BROKEN PLEA REVIEW PART 2 (Ch 3-5)

Added: 2026-05-11

[00:00:00]Welcome back, y'all. Are y'all surprised to see me back so soon? It's the good thing about our Broken Plea review. I can do this a lot faster than my normal videos. This is going to be part two of my review on the Broken Plea book by Christopher Wickcom, the ex FBI agent.

[00:00:16]In the last video, we went through the prologue and chapter 1 and chapter 2.

[00:00:20]So, we're going to pick up this time with chapter 3. So, let's go ahead and get started. D. That's the Broken Plea remix intro. The title of chapter 3 is Princess Poe's White Claw Stain 26. And chapter 3 starts out laying the state's foundation of the case. And it does say something worth noting right here on the front page that I don't think many people are aware of about the justice system. He points out that prosecutors are allowed to dump huge caches of information at the last possible moment with no formal organization or reference, forcing defendants and their attorneys to play catch-up all the way to trial. This is a distinct advantage for the state, of course, because they control the timeline and the narrative.

[00:01:00]Prosecuting attorneys typically have huge resources at their disposal.

[00:01:04]Everything from local, state, and federal agencies with high-tech labs to subject matter experts and grand jury secrecy laws that shield their work from prying eyes until the moment they make arrests. It's never been a fair playing field between the prosecution and the defense. The prosecution always has the home advantage. And on page 74, he says something about Anne Taylor that I did not know. I knew that Anne Taylor was the defense attorney that was qualified for death penalty cases. I did not realize that she had never defended a death penalty case before Brian Cobberger. Chris Wickham states right here that much of her experience involved low-level drug charges, DUIs, and the occasional assault. Because Lal County, Idaho, has one of the lowest crime rates in the state with one of the lowest crime rates in the nation. She had never defended a death penalty case.

[00:01:52]I didn't realize that. I guess I thought that Ann Taylor was more qualified than that. Or I guess not qualified, it would be experienced. I thought she was more experienced than that. This page also points out something that I also feel is important to understand because this is an argument that I've heard a lot. Every time something new comes out about the case, somebody will say, "Well, what does it matter? Because Anne Taylor and the defense team had all this information." It's just new to us. It's not new to the defense. It's just new to us. And I always think to myself, what does that have to do with anything?

[00:02:23]Because just because Ann Taylor's defense team might have had it doesn't mean they had the chance to actually look at it. A lot of information was dumped in her lap all at once. Page 74 says, "Anne Taylor received 51 terabytes of Brady disclosure material, which may seem like fair play until you realize that the bulk of it arrived just months before the trial and she had to go through it by herself. Bill Thompson's team enjoyed broad discretion in how they submitted their files. I discovered a great deal of exculpatory evidence in mislabeled folders, for instance. Okay, I have a little bit of a problem with that last claim he made that I discovered a great deal of exculpatory evidence in mislabeled folders. And my problem here is only because I've actually gone through the book. I I read the whole thing already.

[00:03:12]if he really found a great deal of exculpatory evidence, where is it?

[00:03:19]Where where is it in this book? Now, there are things that I would consider exculpatory or at least enough to definitely throw a wrench in the trial, but the trial didn't happen as we know.

[00:03:31]And exculpatory evidence, I don't know if maybe he's using that term too lightly because exculpatory means, you know, it could clear someone's name. It would prove him innocent. But as far as I can tell, he never clarifies in this book what exculpatory evidence he means by that. I really wish that he would have released a lot of the documents he has, like the official documents or even maybe photos to back something up or just something. I mean, if he has the hard drive with the entire Brady disclosure, do you know what we could do with that?

[00:04:06]like Chris Wickcom, release it to the public, homie. You got the files. Give it to us. I kind of want to know, is there a legal reason why he can't do that?

[00:04:19]Is there some kind of laws that restricts him from releasing the files that he received? I could see why someone who worked for the defense, who was like an expert on the case, like Brent Turby, where he could not release things without getting in legal trouble.

[00:04:32]But Chris Wickholm is not bound by the same rules as the experts that worked on the case.

[00:04:42]So, I'm just wondering if he could release it if he wanted to, like the entire Brady disclosure, like dump the files on the public, watch what we can do with them, you know? I'm kind of wondering if somebody should, you know, sweet talk Chris Wickcom into that, you know, butter him up a little bit. Get get real friendly.

[00:05:01]Oh, Lana, I have a job for you. Chris Wickcom was very impressed with her.

[00:05:07]Lana, you should do that. Anyways, let's keep going. On the next page, page 76, he points out that not only was the public denied access to exculpatory evidence, as is standard when there is a plea deal, but they were never even told it existed. True. True. The state always made it sound to the public like they had it in the bag. There was no doubt it was Brian Cobberger. No other possibility. Everything lined up so perfect.

[00:05:30]but clearly not. But then he says, "Fortunately, all that has changed based on leaks from conscientious sources. We now know that on September 27th, 2023, Bill Thompson's office reached out to a Memphis based criminologist named Plet Sutton." Now, that didn't come from a leak, though. We have Sutton's report.

[00:05:48]It was released with a lot of the other documents.

[00:05:51]I don't think that came from a leak.

[00:05:52]That was just released. But throughout the rest of this chapter, he's really going through Sutton's report. That's like the main focus of it. And we've already gone through Sutton's report in detail in like part four or five of the Idaho4 series. And Sutton's report is very revealing. She tries to lay out the prosecution's case, but she also unintentionally I think highlights a lot of the flaws in their narrative. And in case anyone isn't familiar with Pette Sutton, she was the state's blood stain analysist. All the stains that Sutton speaks about in her report are blood stains. Just to be clear, I know some people point out that, you know, not every stain was a blood stain.

[00:06:34]True, but the ones she was discussing are blood stains. On page 79, Chris Wickholm says, "We need to lay the groundwork of what she and the prosecution believed in order to discover the extent of what they arguably got wrong." And he kind of goes through here and says the sliding glass door on the south side of the building to the kitchen is where they believe is the entry and the exit of the killer. He even says here that few would argue that the killer or killers entered or exited the house by any other means. Well, I for one would argue that because I still kind of think it could have been the balcony was the entry point, but we're just going to follow along with what he's saying. Then he talks about how the third story was where Kaylee and Maddie's rooms were. And here we have some more details on Kaylee and Maddie and the possible posing of their bodies.

[00:07:18]He's discussing what the photos in Sutton's summary shows, which we can't really see most of the photos. They're redacted on our version. As he points out, though blurred and redacted images released by police, Kaylee Gonzalez and Mattie Mogan were found laying on their backs in a full-size bed, partially covered with a beige comforter. Kaye was lying at top Mattiey's right arm, shoulder, and torso with her left hand folded adjacent to her chin. Numerous observers have stated that Maddie was placed in a princess pose and that the two bodies appear to have been staged as if they were cuddling. What is a princess pose? I'm not sure what he means by that. I don't know why when I think princess pose I think this like but maybe because that's the way my daughter smiles in her pictures and she's always wearing princess dresses so that could be why I'm thinking that.

