Part 1: REPLAY: Dr. Turvey LIVE Interview — The Conversation Everyone Was Waiting For

本站添加: 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]Heat.

[00:00:06][music] [music] Heat.

[00:00:22][music] All right, everyone. It is CQ and Ron.

[00:00:46]We are here for the very anticipated interview with Dr. Turvy. I'm going to pass it to Ron to introduce Dr. Turvy.

[00:00:55]But before I do, I just want to say thank you so much to everyone that is in our comments that's watching the live.

[00:01:01]We really, really appreciate it. We are going to try our best to get to questions. We very much appreciate super chats, but we have so many questions, so we can't guarantee we'll get to everything or anything at all. Um, we're just going to jump into it and utilize the time that we have with Dr. Turvy.

[00:01:18]We're so appreciative for this. And with that, I will pass it to Ross.

[00:01:23]>> Hey, and I guess I should say aloha [laughter] coming in from Maui. Uh, I was so excited about this. I've been looking forward to this. I actually delayed my uh brief vacation for a day so that I I could do the interview, not be on the plane. So, I'm uh at the hotel in in Maui. I am so excited for this. We've been uh we've been fans of Dr. Turvy since we saw uh I guess we went through the re or the rebuttal or the reply of of Dr. Sutton to his report which we haven't seen but just from that little bit we became huge fans of Dr. Turvy and and and we we could see such a difference in uh the quality of work between him and Dr. Stutton just from her response and the small quotes we had uh from him. Uh Dr. Turvy is a uh uh he's a a forensic criminologist. Uh he is a uh uh he has a PhD in criminology.

[00:02:27]He has degrees in history, psychology, forensic science. He is with um you know, let me see forensic solutions LLC.

[00:02:37]He works major cases. Uh that is uh primarily any cases involving death, sexual violence or multiple victims. uh major cases, big-time public cases, um uh attorneys will call him. Uh he's got so much uh experience and and uh so much time that he has worked on these and and seen he's probably seen about everything and he's worked on cases that have ended up eventually in uh uh please and verdicts being set aside. Um so we're really anxious. Uh now we're going to bring him up right now. He he works on cases all over the country and all over the world. He's also senior forensic adviser to the Dubai Police Criminal Criminal Profiling Unit in addition to all the other stuff he he does. So we're very excited to welcome Dr. Turvy.

[00:03:35][snorts] >> Hey, how you doing?

[00:03:38]>> How you doing, Dr. Turvy? We're so excited to have you on.

[00:03:43]Well, thank you for uh delaying for a week after my oral surgery. It's still not healed yet so people can hear my lisp, I'm sure.

[00:03:52]>> No worries. No worries. We're so happy to so happy to have you, Dr. Turvy.

[00:03:57]>> I'm glad to be here.

[00:03:59]>> All right, let's uh let's jump into it.

[00:04:03]I don't want to waste any time because we have such precious little time with Dr. Turvy and I know that we personally probably have a hundred questions and that's not even considering everything that you guys have all sent to us uh one way or another. So, we're going to rip the band-aid off. Dr. Turvy, we're going to go right to the meat and potatoes and Taylor.

[00:04:24]>> Perfect.

[00:04:25]>> Let's start there. Go for it.

[00:04:28]>> You first. What's the question?

[00:04:30]>> Well, [laughter] we all saw we all saw your response, so let's start there.

[00:04:37]Well, let's start with what she said. I mean, I think that's a fair place. My response comes after her public sort of admonition >> and it um for me it's kind of, you know, par for the course with that team uh subsequent to the to the revelation of the plea agreement.

[00:04:59]Um, how do I put this? I think I I am I am fairly shocked as is I think the world that uh a defense attorney would come out publicly and admonish one of their own experts for discussing for discussing exculpatory evidence for their client and it begs the question as to whether or not she's representing Cobberger or something else.

[00:05:25]So because that's not in the his best interest. His best interests obviously are served by full full disclosure of all exculpatory evidence and testing of all potentially exculpatory evidence.

[00:05:38]And that's all that's all any expert should be, you know, advocating for.

[00:05:44]you're if you're you're advocating for truth and justice and uh full disclosure and transparency, which are sort of the the hallmarks of good scientific practice, uh that's what you're advocating for. And when you hire somebody like me, uh, that's what you're saying to the world. Hey, we're bringing in independent experts who are independent, who are going to give us advice about what evidence exists and what evidence does not exist, what evidence should be tested and what evidence might be beneficial uh to understanding the full narrative of the case. And the idea that you would want to that you would leave physical evidence untested that has potential exculpatory value is shocking. It shocks the conscious. And so the idea that you would admonish somebody for saying, "Hey, there's this really important piece of untested evidence that we need to talk about." Uh, that's it's sort of again it's it's problematic and it raises real questions for me. But let me let me explain something else. Let me let's flip it and say it this way.

[00:06:48]What what would it say about an expert that you hired who sat on exculpatory evidence and didn't say anything publicly and later on that evidence was discovered and tested and and exculpated a client or a defendant? What would you say about the entire team of experts that said nothing and sat blindly by while the judicial machine sort of steamrolled the defendant?

[00:07:14]Do >> not think very highly of that. What?

[00:07:17]>> I would not think very highly of them at all.

[00:07:20]>> Exactly. So while in this moment there are people who are triggered by this discussion of of publicly available material, uh I am more concerned about those who would rather suppress it.

[00:07:37]>> And is it is it safe to say, Dr. So trivia that this is the first time a defense attorney in a case that you've worked on has come out and made such a statement.

[00:07:46]>> I've never seen it before in any case ever in my 30-year history. I mean, if you can name that case, I'd love to know.

[00:07:52]>> I've seen experts for the state and for the defense who've come out and made massive blunders, massive errors, massive pro massive failure to disclose misconduct, incorrect interpretations, looking at photographs upside down and interpreting them incorrectly. You know, that happens all the time. And you would and you never see a defense attorney coming out and blasting them for it or or even the state often might do it a little bit, but but not the defense, not their own uh expert. So, it really starts to beg the question um what is the purpose of hiding this evidence?

[00:08:26]What is the purpose of not wanting to discuss it? Uh and and to be very clear, the the sort of the admonishment is generic.

[00:08:35]It's only that I'm discussing things, not that I'm wrong, not that I'm lying, not that I'm incompetent, not that I am uh biased, or not that I am doing something that violates a court order.

[00:08:47]None of that is happening. If it were true that I were violating her confidentiality agreement, there would be severe and immediate legal consequences, as there should be. All right. The problem is uh Brady versus Maryland which is the federal which is the Supreme Court ruling which states that you can't sort of you you have to disclose everything that is potentially exculpatory and the person who decides that is not the def not the prosecution nor even the judge necessarily. It's usually if if the judge is going to make that determination they do it in camera alone in their chambers or whatever. But generally, you're supposed to disclose everything that's potentially exculpatory and let the defense do their own investigation of it. So everything that I've discussed has already been disclosed by the state. She's just unhappy that I'm discussing it for some reason and then put me on blast with the other tune attorneys to sort of I get her attempt. I think her attempt was to try to the last line says it all, which is his credibility should be viewed through this lens or whatever. And I think it should be I think my credibility should be viewed through that lens which is will I knowingly sit on exculpatory evidence? No, I will not despite whatever consequences might come. And I have, you know, at any given time I have between 35 and 40 open cases. I just finished a huge report in a big case today. Spent the last two weeks working on it. And my clients hire me for that objectivity, for that impartiality, and because they know that I have a reputation for being having integrity in front of a jury and in front of the court. And I have to say it really begs the question as to the credibility of those experts or those attorneys or those participants or those commentators who are arguing for the suppression of this evidence. That's interesting to me.

