Whitcomb’s expert dissection of forensic inconsistencies provides a necessary reality check on the prosecution’s narrative. His focus on the chain of custody highlights how procedural integrity remains the only true safeguard against potential miscarriages of justice.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
“Broken Plea” Author Christopher Whitcomb Will Not Hold Back… LIVE!Added:
Heat.
Heat.
Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Oh my gosh. Who's excited?
>> I definitely am.
>> It's a lot beats being in court. I'll tell you that.
>> You guys, we have such an amazing show.
We don't even want to waste any time doing anything that really is not that important because we have such an incredible guest. And I'm pretty sure everybody knows uh who we have today.
And he is not only an incredible author, but he's a father of four. And he's going to tell your story of how he put this book together, what he reviewed, what he looked at, what he analyzed, where the evidentiary problems were, and more importantly, who he is and how he got there. So Chris, we are so excited to have you. not nearly as excited as I am. You didn't say that we had a little chat yesterday and and I said before few people are really excited about talking to lawyers, but you guys could fire up any any uh any excitement. I I'm thrilled to talk to you. I really am.
I'm very excited. You are so smart and you're so knowledgeable and that's really what I want this discussion. So, super excited to see you.
>> Well, thank you so much for being here, Chris. And I know when we were talking yesterday, you went a little into your background and I think it was not only interesting but kind of important. So, if you could kind of share with our audience what's going on.
>> Yeah. Can you hear?
>> No. I hear you.
>> Oh, Sam. You couldn't hear Sam?
>> Oh, no.
>> Okay, I'll I'll resay that. Can you hear me, Chris?
>> I got you. Yes, I got you, Kristen.
>> Okay. Sam was just saying that when we were talking yesterday, I think we were all very intrigued by your background and how you decided to even get into this case and I thought it was incredibly inspiring your background and your life experience, but I think it's really also important for people to understand who you are.
>> Um, I I wouldn't really know I don't want to waste people's time with me running down a resume, but I've done so many odd things in life. Maybe it gives a little bit of color to to this conversation. And I started out wanting to be a writer when I was younger. When I was your age, I would say writing, being a writer was a thing, right? I Ernest Hemingway as a model. And that's what I wanted to do. I never want to be a fry cookook or a banker or a neurosurgeon. Um, that's what I wanted.
Um, so I took that path. So I started out writing for Orange Coast magazine in LA. Then I taught English at a boarding school. I became a newspaper, a print journalist. I wrote uh I covered a a crime beat for a daily newspaper and several newspapers. Then I went to Washington DC, became a speech writer or hired to be to write speeches on Capitol Hill and somehow ended up in the FBI um after joining the FBI where I did primarily bank robbery and uh uh violent crime investigations. I ended up on what's called the hostage rescue team, which is a counterterror aspect doing a lot of insane stuff. Uh eventually left the FBI. um went uh went to uh I wrote books, memor memoir which I sold in a card game with Brad Pitt of all things and uh then I went to work for NBC. I was on air analyst with NBC for I think five years, four, four years maybe. Uh and including a show I had a daily news program on CNBC with Martha McCllum who's now at Fox. I did a game show, you know, the Penn and Gillette, the the magicians. I did a game show called Identity where I was a I was like a panel member on a game show called Identity. So I've done a lot of really bizarre things. Oh, I I was a staff writer for GQ magazine. I had an op-ed contract for the New York Times. So you try to fit that in a whatever 99 people% of the people just hung up and said, "Who is this arrogant prick and why am I listening to him?" But uh but I have done at my age I've done a lot of different things and I say all of that because it brings those different things to bear on this conversation this book.
>> Yeah. I mean that that that broad experience the writing I identify with you as a writer. I was an English major and me too >> and uh I have written stuff uh but I and that's probably why I'm an appellet attorney because the writing really stood out at the beginning and I did moot court and and won some brief awards and stuff and so now I've been writing appellet briefs for 30 years.
