Fame and Fortune vs. Integrity: Idaho 4 and Brent Turvey

追加: 2026-05-23

[00:00:11]One thing I love about the internet is that anybody >> Hello everybody. Hello. Hello. Hello.

[00:00:22]Hello. Hello. Hello.

[00:01:19]Hello. Hello. Hello.

[00:01:22]It's a little dark in here. I guess probably with the light on.

[00:01:27]Lou, I brought your bed in. Come lay in the bed. Come lay on the bed.

[00:02:58]>> [snorts] [snorts] [snorts] >> Hello, hello, hello, hello.

[00:03:42]Okay, we're going to put go on TikTok and just let everybody know that we are on YouTube today.

[00:03:51][snorts] I know. Me, too. I am so excited.

[00:03:58]I am so excited.

[00:04:01]I am so excited. We're over on YouTube today, guys. So, pop on over. I did.

[00:04:07]Today was rough.

[00:04:10]We're going to be looking over some docs and stuff. So, I we're going to do it on YouTube. So, if you want to join, we're going to be over there. I just popped on here to let you guys know. Hey, Katie.

[00:04:24]Hey Kitty, we're over on YouTube tonight.

[00:04:29]We're over on YouTube. So pop on over there.

[00:04:35]Okay, I'll see you over there.

[00:04:39]I will see you over there.

[00:04:42]We are over.

[00:04:44]Thank you, Lily. Rachel.

[00:04:48]Um, we're over on the YouTube tonight for more Brett Turvy dissection.

[00:04:59]This one's going to be good. This one's going to be good.

[00:05:05]Thank you for the follow, Sarah.

[00:05:10]Yay. Oh, I didn't even know she was Pop on over. We're going to get started in a little bit. Actually, I'm going to turn the light on in my kitchen. Thank you for the heart me Jackson.

[00:05:24]Yay. Viv Viv is on the YouTube.

[00:05:28]Pop on over to YT, ladies and gentlemen.

[00:05:33]You are a felling. Go over to my YouTube. Sarah.

[00:05:37]Hi Diane. We're on the YouTube tonight.

[00:05:39]So, pop on over there.

[00:05:45]Today we're going to be doing Brett Turby episode three.

[00:05:51]Episode three.

[00:05:57]Oh, that's better. Okay. Episode three.

[00:06:00]Same name. Yep. Same name.

[00:06:03]Hello, Maria. So, pop on over to the YouTube because I'm going to sign off of Tik Tok in eight minutes.

[00:06:10]So, get on over there. Join the party.

[00:06:13]Yes, Katie, [snorts] come and play.

[00:06:25]Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Kylie. We are over on the YouTube today.

[00:06:33]So, pop on over there. We got things.

[00:06:37]Go ahead.

[00:06:41]Feel free, Katie.

[00:06:46]which child case.

[00:06:51]Oh, on Chud. Um, I have a couple videos on it you could watch. That should be helpful.

[00:07:02]Yes, Jackson. Jackson, you got to go over to YouTube though tonight because we're doing I have like a bunch of docs that we're going to show. So, it's easier for me to do it over on YouTube.

[00:07:14]So, we're going to be over there.

[00:07:18]I think it's funny, Katie.

[00:07:22]Um I think yes, I can also do extravina. We'll make a video on her.

[00:07:33]But if you want to spend time with us tonight, you're going to have to pop over to the YouTube.

[00:07:38]Uh, put it in the comments for everybody.

[00:07:43]Where's the comments?

[00:07:47]How do I do comment? Comment.

[00:07:51]head over to YT pin. Okay, there we go.

[00:08:08]We are over there tonight. So, head on over.

[00:08:13]Head on over there. We will be doing some interesting things tonight.

[00:08:26]So, I hope that you will join us for our little review session.

[00:08:35]It's going to be a good time.

[00:08:38]It's going to be a good time.

[00:08:42]And I'm going to log off of Tik Tok in a minute. So, if you want to join us for the live tonight, you have to head over to the YouTube to the tube of you to the U of tube.

[00:08:58]It's going to be a bop. It's going to be a bop.

[00:09:03]It's going to be a bop. I will repin my post with my thing.

[00:09:09]Okay. Repin pin this comment. There you go.

[00:09:14]There it's in my Oh, I should post it on my story, too.

[00:09:26]I hope everybody is having the best day.

[00:09:30]I am seriously considering taking a vacation day. Hello, Kai.

[00:09:36]Seriously considering taking a vacation day tomorrow. Uh we're going to be talking about Brent Kirby and the Idaho case over on my YouTube tonight.

[00:09:46]Um, we have some compare and contrast things to do. So, it's easier to do it over on YouTube because I could just pull up the documents. No, right now we're over there now. May uh Jackson, I think we're going to we'll be live for about like an hour, hour and a half.

[00:10:11]Yay, Sarah. make sure that you guys are following obviously.

[00:10:16]Thanks, Mayor.

[00:10:20]We're going to be doing a little bit of doc review um comparing and contrasting Turby's previously previous cases to what he said in this case and why it's so different.

[00:10:43]because I think it's important for everyone to see that he he changes it's the Idaho case. Elsie, he's the expert on the Idaho case that's been running his mouth.