[00:10:40]But there are no specific she's made no specific allegations of spec specific information. And I think I know why that is. So, >> and it's also interesting that she hasn't spoke up since the, you know, following the plea, which was almost getting close into that year mark. I thought that was interesting. But you're 100% right. She doesn't try to discredit you. She doesn't try to say that you're wrong. Uh she basically just says she she's also attacking her own team, which is wild. I mean, that's kind of you have the whole world trying to attack you for the most part and you're trying to prove BK's innocence, but hey, let's start attacking our own, which >> is interesting. Think about what it's going to do to her. I mean, remember this. She's not like this clean defense attorney. She's an she's a she's got a conflict of interest starting out of the gate by rep because she represented victim family members when she was working for the public defender. But she also has a what she worked as a magistrate and a prosecutor I think at some point. People who do these things as lawyers, they get confused sometimes about their role. They get confused and their attitude and their posture doesn't change sufficiently when they change their role or their their onus. What's their what what is their onus? Is their ownus to the defend uh to their client, to the state, to the people like them, whatever. They get confused. And so when you have this we call ro strain, when you have multiple roles pulling on you, you can wind up saying and doing things that you probably shouldn't. What I'm also thinking about is any person who would ever think as work of working as an expert for Ann Taylor in the future is probably going to say no.

[00:12:18]>> Yeah.

[00:12:19]>> And and I'm assuming that the first time you heard this admonishment was publicly. You haven't had any direct contact with her since before the plea.

[00:12:28]>> Uh Sam, that's such a great question.

[00:12:30]The answer is no. Of course not. I mean, if you were going to No, let me let me back up and say this. If you were going to admonish an expert for some behavior, you would probably want to talk to them first about what they did and why and specifically what they did and why um as part of what's going on. But our relationship dramatically deteriorated once she made this surprise plea deal, which surprised most of the team. Well, there's a guilt phase and then there was a mitigation phase in the death penalty case. And the mitigation experts, we never met them. and even the guilt uh the guilt phase experts who were trying to reconstruct the crime or determine the events and the actions. We didn't talk to each other. We were very much compartmentalized. So, I wouldn't even have anything to share from them other than the findings that are in the defense autopsy report. There's an an autopsy evaluation done by a defense expert and I I have access to that, but I obviously haven't shared that with anybody.

[00:13:27]>> That's a perfect lead into I think the next question. And I know that this is something I'm super interested in and most people uh in this chat are as well.

[00:13:35]How did you get involved with this case, Dr. Turvy?

[00:13:39]>> Well, I mean, it's not a secret that I was hired. So, I can certainly discuss that. It's not a secret that I wrote a report, nor are my findings a secret because they were publicized in January with all the disclosures. In fact, there was an article written about my findings in Fox News back in January 2025, I think. Wait. Yeah, 2025. and I was one of the only experts whose findings were disclosed to the public. How did I get involved? Well, I was um I would say collegial good friends and collegial with Becca Barlo who was hired on early on as a DNA expert. I've worked cases I worked a case with her in uh California and she brought she asked to bring me on to evaluate the the placement of the scabbard. All right. because they were concerned that there's evidence that that it was planted because of the things that have that that have all come to light. And then once I did that, once I was brought on board for that, they expanded my role and they expanded my analysis to the to to a full crime scene analysis so that we could make determinations with certainty. And remember, I prepared a report in this case which was submitted to Anne Taylor, I think at least twice. One evening I was I was traveling. I was working really late and I submitted we had a deadline we were coming up against in January of 2020 2020 whatever it was 2025 and we I had to meet that deadline and so she reviewed it she accepted it and she put it on file so these findings that I've given in the extent and breadth of my examination are not some great mystery or some great reduction as she tried to suggest in her her um in her admonition which was bizarre trying to pretend, oh well, he's just this guy. We just kind of hired him and just kind of did this and you didn't vet me completely. You didn't uh get ask for a report, didn't expand my role, didn't request a report that was x number of pages long and you know, submit that to the court as as true and just and accurate. [laughter] I mean, come on. It's just it defies credibility. Her posture at this point defies credibility. So, that's how I got involved. And that's the that was the nature and range and scope of my examination. Quite extensive.

[00:15:48]And do you recall exactly what time frame was it that you were actually hired on as the expert >> would be like in boy man I don't remember let me just take a look I can tell you right now I can tell you let me go here let me just make sure I don't say anything wrong. All right. So, I was brought in in October 2024, but I was interviewed multiple time at least twice before then to screen me. And my report was submitted in January 22nd, 2025.

[00:16:19]>> Does that help?

[00:16:20]>> Yeah, that helps quite a bit.

[00:16:23]>> Yep. So what I know that there were uh there was a lot of discussion, a lot of complaints by Anne Taylor to the court about a defense uh being slow to give evidence over. Did that kind of put the defense team >> not the def the prosecution prosecution turning him over to the defense? Yeah.

[00:16:43]Did that kind of kind of uh put the defense under the gun a bit?

[00:16:47]>> Not just that. I mean the before the plea right before the plea we got this mash of data dump that had not been disclosed to us prior and I that I have not seen that I have not seen and have not examined. We had a whole >> No, of course not because the the plea happened right after that. So I I had when I when I left her office the last time the weekend before the the Thursday before the weekend of the plea agreement being announced.

[00:17:16]Um, we had all kinds of plans set in motion as you would because we were going to trial and all kinds of uh plans for examining those disclosures, all kinds of plans for uh other examinations for other items of evidence to check on chain of custody and things like that.

[00:17:34]There's a bunch of work to be done >> and that that is not some secret. That's that disclosure of that data dump requires examination by the experts.

[00:17:45]There's no >> Do you know what was in that datab?

[00:17:48]>> I didn't look at it. So, >> well, no, no. I mean, did they say >> Nope.

[00:17:53]>> You know, here are photos, your videos, nothing. You just >> No.

[00:17:59]>> No. They she she was not like that. So, she wasn't she she you know, the the version of Anne Taylor that I know bears no resemblance to the Ant Taylor that took the plea and is talking in public right now. I don't know this person at all. I don't recognize her at all.

[00:18:19]>> You So you when you last met with her, you had no indication that the plea was going to happen. And how did you actually find out about the plea through the media? How did >> I found out from a colleague, a colleague texted me, texted me and said, "Uh, hey Brent, um, I remember you were working on this case. I remember reading the articles. Remember this. Remember you mentioning it. Uh, what's going on?

[00:18:40]There's a plea agreement. Is that true?"

[00:18:42]And I like wrote back and be like, "No way. [laughter] No way. This is there's no way it's not happening." And then within over the next 10 minutes, it was like binging bing bing bing bing. I was getting all kinds of text messages from different colleagues and different um uh friends of mine and and and people who work for me. [laughter] We all found out with the rest of the world.

[00:19:03]>> Is it normal?

[00:19:05]>> Oh, is it normal?

[00:19:08]>> No, I was say last time we talked you were you were renting like a VBO. You had bags, you had your clothes, like you were ready to go.

[00:19:16]>> Yeah, of course. But let me let me let me back up and say something that hasn't been said before.

[00:19:23]One, the reason I was hired for this case is I was one of the only people in the whole case who's ever worked a mass homicide before. I've worked dozens.

[00:19:30]Well, a dozen or more. Some somewhere between 12 and 20. If you look at my resume, you can go count them. Um, that's first thing. And I'm working a couple right now. Actually, I just picked up another one the other day. So, that's one of the reasons I was brought in because I have expertise and experience on these kinds of complex mass homicide events. All right. The second thing is that when you are on a death penalty case, it is intensive. Everybody's heads are in the huddle. Okay? Everybody is part of the process because if they're not, you can miss something. And the consequences are life and death. So there's a there's a a lot of great articles on the death penalty issue and the the work that's required and the focus that's required and what they say is quote death is different unquote. So when you have a death penalty case you are responsible in a way that that you're not in other cases right because there's going to be appeals and there's going to be you know you can you can do it and then you can get a second chance. you can get a couple more bites at the apple if there's a problem or if there's a procedural error, an innocence issue. In a death penalty case, it's dangerous.