>> So I I I know what it is. I love the broad uh uh your broad background and and the uh uh viewpoints, you know, uh the the the unique viewpoint that you bring to this. And I what I also really appreciated in the book was how you tied it to the evidence that you focus on this is what the evidence is. It's kind of a no frills. This is what there is without a lot of commentary.
But before we get in the evidence, Chris, why why this case? When did you decide this case? Tell us that story.
>> Yeah, a great question. Uh I was uh about two years ago or something. I think two years ago, I wrote a memoir about the last 20 years, mostly in my time in the intelligence community. Um that came out in August.
So the book after that, I said, "Well, what you know, I'm might as well write books again." I had a career back a long time ago, another bookw writing career.
So, I I picked a a uh missing person's case, true crime, my first fora into true crime called the Springfield 3, a pretty famous case about a missing person's case a long time ago. And I was finishing that book, but I had a friend in town, um a former FBI colleague, and we got together for coffee and he said, "What are you working on?" I told him, I said, "What are you?" I asked what he was working on, and he told me about this case. And I had never heard of it.
I had not heard because I've been hunkered down for two years writing other books. I hadn't really paid attention to the Idaho four murders or to Brian Cobberger. I didn't know either of those things. And uh and he said, "Well, would you would you mind taking a look at this?" Because we were both working on that sort of project. And I said, "Well, okay." And maybe a week later, two weeks later, something like that, he brought me the first dump of documents that showed things that he found to be very troublesome. He was a former FBI agent. He had just solved a very famous well a famous in this part of the world cold case that led to conviction and I said okay I think very highly of him. So I looked at it and my first reaction was oh no I've got to do this. You know it was I had I knew nothing about the case until I saw what I perceived to be troublesome with the case. I didn't know the news coverage.
Uh I knew almost nothing about it. But when I saw the files, I I got I got access to the files without the burden of assumption. I I didn't have an opinion. I hadn't listened to all the narrative. I hadn't listened to the defense and the prosecution. That's how I got in. So, at that point, it was just it was scheduled for trial. This would have been what, early July, I think maybe June. And then it went and then Brian Cobber changed his plea to guilty.
And I said, "Well, there's no case here." you know, I figured the prosecution had it all sorted out. Um, but then I started looking in greater depth and here we are. Here we are now.
>> Now, I know a lot of people have questions with respect to how you got the documents and I've been very respectfully um educating people on social media, u putting it nicer, but was there anything illegal with the way you got the documents or anything? I know there's so many people that just spread and spew information that is just a bunch of BS.
So, I just thought I would make sure that I asked you the question directly.
>> No, look, it it is complex. There's a lot of different types of information and different ways to get it. And uh you as you might imagine, the legal review on a book like this from the publisher is stout, robust, and extensive. It was about a month, right? Um, but we've got a rich tradition in the United States under the First Amendment of what is often referred to as the Fourth estate.
And that's why you see stories every day. You can tune in to Fox or CNN or MSN, MS Now, whatever it's called. Um, all these things that come out daily.
You go back to Watergate, things like that. As an FBI agent, I could not ever divulge classified documents, classified information or anything like that. But if a journalist, meaning reporters of any kind, it's happening right now, you I mean you'll turn into something tonight uh perhaps and and see the same thing. Um if somebody leaks a document and it's not classified or otherwise protected, copyright or otherwise, those are what become stories and that's how society moves forward in terms of inquiry. There should be many people including myself believe there should be transparency in the interactions between the taxpayer and the people that use that taxpayer money to do various things. So um the legality of obtaining documents as long as you don't steal them, as long as you don't infringe on someone's copyright, and that's always an issue, um the the information you get from those documents becomes the stories you read every day, including this one.
Well, thank you for letting us know that, Chris. I uh like I said, you know, sometimes on social media, we talked about this a lot yesterday, the confirmation bias, and we're going to let you get into that, but just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean it's fact. So, I I try to politely educate as many people as I can without getting, you know, harassed online, but I just wanted to make sure that we got that out and open. So, that was a perfect response. Thank you.