[00:11:03]Oh, I'm so excited you guys are all here. This makes me so happy. I love when you guys pop on over. Yes, it's the Idaho case.

[00:11:15]But I promise you, you don't want to miss this one because this one is good.

[00:11:24]It's going to be a bop.

[00:11:29]It's gonna be a bop. It's going to be a bop. MJ has a hat here. Should I wear the hat?

[00:11:36]That looks ridiculous.

[00:11:44]Is there 56? I don't know what 56 means.

[00:11:51]All right, I am going to log off of Tik Tok. So, if you want to be He's not going to get 56 years. Um um if you want to be part of the live tonight, pop over to Tik Tok. Uh pop over to YouTube and I will see you all over there.

[00:12:13]Okay, see you there.

[00:12:18]Bye bye.

[00:12:25]Oh, here I'll put it in the comments one more time.

[00:12:29]It's the same as my username on Tik Tok, but I will put it in the comments just in case.

[00:12:39]G I A N. Ah, there you go.

[00:12:49]If you want to join the YouTube live, this is the username.

[00:13:03]Okay, pop on over. I will see you guys there.

[00:13:08]Yay. Hello everybody.

[00:13:11]Okay, I will see you guys there. Bye.

[00:13:20]Okay, let me just put it on my story real quick.

[00:13:32]And then we will start.

[00:13:45]>> [snorts] [laughter] [snorts] >> my story. All right. Hi, Mayor.

[00:14:00]All right. So, what I wanted to do tonight is do this sort of compare. Yes, you guys all made it. It makes me so happy. Um, do this little compare and contrast. So, I did a little bit of a video of on this beforehand, okay? I've done a video on this um case specifically, but what I want you to remember is that uh your expert opinion should not change depending on the case.

[00:14:34]So if the facts and the circumstances are the same, then your opinion should also be the same, right? You it shouldn't change. So what I want to start with is I think I did like a little mini Canva presentation, but like also we're going to read the case together. So let's start with let's see what we could do first.

[00:15:06]Let's see if this works.

[00:15:10]I'm so cute. Look.

[00:15:12]Look at how cute I am. I did a little cute little Canva presentation because I'm a psychopath.

[00:15:23][snorts] So, this is the case we're going to be comparing Brian Coberger's case to today. All right. It's this case called Zabroski v. Warden. Now, this case um comes to us in appallet on the appellet level. All right. I read all of the briefs. I read all of the response briefs. I read the response briefs to the response briefs. I read the response briefs to the response briefs to the response briefs. There's about 11 filings in this case and I have read them all. All right. Um and I think it's really important that when we look at this case um yes unlessed by a payday.

[00:16:03]Um that we we're going to read the facts of this case. We're going to read the part that Turby's involved in and then we're going to chat about it because I think actually you know what we're going to do? We're going to watch the clips of him talking first and then How was the night court?

[00:16:25]>> Well, Bull the baiff almost beat me up.

[00:16:28]>> Okay.

[00:16:29]>> And >> would you like to say hi to everybody?

[00:16:31]>> I suppose.

[00:16:36]Hello.

[00:16:38]>> Can I Can they hear me?

[00:16:39]>> They can hear you. Yes, they can hear you.

[00:16:42]>> Can you give me a soda, please?

[00:16:45]>> Yeah.

[00:16:45]>> Thank you. Um Okay. So, I think we'll do the clips first and then just so you could see how um forceful he is with his view of the evidence.

[00:17:01]Okay. And then we'll go and we'll read the case and we'll talk about how the same specific things happen in Kobberger and how he sort of similarly uh for some reason disagrees. How do I put this? The law can be negotiated, but science cannot. Okay? The law is negotiated. Uh there I'll say the same way I said this in West Memphis back in the day, back in back in a long time ago when I was young and had no beard and was much fatter. Um but there's no physical evidence that suggests that Brian Cobber is responsible for this crime. That's all you that's all I can say. There's no physical evidence which suggests Brian Cobber is responsible for this crime. And anybody who says differently is twisting themselves into a pretzel with unconfirmed circumstantial theories they created in their head. And by the way, that's why the prosecution was very clearly interested in making the deal.

[00:17:42]>> Yeah. doesn't explain why the feds made the deal.

[00:17:46]>> Nope.

[00:17:48]>> Okay. So, everybody heard him say that.

[00:17:51]We're gonna replay that clip, but I want you to pay very close attention to the first thing he says.

[00:17:58]>> How do I put this? The law can be negotiated, but science cannot. Okay?

[00:18:02]The law is negotiated. Sorry. Uh there I'll say it the same.

[00:18:08]>> All right. The law can be negotiated, but science cannot.

[00:18:14]All right. Now, that's ironic coming from him considering what we're going to be reading a little bit in a little bit.

[00:18:20]But if that's his motto, then we need to hold him to that for the entirety and for all of the cases that he's evaluating. You can't just change it because now you get to go on TV and talk about a case. You can't change your opinion because now you got Yeah, I could go back. Hold on.

[00:18:45]How do I put this? The law could be negotiated, but science cannot. Okay?