[00:20:42]So, that means there has to be a very high level of trust and communication between the people working on the case.

[00:20:48]And the fact that none of the defense experts were contacted or consulted as part of this deal, in fact, were misled by the defense by the defense attorneys as to whether or not there was going to be a plea deal is is stunning. It's a stunning uh context to be in. I've never I've only experienced this kind of thing one time before, sort of, but this is pretty stunning.

[00:21:14]>> How were you misled?

[00:21:15]>> What?

[00:21:16]>> How were you misled? Exactly.

[00:21:20]>> As I said, the entire posture of the case was going to trial and that changed on the weekend and was announced to the world without being discussed among anyone. And you know that's there's a lot of ways to describe that but one is just uh you know this it's a it's misleading everybody else to let them think that there's one pathway that's happening and that causes them to create a to engage in activity or make decisions and choices and planning and protocol uh and uh you know logistics surrounding that and action plans that cause them to do massive amounts of work and and commit to certain time frames and then to sort of have the rug pulled out from underneath you for some reason without any explanation then or now as to why uh it's it misleading is a gentle way of saying mislead misleading is a kind word.

[00:22:18]>> So you don't have any information since the time the plea was entered as to why what changed or why they went that direction? Well, I directly asked that question and I was told nothing nothing changed.

[00:22:35]Was the was Hitler or the court were they encouraging the negotiations regarding the plea deal or or there's so many different theories that we've all heard online um some that that Hitler was encouraging the two team or the two sides to mediate see if they can come to a plea deal or was it just completely like you had no clue that these negotiations it sounds like to me you had no clue that these negotiations were going to go down that weekend?

[00:23:00]None at all. And it would be it's none at all. And that sort of in my perspective and I don't I don't Anne Taylor doesn't have that much experience working death penalty cases. I do. I've done this many many years, 30 years now.

[00:23:15]And in my experience, it is completely inappropriate to start making major decisions like that without first getting a sense of where the evidence really is at and having a team meeting and talking about it. And that didn't happen. Uh I I will just say this without betraying any confidence. I can say that I asked multiple times. I was g well I asked multiple I asked at least twice and was given a third version of events. Every single time there was a discussion about this after the fact I got a different answer as to what the precise sequence of events was. And in a normal case, like right, I like I said, I have clients that I've worked with for 10, 15 years. I got clients who I who I work with constantly on every case they work.

[00:24:04]I got clients who I, you know, I trust them to to do anything with me. I trust them to watch my kids. I trust them to watch my cats. I trust them with everything because over time and and temperance, you learn sort of uh the ethical character of the people you're working with. And that's why you work with them again because you don't you don't have a um you don't have any problems with the way they conduct themselves and you know that when you're not in the room the best the best evidence and the best ethical posture is going to be taken. In this case I have zero faith and confidence in Ann Taylor in terms of her posture because every sing every single time I've spoken with her she's given a different version of events about whether and why and how.

[00:24:48]And so at this moment, I can't violate any privilege with you because I don't know what the truth is because I have not been told the truth yet that I can tell. I've been given three different versions of events relating specifically to your question. When did the deal start? When did they start in how did they get Brian to agree to it? And the involvement of Hitler. And I don't I'm not a legal I'm not a legal expert. I know what my role is, and I won't know what my um I know what my uh onus is to.

[00:25:16]I know that my uh my first onus is to being a um f first we start with you have to do d do you have to do your due diligence in every case because that's what satisfy due process and due process is a requirement of the constitution. If you don't follow that logic you have no business being an expert or being involved in the criminal justice system.

[00:25:36]Due diligence equals due process equals equals uh constitutionality. Okay.

[00:25:42]I don't know that that's that's the extent of my sort of my grasp of my my situation or my um my role and I don't know what the legal realities are around Dan Taylor taking this case. I don't know what the legal realities are of whether or not Hippler was involved and how he was involved with the the judge or the prosecutor. And I suspect that it was done in such a way that was problematic, which is why I'm getting three different versions. All right, that's the problem. So, I'm not disclosing anything because I got nothing to disclose. I just don't know what the truth is. I'm I'm as stunned, shocked, and and appalled as the rest of as as the rest of you. Which is why I was happy to discuss uh the publicly disclosed elements of this case as as they relate to chain of custody for the sheath and as they relate to the untested DNA evidence from the hair found in Ethan's hand. All this was was obscured in different ways. And so bringing that to light is actually not a violation. It's a responsibility. If you don't think that's your responsibility, please God, stay out of this profession.

[00:26:45]>> We are gonna get there. Absolutely. But I got I got something. Uh um because I'm an appellet attorney. Uh I I do primarily civil appeals, family law, and so forth. But I certainly understand the appella process. And I know that with criminal appeals, uh, one big, uh, avenue for challenging even a plea is ineffective assistance of counsel. Now, as I understand it, a lot of times defense attorneys are almost encouraging of their clients, you know, hey, you need to you need to pursue this. You need to look at ineffective assistance of counsel. Get with a an appellet attorney or post judgment attorney.

[00:27:27]Yeah.

[00:27:27]>> Um I is is that your experience in general?

[00:27:32]>> Let's just talk in general not about this particular case.

[00:27:36]>> Okay.

[00:27:37]>> So that we can we can dial in. All right. Yeah, >> in general, I am often called uh in appellet contexts for major cases, you know, death penalty cases or, you know, LWAP life without parole cases to do a review to determine whether or not, let's say, for example, if the attorney had hired an expert such as myself at the time of the trial, using those standard practices, using those uh protocols and procedures that are available at the time, using the science available at time, would they discovered the evidence that was missed. That's one of the reasons why I have a library that's worth about 30 grand because I I collect old forensic and investigative textbooks because sometimes I'm asked to go back to 1970. Sometime sometimes I'm focused on 1980, sometimes it's 2005.

[00:28:26]What were the practice standards at the time? So, this is a very normal involvement for me. We call it IA ineffective assistance of counsel. Uh, and if you can demonstrate that the attorney was ineffective in terms of hiring experts or using experts or investigating evidence, it's a big deal.

[00:28:43]Like for example, I do a lot of case work in Kansas and they had a I can't remember the stupid rule the case, but it was a case involving a cell phone evaluation and the defense attorney did not have the cell phone extracted and examined. It was sitting in police holding and when the appellet attorney got involved, they found a bunch of stuff on it apparently. And so they used that. They took that all the way to the Supreme Court of Kansas who ruled that um fa negligent failure to engage an expert to examine critical evidence is actually a reversible air evidencing ineffective instances of counsel. So your question is apppropo and it is absolutely relevant to this to the present case that we're in. U imagine again an expert who did not want to have that hair tested, [laughter] right?

[00:29:30]>> [snorts] >> How how do you argue that?

[00:29:33]>> I think we all [ __ ] our pants when we read um that in Chris's book. Excuse my you know. That's literally what I think most of us did. Uh there was we were all reading it together till late late hours in the night texting each other going >> there's hair there's hair in his fist.

[00:29:50]>> It's not just that there's hair in his hand. Okay, because this is really important to understand the context. I'm glad we're bringing this up. The hair in the hand was described in report in investigative and forensic reports as debris. There's no debris. Debris indicates like multiple different types of small sort of maybe commercial material. Maybe hair, maybe dust, maybe piece of pieces of paint or carpet, things like that. 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 to his to the actual bed frame. And I didn't know it was there because it wasn't in the reports and it wasn't being discussed until I actually went to Moscow and examined the evidence. I examined the bed frame myself and all the other evidence in the case.