>> Well, we can we can talk about it in greater depth if you want to, but uh I I will say this. I've never had any social media. I lived for in Asia for seven years and when I came back from Asia the social media thing had already happened and I didn't have any. So I chose that as a luxury that I don't have social media because I don't pay attention to it. So I'm sure I'm certain in the world we live in there's you know it's a bell curve. Everything's a distribution thing and you've got 20% haters and you get 20% curious people and you get 60% in the middle looking for some kind of uh perspective and they make up their own decisions and uh and everyone's entitled to them based on their background and their expertise or whatever else. It doesn't mean I or anybody else has to place any greater weight on that. So anything you know I try to be very specific. If you have any specific questions on behalf of your viewers or anybody else, you know, please ask them.
And hopefully you can hear me now, Chris. I I switched rooms. Uh, I must have been having a little bit of a technical difficulty, so I apologize, but and I kind of jumped in halfway through that question, but one thing that I thought was so refreshing in just going through your book was the fact that there wasn't a bunch of opinions put in there, and it was just specifically, it seemed like a very nice way to organize what I look at as just an insane volume of data, pictures, things to go through. And I can't even imagine the amount of time that you spent going through everything. What was that process like to decide what gets into the book and and what did didn't make it? Because it seems to me like you can probably write 10 of these.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. And yes, I mean this could be this could have come out in four volumes, 10 volumes, 15 volumes. It's 4 what 430 pages or something like that. And the publisher already cut out about 25 pages that were issues for various reasons. Um, but here we have it and I and I have been very very striden in saying I don't want I don't have opinions. I don't have theories. I don't speculate. I tried not to speculate in any of this. I looked at it as a grand jury presentation. I looked and said as an FBI agent, I would have gathered facts during an investigation and typically you you gather all that information. You present it to in my case an A USA. You guys know all this. it would have been to you a a county uh prosecutor, a a DA, something like that. And then they take it and they do what they want with that information. And you may not see anything more until you show up at trial to testify about the provenence, the chain of custody, the introduction of the evidence itself. So I wanted to do that because so many things that I have now seen written about this case uh really have very little to do with facts. They have a lot to do with uh opinions. Um it's it's a very emotional story and I certainly understand that. I didn't want to do those things. I wanted to say these are the facts as I found them. We as an ordered society in the American criminal justice system have certain uh protections. We have certain rights. We have certain responsibilities anywhere from the way we look at a case to ending up being jurors. We could all have been or could at any time be jurors. So that was my thinking. That was the the mindset. I wanted to tell this story as I perceived it based on the evidence as I found it. And it certainly as you just pointed out, people can have any opinion they want about it. At least I've seen the information.
>> Do you do we get into a problem in these criminal prosecutions when those who are essentially charged with uh collecting the evidence and organizing it get caught up uh in something beyond that.
and start uh going off on their opinions of what it means.
>> You know, that's inherent in being a human being, right? I mean, I could look right now at this screen and have an opinion about a guitar or a headset or or, you know, an article of clothing, what we all have different opinions.
That's why we look different, why we act different, we live different lives. It's part of being a human being. Got to be very careful about that when we're put sending somebody to prison for life or death penalty. The justice system has protections for a reason because we could go back to Salem in the what 1700s and see a bunch of women uh uh killed as witches, right? We're better than that.
We've moved on. We have new technologies. We have new techniques. Uh we have the same responsibilities human being to human being. So I look at that and say the working as a journalist and working as a as a bookw writer and working as a in law enforcement over time. My perspective is that we have to look at the protections within the constitution and say that all people are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Right? I mean I'm sitting here talking to people. You guys do this for a living. That's no surprise to anyone.
So I have I've tried in this case to honor that to honor those commitments and uh you know we all we all do some things well and we some things fail.
That was my intention that's in my intention in talking to you. I hope this generates conversation that is well thought that is reasoned and that is based on facts not the emotions of what people think they know. I always say I if I make a decision based on facts then I'll stand by that decision. If I based a decision on something it's a miscommunication or whatever else and that's where we end up in wars and disputes of all of all different kinds.
