.

[00:42:33]I don't know.

[00:42:34]Your thoughts in the comments section. There's no right or wrong.

[00:42:42]I'm curious to to hear it.

[00:42:44]All right, we'll continue the conversation there. Until next time, my name is Tony Bruski. We'll talk again real soon.

[00:42:50]Want more on this case and others? Then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment [music] of true crime coverage from Tony Bruski and the Hidden Killers Podcast.