[00:08:08]Otherwise, I'm not I'm not really sure what a princess pose would be. But I do like that they mentioned here that the two bodies appear to have been staged as if they were cuddling.

[00:08:18]Obviously, they couldn't have fallen that way, right? Leaned up on each other like that. And just like so many of the victims, three out of four being covered with a blanket indicates that their killer knew them, I feel like this also indicates that the killer knew them. The fact that their bodies were placed as if they were cuddling is like a reflection of the killer knowing how close those two girls were. So to me, that seems like a very relevant detail.

[00:08:46]He goes on to say that offering her expert opinion, Sutton wrote that the posture and proximity of the bodies of Kaylee and Maddie can be best visualized when the comforter is removed. No blood is noted on the bottom or tops of their feet, indicating that they were not upright or moving about the area after their bloodletting injuries were inflicted. She used a series of gruesome images to make her point. And this part is something we didn't know. Kaylee was found in tartan pajama bottoms, so like plaid pajama bottoms with her legs spread wearing an athletic sock on her left foot and a second sock beneath her right calf. I am so glad he said that because Kayle's lost sock has plagued me for a long time. For a minute, I wondered if the sock found on the living room floor could have been Kayle's because as we can see, there's a Doc Martin type boot right beside it. And at one point, Dylan said something along the lines of Kaylee was wearing Doc Martens going up and down the stairs and that's how she knew or that all the girls wear Doc Martens and she could hear Kayle's Doc Martens. So, I was always a little concerned that that was Kayle's Doc Martin and Kayle's sock. But it does say here that that second sock was found in the bed with her. Then it says that Mogan was rolled slightly to her side with her left foot hanging off the edge of the bed and her foot on the floor. We talked about that a little bit in the last one because I was talking about how by her foot there was supposedly some type of debris and the debris found in Ethan's hand makes me wonder what in the world the debris was by Mattiey's foot. And Chris Wickcom never talks about the debris by Mattiey's foot. It's never described again. It's mentioned one time in Sutton's report, but otherwise it's unressed. I have no idea what it could be. However, this next page does talk about hair also found in the bed with Kaylee and Maddie. Just like with Ethan, Sutton wrote in her report, "Drip stains, spatter stains, transfer stains, and saturation stains are visible in the comforter and on the exposed bed sheets.

[00:10:47]Apparent strains of hair are also visible on the comforter."

[00:10:52]We do have that in her report, but she did not specify anything about the hair or definitely didn't make it sound like it was the hair of another person. So, I first assumed these strains of hair probably belong to one of the girls, but apparently not. Because then this says, though not otherwise discussed in Sutton's report, ISP crime scene analysis photographed two separate deposits of unidentified human hair in Maddie Mogan's bed. The first sample includes five separate clumps, dark brown or black in color, slightly curly, and approximately 2 in in length. They lie scattered over an area that appears to be 8 in in diameter between Kayle's right leg and the wall. You're telling me that unidentified human hair was found in one victim's hand and in the bed with two of the others and nobody thought that was important.

[00:11:58]You know what? The next time somebody says, "Oh, you think you're smarter than the FBI? You think you're smarter than the police?" I would start just going, "Yep." Because you know what I would not have done? Ever ignore human hair in the bed with bodies.

[00:12:17]They need to up the qualifications to be a police officer. I'm going just say that right now because apparently the bar is too low at this point. And this just gets worse from there because the next paragraph says, "The second hair sample is visible at top the beige comforter on Mattie's side of the bed, roughly between her knees. This lock of hair is several inches in length, shorter than any of the women's hair in the house, and markedly darker. And unlike the other samples, this strand appears to include bloody roots. One does not need a PhD in laboratory sciences to speculate that it was torn from someone's head.

[00:12:54]Yes, exactly. Exactly. Exactly. You do not need a PhD to realize that [ __ ] don't make sense. That's not good. Maybe we should test the bloody hair in the bed.

[00:13:08]I cannot sometimes.

[00:13:12]What is Idaho? These are the details though that make this book worth reading for real. Like there are a bunch of errors. Yes, I have a few issues with it here and there, but there are real bombshells in this book.

[00:13:27]Information we would not have any other way, but information that is hinted at in documents we've already received.

[00:13:35]Bombshells that are mentioned in passing but never elaborated on. This book does the elaborating for us. So though he is not offering proof of this I guess it does corroborate with information we already have enough that I believe we can trust these things. So that's kind of what I mean when I'm like I believe this is a credible source. I do even if there are some errors and we need to check things now and then but that type of information right there needs to be widely known and without him without this book we wouldn't have known it at all. So, I do believe that this author, no matter the complaints people may have, no matter how generally unfamiliar he may seem with this case that all of us are very familiar with, we owe him, I believe, a very sincere thank you. Thank you, Chris Wickcom.

[00:14:28]Thank you for this. So then he goes on that while this is not farfetched as think that this bloody hair probably got ripped from someone's head that Sutton's report moves past the hair without speculation or explanation which is so crazy. In this next part he quotes Sutton's report again about the large pool of blood that had accumulated at approximately the thigh region of Kaye.

[00:14:49]Even though referring to the autopsy reports, no injuries are reported in this area to account for this pool of blood. for this pool of blood to accumulate. A source of blood had to be above this area while bleeding occurred.

[00:15:00]That means Kaylee was sitting up. That's that's what she's saying. No blood on her feet or her socks, which means she wasn't up moving around, but she had to be upright when these injuries were being sustained that led to this large pool of blood that was kind of kind of hammeked in her lap. Then the book says that officer noun's body camera as well as photographs taken within the first two hours of investigation shows this pool of blood to be liquid. For blood not to dry after approximately 10 hours in a porous barrier like a bed comforter, it would have to be significant in volume. And although that volume was never measured, it seems obvious that Kaylee Gonzalezeves suffered one or more significant bloodletting injuries directly above the deposit. The only possible explanation was that she was sitting up at one point during the attack. On the next page, page 83, he quotes Sutton's report again. He says, "Image ISP 5122 depicts spatter stains associated with impact on the door casing and on the exterior surface of the bedroom door belonging to Madison Mogan." That is something else that I found very important in Sutton's report, that there was blood on the outside, the exterior of Mattiey's bedroom door. If both girls were attacked inside the bedroom, how did spatter get on the outside of the door?

[00:16:18]Spatter stains are associated with impact, not just a castoff mechanism of like movement where it gets flung.

[00:16:26]Spatter indicates impact. So, how did spatter stains get on the outside of Mattiey's door? But what she did not say is that the distance from Mattiey's head to the exterior of the door was approximately 10 ft. a trajectory like that would suggest force beyond what one would normally expect in a stabbing. And he also notes that Sutton added that spatters associated with impact were found on the underside of the shelf above the headboard of the bed, but there was no headboard on Mattiey's bed.

[00:16:57]And I think he's right about that.

[00:16:58]Actually, I forgot to go back and look at the pictures before I sat down to do this, but I can picture it pretty well.