[00:18:49]The law is negotiated. Uh there I'll say it the same way I said this in West Memphis back in the day. Back in back in a long time ago when I was young and had no beard and was much fatter. Um there's no physical evidence that suggests that Brian Cobber is responsible for this crime. That's all you that's all I can say. There's no physical evidence which suggests Brian Cobber is responsible for this crime. And anybody who says differently is twisting themselves into a pretzel with unconfirmed circumstantial theories they've created in their head. Yeah.

[00:19:10]>> And by the way, that's why the prosecution was very right clearly making the deal.

[00:19:13]>> Yeah. Does explain why the best made the deal.

[00:19:16]>> Nope.

[00:19:19]>> MJ would like to know. Thank you. Thank you. MJ would like to know if he has only one vest.

[00:19:24]>> He's like Doug Funny.

[00:19:25]>> Yeah.

[00:19:25]>> Like how Doug wore the same thing over and over. It's >> It's wild. Crazy.

[00:19:29]>> All right. So, the law can be negotiated, but science cannot. So, I want you to remember that as we go through these.

[00:19:34]>> Well, except Doug was >> honest. But then the other sheet is not only where it was found, how it was found, but once it was actually recovered, you talk about the chain of custody people understand chain of custody is what happens when officer finds a piece of evidence. And I listen to you talk about the fact that normally it's photographed and sometimes measurement taken of it. They put next to it. There's usually an evidence placard with a number or a letter on it, a little yellow tent kind of thing, which I see in almost every case I've ever tried. And that's not something that happened here. And then when it was put in the evidence bag and logged in, you're saying that there were things that should happen that did not happen.

[00:19:55]>> Well, J custody is meant to be the record of everybody who has had any contact with or touched or examined or removed other evidence from items. Okay, that is a a sworn sort of document that exists on the evidence bag. So anybody who's who collects it, they make they put their signature on this as they collect this state, this location, this time by this examiner, this technician or this officer. Then it's got blank space so that they can then take it to the evidence facility and the evidence of somebody receives a signature of somebody. And then if somebody goes out and checks out, there's a new signature and that person receives it on the state and they return by somebody else. So you know exactly who handled it when and for what reason and you handle it disposed or measure whatever it's a legal form to just make.

[00:20:24]>> Okay. So, I want what I want you to focus in on this one really is how in the beginning she's talking about how there's no placards in this case.

[00:20:34]There's no crime scene photographs. The crime scene photographs aren't good. And he's agreeing with her on all of that stuff, right? That like the way that the the way that the crime scene was handled here down to the chain of custody is [ __ ] Okay. And because of that, he opines that they missed things, right? Can we all agree that that's his opinion?

[00:21:09]Now, you have to also remember, do we remember when he was talking about the croc and we remember how he was talking about the bracelet and how those should have been tested and taken? We remember those things from the custody queen interview.

[00:21:25]Okay, I want you to keep that in mind, too.

[00:21:31]Okay, keep those in mind, too.

[00:21:35]And I want to thank uh little Miss Lily in here for giving me all these clips today.

[00:21:42]>> We were all reading it together at the late late hours of night texting each other going there's hair, there's hair in his fist.

[00:21:46]>> It's not just that there's hair in his hand. Okay, because this is really important to understand the context why we're bringing this up. The hair in the hand was described in report investigative in reports as debris.

[00:21:52]There's no debris. Debbie indicates like multiple different types of small sort of maybe commercial material. Maybe hair, maybe dust, maybe piece of pieces of paint or carp like a bunch of different stuff debris. Okay, this was just a clump of hair in Ethan's right hand and the hand slipped down into the uh space between the mattress and the uh wall and the blood went down his arm and it glued the hair to his hand and it glued this more hair through his through the actual bed frame and I didn't know it was there because it wasn't in reports and it wasn't discussed until I actually went to Moscow and examined the evidence. I examined the bed frame myself and all the other.

[00:22:14]>> Can you walk us through that when you went to lock?

[00:22:17]Okay. So, again, we're talking about the hair and how the hair wasn't tested, but I'd also like to point out in this specific clip when he's talking to them, I'm not entirely positive how he was able to come to the conclusion that Ethan's hand slipped down between like how Ethan's hand got there because he wasn't present when this was happening, right? So, like I don't know how he was able to to figure out the the manner in which Ethan's hand moved and how it got to the position that it got. Right? So that's nevertheless, but these are all things that are going to come up in this case that we're going to talk about in a minute. So the these are just important things that I want you to see that he contradicted himself on.

[00:22:58]>> So when you went to Moscow, obviously everything that you were able to review were the pieces of evidence that were actually inventoried by Moscow police the night of and then the subsequent days they were in that home. Is that correct?

[00:23:06]>> That's partly true. Um, absolutely true that everything that I was examining in Moscow at the Moscow PD was in a facility that they created just for this case because there was so much evidence a storage facility just for this case and they was um most of I would say 70 80% of what was there was what they had collected on their own then and this is my report it's not a secret it's all part of the files have been released um there were they were going to bulldo the house and the defense sent their own team out there and recovered other things and took the photos uh like the bed frame and other bloody items that were in the scene but they were just going to leave there destroyed so the defense directed the collection of a bunch of material wisely wisely so and so there was a bunch of material that was held there that they collected on behalf of the defense but that was part of the original crime scene that day including the bed frame that where the hair was found with Ethan Okay, we're going to stop there with clips for now and now we're going to talk about the case. Okay, so we're going to bring up what the cases and then we're going to read there and then we're going to juxtapose what Turvy said with what the case that he that he was retained as an expert says as well. And I think you guys are going to be you're going to see some similarities and you're going to be surprised at his ultimate conclusion.