>> Uh Chris, do you feel like his constitutional rights were broken? Brian Cobberger's >> Brian Kber's uh I I would say no. And I would say no for this reason that we've we've seen a lot of uh information come out during the course of this investigation. Uh but because of the gag order, Judge uh Hitler's gag order, a lot of didn't come out. So we know primarily what uh prosecuting attorney Bill Thompson said in the change of plea hearing. That's really what we know for certain those things that he said. They have since released on their own of their own valition on their own timeline evidence. And now people are looking at that evidence and saying x y and z. So you have amateur sleuths certainly uh entitled to an opinion and you have lifelong career prosecutors and defense attorneys like yourselves. You have former and current law enforcement officers. You have civil rights advocates, you have psychologists.
There's so many people that know about this case now and they all come at it from a different perspective. In my opinion, Brian Coberger plead guilty to the horrific murders of four people. He was a he was of age. He was well educated and he was afforded legal counsel. So I don't in this book, this is not a wrongful conviction book.
>> I don't say Brian Kberger did or didn't do it. I stipulate, as you would say, that he plead guilty to those crimes. So we got to go from there. Does that make sense?
>> Yeah. And I know a lot of people have like a bunch of theories and opinions on why he may or may not have accepted the plea, but that's why for me your book was so refreshing because everyone is certainly entitled to have their opinion and read your book and I think a lot of reasonable minds could h draw different opinions from every almost every paragraph of your book. But what I think is important is everyone's entitled to have those opinions. when we go to the realm of why or getting in the mind of why Brian accepted the plea, there's we don't really have the data to support that. So, I mean, I think everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it makes sense to me that you wouldn't necessarily form a a different factual basis because the only fact that we have before us is a stipulation that he did accept the plea. I don't think anyone's disputing he accepted it. Some people maybe are assuming that there's a different reason why he may have done that, but we don't have factual support for that. So to me, that is straight in line with how I function and think. I >> I think it's beautifully stated. I agree with you completely. And I'll say this because this kind of goes back to the documents and everything else. Um we live in a society where people feel differently about different things and you know there's a huge tradition of whistleblowers in Congress, right? We've seen it everything from UFOs to uh government offices. It's a we talk about it every day. People come forward because they believe a wrong has been done and they want to write it and typically they suffer the consequences of that. But we have legal protections now for whistleblowers. So I'll use that I'll frame your what you what you just said within that context and say I had four primary sources for this book.
meaning four sources that led me to the documents that we're going to talk about now that that I that I go into in the book, right? Um, one of those we know now because I name him in the book and he agreed to it was Dr. Brent Turvy who was a criminologist hired by the defense to analyze the case. All right. He has been very vocal. He said things himself um outside the realm of this book. I mean just today talked to Fox News about this. He was one of them. He's admitted being one of them. There was another one named Chris Holland who I talk about in the book. I actually quote a profile that he put together um who was a former FBI agent. So you have a defense expert and then you have a former FBI from the law enforcement side. Then there are two unnamed sources and they're unnamed for this reason that if I identified them based on uh the information that I've divulged in this book, it would be pretty easy to to narrow them down. So I honored I honored those commitment. But I tried to stay away from anything other than the fact that they gave me documents. So, you know, you bring up a good question. Let's get this out of the way now for your viewers. I've not talked about this in the book or any other way, but what happens now, and you guys can cl you guys can correct me, but based on a ruling uh a Brady versus uh Maryland ruling, what 1974, I think it was like mid70s, the prosecution in any in any case is required by Supreme Court decision to give all of that evidence to the defense so they can build their own case, right?
um that includes exculpatory information. It's it's all supposed to go to the defense. So we have a rich tradition over the last 40 50 years in this country of looking at so the information um that leaked to 2020 I believe it was with that big debacle that or not debacle they did the story but Judge Hipper went >> he was not happy about it because that violated uh that was a violation of his gag order the restraining order with information. never said anything about 2020 using that information in public dissemination to make this story. His uh eyeire was directed at the people that leaked that to the to a to a a media network to make the story. So, are we clear on that? Judge Hippler had a gag order that pertained to law enforcement, prosecution, and defense representatives, right? Some of that leaked out. It went to 2020. He was not happy about it. And there's been two investigations. There's one going on right now as we speak, as a matter of fact. And the uh uh that's where that went, but it was never directed at 2020.