[00:17:05]And I am 99.9% certain there is no headboard on Matty's bed. Yet the state expert is assigning blood stains to a piece of furniture that doesn't even exist.

[00:17:16]And we're supposed to believe that they got everything right. On the next page, it gives an unredacted document from Dylan Mortonson. I love that he puts in the copies of the unredacted documents.

[00:17:28]So helpful. However, this is another one that we already had unredacted. It came in the new year special, the unredacted document drop. Now, I want to skip ahead a couple of pages to page 93 and he points out that altogether police found and identified 15 separate areas where blood from victims had been transferred to flat vertical surfaces on the second floor. Three of the stains were found on the floor molding in the hallway leading to Zana's room, two west, one east, and all the rest except two on the knee wall or the south wall leading down to the first floor. Every single one of the stains documented by law enforcement laboratories tested positive for blood and was tracked via DNA to Maddie or Kaye. That's what I was telling y'all yesterday, that all the diluted blood stains on the second floor were Mattie or Kayle's. There was only that one spot of Ethan's undiluted blood and there were none attributed to Zana. He goes on to say that neither Maddie nor Kaye entered the living room after they were attacked. Meaning the killer or killers may have tracked liquid blood from the third floor and casted off as droplets while moving from the kitchen across the living room and then left down the hallway towards Zana's room. And then once again, he talks about the undiluted blood stain of Ethan's. Oddly, police found a single anomaly that if released to the public could have caused widespread uproar. Documents specify that blood matching DNA from Ethan Chapen was found on the flat wood knee wall at the opposite end of the house near the top of the stairs leading down.

[00:18:52]Sutton's report shows that due to being found naked except for unstained white socks, Ethan Chapen never left the room in which he was attacked. One, that document was released to the public. We did know that it did not cause a widespread uproar unfortunately because for some reason even when we got the documents even when people like me other creators some amazing super smart creators were talking about this and pointing these things out. Many many people didn't want to believe us because you had a bunch of other people running around telling everyone we're wrong or we're making it up or we don't know what we're talking about because we are not police.

[00:19:30]Well, a badge doesn't give you common sense. I don't need a badge to be able to think about that and go, "That's not right. You don't need a degree to use your common sense. You can use it without one." And I do think more people should utilize theirs. But then the book goes on, "Most important, crime scene photographs appear to document that two of the diluted knee wall stains were found underneath a box of white cloths."

[00:19:56]This is something else he brought up already that we kind of talked about. He says, "If true, this could prove that someone placed the box on top of the stains after Chapen was murdered." I mean, obviously it was. The blood got there and the box got on top of it.

[00:20:09]Chris Wickcom's point is that, as we will see shortly, these previously undisclosed pieces of evidence alone seem to completely [ __ ] the prosecution's assertions of a lone offender. In my mind, someone almost certainly transferred via touch Ethan Chapen's blood to the stairway after he and Zanna were murdered. It appears most likely they did so while walking down to the first floor, not fleeing the house via the kitchen. Then it goes on to talk about stain E, which is the two marks underneath the white claw box. And sentence report says about these two that stain E consists of two diluted spatter stains. The shape of these spatters show they were traveling from the area of the living room towards the stairwell opening. And she says it was a diluted stain.

[00:20:52]But then for what seems like inexplicable reasons, she notes that stain E was not tested further. So many stains were not tested further. I don't understand it. All the stains along the floor to Zana's room not tested. Like there's quite a few. They just never bothered to test at all. And then at the end of this chapter, Chris Wickcom notes something that I myself have questioned several times. It's a most excellent question. How did Ethan Chapen's undiluted blood end up at the top of the staircase leading down to the first floor when there is no evidence that anyone except Dylan went down there?

[00:21:28]Yes, that is a very large problem because how is there so much blood in that stairwell? Unknown male B. I think I'm pretty sure it was B. Was the blood on the handrail leading down to the first floor? Then you got Ethan's at the top. There were more on the walls. How did that happen if no one except the two surviving roommates were supposed to be down there? But now we're on to chapter four, and it is titled Beer Pong, $2 bill, Girl in the Window. I just love the random words he uses. In chapter 4, he spends the first few pages pointing out flaws in the legal system.

[00:22:05]Basically, the possibility of errors in police work. But I want to flip on over to page 102 and he talks about something that everyone, even people who have just casually heard about this case, will recognize. But he puts a new focus on it that I actually do appreciate here. He is talking about the beer pong table.

[00:22:25]And I really like the way he zeros in right here. In order to map a path through this chaos, we need to find a beginning, a center, a time and place from which all change flows.

[00:22:34]Fortunately, we can agree on certain things, including the fact that at 4:00 a.m. on November 13th, 2022, there was a three-story house near the middle of the U of I campus. The midpoint of the house was its open second floor. At the center of the second floor was a living room.

[00:22:50]In the center of the living room stood a white folding table. Everything that happened early Sunday morning had to pass right through it. Police seem to agree. Numerous reports mapped the killer's movements through the house, acknowledging that he entered through the sliding glass door in the kitchen, even though I don't think that's necessarily true, before moving upstairs to cruy attack his victims. Evidence shows that he walked back down to the second floor, leaving a blood trail on the walls in the banister to where he encountered Zana near the door to Dylan's room. He chased her through the living room, turned left down the hallway, killing her within arms reach of Ethan. Police believe the killer fled the second floor after encountering Dylan just moments before she ran downstairs to Bethany. In the crime scene photos, we can see for ourselves that the beer pong table was set up right in front of that door that leads to Dylan's room and to the kitchen and to the stairs to the third floor. And Chris Wickholm points out here that the police seem to have ignored the placement of that beer pong table directly in front of that door. They did not find it odd that 10 cups were neatly arranged at one end with 10 others thrown wildly from the others. They did not even try to explain how after killing Kaye and Maddie, a 6-ft tall, 185-lb blood soaked Cobberger chased a frantic Zana through the space occupied by the table without moving it an inch.

[00:24:10]Bill Thompson himself stated in court that immediately after butchering Zana and Ethan, Coberger fled back around the table on his way out the door.

[00:24:17]Throughout this whole ordeal, we are told the table never budged. If this all seems unlikely, experts appear not to have cared. And that is a very good point. The cups are something that I feel has not been focused on enough actually because remember in Bethy's statement that is one of the things she said that she could hear from her room.

[00:24:38]Murphy barking and the beer pong table moving and the cups falling. Emily Alain in her interview also mentions that when she walked up the stairs and Hunter told her to get out that she noticed that all the cups were off the table. Yet when the police show up, you've got one end of this table still in perfect beer pong formation. None of the cups have moved at all.

[00:25:06]how the book also points out that Sutton's report addressed the blood stains on the table, but never questioned how the blood stains got there. And she maps the blood spatter on the knee wall on the half wall without calculating trajectories or explaining how blood from an object in motion could have lined up precisely with a killer standing where the table was not supposed to be. But then he refers to the blood stain on the table again that was not attributed to Zana. He says here, "They did not bother to explain how Santa's blood ended up on the table's left side." That's what I mean.