[00:30:47]>> Can you walk us through that? when you went to the locker with I think Payne escorted you, right?

[00:30:51]>> All they were all there. We had um we had uh you know, everybody was there. We had we had Payne and his and one another guy and we had the defense defense investigator taking pictures and I took pictures and you know this is not some again this is not some secret I build for it. Somebody can want to go look at it. They can see it's in my report that I actually went there and and documented everything before I come to came to my conclusions. And one of the things I found was this huge amount of blood with a bunch of hair in. I'm like, "What the hell is this?" [laughter] >> And like, "Oh, yeah, that's the hair."

[00:31:23]>> So, it was not evident in the documentation that I Yeah. It wasn't evident in the documentation that I had, nor in the investigative reports, nor in the autopsy report. It was written in such a way >> to obscure that fact, which in my view is um problematic.

[00:31:38]And of course, at the time, everybody else thought it was problematic, too.

[00:31:43]So it was, this is again, this is not secret. This is something that everybody knows. It was submitted to the FBI for macroscopic, not microscopic, but macroscopic examination, which means looking at the uh physical features of the hair, the length, the color, the shape, the curls, the all that good stuff that you can describe. And they excluded it as being as coming from Brian Cobberg. In other words, they could tell this did not belong to Brian Coberg. Wrong color, too long, all that good stuff. Okay.

[00:32:12]Now the next question is let's test it and find out whose it is. Nobody wanted to test it and that is also not secret because it was never tested because it was never tested. We can infer that nobody wanted it tested. Not either side.

[00:32:24]>> So Ann did not want that tested. Ann did not want that hair tested.

[00:32:29]>> Well, it didn't get tested [laughter] and she knew about it. So that's the inference. There's no there's no there's no violation of privilege here. This is something that we know existed, didn't get tested, and they were and they knew about it. So, >> did you suggest that it should be tested?

[00:32:49]>> Veheimatly multiple times. It was even one of the last things I said I was as I was walking out the door. I I will just tell you this in general.

[00:32:59]I would not want to be on the stand with such a piece of evidence untested. I would not to be on the on the stand having to explain why. If the prosecution, well, Dr. Terby, if this was such an important piece of evidence, why wasn't it tested? That would be >> Did you ever get an explanation why the defense did not have it tested?

[00:33:21]>> No.

[00:33:26]>> Wow. [laughter] >> I have I have the same response because there's a lot of, you know, a lot of people wonder, did she know about this?

[00:33:33]Did she get this? How much discovery did she have? But it's very clear that she knew this hair existed. She knew that it should have been tested.

[00:33:41]>> I could only imagine your >> what you felt inside when you saw that at the evidence locker. I mean, if I was prosecution, yeah, I wouldn't want that tested either.

[00:33:49]>> Well, just so you know, I don't I don't have those kind I'm not a regular person. I don't have those kinds of feelings. I mean, I've been doing this a long time and I know I can kind of, how do I say?

[00:34:00]I have sort of the Cassandra syndrome problem where I know what's coming. I know what's going to happen next. And either you believe me and take action, which is why you hired me in the first place, or you don't believe me and then you suffer the consequences. Cassandra syndrome is where you're doomed to know the future but not be believed when you tell it.

[00:34:20]So when I see this, I don't sit there and go, "Oh my god, I don't have those kinds of responses." I'm like, "Well, that's interesting." You know, let's make another of that and circle back later on and we'll have a conversation.

[00:34:30]>> You don't you don't have a little school I don't get excited like a school girl over stuff like that. I get a sky like a little school girl over my cats.

[00:34:38][laughter] >> We we're the same way with family law.

[00:34:42]You get a little jaded uh unfortunately for doing it as long as we do.

[00:34:46]>> Here's the thing. It's not about being jaded for me. Because what I have learned is this. I have learned that my inept little fingers should not be in charge of anything. My inept little fingers can make things worse if I don't have all the information. So, I don't I'm not jaded. What I what I do get is disappointed. If I were jaded, I would stop doing this work. I think it's important. I think it's necessary. And I like to work with competent, ethical people. Uh, but what happens is I get disappointed by people who don't tell me the truth.

[00:35:16]>> So, I just want to expect me to keep their secrets, which I'm not going to do.

[00:35:21]>> I want to just kind of close the loop on that hair that was found in Ethan's hand. Um, you said that it was excluded as Coberers. Was it excluded as to any of the victims or any of the residents of the house as well?

[00:35:35]>> It was never compared to anyone else in the house. In fact, I'll give you another reality check here, which is that as we are all learning, we don't know all the people who were in the house that night.

[00:35:48]We don't know. We don't have that list.

[00:35:49]We we know who was who claimed to live there or who had who who were legitimately there, but we don't know who all the visitors were. We don't know where people were sleeping necessarily up until the moment of the attack.

[00:36:07]>> Were there any notable characteristics of the hair that was found?

[00:36:12]>> Yeah.

[00:36:14]>> Well, were [laughter] it's about that long. This was that long and it was a blonde reddish sort of sandy brown and um uh I didn't look at the macroscopic detail but the macroscop the macroscopic detail that they were able to discern other macroscopic detail um you know eliminated it from being coers hair is short and black right this is medium long medium length and um and blondish blondish sandy that more than that you don't need. All you need is one point of difference and you're done. So, >> was there sufficient substance to that hair that DNA testing could have been done from it?

[00:36:59]>> It's a fun question. I I don't know because I didn't examine it. What you're asking, I think, Ron, is whether or not there are roots, right?

[00:37:06]>> Yeah.

[00:37:07]>> Roots can give you one kind of DNA, but it's hair. Hair has mitochondrial DNA.

[00:37:13]You can test it for mitochondrial DNA.

[00:37:15]whether you've got if you just have the shaft. These do that all the time in other cases. So yeah, if you even got a little fragment of hair, you can test it for DNA. Not a con confirmatory amount to identify a person or a source, but you can exclude people.

[00:37:32]>> Sounds like a certain potentially a female's hair. Um >> well, I'll tell you this.

[00:37:39]>> I will I will divulge this. When other people saw it, not me. When other people saw it, they thought it was a female's hair.

[00:37:49]And I thought, okay, well, that's a good theory. It's also possibly a male's hair because men wear their hair different ways. I don't think like that, but let's not guess. That's what I always say.

[00:38:00]>> Hey, let's not guess.

[00:38:02]>> Let's test it.

[00:38:03]>> Let's test it and find out. There are people who will say and and I don't I don't mean to impugn lawyers but there are many lawyers who are not as we'll say enlightened or motivated or competent as you and they will say never ask a question you don't know the answer to that's the most nonsensical thing I've ever heard that's something from TV and movies in reality if you are trying to find out what's happening in your case you need to test the evidence that's relevant you don't ever want to go into court not knowing the answer to those questions. You don't want surprises in court. You want to go in, like the value of me, for example, is you call me in and I'll tell you both the strengths and the weaknesses of your case. You're going to know from where the blade will fall. All right? And that is much more important than me going in and going, "Rah, rah, you're so great.

[00:38:54]Your guy's innocent." I don't do that.

[00:38:55]That's nonsense. That's not help.

[00:38:58]>> It's not going to help you at all. I go in there and I say, "Here's what they got. Here's what it means. And here's uh what you need to do to figure out whether or not it's accurate.

[00:39:07]>> Do you know where do you know where that hair is still today? Is it is it still sitting in the evidence locker? Uh does and Fer have access to get that hair tested should she want to at this point?