[00:24:07]Let me bring it up.

[00:24:11]Share screen. Okay.

[00:24:22]Window.

[00:24:24]Here it is. Okay. Share.

[00:24:29]Why am I frozen? Okay. [clears throat] All right. So, let's go down and control F. [sighs and gasps] Okay.

[00:24:58]Okay. So, we're going to start over here at Crime Scene Reconstruction. I'm going to read this. Um, thank you so much, guys. Um, we're going to read this together. All right. So, Brett Turvy, PhD, an expert in crime scene reconstruction, testified for the petitioner at the habius trial. So, this is basically someone who's trying to get out of custody. All right. Um, according to Dr. Turby, the proper police procedures for crime scene investigations were not followed in the petitioner's case.

[00:25:27]For example, the crime scene was not cordoned off properly because the tape was placed on potential evidence, cars and garbage cans. Dr. Turby also noted that there were many people who accessed the crime scene as reflected by the security log, most of whom apparently never wrote a report. Dr. Turvy noted that the video of the police walkthrough of the crime scene was well done, although somehow a Polaroid fell into the blood next to the victim and is visible in that video. Now I will give I will I will let you guys come to the come to the generalization or the conclusion.

[00:26:01]Do you recall him mentioning anything similarly in the coper case to anything in that first paragraph?

[00:26:09]Because I do.

[00:26:11]But let's see if you guys remember.

[00:26:15]Not just in the clips that I showed, but in other things.

[00:26:37]Call them out. Let's call them out if you remember them.

[00:26:44]Almost verbatim, right?

[00:26:47]Almost identical to the Coberger case that he mentioned on the Custody Queens on the other interview, right?

[00:26:58]Sounds oddly familiar to how he described Coberger.

[00:27:03]The crime scene wasn't taken care of properly.

[00:27:08]There were a lot of people that accessed the crime scene, trapesing through the crime scene.

[00:27:19]Right.

[00:27:21]Okay. Let's go to the second paragraph.

[00:27:24]The photographs of the crime scene presented some issues for Dr. Turby.

[00:27:27]According to him, there are no good photographs of the outside of the condominium. He mentions specifically he mentions in the one clip that he was surprised that the house was taken down.

[00:27:36]So I think that that's similarly situated here. Also the evidence photographs were not done with the placards and the evidence numbers and there were no photograph there was no photograph log. Dr. Turvy described the photograph photographing procedures of this crime scene as haphazard and therefore difficult to put the photographs into proper context.

[00:27:54]Does that sound familiar?

[00:28:02]sound familiar to either of his interviews sound familiar at all to anybody to anything he said in the book to anything he said in the interviews it's identical It's pretty much identical.

[00:28:34]Here's my favorite part except House versus Condo. Do you recall during I believe it was actually it's in both of the interviews where he talked about how the officers recklessly moved around the items like the beer like the like the the boxes of the beer and the bracelet how they move them around and he could tell because they're photographed in different sections and how horrible police work that was. Do we remember that?

[00:29:06]And he went on and on about how terrible that was and how you could tell because it's in the different photographs and that that's terrible police work and they should never be doing that and they should never be touching the evidence and moving it around.

[00:29:18]Do we remember that?

[00:29:23]I do.

[00:29:36]Dr. Turvy further observed that there appeared to be items that were moved around in the crime scene during the investigation.

[00:29:43]A bottle of Resolve cleaner is visible in the photographs, but not in the location it is described to be in the police reports. A photo shows cigarettes on the floor, but in another photo, they are on the cutting board on the kitchen counter. Huh. Sounds kind of familiar.

[00:29:59]Like the sheath, too, right?

[00:30:03]There is also a purse that is in a different location over a series of photographs. These items are presumed to have some evidentiary value and were not handled properly.

[00:30:12]You are Jesse.

[00:30:17]The documentation of the crime scene investigation does not according to Dr. Turvy make notations of negative evidence i.e. the lack of signs of force entry.

[00:30:32]How about that?

[00:30:47]We're back.

[00:30:56]Yes.

[00:30:58]Okay.

[00:31:01]Okay, sorry. I do not know what just happened. I have no idea what just happened. I'm so sorry.

[00:31:13]I apologize for that.

[00:31:18]I just changed it my Wi-Fi to my hotspot on my phone instead.

[00:31:27]Usually when I'm in my kitchen, my Wi-Fi is better than when I'm upstairs. So, I I didn't think it'd be terrible down here. But alas, I was wrong.

[00:31:38]Alas, I was wrong.

[00:31:48]Yay.

[00:31:50]I know. But I feel bad, so I'm still sorry. Hold on.

[00:32:09]I'm here. I was just off Julie.