[00:25:39]Why this drives me crazy. Santa's blood was not on that table on the left side.

[00:25:43]That was not her blood stain. But here he does talk about the blood stain on the table on the top of the table that's attributed to Kaye. In Sutton's report, she said that stain 39 demonstrates the appearance of diluted blood stain, but then said the presence of an overturned cup in the vicinity of stain 39 is a potential source of the dilution if the cup contained a liquid at some point or if it was part of the setup for a beer pog name. Okay. When we're talking about Kaylee stain on the table, we do see some overturned cups near it. And in Sutton's report, she does say maybe there was liquid in a cup that diluted that blood stain. Well, then at the bottom of this page, Chris Wickcom points out that these are the very same stains the detective Talbot noted in his December 6th report as appearing to be liquid. He also says that neither of the two reports note that the stains were so faint that they did not seem visible in Noon's body cam footage. But then he says that further nothing in police files indicates there was liquid in any of the overturned cups. And police found no evidence of any fluid other than blood on the table. Okay, this is confusing to me because I do agree that there appears to be no liquid in any of the cups. We can see some of that.

[00:26:50]However, someone did point out that in the body cam footage on one of the officers body cams, I don't think it was nons. I think it was maybe it was Warers, but that when he walks in, it appears like there is a liquid on that table. The table looks wet. I'm going to go back and look and if I can find that clip, I will put it here.

[00:27:46]That would make sense why Detective Talbot noted that it appeared to be liquid. That means if the table was wet when the body cam when the police came in with their body cams on, that would mean that that table had some type of liquid on it.

[00:28:01]a lot closer to when police arrived, right?

[00:28:06]Because if it would have been 10 hours, that liquid would have dried. Chris Wickcomm then says something else that is a little confusing to me because he says that Sutton does not mention that the closest overturned cup was almost 2 feet from the nearest stain. I don't think that's quite correct because we can see how close we can see some cups and a bottle really close to these to the stain. And in one of the pictures of the stain, we can see the cup like really close to it.

[00:28:37]That doesn't look 2 feet away to me, but maybe I'm bad at estimating distance. I don't know. But then the book does go on to say that Sutton does not acknowledge that none of the upright cups contained liquid as police found them, which is true. Or that none of these 16 objects found on the table showed any sign of blood. So none of the cups or the bottles on the table had any blood on it either. Sutton does not explain why the cups, the bottle, the white claw can or the bowl were not tested or even seized as evidence.

[00:29:05]Not great police work. But then Chris Wickcom wants to drive me crazy again because he makes another reference to Stain F. Like we've talked about, Stain F was not Zanna's blood. That was a mistake made in Sutton's original report that she fixed in her revised report.

[00:29:24]Turns out that particular sample was not even tested. And then at the end of the same page, he makes another reference to that dang stain and about how the stain indicates that Zana was injured in proximity to this table. No. No.

[00:29:42]That's why I said that this stain that that mistake in this book is my number one complaint because it keeps coming up over and over and over and over and it's wrong every time he brings it up and he's drawing a lot of conclusions from it. So, I just really wish that mistake would not have been put in here. However, on the next page, he does note Sutton's revised report, but somehow still missed that stain F was not Zanna's. I don't understand. He notes here that it should be noted that Sutton later revised parts of this and other findings in a state's amended supplemental disclosure, but she clearly believes Zana was injured in proximity to the table. No, she she took that part out of the amended report.

[00:30:29]I So, at first when I ran across this error, I was like, "Okay, well, this makes sense because he probably had Sutton's original report in his, you know, file dump that he got. Maybe the supplemental report wasn't put in there that would fix it and he would know, you know, that that stain wasn't Santa's."

[00:30:50]But here he's saying that he does have the revised report and that Sutton corrected some mistakes, but he's still stating that Sutton believes Anna was entered in proximity to the table.

[00:31:02]But that part was taken out of the revised report. I don't understand how he even made this error if if he had the revised report.

[00:31:16]I have that urge to face plant the wall again. And then on the same page, we still have another error. And it also has to do with Zana, which now was kind of making me wonder.

[00:31:30]Are these errors on purpose?

[00:31:34]Why do they all have to do with Zana?

[00:31:37]I'm going ponder that. But here he says that anyone moving through the house prior to the crimes would certainly have had to pass by the beer pong table. This includes Mogan and Kernodal moving from the front door to their room upstairs.

[00:31:50]He means Gonzalez. He means Maddie and Kaye, not Maddie and Zanna because then the very next sentence he says it would include Zana and Ethan using the kitchen or the second floor bathroom. Careless mistakes. Like, was his editor on vacation? Isn't this what they're supposed to fix? Like, they're supposed to catch these things, right? These type of things, though, is why I fluctuate back and forth between this book makes me mad because so much is wrong, but also I'm so thankful for this book because look at what we're learning from it. I I got a lovehate relationship with this thing, I think.

[00:32:27]But let's let's carry on. And on the next page after that, he makes another reference to stain F. Sutton had already stated that diloted blood stains on the top surface of the table were genetically linked to Kaye. The elongated blood stain on the west side of the table was genetically matched to Zana Kernodal.

[00:32:44]No, it wasn't. No, it wasn't. I'm not even a drinker, and this makes me want a drink right now. But let's flip ahead past the parts driving me crazy. Now, we're on page 110. Here he points out that no diluted blood stains were found anywhere in Mattiey's room or in Zana's.

[00:32:59]They were only found in the common areas of the house, specifically on the second floor. A very important point, a very important point that should be a blaring, glaring, siren sounding red flag. And he also points out in these couple of pages that it seems to have been virtually impossible for an asalant to cast liquid blood to the half wall from the far end of the beer pong table without hitting the cups and the wooden ledge and the top of the knee wall or the floor. And on the next page, he reinforces that there was not a single drop of blood found on the floor itself.

[00:33:30]Another glaring red flag. And on the next page, he talks about some stains in the hallway going towards Zana's room.

[00:33:36]But then he notes that anyone looking at the threshold to Zana's room will immediately notice that spatter found inside and spatter found outside look dramatically different. Where the floor inside her room is covered in blood, the floor outside is completely clean.

[00:33:55]That was one of my number one big deals when we got the crime scene photos. The floors are too clean. Why does it stop?

[00:34:04]All that blood in Zana's room, all over the floor, it just stops.

[00:34:10]The next step, past the threshold of her room, perfectly clean floors.