They did what they did with the information, and that's the way, you know, that's the framework. So, we go back to this and say I got information that I used in this book from law enforcement and from uh elements of the defense community. And I checked with them. They felt comfortable giving me that information. They felt very strongly that it did not betray any confidence. Um, but was it would people say this was not released by law enforcement agencies? U, yes, people will say that.
>> At what point when you were reviewing this case because I know I I love that you said a couple things when we were talking and in I think it's like the very beginning of your book before chapter 1, you said justice shouldn't be a moving target. Um, and that really resonated with me. I think that was quite powerful and that you have a great life and you didn't have to take this.
So, there was clearly something in you that compelled you to do something for the greater good and be a voice uh for these four victims. And was there a turning point that you were like, okay, and I think you said yesterday, if someone has to be hung out to dry, it might as well be me. And I found that to be again um very admirable. Well, I don't know what's admirable, what what's not, but I think people look at these things and they say, "Oh, he's just it's a hit piece, or he's just trying to make money. He's trying to do those things."
I can tell you unequivocally, I don't need either of those two things. And I uh could have been could have been very happy not touching this at all, like write another novel or something just because I enjoy it. I enjoy writing it, not selling it, right?
>> Um, but you know, when we started, we started talking about my background. I was a school teacher. I was wanted to be a writer. And many probably not your generation but certainly mine would have read a book called The Catcher in the Rye, Holden Caulfield, the JD Salinger book, right? It was required reading for 50 years. And and I kind I believe that I remember when I was a little kid and I just I kind of had this this savior complex. I can't cook. I I'm not emotionally sound, you know? I mean, I mean, I'm not I'm not an emotional person for the most part. Thus, my job for a long period of time. But but I hate bullies ever since Bucky Corus beat the [ __ ] out of me in third grade. And I made a life out of fighting them, right?
And I Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, uh, East Teeour, Yemen, I've done them all.
Some very famous cases. So going back to that, this is I really think this is the answer. From the time I was a little kid and I lived in the same town as JD Salinger for a while. As a matter of fact, we had the same eye doctor. And uh, from a time I I really believed it.
I believed it. I wanted to stand in that field catching kids coming off the cliff. I I believed it in my soul that that was part of my life. And though I never really wanted to be an FBI agent, I found myself in the FBI. And there's this moment when you graduate the FBI academy in Quantico, Virginia. You there's this big theater and I mean like significant. and you stand up on stage and you raise your hand and they give you your credential and it says I swear to protect the Constitution and you know all the stuff it says in an FBI credential and they give you a gun and they say go get him kid and you drive out and you say okay and sometimes you risk your life. I did on the very first day that I that I was there and then I went from there. So to answer the question, I'm not a crusader. I'm not saying I did anything good here. I'm not saying that at all. I'm trying to explain why I chose this book. Excuse me. Why I chose this case to write about in what became a book that we're talking about right now. And the answer is because I believe in this. I I'm telling you, I believe in this. I've dedicated my life to it. So, uh, if you know, I've been in a lot of war. I've been in a lot of gunfights.
I've been in a lot of horrible situations. And if somebody's going to take a shot at me on social media because they don't understand what I'm what I'm trying to do, pack a lunch. I mean, >> yeah, >> that's a great line. I'm going to write that one down. Pack a lunch.
>> So, Chris, you went through all these documents and and pictures. What is your like WTF moment? Like, what the like you see this and it stuck out so hard you're like, "Oh my god."