[00:32:15]Okay. All right. Well, let's try jumping back into this. Um, I don't know what the last thing is that you heard. So, we're just going to start from this paragraph here.

[00:32:26]Did you guys hear the part about the moving of the evidence?

[00:32:31]Did we do we recall portion?

[00:32:43]Do we remember that part?

[00:32:50]Okay. And we remember him saying that the moving of the evidence in Cobberger is a huge problem, right?

[00:33:00]The cups, all of that stuff, all of that is a huge issue.

[00:33:13]We all remember him saying that.

[00:33:24]before we move on.

[00:33:33]No, I'm paranoid. You can't hear me.

[00:33:37]Okay.

[00:33:40]Okay. All right.

[00:33:44]So now we are Yes. back. We're back.

[00:33:47]Okay. All right. So we're starting from like right over here. The documentation of the crime scene investigation does not, according to Dr. Turvy, make notation of negative evidence, i.e. the lack of signs of forced entry. One photograph shows damage to a door handle, but there are no close-ups of that damage. It does not appear any efforts were made to determine the source of all the footwear for footprint patterns. So, it is unclear whether the first responders impacted the blood prints on the floor or even were the source themselves of a print.

[00:34:18]Do we remember him talking about that?

[00:34:20]About how there were a lot of footprints in the backyard and they traped through everything and they weren't really careful when they were walking around and they made a mess of the crime scene, especially in the back in the snow.

[00:34:31]Do you remember him?

[00:34:38]I certainly do. Sure looks like it, doesn't it?

[00:35:00]Sure looks like it's forward Idaho.

[00:35:08]Dr. Turvy was critical of the failure to collect evidence.

[00:35:14]Seems pretty familiar, right? The blood should been collected and tested from any item that was photographed that had blood on it.

[00:35:24]Huh? Where did we hear that before?

[00:35:34]A blood sample should have been taken from the petitioner for toxicology testing. Although pubic hair samples were taken from the practitioner, a rape kit was not performed on the resolved cleaner bottle and alcohol bottle were not seized and tested. So it is unknown who handled them and what their contacts contents are. Are you ready for the kicker?

[00:35:54]In spite of these criti indicated that the crime scene work was not and that the crime scene reconstruction was possible. Although they were errors, they did not rise to the level of negligence.

[00:36:24]Huh?

[00:36:28]Huh?

[00:36:37]In spite of these critiques, Dr. Turvy indicated that the crime scene work was not incompetent and that crime scene reconstruction was possible. Although there were errors, they did not rise to the level of gross negligence.

[00:36:58]That's odd.

[00:37:12]That's that's very odd because in the Colber case case identically to this case argue that this case is worse because there was a sexual assault involved. Um you said that this was not a problem.

[00:37:34]None of these things were a problem.

[00:37:37]Wasn't negligence.

[00:37:39]And the police work was not incompetent.

[00:37:48]So which is it?

[00:37:55]Which is it? Which is it?

[00:38:02]Wh which one is it?

[00:38:11]I don't know. I don't know. What do you guys think?

[00:38:22]I think this is problematic.

[00:38:32]I think this is problematic.

[00:38:44]>> I think this is problematic. No.

[00:38:50]Here's the thing.

[00:38:58]If in this case, this the Zrowski case, all of these things led to a determination that the that the police were not incompetent.

[00:39:13]um and that none of this rose to the level of gross negligence and all of these errors happened in Colberger according to him. I'm not saying these errors happened in Coberger. I'm saying according to him these errors hope happened in Coberger.

[00:39:31]Why is one case bad and one case good?

[00:39:43]Can someone explain that to me?

[00:39:48]I I truly would like to know.

[00:39:52]This goes on. By the way, according to Dr. Turvy, there is evidence that the petitioner attempted to clean up all the evidence at the crime scene, nor that he attempted to stage the crime scene. The crime scene clearly shows that an alter of staging or false evidence to make the crime scene appear a event or that it was not the petitioner who killed the victim.

[00:40:22]While there was some cleanup efforts, for example, in bathroom, there was so much blood at the crime scene, such as the petitioner's bedroom and many Oh, sorry, and the bed itself, which belied well exited cleanup efforts. The bed itself, Dr. Turby acknowledged that the blood stains in the downstairs bathroom were not indicative.

[00:40:52]Instead, these stains indicated that the petitioner used the downstairs sink to wash his hands.

[00:41:00]So, in this case, there's actual evidence of a cleanup.

[00:41:09]In fact, they a resolve cleaner bottle and an alcohol bottle in the open.

[00:41:18]Actual drag bloody drag marks that seem to just be but no but in the Coberger case found whatsoever.

[00:41:42]Um no drag marks that just magically disappear. Um, and no evidence that anybody used the downstairs sink to wash their hands. Uh, random blood trails. There's absolutely so.

[00:42:21]It's being glitchy again.

[00:42:31]Hold on.

[00:42:34]Hold on.

[00:42:39]I'm sorry, guys. I don't know why my Wi-Fi is being stupid tonight.

[00:42:44]Oh.

[00:42:49]All right, let's see if it ends up now. Give it a second.

[00:43:04]Give it a second.

[00:43:18]See if it unglitches itself.