[00:34:17]There had to be a cleanup. There is absolutely no way. There is no way that the killer was in there in that mess of a bedroom fighting with Zana. Took out two people in there. He's walking over the same the same blood that was all over the bottoms and the top of Zana's feet. There is no way when a killer stepped outside that room that his feet were clean. Chris also asked another good question. How is it possible that virtually all blood stains found in common areas of the second floor were diluted with an unknown substance while all those found in Mattiey's room and Zana's were not? An excellent question we've all been asking. Directly after this paragraph, we have another police report that he added in here. And this is the interview with Molly Mcichael, the Door Dash driver, where she talks about dropping off the food and she couldn't find the house and she sees a girl in the window, and how she walks around, looks for the house. It's the same interview we already had, and the unredacted parts really don't help us very much, so I'm not going to go over it. But directly after Molly's interview, he starts off with saying, "On December 6th, 2022, Detective Jeffrey Talbot filed six separate reports. The first we discussed in the last couple chapters where he noted the knife sheath on the floor of Mattiey's bedroom, not in the bed. But his second report notes that on November 14th at 11:24 a.m., ISP returned to 11:22 King Road for further processing. Though he does not list the reasons for his return, it seems plausible that he was called back to document things found after the fact. And no matter the reason, Talbet assigned ISP detective Jakewick to start a pre-evidence process video of the entire property. According to the files delivered from Bill Thompson to Coberger's defense team, this video is broken up either through editing or in discrete stop start segments into four distinct tapes. And he points out some weirdness here about the timing of it that there seems to be a 12-hour gap between when they were making the videos and when the actual search was conducted, which is pretty strange. But this return trip was when they came back to collect some more evidence out of Zana's room. And they collected the rolled up $2 bill and the crushed powder that turned out to be crushed up aderall. And while they were on the scene that time, they also took swabs of a couple of more blood stains, including one that was swabbed just above the door in a gap of approximately 12 in between the north end of what he's calling the console and the corner of the wall. What he's calling the console is their like party tray that was on the other side of the beer pong table. Their little tray that had some stuff set up on it. I don't know. And we do have a picture of that stain, but I'm not sure the significance of it or why they came back to collect those few items and those specific stains. On the next page, he is talking about Sutton's report again and about the diluted blood stains on the second floor. Well, Sutton's report says something honestly ridiculous if you ask me. She notes several times throughout this entire report that the mouth and nose injuries of Xanacodal, as noted in autopsy reports, are potential sources of the diluted blood.

[00:37:34]That makes no sense.

[00:37:36]None. I I talked about it a lot when we were going through Sutton's report about how how they even use that excuse. Like, how does that even make sense? How would every single stain get diluted by spit or mucus or some other type of fluid from Zana's injuries? Because that's what she's saying when Zana supposedly never left the bedroom. And I had a few people arguing with me and acting like I was stupid because obviously it could be her fluids mixed with the blood on the knife, right? And that I guess the cast off or whatever.

[00:38:13]My thing is that still does not make sense because maybe that could be a possible source of the diluted blood for a couple of samples. But how would how would Zana's mouth and nose injuries have diluted the stains attributed to Maddie and Kaye when she was attacked after them? You y'all see what I'm saying? That makes no sense. And apparently Chris Wickcom agrees because he said there is no logical way to make sense of this assertion. Though Anna is found laying in a pool of blood with blood on the bottoms of her feet, there are no trails whatsoever outside her room, meaning she did not go back to the living room after suffering injuries to her nose and mouth. And he also notes that laboratory reports showed zero samples of diluted blood anywhere inside her room, which if she was the source of that diluted blood, you would think those samples would be diluted, too. But they're not.

[00:39:02]So he says again, how could injuries inflicted upon Zana's nose and mouth inside the room dilute blood found outside? How would these injuries explain dilution of blood from Maddie and Kaye found through the second floor?

[00:39:12]And I even wrote in the book, "Thank you." Because that's what I'm screaming.

[00:39:15]But then on the next page, of course, he has to drive me crazy again and make another reference to Stainf and the blood matched to Zana. It was not matched to Zana. But then he says, "Before mapping out other obvious anomalies and further questioning Sutton's report, it becomes necessary to add two new disclosures. The first involves a ringstyle security camera located approximately 50 ft west of the house at 1112 King Road. At 4:17 a.m., the camera recorded audio of what most analysis believe to be a woman screaming or yelling interrupted by what appears to be a loud thud. Once again, I question how exactly he keeps referring to the 417 timestamp that the state zeroed in on and disregard the entire rest of the audio. Also, I believe there is another mistake here that raises my hair up for a second because if this is correct, it throws everything off, but I don't believe it is correct. This says that though not publicly disclosed at the time of this writing, Bill Thompson's massive file contains a Snapchat photograph taken at 2:27 a.m.

[00:40:13]on Sunday. And the photograph depicts Dylan Mortonson reclining on the brown couch in the corner of the living room where she, Bethany, and Lakeland were said to be watching The Vampire Diaries on TV. What stands out is not the fact that upon closer examination, Dylan's right eye is slightly open, suggesting she was not asleep at all. The real significance of the photograph is that it shows the white folding table in the background, including 10 red solo cups neatly arranged in beer pong formation.

[00:40:39]Most important, it shows the precise alignment of the table as it stood approximately 90 minutes before the crimes. And that table was not where Nunes found it when he arrived. Now, that's something to unpack there. But, okay, the photo that he is referring to was a photo taken by Lakeland. One of the photos that was described in Lakeland's report said that she took one photo of Dylan asleep on the couch.

[00:41:04]However, it could not be at 2:27 a.m.

[00:41:08]because Lakeland left before 2:00 a.m.

[00:41:11]And we know that Kaylee and Maddie arrived home at 2:00 a.m. Those three girls were not watching Vampire Diaries at that time. So, if that time stamp is correct, that throws everything all the way the hell off. But I don't think that it is because the police reports also indicate when Lakeland left. And the first photo that Lakeland took back at her own sorority was before 2:27 a.m. I can't remember the exact time, but it's in the report. I think it's like 217ish. So, I believe this is an error. However, I wish these errors did not exist because why are there so many careless mistakes?

[00:41:48]I want to love this book because of what it does give us. But these little mistakes are so so so frustrating to me.

[00:41:55]However, it is very interesting because while we have descriptions of Lakeland's photos, we've never seen Lakeland's photos. We've never seen this picture of Dylan asleep on the couch. But he's clearly saying that Dylan wasn't asleep when the picture was taken. At least not for real asleep. But also that we can see the beer bong table in it and it's not directly in front of that door like it was when the police showed up. So who moved the table? Chris notes the possibility that Zana knocked over the table while fleeing for her life. He believes it to be perfectly plausible that Bethany was awakened by the violent struggle directly above her bed and that she mistook the flip of the table for the loud report of a firecracker followed by the beer pong table moving and cups falling. I don't necessarily believe that Zana was fleeing for her life in that living room. There's nothing to show us for sure that's where she was. There's no blood stains attributed to her on the common areas of the second floor. So, I'm not sold on that. However, I do think his next point is a solid one. That what does not seem plausible to me is the possibility that Dylan heard none of this while standing in her room less than eight feet away.

[00:42:57]There's no way in hell Dylan didn't hear everything. Like she told us over and over and over that you can hear everything in that house. And on the very last page of this chapter, he notes that the problem is not that someone knocked over the table. It's that they may have had the time and the inclination to pick it back up. And I completely agree with that sentence. It would not be at all surprising for the table to have been knocked over.