[00:39:19]>> Um I don't know the answer to the the logistical question is where it's at right now. Couldn't tell you. It would be practice for the it would be standard practice for the FBI to return the hair to the Moscow PD. they have the custody of that hair. Um, the court can demand testing at any time if they wanted to, just like the court could demand an allocution in this case, which they didn't do, which which is actually required to make sure you're not having a false confession. And I want to make that point really quickly before I lose it. And that is that fully more than 25% of the cases that are worked by the Innocence Project involve innocent people confessing to crimes they didn't commit commit at the urgence of their attorney. Just remember that statistic.

[00:40:01]It's pretty important.

[00:40:05]>> I think it's important that you brought that up right now. In fact, >> yeah.

[00:40:09]>> Um there's other hair that was also found uh upstairs as well. Uh and one of those uh clumps of hair supposedly had bloody roots as well. Is that true?

[00:40:24]>> I don't know. I don't I'm not aware of that.

[00:40:27]>> Okay. But I mean, there have been, like I said, there have been tons of disclosures on this case subsequent to my subsequent to the plea. And once the plea occurred, my involvement was over.

[00:40:41]>> Okay.

[00:40:42]>> Yeah, it actually was. I think it was in Chris's book that there was hair found uh both uh next to Maddie and next to Kaye, which uh one of which might have had bloody roots. and uh which also was not consistent with any of the uh uh people in the house or with Brian Cobberger.

[00:41:03]So that's not something that you saw though, right? That's not something I examined. I I was focused on uh sort of reconstructing the events of the evening, focusing on the the sheath which was clearly you know pl uh sort of intentionally placed where it was a well after the crime occurred and blood had dried and focusing on the staging elements focusing on the um the timeline of events and the the meth different methods of killing that were involved and the different weapons that were involved. So >> now we're going to get to the knife sheath because I know everybody wants to talk about that, but really quick with respect to the allocation because I don't want to lose my train of thought.

[00:41:45]>> Yeah.

[00:41:45]>> Can you elab elaborate a little bit more on that? Um I mean I think we were all pretty shocked that Ryan didn't have to provide any details regarding the who, what, when, where, why of of these crimes other than him simply admitting guilt. He provided no additional information. Is this consistent with other cases that you've worked on?

[00:42:08]>> No, not not not only not consistent, it's entirely improper. It would be it would be setting the stage for a great miscarriage of justice without having some confirmatory information to demonstrate his because there's no actual direct evidence of his involvement at the crime or the crime scene. You know, we don't we don't have that. So what we need from any defendant in this case would be an explanation of what was done, how it was done, and that explanation should lead to corroborating evidence, you know, and if it doesn't, then we have a problem. And the reason why it matters is because again that statistic I cited which is that you know almost a third of cases involve clients or defendants that are pushed to take a plea that are actually innocent because they don't they feel like they don't have an advocate or don't have any support and they're they're but at the time they make the uh the they accept the plea they are alone in the world and mentally deteriorated to the point of giving up.

[00:43:08]So, >> that's something the three of us have talked about quite a bit is I don't even think we were aware of how many people uh take a guilty plea for those reasons you just described.

[00:43:20]>> It's a lot. It's a lot. And that's why people like me have a job on that part of in that part of the criminal justice realm in the appellet realm. Now, again, I have worked worse one time in Colorado for example, a guy completely confessed to killing somebody. All right. Come to find out that person was still alive. He got arrested. He got charged. The guy who confessed to killing was still alive. Right?

[00:43:44]If a person is going to take a plea, then they must allocate. And that allocution requires that they give details of the crime that nobody else has so that they can be certain that they are confessing to a crime that they actually committed. Not like in let's say in Latin America for example, people can u take that people will plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit for money and serve the time for wealthy people.

[00:44:08]That happens a lot.

[00:44:10]>> Have you seen any have you seen any cases that have been set aside made after the fact or appealed or or habius corpus based on ineffective assistance of counsel for the lack of requirement of alocus?

[00:44:25]>> No. Because again it would not be allowed to happen. No, no, nobody would allow that to happen. This this happened, this case is is replete with first times with with outlandish and bizarre occurrences that don't occur in other places. And I think we're forgetting that even though Idaho is part of the United States, the United States isn't a country of all these places that get along with the same rules and laws. It's a series of little thftdoms where people control the narratives where people can decide when the law gets applied and where and it's not like we think and I know because I work in all these there are places I won't testify anymore. I won't testify in Mississippi for example. I won't testify I won't go there where cases there are other places I won't go in the world because I know that the justice system is not reliable or ethical and participating it actually makes it look like they're being reliable and ethical when they're not.

[00:45:20]So there are places I will not lend my name to. But Idaho apparently is running its own little system there that's not abiding by sort of the the criminal justice norms in death penalty cases that I can tell.

[00:45:41]And you've worked on, it sounds like, quite a few cases where there was either DNA or some other evidence that uh led to someone being exonerated, exculpatory evidence, and they're out now.

[00:45:54]>> Yeah. Many I worked on a case just a few months ago where I got where I where my where my report Kansas versus Julius Beasley, you can look it up. It was just two months ago.

[00:46:06]And I had prepared a report in that case a year ago showing the crime scene was staged and the police had the wrong person. They arrested this homeless woman's boyfriend for stabbing her to death. And I was able to prove the crime scene was staged. The body was moved.

[00:46:20]She was killed somewhere else and dumped there. And all the all the elements were there for that. They didn't like that.

[00:46:25]But they also found out that other people had confessed to the crime describing it exactly as I had my report. And so my report, I wound up doing a second report showing that the police had gone back and tried to scrape over everybody who who had given information that was exculpatory and hide video evidence and all this good stuff. They were, you know, so the court, the DA actually, a new DA got assigned to the case, read both of my new reports and was like, "We can't take this to trial. He's not the guy." And they let him out. So I don't I never think but I don't think in those terms.

[00:46:57]I think in terms of what happened, right? And and a lot of the cases I work that are appellet cases, you know, we get people exonerated. You can go through my resume, you can see the cases I've worked where charges have been dismissed in death penalty cases or murder one cases. You can see the cases where people have been exonerated because of my testimony and that sort of thing. And you can also you you may not know, but I've also worked quite a bit for the police and for attorney general's offices in different parts of the world assisting with prosecutions and assisting with keeping the right people in jail and keeping the wrong people from going to jail. So the world is full of ethical attorneys and ethical investigators and ethical um prosecutors and sometimes they do the right thing when when the evidence is presented to them in the right way.

[00:47:40]>> Suppose a an appellet attorney came to you on behalf of Brian. We don't know if he's talked with anybody or if that's in the works or anything, but let's suppose that an appellet lawyer came and talked to you and and wanted to see maybe with another expert. Do you have any evidence any any uh thing that you can offer that you think would provide good grounds for this being set aside in some some manner would you have a lot to give them? Well, yes. My report [laughter] my report and the report of every other guilt phase expert working on the case.

[00:48:18]So, every guilt phase expert submitted a report that in lines that lines up with mine, every one of them. So the So what I'm telling you is this is a bizarre occurrence that comes way out of left field with no change in the status of the evidence that appears to point every arrow away from Brian Goldberger. Um I I would say this. I will say it another way. Often in cases like this, I anticipate a future involvement being called at the ineffective assistance of council hearing for the attorneys involved >> because again like I like we started out talking about this. Can you imagine a situation where a forensic expert was uh involved directly in trying to conceal exculpatory evidence of the from the defendant? Can you imagine that? I'm not gonna I'm not going to live that life.

[00:49:06]That's not going [laughter] to work. I h I have to make sure that everyone understands it. The other problem is there's nobody talking to Coberg except for his family and his attorney, which is still Anne Taylor, which again is, I think, a little problematic, but that's not my call.