[00:43:22]How's our razor going?

[00:43:25]Let's talk about something random for a second and give it a second to like situate itself.

[00:43:34]M >> Wi-Fi working down there.

[00:43:42]Okay.

[00:43:48]Interesting.

[00:43:50]Interesting.

[00:43:54]Tired today.

[00:43:59][snorts] You know what I'm tired of? This guy's [ __ ] This guy. Sorry. This guy's [ __ ] This fit this. I still have to get used to the mirroring.

[00:44:20]I'm tired of this guy's [ __ ] I know. I'm seriously considering taking a vacation day tomorrow.

[00:44:31]I don't know if I'm going to do it or not though because I could just go in and they like send us home a little early on like long weekend days. So like is it worthation day or is do I like go in or I don't know.

[00:44:45]I don't know guys. I don't know.

[00:44:51]Yeah, narcissistic would be a word I would use to describe this man.

[00:44:55]I don't know how people like here's the thing. Okay, this case that I'm showing you right now 100% demonstrates to me that for the right price, this man will say whatever you want him to say.

[00:45:17]I can bank 10 vacation days every year.

[00:45:23]And it's so obvious now to me, and it should be obvious to everybody else at this point based on this case.

[00:45:32]This proves it definitively.

[00:45:47]I agree with you.

[00:45:50]I agree with you. I absolutely agree with you.

[00:45:56]And this is why you vet experts because at the end of the day, if like for instance, if I was Bill Thompson and like to be quite frank with you, this has taught me a lot personally about like future experts for myself because now I will research every case that my experts have testified in.

[00:46:25]because I can't imagine hiring this man as an expert and then him being cross-examined and Bill Thompson bringing up this case and being like, "Well, what about this case?"

[00:46:41]In this case, the exact same facts and circumstances happened and you said that it was fine, that there were no issues, there was no negligence and that the police scene work, the crime scene work was not incompetent. So why is it different here?

[00:47:05]100% a case I would use to impeach him.

[00:47:11]100%.

[00:47:14]And it would work because the facts are identical.

[00:47:20]When I read this, I was like, I cannot believe that the facts are identical.

[00:47:31]It like blew me away.

[00:47:36]And there are tons of cases like this for him.

[00:47:49]Every time I I start searching, I find more, which is wild to me.

[00:48:09]Well, if people did their research, they would know that there were issues in the West Memphis 3 case as well, but I'm going to save that for another day.

[00:48:19]There is there is it's I don't know if you guys but on this side there's a detective Sabetta who previously worked the state police major crime unit determined through preliminary search where the physical evidence was located.

[00:48:37]Thereafter a videographer makes a video of the scene. Setta explained that there that these are the quick initial observations that are made after which the case officer will go to the crime ban and consult with other officers to strategize.

[00:48:54]Uh Detective Zetta uh described the area surrounding the downstairs sink as evidence signs of a cleaning. This is opposite Blood stains appear diluted indicating efforts to wash up or clean up. Sabetta did not take a blood sample from the petitioner. According to Detective Sabetta, only a certified flim flim flamboist would take a blood sample and the police would need a search warrant to have the authorization to take a sample from the petitioner, which is correct. The Bristol police obtained a search warrant, but they did not ask for a blood sample. When entering a crime scene, the police do not know what items have evidentary value.

[00:49:37]Um, Sabetta noted that the police document and photograph the crime scene to record and thereby preserve the scene. Sometimes items at a scene can be moved around because the police do not realize the items have evidentary value, which is what we said, right? We said this and we've talked about this that when they're when they walked into the house that day, this case is so eerily similar to the Idaho case. It's wild.

[00:50:05]I'll I'll start working on that one because this is what we talked about when the cops first walked in. They didn't know what was of evidentiary value or not and they didn't know what they were walking into. But any anyway, the documentation were serve as reference points that should an item get moved around. For example, the bottle of resolve cleaner was moved from where it was first found, the cigarette box also was moved. The movement item, for example, the cigarette is not inherently a concern. If the item does not have any advantageary value or relevance that familiar sound familiar to what I've been saying and counteractive this Okay.

[00:51:07]It's possible. I don't know. Jackson Sabetta was not aware of any crime scene contamination at the time of the habius trial. He did not remember if the crime scene video showed the Polaroid photo that had fallen into the area of the victim. Sibeta also cannot recall if he viewed the crime scene video before he wrote his report. Thus, although the crime scene video may show certain objects that are referenced in the report, that does not necessarily result in the report stating a connection between such objects at the crime scene.

[00:51:36]Let's see.

[00:52:11]is a PO box. Maria lives in Alaska. So essentially what I'm what I'm saying here, okay? And I'm I'm just going to say it is that there are experts that will say whatever you want them to say for money.

[00:52:28]This case that I showed you has facts and circumstances pretty much identical to Brian Coberger's case. Okay, you could you read it. You read it in this is the appellet decision.

[00:52:43]Okay. Appellet from the judge where they lay it all out. The testimony, the words the words the experts used.

[00:52:54]And in this case here, not an issue.

[00:52:58]Not an issue.

[00:53:01]No negligence.