[00:43:23]However, why would someone take the time and even have the idea that they should pick it back up?

[00:43:32]That is definitely the real question.

[00:43:34]But now we are on to chapter five.

[00:43:39]Star Nights 22 M O 1810 modus operandi opberandi modus operandi opberandi I feel like if I say oparandi I feel British operandi now I feel southern chapter 5 is labeled these words and chapter five heavily features defense expert Brent Turvy as I mentioned before it is pretty clear that Christopher Wickcom and Brent Turvy very closely on this book and you can tell because of these next few chapters where he's directly quoted for a great deal of these chapters and he's quoted from an interview that Dr. Turvy did with Chris on September 26th, 2025. And I would just like to read what Brent Turvy had to say. He said, "What brought me to the case was the scabbard." He's calling it a scabbard, but he means the sheath. I wonder where he's from to use the word scabbard. I've never really heard anybody call sheath the scabbard. But he said what brought me to the case was the scabbard. They were concerned because from the perspective of the attorneys, they hired me to address the question of what role the scabbard played in the commission of the crime. He said just looking at it, it's wrong. The scabbard is placed wrong. It's too clean. It's upside down. It's underneath the body hanging off the side of the bed. Just looking at that one set of pictures related to the scabbard, I said, "Okay, we need a toptobottom reconstruction and crime scene analysis because this is wrong." Dr. Turvy said, "The scabbard itself is wrong for this case, wrong for the crimes." And then once we expand out from there, the next question becomes the logistics of how the crimes were committed. The idea that one person could do all of this in such a narrow time frame is difficult to make sense of. Then also the fact the police found nothing on him, no indication that he carried any evidence from the scene when he left. He said the victims are soaked in blood. The floors are soaked in blood in the bedroom, but there's nothing on him at all. He was talking about Coberger and the fact that during extensive multi- agency searches of his Pullman, Washington apartment, his Hyundai Elantre and his parents' home in Pennsylvania, not a centilla, I think that's the word, a cintillaa of forensic evidence was found. I guess cintillaa means a very tiny amount. So because those things are true, you start small and then use your information to expand with questions and try to figure out how that blood moves from the scene or fails to move around the scene and how one person could have done it in as short of a time. Then you start realizing that all the evidence points to more people or at least two people and multiple causes of death that multiple weapons were used and it just sort of builds out. You start asking questions and the logistics make it impossible for the narrative to hold. And then Chris Wickholm asked him about the sheath. Why did Detective Talbot say it was found on the floor if the photo showed that it was found on the bed? And Brent Turvy said, "Because it wasn't there."

[00:46:30]Detective Talbot wrote during his search that he found the sheath on the floor.

[00:46:33]Perhaps we should believe him. So Chris Wickcom asked if this is true. How important is all of this within the larger investigation? And Dr. Turvy said huge. Because the first people at the scene, the first documentation at the scene does not indicate its position. It isn't even mentioned by first responders. And that is a huge deal. If you walk into the room and you walk around the corner of the bed, you're going to see it. Her leg, Mattie's, is outside the bed with her foot on the floor and the knife scabbard is underneath her thigh and it's sticking straight out. If you are seeing her, you are seeing the scabbard. So, Tury believes this could mean either that it wasn't there when they first looked or they are lying about it not being there.

[00:47:11]You know, I find it rather refreshing that a expert, a defense expert, any expert, someone who has worked in this field for decades, has done tons of work in this field, would straight up be like, "The cops are lying." Because that does happen. And the police are allowed to lie to us, which a lot of people don't realize. We're not allowed to lie to them, but they're allowed to lie to us. Dr. Dr. Turvy does then say, "Is it possible for them to miss it in a case where you're looking at a bunch of blood and a bunch of bodies?" Yes, but these officers are not idiots. These people are from Idaho. They know what a knife scabbard looks like. They are not new to the game, which is really true. Idaho is a big hunting state. And they do a lot of like fancy hunting there. Not just deer hunting or duck hunting or rabbit hunting like they do around my area out in Idaho. They do big game hunting type stuff. There's a lot of hunters out there. They know exactly what a knife sheath looks like. And Dr. Turvy continues to point out that the placement of the sheath was a big problem for him. That apparently was something that bothered him a lot. He says, "You have a knife sheath placed upside down underneath the thigh and it has got just a teeny little bit of blood on it, but the bed sheet underneath it is spattered with blood with little dots all over the place like a starry night.

[00:48:25]And the sheath doesn't have hardly any on it. When it slides on top of those blood stains, those blood spatters. It doesn't disturb them. It means they were dry. So Turvy believes that somebody after the blood had dried slid this knife sheath under her thigh. Is another bombshell I believe. Yes. That's something I haven't ever really thought about. But you know we we don't get to see the unredacted photos. We really cannot see all the blood spatter around the sheath.

[00:48:56]But we can see a little bit here and there. But sure enough it ain't smeared.

[00:49:00]Sure enough it ain't. which means it was dry.

[00:49:07]That's that is a great point, Dr. Turvy.

[00:49:10]He goes on to say that that means either the offender was there after the blood dried. That's one possibility. Or that law enforcement found it, as Talbet said, on the floor and shoved it under the thigh to make it look like it was dropped. Contemporaneous with the crimes. Either way, Turvy said, somebody deliberately placed it there.

[00:49:30]It doesn't matter who at this point.

[00:49:32]Somebody deliberately placed it there.

[00:49:33]Then you add what appears to be a fabricated chain of custody and it becomes a piece of evidence that is essentially in any other courthouse in America inadmissible. That's a big deal and so is a fabricated chain of custody.

[00:49:48]The book states that at this point Turvy produced a photograph never disclosed to the public. It depicts a brown paper bag that has been folded flat and sealed with red and white tape labeled evidence. And as we can see in the picture, it lists names, but all the names appear to have been written in the same pen and in the same handwriting, which indicates that nobody was signing for it when they were supposed to. That would that it was all filled out at one time after the fact. And not only that, they point out here that it is not unusual to find seven names on one piece of evidence, but it is odd to find two separate chain of custody forms. It is even stranger to have an evidence storage vessel, in this case a brown paper bag, marked with a name that does not appear on either of the two chain of custody forms. And it seems to be a real problem that the date on the bag reads November 16th, 3 days after the evidence was supposedly bagged. That does seem like a big deal. It shouldn't have been 3 days before they put it in an evidence bag. And down here at the bottom of this page, they're talking about the names.

[00:50:45]And I circled this one, Candy Florio, because I recognized that name. I don't know the significance of this or if it has significance, but in some of the documents that we received, there are a few sheriff returns of subpoenas that went out that were unable to be served. One of them was for Candy Florio. Actually, I think two of them had Candy's name on it. But why would a professional for ISP, why would they be unable to find her to serve her a subpoena to appear at the trial? Y'all get what I'm saying? And the fact that she's caught up with the knife sheath is notable, too. In these pages, he's really just pointing out the different issues regarding this chain of custody, which there appears to be more than one. And he points out that I want you to understand that this is a problem. It is a significant problem for the prosecution. No matter what else happened, they would be giggly. He was referring to a 1972 Supreme Court case known as Gigglio versus the United States, which expanded the Brady mandates regarding disclosure of exculpatory material to the defense. It requires that prosecution disclose all information that could impeach the credibility of any witnesses, including police officers. Gigglio says that anything having to do with someone's character or reliability or integrity is fair game. If you withhold that from the other side, if you lie about their background and don't disclose that upfront, that's a Brady violation.