[00:49:22]>> That's a lot of problematic.

[00:49:25]>> Well, that's that's a lot. Um I really I really hope his family at some point uh sees that maybe they should be talking to someone else at some point. I don't know how that'll happen if she's controlling everything and access to him, which appears to be what's going on. I mean, how we we talked about this in the pre-in that is that uh I don't know what Mr. Cobberger knows or does not know. I don't know what he's been provided or not. I don't know how he's been provided that. I don't have any information about that. What I do know is in general when you're working especially on a death penalty case, uh you have to have a defendant who's actively involved and capable of participating in their defense because they are the decision maker. In this case, what do we got? The argument was not I didn't make this argument. This was a public argument made by Anne Taylor. So, it's not a secret. I think she thinks everything she says is a secret. It's not. Um the reality is that the argument was he was had mental issu mental health issues. he was not uh he was mentally infirm in a lot of different ways and had different disabilities that he was dealing with.

[00:50:32]That was her presentation to the world.

[00:50:34]If you accept that is truth, then it's difficult to see how he could participate meaningfully in his defense.

[00:50:42]even given all information. What >> just to just to clear up because I think you kind of have already said it, but >> it wouldn't be standard practice for you to ever communicate within the scope of your role as an expert with Brian, but you you never had communication with Brian.

[00:50:58]>> No, let's make this very clear. I get asked because a lot of times I get confused for a psychologist.

[00:51:03]A lot of times judges and attorneys, they confuse my role for that as of a psychologist. I had a report today that the client wanted me to write about the psychological impact of X, Y, and Z. And I'm like, I'm not doing that. I'm not a psychologist. Hire a psychologist for that. Um, I don't talk to defendants unless I absolutely have to. I've done it maybe in 30 years. I've done it maybe eight times, maybe. And that's only to go over facts and details at a crime scene to help me understand what happened when they were already stating there was like a self-defense case and they're saying, "This is what happened. Let me show you how that makes sense. I don't go interview serial killers. I don't go interview mass murderers. I don't interview defendants. I don't collect, you know, mugs and photographs of myself with people. I'm not a trophy collector.

[00:51:50]That's sick to me. My job is to keep myself objective to the physical evidence. And if I make connections with or communicate with or relationships with defendants, that can get in the way of my objectivity. That's number one.

[00:52:02]But number two, and this is why I like talking to you guys because you're legal minds. What happens if I go talk to a defendant in the lockup and he discloses everything to me and then I go on the stand and testify? What happens?

[00:52:15]>> It compromises your report and your role as an expert.

[00:52:20]>> There's no privilege. There's no privilege. That's There you go. Sam gets the most uh points for not going.

[00:52:29]>> And didn't didn't we talked at the pregame? Didn't Anne want you to go talk to him by yourself? like not even necessarily in her presence.

[00:52:37]>> Yeah. Well, I would assume it would be in her presence or with the investigator or something, but multiple times I was asked if I wanted to meet with him and I explicitly said, "No, I don't do that.

[00:52:46]That's that's not that's not what I do.

[00:52:48]You need me to be completely objective and focused on the physical evidence, not on anything to do with what Mr. Cobberger has to say."

[00:52:58]Do >> you think there was Do you think that there was any intentional reason behind her wanting you to speak with co-orker.

[00:53:05]>> Oh yeah. She the whole thing again this is part of the misleading me. She wanted me she wanted to convince me he was innocent and I said to her I don't care when I'm on the stand and this is not again it's not a secret. I will tell this to any client who hires me. If you put me on the stand and ask me what do you think of so and so? I will say the same thing. I don't care. I don't care about Brian Coberger. I don't care about any of the other people involved. I don't care about anybody. I'm not here to make friends. I'm not here to get a date. I'm not here to get political clout. I am here to represent the physical evidence in the trial. I am here to be an objective voice for the physical evidence that exists and does not exist. That's what I do. That's the value that I bring. Uh if I don't if I can't do that, then I have no real value is my my opinion.

[00:53:52]>> And we'll get into all your your scientific based conclusions at the end.

[00:53:57]But I know there's so many comments. So many people want to know um Can we just give them a little taste of what you believe the the evidence has shown with respect to uh him being guilty?

[00:54:12]>> Well, first of all, he is guilty legally. Guilt is a legal posture. He confess he he he uh stated that he was guilty in court and the the ca the court um basically said, "Yep, you're guilty and here's your sentence." Okay. So from a legal posture, he's he's legally guilty. Here's the problem, and this is the conflation of things. You can be legally guilty and factually innocent.

[00:54:39]Happens all the time. You can be factually guilty and legally innocent.

[00:54:43]Happens all the time. Okay? So the legal posture is you guilty. Okay? That legal posture can change. It it is not uh how do I put this? The law can be negotiated, but science cannot. Okay? [laughter] The law is negotiated, not uh there. Well, I'll say it the same way I said this in West Memphis back in the day, back in the back in the 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.

[00:55:20]That's all you got. 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. And by the way, that's why the prosecution was very clearly interested in making deal.

[00:55:43]>> Yeah. Doesn't explain why the defense made the deal.

[00:55:49]>> Nope. Doesn't matter.

[00:55:52]All right, let's let's get into the knife sheath. Let's get let's get in let's get into that. Sam, you wanna want to start us off with uh that section?

[00:56:01]>> Yeah. I mean, well, I just want to hear from you, Dr. Turvy. How did what what happened? How did you first go there's an issue with the sheath? Because that's one of the biggest pieces of quote unquote evidence that everyone's talking about that the prosecution is always pointed at Brian about.

[00:56:18]>> Yeah. Well, I mean, there's quite a few problems. And the first one is its placement. It is very clearly underneath one of the victim's thighs, sticking out, covered by a comforter, and very evident when you look at it in the photographs. It's hard to miss. Uh, but the problem is the knife sheet itself is clean, for lack of a better word.

[00:56:42]It's not been used. So, that's the first thing. There's no usage. It's not like somebody wore it on their belt and not like somebody scratched it or pulled things in and out or pulled a knife in and out of it. It's it's pristine other than little fle a couple little areas of flexcks of blood. So that's first problem. One, it's placement the location. You can't drop it and find it in that spot. And you can't uh there's not there's no evidence of usage of the of the sheath and there's no evidence of any massive bloody transfer which would be expected. If somebody slid that under there, that person would have the bloody hands. We assume [laughter] and we infer that it would have bloody hands and there would be blood on there's no blood like that on no transfer from hands and only a little bit of spatter, but it's on top of a sheet that is covered with a starfield of uh blood spatter. Okay? And that's that blood spatter is not how do I put it? And this is again it's not secret. This has all been revealed. This has all been revealed over and over again. It's just a question of putting it together.

[00:57:41]uh the she the sheath itself has no transfer from that blood on the sheet to the top of the sheath as it slid into that position and none of them are none of those transfers are smeared which means it happened after the blood dried the first set of problems we got the second thing is it was originally observed to be on the floor by Taylor at the crime scene all right much later on and then finally of course after I'd written my report. Uh we had done a we a very good job was done of going through some chain of custodies and I was given this chain of custody said Turvy, what do you think? Uh because we we think it's a problem but maybe you have a different opinion because you're a forensic scientist and we're not. What do you think? And I'm like this is this chain of custody has been falsified.

[00:58:28]People go to jail for that. People get they get put on leave, investigated, fired, and then uh criminally investigated and go to jail for that.

[00:58:38]So >> not in Idaho apparently apparently it's no big deal.

[00:58:44]>> Well, anytime you have an off anytime you have an attorney or a police officer telling you that chain of custody is no big deal, that to me is a red flag that suggests you should look at every one of their cases to see whether or not they've been falsifying chain of custody because a lot of a lot of agencies put up with it. A lot of agencies will just ignore when a chain of custody has been falsified.