>> Outcast. Outcast. The answer to that fabulous question is the prosecution's report. Pette Sutton's report, which everybody now knows, prepared on behalf of the prosecution to present to be presented at trial. When I read that report, I thought, uhoh, uhoh. This this, you know, this is not right. This is this there's major issues that we got to look. And then because that's the center of the house and the center of the town and the center of the campus and the center of the state and the center of the country, it all came from there. If you ask me about one thing, I think the center of this case, the center of the book, the center of everything that we talk about from now on is the beer pong table. That is the center of what's wrong with this that led to this book. If you had to summarize this 440 page book, in my opinion, it would be the beer pong table.
And what about the beer pong table that sticks out so much to you?
>> What stands out to me?
>> Why should it be the focus point? You think?
>> Great. Another great question. I look at this thing holistically as a crime scene, the house. Obviously, we all see that, right? But there is a discrete crime scene in the third floor bedroom.
It ends at the threshold. The door between the hallway outside on the third floor and inside that bedroom are different.
>> Okay?
>> Going from there down the hallway to the staircase to the second floor. from the second floor across the living room down the living room down that hallway to to Zana's bedroom. That is entirely different. It was a mechanism of a crime, but it is entirely different. All mapped in Paul Plet Sutton's report. And those that don't know, Plet Sutton was the the uh prosecution's uh criminologist, forensic analyst that looked at this. And then you get in, you cross the threshold from the hallway into Zana's room and you have a scene just like the third floor. Third floor bedroom, second floor bedroom, very very similar in scope, mechanism. We're going to talk about motive, means, and mechanism. The mechanism of the crime in the third on the third floor and the mechanism of the crime on the second floor within the the confines of those bedrooms is dramatically different than what happened in the living room around the beer pong table. Everything is wrong. Everything stands out. in the prosecution's report before I ever even talked to Turvy. So, um that would be the center from which I think the whole discussion leads in my opinion.
>> Nice.
>> There is and I think you point out in the book there is no undiluted blood found between the two rooms. Is that correct?
>> It is correct. But I want to be very specific talking to you fine attorneys, right? I've got to be very careful what I say and I appreciate that. I hope you hold me to spec specificity. There is one uh documented blood stain.
>> Mhm.
>> Uh on the second floor outside the bedroom, outside Zanna's bedroom uh that was identified by Pette Sutton and there's a photograph in her in her file that is not diluted. It is undiluted. It looks different in every context. And it's at the top of the staircase leading from the second floor down to the first floor. It's on the far side of that wooden ledge at the top of that knee wall.
>> Who did did they determine whose blood that was?
>> Ethan Pette Sutton's report says it was Ethan Chapen's blood. And she also says that based on the investigation, he was found, we all know, he was found naked in bed wearing a pair of white socks, uh, which showed no evidence of blood.
meaning that in her report she said that he never left uh the room after the bloodletting event the the the trauma.
So then we have a major question.
>> Yeah. And that was undiluted but it wasn't out in the open was it?
>> It was not out in the open. It's something. So where we're going to go with this Ron I hope is how did all this blood get diluted with an unknown substance? How did that happen? Why is the blood in the second floor bedroom the same as the blood on the third floor bedroom? meaning appearance, constitution, viscosity, drying characteristics. Why? Why is all of the almost all the blood except for this drop on the second floor? And there's a lot of it, right? There's a lot of it.
Why is it so dramatically different?
What happened? What is the mechanism that made that different? And that's a big question. And that's why I said that's the center, you know, outcast question.
>> So, you're saying the second and third bedroom or the bedrooms, they're almost identical. not, you know, just what, you know, the evidence you're finding, but once you get to the main room, it's telling a different story. Is that what you're >> Yeah. And and the basics, you know, I'm not beating around the bush. The basics are what you would expect. If you have four horrific, gruesome homicides, uh, the consequence of violent attack with an edged weapon, among others, is blood.