[00:52:14]Meaning that the defense could request and the judge could grant exclusion of all evidence tainted by any proven violation. Turvy explains that specifically there's a concept in law enforcement called the Gigglio list.

[00:52:26]This is a list of all officers who cannot testify because they are known to have given false evidence and testimony.

[00:52:32]According to Turby, this might include everyone on the possibly falsified KBAR chain of custody form. If any potential falsification was proven, it would render them unable to testify. That could have included Detective Payne, Detective Talbot, and McKenna.

[00:52:49]Regardless of intent or any wrongdoing, and there have certainly been no charges here, the defense could have presented this in court. Possible exclusion of these three witnesses alone would have significantly damaged the prosecution's case at trial. state cannot present evidence without testimony from the officers who seized it. So, he's pointing out here that this is a huge issue in the chain of custody in the evidence itself, which the defense could have honed in on which could have changed the game for the defense. But the problem is apparently, according to Dr. Turvy, that they did not even discover this until right before the trial. Chris Wickcom asked him why Anne Taylor didn't take the chain of custody seriously. And Dr. Turvy said that I think she took it seriously, but this all happened within the last weeks before the trial. We did not discover it until the very end. Once we did, I decided because of the way this stuff works that we needed to actually do chain of custody inquiries on every piece of evidence, but it was too late. Cobberger changed his plea less than one week after Turvy discovered the issue. That's freaking crazy.

[00:53:55]The fact that they didn't even discover that until right before the trial shows just how overloaded with data that Anne Taylor was. Everything just dumped in her lap. They overwhelmed her purposefully I feel. But then Turvy says that he believes that this chain of custody was fabricated because when the Idaho State Police got the knife sheath, they went back to the Moscow Police Department and said, "There's no chain of custody with this. We need the chain of custody." He believes that this is not an issue of possible mishandling of a work product. It is much more serious and this isn't covered by any non-disclosure agreement between me and Anne Taylor. So, we can talk about this all day long. This has nothing to do with my work on the case. The question came up because the defense investigators were looking at this and I see this chain of custody thing and I say, "What do you think about this chain of custody thing?" And they said, "Holy [ __ ] this is massive. We didn't catch it the first time." So, I said, "What we're going to do over the next week, we're going to check the chain of custody for every single piece of evidence." Four days later, the case was shut down.

[00:54:56]I feel like that might not be coincidence. I feel like that's what he's hinting at here, that that wasn't coincidence. He then says, "Chain of custody isn't about who touched it. It's about when and where it was collected."

[00:55:08]That's the first thing. Then who handled it? And then in the process of handling it, what tests were performed that may have altered or even damaged and destroyed the evidence. Because in testing DNA evidence, they will sometimes cut a clipping out or they will do a swab and they'll do something that destroys an area of the evidence.

[00:55:23]Here he made an important distinction.

[00:55:25]When evidence of a crime is destroyed in testing, the only actual proof lies in the paperwork. Without a credible provenence attached to the DNA sample itself, the defense would have had a field day challenging its worth. In a death penalty case where guilt has to be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it seems plausible that jurors would have leaned towards suspicion.

[00:55:45]That's what chain of custody is for.

[00:55:46]It's to understand the changes and processes and dynamics the piece of evidence has gone through before it gets to trial. When asked why the chain of custody form on the KBAR knife was not addressed until 3 weeks before the trial, just days before Coberger changed his plea, Turvy blamed it on the sheer volume of the prosecution's disclosure.

[00:56:02]Bill Thompson's office sent tens of thousands of documents to Anne Taylor.

[00:56:06]hundreds of thousands of data points.

[00:56:08]Everything from victim toxicology reports to registration records of every car parked illegally on the U ofi campus. Then Dr. Turvy says something that really stuck out to me. He said here, "It's interesting that they initially approached me just to look at the scabbard. They were so paranoid they wouldn't even tell me what case it was, wouldn't tell me what I was looking at, and then of course we discovered that the single most important piece of evidence should have been excluded.

[00:56:34]without a chain of custody, the sheath was no good. It's the part where he said they were so paranoid. They were so paranoid, they wouldn't even tell me what case it was. Wouldn't tell me what I was looking at. Why?

[00:56:46]Why were they so paranoid about this?

[00:56:51]Paranoid to the point that they're not even telling the defense experts they hired things at first.

[00:56:59]Why the secrecy? So much secrecy around this case. And that bothers me a lot.

[00:57:05]But then he talks about other potential problems. Once you start to analyze these core questions with posing and the placement of the scabbard and the movement of the killer throughout the house, you start to figure out that blood transfer doesn't match up either.

[00:57:16]Not with the narrative that is being given. That it's him, Coberger, by himself running around at night killing four people but not killing two others, including a face-to-face witness, leaving blood trails that mysteriously get diluted. All of which Turvy says he disclosed not only to Taylor but to Thompson's team as well because disclosure in a case like this goes both ways. He said, "So my report goes to the prosecution and they come back saying we have our own expert and she actually agrees with some of what I said, not the most important parts of course like blood pattern analysis and timeline."

[00:57:49]They said her theory is that the killer was running around the house naked.

[00:57:55]What?

[00:57:57]They said they believe the killer took off his clothes and cleaned up and then got dressed afterwards. That's what prevented bloody transfer outside the house. So apparently the prosecution, Pette Sutton, believed that Coberger was running around murdering people naked, just in his birthday suit.

[00:58:19]What? Yes. Turvy nodded. Plet Sutton concluded that Coberger must have been running around the house committing these murders naked. And once that was in her reports, the prosecution had to go with it. I remember the part where she was saying maybe he removed his clothes. And I guess that's what he means by he was running around naked.

[00:58:35]But if the prosecution was really going to go with that, y'all, that's that is ridiculous.

[00:58:45]If I would have been sitting on the jury, I would have laughed out loud if they said that in a courtroom because one, I don't know that Coberger would have had the confidence to just run around naked like that, but also how in the world does somebody fight with Zana wielding a knife and not cut himself and not get a single injury on his undressed, naked body.

[00:59:11]just full vulnerability flapping around everywhere for scratches or bites or anything. And none of that happened.

[00:59:21]Kober also wasn't missing any patches of hair on his head, which is notable. But that's not even the last bombshell in this chapter. He says here that the problem is that Coberger would have had to wash up somewhere, but the bathrooms on the second and third floors showed no evidence of that. They looked undisturbed. The first floor bathroom, however, was completely clean. There were no towels, no laundry, no toothbrushes, makeup, not even any toilet paper, nothing. It was pristine, empty. It was missing everything.