[00:59:03]>> Yeah. And of course, of course, the law enforcement there has said there was no problem with the chain of custody. But what what I think I've seen as an explanation given was yes, there's the handwritten chain of custody, which may have been done after the fact or or put on there, but there's also these barcodes. Was there a an electronically kept chain of custody?

[00:59:25]>> That's BS. [laughter] Don't hear it. I can't even respond.

[00:59:29]>> Oh my god, it's so bad. It really, whoever is saying that has no idea what a chain of custody is and what the barcodes are for. The barcodes are for locating the item on the shelf. Has nothing to do with the chain of custody.

[00:59:44]A chain of custody is about who's handled the evidence, who's opened it and closed it, who's received it, who's who's transported it, so that you can determine whether or not the evidence has been tampered with or altered inappropriately or and and therefore who's responsible. If you go through and have one person just create one for everybody, that's not everybody. It's like the same as signing an affidavit.

[01:00:05]It's a swarm document saying, "I am receiving this. I opened it and I examined it and there's going to be a report and then I'm giving it back and somebody else comes and checks it out."

[01:00:14]You know, it's a big So, the idea the barcode thing that's somebody who is anybody who's talking about the barcodes as being a chain of custody, uh, they are a functional illiterate when it comes to uh, forensic science and uh, evidence custod custody of evidence.

[01:00:29]functionality.

[01:00:30]>> That's even some attorneys. I was watching a podcast I think last night and they're I think they were PI attorneys, but one was actually a DA for a long time and now he's a criminal defense and he was completely trying to downplay the chain of custody and how it really wasn't that big deal. And even if it was uh there was a a broken chain of custody, it very likely would not have even impacted the outcome. But Sam and I were >> not with him as an attorney. It wouldn't have. [laughter] >> And what if it would have >> So everybody should take note of who that guy was and never hire him for anything.

[01:01:03]>> Terrible. Terrible. I had terrible.

[01:01:06]>> There's a lot of ignorance on this issue. But any basic textbook on forensic science explains this very clearly. And what you want to do is have a forensic scientist explain it slowly like they're talking to a fifth grader when they explain this to attorneys, prosecution or defense or police officers. Because this kind of stuff puts people in puts officers in jail when they fabricate what's called falsification of uh what do we call we call tampering with evidence, falsification of public documents, false reporting and forgery. [laughter] Can you think of any legitimate circumstance where the chain of custody as it appeared in this written by one person, you know, the same handwriting would be legitimate or would be there would be a good explanation.

[01:01:50]>> You can't vouch for somebody else. Let's do it this way. Let's say it this way.

[01:01:55]We're gonna do a uh a drug test of me and we're going to take those drug tests and put it into a into a bag and then I'm going to hand it to, you know, I'll hand it to one of you and you'll receive it. Then you'll hand it to somebody else and you'll receive it and you'll hand it to somebody else and they'll receive it.

[01:02:11]And then it'll be at the lab and you test it. Okay. But then we forgot to do it. So let's just have me go and do it all. through the whole chain of custody and sign your names on everything and then we're going to go into court and say this is a legitimate chain of custody for all the people that examined it and it vouches for everyone. Is that legitimate? Would you trust that?

[01:02:31]>> No.

[01:02:32]>> Exactly.

[01:02:34]>> You're recreating you're trying to recreate history. Well, remember there was a I actually in response to sort of Anne Taylor's bizarre claims, I posted a couple of articles uh related to uh this very issue where law where law enforcement officers had been fired for falsifying chain of custody. But there was an even bigger there's a bigger one. There was a I can't remember if it was Austin, Texas or Dallas Fort Worth, but it was one of the Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Labs. They had a huge DNA scandal, a series of them between 2000 and 2008 that got their DNA lab shut down. And one of the things they did was they brought in a new admin and her job was to go through and make sure all the evidence lined up and was was secure and safe and where it was supposed to be, right? The barcodes. We do we can we find it? Can we find it in the evidence custody uh the custody the the evidence locker? Well, she didn't have chain of custody for a bunch of the items of DNA, so she just went around and fabricated them and asked people about them. She got fired for that. She got fired when that came out. All right? Because it is an illegitimate, unethical, incompetent, and fraudulent scientific process.

[01:03:46]You're trying to bolster the credibility and reliability of a piece of evidence by fabricating all the names and signing it yourself. And when you do that, put your job at risk. Would the prosecution have been able to rehabilitate that by bringing in all the people whose names allegedly appeared on that to say, >> you know, that that's that's the argument, right? That I think is their posture that that well, we would just bring in people and have them testify about, you know, that they that they actually did do it. That would work potentially, except one, I think the defense would have a huge problem with that because you really can't know whether or not these people are telling the truth. well after the fact. But two, not every examination that was known to be done on that sheath was a part of the chain of custody.

[01:04:36]>> It was missing. It was missing some of the some of the examinations.

[01:04:40][laughter] >> Wow.

[01:04:42]>> In Chris's book, he indicates that there was a period of time it was missing, too, >> which is even more concerning.

[01:04:51]>> Yeah. So even if the sheath was not excluded by Judge Hippler, which you know, who knows what he was going to do based on what he'd done previously, >> but there still would have been a huge reasonable doubt there for the jury on whether the the sheath had been tampered with or could have been tampered with.

[01:05:14]>> That's exactly right.

[01:05:17]>> Yeah. Yeah, and Ron, I think that's a good point because I I I know that everyone brings up the chain of custody and some people are saying it's not an issue, but when you're looking at the admissibility of potential evidence at trial, it certainly is an issue, what a judge would do with it may be a different thing. Whether you'd agree with that or not, but it's still a very important issue because if it is excluded, then you can't even talk about that at all. It's out >> or what's or the little piece of DNA in the clasp. Here's the point.

[01:05:45]The people who are saying that are people who already decided what they want to be true or what not to be true.

[01:05:51]But let's ask ourselves a basic question. It's like saying physical evidence isn't important or necessary.

[01:05:57]If that's true, then why do we have crime labs? Why do we bother to train people to collect evidence? Why do we bother to train people to test evidence?

[01:06:05]Why do we have a whole realm of the criminal justice system dedicated to forensic science and the interpretation of forensic evidence? Why is that important? But more importantly, why is the chain of custody right on the outside of the bag? Why is it right there for everyone to see? And why why are we bothering to do the signatures?

[01:06:22]Why does that matter? Because it's super important for reliability and for admissibility.

[01:06:29]It's super important. And pretending it's not is when you do that, it kind of shows your cards a little bit. Shows your cards. shows who you really are as a as a as a criminal justice professional or even as a commentator that you've already decided and you don't want to hear it.

[01:06:46]>> And this this chain of custody issue with the sheath, this was something that you were bringing to Anne Taylor's attention right about the time the plea came down, right?

[01:06:56]>> Yeah. Well, it was brought to my attention and then it was it was asked to me as a question >> and I answered the question and then I was given the assignment of going and looking at all the change of custody for all their other ports important uh >> and what point was that though when it was brought to your attention Dr. Trivia at what point roughly >> was that at?

[01:07:18]>> Well, I don't know when everybody else knew but they it was a question uh that arose at some point. I couldn't tell you when, but I was brought to my attention about a week prior and then I was given the task of looking of running down change of custody on other items.

[01:07:39]>> That's not a secret.

[01:07:41]>> I'm assuming you shared your conclusions based on your uh research. I'm assuming you shared those with Miss Taylor >> for sure.

[01:07:52]And you didn't even really have a chance to finish those tasks by the time he plead guilty, right?

[01:07:59]>> Well, I can't answer that. [laughter] >> Okay.