[00:53:03]Cops did a good not a great job, but they did a good job. But in Kobberger, everything is wrong. Everything must be looked at under a microscope. Everything must be questioned.

[00:53:18]And I think we know why that is.

[00:53:31]I don't think it's a far jump.

[00:53:41]It just goes to show you that there are different levels of experts that you can hire. And I think that it's fair in this case to say that this case is similarly situated enough to be able to make that conclusion.

[00:53:57]I mean the the language is identical in this case.

[00:54:02]Even the wording is the same.

[00:54:07]I don't know if anybody else notices that, but from a legal perspective, I would have used this to impeach him if I was the prosecution.

[00:54:19]And I think it would have worked.

[00:54:23]I think it would have worked if if if they did a voadier of him before to determine whether he would be qualified as an expert in this case.

[00:54:39]I'm not even 100% certain he would have been.

[00:54:44]It is It's a copy and paste. It's a copy and paste.

[00:54:59]I don't really [sighs and gasps] but you know he's everybody no one just because here doesn't mean he's qualified.

[00:55:21]Truthfully, just because he's hired doesn't mean he's qualified.

[00:55:32]People have bad experts all the time.

[00:55:36]And I'm tired of hearing about the credentials.

[00:55:40]I'm tired of hearing about the credentials.

[00:55:44]Just because you have credentials does not mean that you're qualified to do your job.

[00:55:52]But especially when No. So, um, I have it on pretty excellent authority. There were other experts and I don't know if it was in crime scene reconstruction, right?

[00:56:18]So, I don't know if in that category other people were um other people were contacted, but I do know that the defense spoke to other experts before retaining the experts that they retained.

[00:56:34]They interviewed other people because the the people that they spoke to also had to sign NDAs because they reviewed the material.

[00:57:00]Because sometimes here's what happens, right? when you're talking to experts, okay? And like this is the dirty part of of working with experts either on the prosecution side or um the defense side is sometimes you talk to an expert and you speak to them and they're like, "Yeah, no, we we said our opinion is that the guy did it or the guy didn't do it." if they're you go and you talk to another expert or you find somebody else. Okay, that's just the world of of course that's just the world of hiring an expert. Right?

[00:57:39]So, um in general, it's very possible that the prosecution spoke to experts who said, "Yeah, no, there's issues here. I I I couldn't get definitively say he did it." They would not go with that expert. Same with the defense. The defense could have spoken to people that definitively were like, "Yeah, no, he absolutely did it."

[00:58:01]Absolutely did it.

[00:58:06]You would not retain that expert.

[00:58:12]You just wouldn't.

[00:58:17]I don't remember what Nodell was an expert in.

[00:58:21]Becca Barlo I think was DNA But at the end of the day, you go with who's best for your client.

[00:58:33]Now, I don't know if Ann Taylor knew about this case.

[00:58:39]I don't know if the prosecution knew about this case.

[00:58:44]I don't know if either of them knew about this case or the decision in this case because it's not a bad decision for Turby. Don't get me wrong. This is not like a This is not a decision in which is [ __ ] on Turvy, which is why I originally overlooked it. I I didn't bother to continue reading it, but then when I reread it, I was like, I should have paid attention to this one because it the facts are identical to to Idaho and he comes to a completely different conclusion.

[00:59:21]He in fact he comes to the opposite conclusion which is just absolutely baffling to me how with the same the same situation and the same situations the same facts you can just come to to different conclusions.

[00:59:52]That's a to me that's a big deal. I don't know if it's a big deal to anybody else, but I think that's a big deal.

[01:00:16]I don't know. What do you guys think? Do you think Yes, that's exactly right.

[01:00:31]I think it's I I don't know. I I don't like the pay for play. Like obviously I I pay my experts, but I want them to have the integrity to have the same to tell me if I'm a little blood. Hi, Papa.

[01:00:59]I'm just I'm just trying to educate, okay? This is purely for educational purposes, as the conspiracy theorists would say, but I at least have facts to back it up.

[01:01:15]I come with facts and receipts and receipts. We have receipts.

[01:01:33]I don't know. What do you guys think?

[01:01:37]Does this does this affect his credibility to you?

[01:01:56]I think it does.

[01:02:10]Uh, I would have to go back and look.

[01:02:12]Hold on. Where's my Canva?

[01:02:22]Hold on to Giggles.

[01:02:46]Hold on.

[01:02:48]I have um I'm grabbing the quotes.

[01:03:09]I'm Hold on. I'm bringing it up right now. Okay.

[01:03:29]Okay, hold on. Okay, I will actually show you what I pulled.

[01:03:46]So these are quotes from cases that Turby worked in. Okay. Or worked on. So the first is a case called Cobb from Kansas.

[01:03:58]Now some of these are pulled from the same case. I'm going to I'm gonna show them to you. Okay. So, this is um Oh, you quoted my you quoted my my slideshow. I love that. Um, okay. So, we see no abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to admit Turvy's proper testimony. It was not necessary to aid the jury with an unfamiliar site to interpret technical or to assist the jury in arriving at a reasonable conclusion. The jury was capable of perceiving and understanding the inconsistencies between cop statements and the physical evidence. So he basically he added nothing to the test, nothing to the trial like at all.