[00:59:55]The first floor bathroom, the bathroom right beside Bethy's room. And when we look at these photos of the bathroom, it absolutely looks too clean. It looks way too clean. There is not a thing in here.

[01:00:10]What girl's bathroom do y'all know that looks like that? Because I can tell you right now, my bathroom counter is piled up with makeup and hair product. Even if you were a very neat woman, you would have like a makeup caddy or something on the counter. You would still have a toothbrush, would you not?

[01:00:30]Where are all the towels? Where's the toilet paper? You're telling me a bunch of drunk girls who'd been drinking so heavily didn't have to go potty. And if they did use the bathroom, there wasn't any toilet paper to wipe with.

[01:00:44]Doubtful. That blew my mind. That blew my mind because even though I could see that, we could see it in the photos.

[01:00:50]Sometimes photos can be deceiving, right? Like sometimes we can't see the full the full effect here. But for them to state straight up like, "No, it was clean. It was pristine."

[01:01:04]That's a problem. But let's go on again.

[01:01:06]He interjected. The state alleged that Brian Kberger was running around the house naked. It was 30° outside, but he somehow stripped off his clothes before entering with deliberate intent to commit what prosecutors concluded were nonsexually motivated crimes. or he came in wearing clothes, but then he somehow snuck down to the first floor where he cleaned up in the bathroom, got dressed, and ran back upstairs where Dylan Mortonson saw him dressed in black, wearing a ball of clava, but he did not kill her. Are they serious? Seriously, are they serious? The last part of chapter 5 is a copy of Brent Turvy's report. It reflects Brent Turvy's opinion and is exactly what he told the defense team. Dr. Turvy believed that whatever planning may have taken place with respect to this crime, it resulted in an excessive number of victims with an excess of bloody transfer and bloody clothing on the part of the suspects.

[01:01:58]This took additional time to both affect and clean up before they could leave.

[01:02:02]The precautionary acts in this case include the execution of living witnesses, the cleanup of bloody hands, feet, footwear, and clothing before leaving, and the disposal of said clothing along with the weapons used.

[01:02:14]Direct evidence of this cleanup can be found in at least some of the diloo blood stains. Indirect evidence includes the absence of bloody transfer from feet and hands despite the movement of suspects within the home, the necessary opening of doors, and the absence of bloody footwear patterns at the scene in general. Dr. Turvy believed that at least two suspects were involved in this attack. This is indicated by the fact that multiple weapons were used against Kaye, that multiple types of lethal force were used against Kaye, and that Ethan and Santa appear to have been attacked at the same time. He believes that posing is evident that Kaylee and Maddie had been posed. And he believes there is evidence of staging with respect to the knife sheath. And Brent Turvy believes that the primary target in this case was Kaylee Gonzalez. She was specifically targeted by the suspects and the rest of the victims in the home were collateral. He believes this because Kayle's room was the least convenient and most risky to access in the home. Yet, she and Mattie were attacked first. the attack suffered by Kaye was the most extensive involving the most injuries and was therefore the most time-conuming and that Kaylee was stabbed repeatedly in the face until she was unrecognizable. No other victims suffered this amount of close-up facial attention or damage and that Kaylee suffered multiple types of lethal force.

[01:03:24]Stabbing, blunt force trauma and esphyxiation. All other victims suffered only one form of lethal force. This level of unnecessary close interaction and brutality are characteristic of primary targets in cases motivated by anger and rage. And in that line of thought, he also says that he believed that the physical and behavioral evidence in this case evidence and anger, retaliation, motivation, as explained in Turvy 2022, this is evidenced by crime scene behaviors that involve a great deal of rage. It is also evidenced by overkill, and that is something we've talked about a lot. I always thought Kaye was the target for that reason. For the over for the overkill reason because she she was so damaged. Like why would anyone want to do that to her beautiful face but not anybody else's? You know, it shows a specific rage targeted towards Kaye. This chapter ends with a question. Chris Wickcom asked Dr. Turvy, why in the world would Annne Taylor choose not to challenge the single most important piece of evidence against her client? And Dr. Turvy responded, I asked her that myself. I asked her twice. Once the week before Coberger changed his plea and once about 2 weeks later. I recorded my Zoom call with her and I asked her all the hard questions. And Chris Wickcom said, "You recorded your call with Kobar's attorney?" And Turvy said, "Yes, I did." I asked her how it was possible that she allowed her client to plead guilty in light of such damning contradiction.

[01:04:52]You can watch it, but before you do, you have to look at the rest of what I discovered while analyzing this case after 27 years in this business. I barely believe it myself. And that is how they ended chapter 5 on a cliffhanger. I guess the next chapter starts part two of the book. So, I'm going to save that one for the next video because yeah, I'm about out of time anyway. So, hopefully by the end of the week, I will have the third part of this review up and we will go through the next few chapters. There are some bombshells in here, right? I mean, I think so. Definitely. And I do think that the other documents we've already received, the photos, everything that we do have, everything we've already worked on for however long is backing up a lot of what he has to say here. So, despite the errors, like I said, I do believe him. I believe he does have all the files and the documents that he says that he has, but I do think he may have been rushing for some reason to get this book out. And maybe that's what's up with all these errors because you can tell by the way that he talks in a lot of his interviews that he is not as familiar with this case as many of us are. Over the course of all the different interviews, there were several creators who would ask him questions that he didn't even know what they were talking about. And I also know that Chris Wickholm also wrote a book about the Springfield 3. If you've followed me for a while, the people that have followed me for a while will know that the Springfield 3 was my big case before the Idaho 4. Like underneath this, the three missing women are still there.

[01:06:32]All that is still underneath this because I will never give up on those women. I will never take their pictures down till they are found.

[01:06:43]But that is a case I know very very well. So I actually had the idea that well I'm going to buy a Springfield 3 book. I didn't even know there was one and we'll go through and we'll see how accurate it is. And in his interviews he made it sound like this was a book he had written before the Idaho 4 book.

[01:07:02]Well, turns out that his Springfield 3 book doesn't come out until like the end of this year or the beginning of next year. Even though he made it clear that he had been working on that before he started working on Idaho 4, he somehow got this book out before even that book.

[01:07:19]And that that makes me wonder about him rushing it. Like maybe there was a motive to rush the book out.

[01:07:30]I don't know what that motivation could have been. I don't know why, but I do wonder. And I do wonder if maybe that explains some of the errors as well. He was rushing. The question is why though?

[01:07:42]Why was he rushing?

[01:07:44]But I guess I will let y'all go for now.

[01:07:47]If you enjoyed this video, please hit like and subscribe. I really appreciate everyone who has subscribed already. I cannot believe how I cannot believe my follower count on here, guys. I look at it sometimes and I'm like, "What? This many people are subbed to my little channel?"

[01:08:05]I'm so honored, you guys. Thanks for hanging out with me for real. I love you. But I hope you all have a great rest of the day and I will see y'all later this week for part three. Right.

[01:08:14]You'll be here. I'll be here. Okay. Bye.