[01:08:06]>> I completed a lot of Let's put it this way. I completed a lot of tasks.

[01:08:10][laughter] >> Okay. What were there other items of evidence that there were chain of custody issues that you did find?

[01:08:20]Uh, I think that's a that's a that's a question that needs to be answered later. I can I can only discuss what's publicly disclosed.

[01:08:26]>> Okay.

[01:08:27]>> But I think that's a reasonable question that we should be asking. Everyone should be asking that question.

[01:08:33]>> All right. I already got you pencled in for part two, Dr. Tvy. That's >> a year from now after the IA hearing, right? [laughter] >> There's got to be an IA hearing, right?

[01:08:45]>> There has to be.

[01:08:47]>> No, there doesn't have to be at all. As long as Anteo is the attorney representing Brian Cobberger, there's not >> there's not any chance of that.

[01:08:56]>> Justice requires it. I >> Well, I would I would agree. I I will just say this. Science and justice both require a level of transparency that we're not experiencing in this case.

[01:09:11]>> Can I ask this?

[01:09:13]>> You can ask whatever. Was [laughter] any DNA found on that night sheet ever directly tied to Brian Ober?

[01:09:23]>> Not that I'm aware of.

[01:09:28]>> Well, then how why are we seeing that all over the place that people are saying that Brian Coberger's DNA was found on the >> It is right now. Ed, you guys are smart people. I like you guys. You're smart.

[01:09:39]So, how many things do you see daily being discussed about this case that have no basis in reality?

[01:09:46]>> A lot.

[01:09:47]>> Yeah.

[01:09:47]>> So much [ __ ] >> Yep.

[01:09:50]>> Yeah.

[01:09:51]>> That's the answer.

[01:09:52]>> So, I know in the book uh the the Well, actually, initially the first crime lab that the sheep was sent to, they returned it saying there's no chain of custody, right?

[01:10:03]>> Well, no. Well, no. That was that was You're confusing two different events.

[01:10:08]All right. One is the Idaho State Police Crime Lab. They are the ones who originally said, "Hey, we got the sheath now. I need a chain of custody form for this because there's not one on it." So, they asked for one and a few days later, Moscow police sent them one that they had fabricated. All right. Then there's the other issue of the testing of the DNA on the sheath, which is about on the clasp, which is which was done at the lab in Texas. I think the initial testing. So these are two separate issues.

[01:10:37]>> The lab in Texas author >> sorry what >> was that? Authorum labs the lab in Texas.

[01:10:47]>> I can't recall independently. I don't that was the DNA was not my part was not my area of expertise. The DNA interpretation was not my area of expertise. What I know is that at the Franks hearing, pretty much everyone agreed that this was that the DNA that they found was an investigative lead and not sufficient to make an identification.

[01:11:08]>> That's so Yeah, I know that in the book in in Wickcom's book, Chris's book, uh he indicated that the FBI essentially gave Brian Cover's name to local law enforcement as a tip. Said that's as strong as they can get. Do you have any information about that or did he get that from others?

[01:11:27]>> That's something you'd have to ask the FBI about. I don't uh [laughter] I mean I think that answers the question that everybody who testified at the Frank hearing did not perceive this as a uh as a nail in the coffin. They perceived it as an investigative lead that should be followed up on.

[01:11:46]But then, you know, cameras start rolling and people get in front of the camera and a microphone gets stuck in their face and they don't want to look like a slapped ass, so they start saying stuff.

[01:11:57]I'm more than happy to look like a slapped ass, by the way. [laughter] >> Well, I can tell you, Dr. Turvy, this case, it needed you. It needed Chris. It needed >> you to speak out. I I I can tell you as three attorneys sitting here, it is wild to me how few professionals have actually spoken out about how badly this case has been screwed up.

[01:12:22]>> I I I I I've thought about that a lot.

[01:12:24]I'm glad you brought that up because I've thought about a lot. There's nothing remarkable about what I'm doing in this case given my 30 years of experience with other cases. I'm just doing it the same way I do all my cases.

[01:12:36]uh following the law, making sure that breeding materials disclosed, making sure the testing occurs, it should should occur, giving good advice to uh make sure that everybody's rights are protected. My real question is why are so many other people frightened and not speaking up? And the reason why in my opinion is that they're afraid they're they're one either one they're compromised by money or two they get clo little close to something that they've never been close to before. A little little power, little celebrity, a little something and they get excited and they just run a muck. They start doing things that are against their nature. And I I'm used to being somebody who is not popular. I'm not interested in being popular. I'm not interested in making friends or and I'm I'm preserving my professional integrity for my other cases. That's what I do when I'm thinking about making I I have more than once dumped myself off a case because an attorney was engaging in inappropriate unethical behavior. And I said, "I'm out. I'm out and I'm not doing this and you go do your own thing on your own."

[01:13:36]That doesn't mean I need to speak up about it because maybe just unethical behavior that I don't like. Like maybe they're using cocaine or maybe they're cheating on their spouse and I find that out and I don't I don't want anything to do with them. a hand grenade with a pin pole and I don't want to be around when it goes off. Okay. Um, but I think there's a lot of people who don't know how to behave anymore. I think we're missing people that know how to behave in the criminal justice system. I think everyone who's is trying to get their glory. And I want to ask this directly so everybody can know. How much am I being paid for this interview?

[01:14:08][laughter] >> I'm not paying.

[01:14:13]>> That's right.

[01:14:14]>> Did I ask for anything in exchange for this interview? Absolutely nothing.

[01:14:19]>> No, nor would I. I already been paid for my for my time and my work on this case.

[01:14:23]I don't need money is not is the least in my interest. Uh because I'm protecting my reputation for future cases. Right. I have other cases I'm working in. My reputation has to be protected for those, not just this one.

[01:14:37]Right.

[01:14:39]And one of the things that grabbed >> our attention to you is when we were going through the reports, this is even before we had ever even talked for the first time for our pre-all, you know, over a month ago.

[01:14:49]>> Okay. Yeah.

[01:14:50]>> Your report, it provided conclusions and ex your expert opinion, which is what so many of the prosecutions experts did not do. They couldn't tie things together.

[01:15:01]They didn't even most of them didn't even give an expert opinion, which is the purpose of an expert. But, you know, I I would say the three of us uh did a pretty good job on your report when we were going through all of the issues um with not even knowing everything we know today. But you were very very methodical and scientific and your analysis was always spoton. And >> remember, I didn't give you and remember I didn't give you that report. Let's do a little timeline here.

[01:15:28]>> I didn't have to.

[01:15:29]>> I'm talking about the uh sorry, it's the the one that that was released. It is that's right >> sudden response to my report where she basically agrees with everything >> and says everything I'm saying is possible and comes to no real conclusions of her own other than uh he must have been naked running through the house committing the crime. That's how he didn't have transfer material on him.

[01:15:51]>> That might be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

[01:15:54]>> It's her trying to make her client happy. This is the problem. If you only work for one side or if you're trying to get work with another side, you you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to make people happy. I never worry about making people happy. I know they're going to be mad with me when I'm done, so I don't care. But the point is this my my report and the findings in my report were released in that disclosure and then published by Fox News back in January or February 2025. Then in March 202, no, when was it? Was it this year?

[01:16:24]People magazine, I think this year, got a copy of my report in in Discovery, or at least they said they did, and then they produced a whole article about it.

[01:16:34]What's interesting is they didn't contact me to ask me for comment. So, that was interesting, too.

[01:16:39]>> That is interesting.

[01:16:40]>> Yeah. But, so, so my findings are out there. They're already out there.

[01:16:44]They're publicly available. And I'm one of the only experts whose findings from the defense are available. But I can tell you this, I wasn't standing on the corner by myself.