[01:04:41]He added nothing. They so like no you're you're you're literally bolstering you are not relevant to this case. Um in peoples which is a case out of California during voadier. Turvy could not explain to the trial court satisfaction why this evidence could not more easily be explained by a difference in motives for the two sets of murders.

[01:04:58]The trial court also found the testimony to require considerable speculation. So Turby's too speculative facts not based in reality in a case called dis dilei. The turvy report focuses on the presence of blood near the deadbolt lock on the house door but it fails to mention the bloody streaks resembling finger trails on the lower portion of the door that are apparent in the crime scene photos. If the killer had taken time to shower, Hey Cat, as the Turvy report suggests, the blood stains on the shower wall in the curtain would have been diluted or washed away, which they were not. The Turvy report ignores evidence of injuries to petitioner, including the testimony of multiple witnesses who saw his swollen right hand and the fresh gouge marks on his nose and cheek that were still bleeding shortly after the time of Miss Fatali's murder.

[01:05:51]That sure seems like somebody who really evaluates the evidence, doesn't it?

[01:06:03]really evaluates the evidence.

[01:06:10]This one's one of my favorites because I love when he tries to pretend that he's a medical doctor. [snorts] The only testimony defense council offered to rebut the state's medical evidence was that of Brett Turvy. Mr. Turvy. And I like how they call him Mr. Turvy in here and not Dr. Turvy. This one made me laugh. Uh Mr. Mr. Tvy is a forensic scientist hired by the defense to explain why evidence is, what it means mean very often what can be done with the evidence and what hasn't been doing with the evidence. In his affidavit attached in support of the defendants M, Mr. Clark refers to Mr. Turvy as an expert in rape investigations. I'm sorry, excuse me. No, I don't think so.

[01:06:49]Um, [snorts] however, Mr. Turvy does not have a medical background. During voadier outside the presence of the jur performed forensic examination reconstructed an examinations of the physical evidence to look at the physical evidence in this case to determine whether it reported Mary's version of the events during his lengthy wadier. Mr. Turvy testified that the physical evidence was inconsistent with the alleged version of the events leading up to the sexual assault. the physical evidence was inconsistent with Mary's version of the sexual assaults and that there was evidence that Mary was making false sexual assault allegations that the police failed to further investigate.

[01:07:27]Mr. Turvy attempted to testify several times about the sane's findings, but Judge Alfred stopped his testimony, noting that Mr. Turvy did not have a medical degree. After Vadier, Judge Alfred excluded Mr. Turvy's testimony, noting that the court has heard the testimony of Mr. Turvy has reviewed his CV. He the CV he has the court has reviewed his forensic examination and from all that the court can only conclude that the defendant seeks through Mr. Turby to offer certain opinions about the investigation that was done in this case about which expert testimony needed to invade the province of the jury. He also offer opinions on the evidence involving the credibility of certain witnesses and other evidence which is totally totally withhum offline. Amen.

[01:08:27]Son of a [ __ ] All right. Good.

[01:08:56]Yes. No. Maybe. So, as you can see, Okay.

[01:09:44]Everybody good?

[01:09:56]Yes. No. Maybe. So, I want to make sure that we're okay. I think we're okay, but I just want to double check.

[01:10:17]Okay. So, I just want to point out to like something in this quote over here on the right on the bottom that was obvious from his testimony at the 402 hearing because it was very difficult for him to give answers to council that did not did not leak into other area areas even though the question didn't make any signs of this. It's ridiculous.

[01:10:36]Review of the record corroborates the district court's findings of Dr. Turby's credibility.

[01:10:44]I know we do um could have been called into question during cross- examination at trial. Dr. Turby's report included facts that did not appear at trial. Dr. Turby's report also admitted certain facts without explanation.

[01:10:58]The defense presented testimony of Brett Turby, who the court determined had had the very minimal qualifications as an expert in crime scene reconstruction.

[01:11:05]That's my favorite.

[01:11:08]That's my favorite.

[01:11:16]love this for him. So, so essentially in a nutshell, we are like I have seen experts not be qualified before, right? I have never seen experts not be qualified as often as this man is not qualified.

[01:11:40]He's a very minimal qualifications as an expert in crime scene reconstruction, which is what he was hired for the Gold Coast for.

[01:11:58]You can watch you can watch this YouTube this video too. This one's really good.

[01:12:02]I go there's a lot more information to this one.

[01:12:06]It'll keep running away from me.

[01:12:10]I liked this one. I worked really hard on that one.

[01:12:14]But yeah, so that's uh that is your daily turvy takedown.

[01:12:26]Your daily turvy takedown decided yet?

[01:12:36]But yeah, does anyone have any questions?

[01:12:45]Any comments, questions, concerns?

[01:12:55]Thank you, John.

[01:13:03]The feather, the edge of the hat.

[01:13:11]I'm very sorry about the connection issues. I will get to uh working on my internet situation. I think I'm going to have to upgrade it if I can. I think we actually have the best internet we can have, but unfortunately the weather here is shitty today, so that might be affecting it. But thank you guys for joining me tonight. Um as usual, I love you all and um I will see you guys tomorrow.

[01:13:36]And um I hope you all have a really good evening.