The blood, the shedding of that blood, criminologists look at the shedding of that blood to determine mechanism. You can look at the the patterns. You can look at uh the transfers. You can look at the characteristics of blood. They know how fast it dries in a certain temperature. They can tell you the effects of gravity on the mass of a blood globule based on viscosity and dilution and all those. It's all widely documented. It's taught inmies and it is the foundation of a of a murder investigation like this. Um those characteristics visually, you just look at photographs. You don't even have to be a law enforcement officer. You could be anybody. If you look in those, you look at the photographs of the third floor bedroom and the second floor bedroom and you go, "Okay, this makes sense." You look at the photographs and the analysis of the common areas, meaning everything down from the third floor hallway all the way down to Zana's door to to Zana's room is very different and and including this, and I think this is very important. many many photographs of the front of the door to Zana's bedroom and it has what you would expect uh of blood cast off like streams of red blood that has dried that you see in every television show or you know anything that a person would think we've all been injured blood on you know we we all know what it looks like >> right >> but the photographs the video the forensic analysis and the prosecution's report as stated by Pette Sutton show that the common areas of the second floor are nothing of the kind. So, how is that possible? Why is there no undiluted blood in either of the bedrooms? And why is there no uh why is there no diluted blood in either of the bedrooms? And why is there so much undil or so much diluted blood in the common areas? Sorry. Sorry. Why is there so much undiluted blood in the bedrooms?
And why is there so much blood diluted with an unknown substance in the common areas? That's a very important question.
>> So, does that suggest and I don't I don't know if it's opinion or speculation that there was some type of cleanup to that blood or is that just a speculation like >> it's diluted. So, >> great question and and you know, we should talk about this because I will say people listening to this right now are going, "Well, what about this?" And they're they're trying to pick apart things I say. Great. It's all good. I hope they call in with questions so that we can talk about those things. But I will say among the four people, the two named and the two unnamed people that I've talked to and put in this book together, I can tell you that all four that five of us disagreed pretty significantly on many different things. And that's why I try to stay away from opinions. Just because I think something is correct doesn't mean it is.
You know, that's why I try to ask questions and not draw evaluations. But to answer your question, how did it get diluted? Um, Pette Sun's report says the the one possible source, one possible source of dilution was that Zana suffered injuries to her soft the soft tissue of her pallet and that mucus andor saliva could have mixed with blood and and dilute be the the solution. It could be it. Right.
>> Right.
>> Um, but that begs obvious questions like >> the fact that she was assaulted in her bedroom and never left the bedroom.
number one. And number two, there is a fairly significant amount of blood on the second floor outside the bedroom.
How much saliva would you need >> to dilute all of that? And how would you apply the saliva? Do you go back and you spit on the wall and >> you know hope that washes it off? I I think it doesn't hold to even reasonable scrutiny in my you know that is an opinion. I think it does not hold to reasonable scrutiny. So the next question is this. Tell me about the stains themselves. And and I will say if you watch Mitch Nun's video camera, the first responder, if you look at photographs that have leaked out now, not leaked, I'm sorry. If you look at photographs that have been um released by law enforcement, you can see very clearly that you don't see any blood stains, right? You look at the Bong table, you look at it. So people would say, well, you know, those are not really great lenses. They're not excellent cameras.
And I would go, you're right. You're right. But then you look at the forensic evaluation of those stains where the police crime the crime or excuse me the Idaho state police uh evidence response group is taking detailed photographs of those and the first thing you see is this. If you look at a blood trail and you could do it experiment in your house. You have a liquid substance that has area and it has mass. When that interacts with a flat surface, gravity impacts that mass and it pulls on that mass and that's what creates the stream.
Right? No >> eighth grade science class here, right?
When it run when that mass uh is no longer sufficient to escape the cohesion of the surface to the attraction of gravity, it stops and it can dry. And when it dries, it solidifies. And when you go back and look as a criminologist at those stains, you say, "Okay, we got a stream. It is uh it has edges. It has dimension. It literally has an edge with it where it drips down. And when it gets to the bottom, there is the remainder of that mass, that fluid that dries. And that has dimension. So if you go back and you look at this, it so water would have less dimension because it's not as viscous as blood, which is not as viscous as maple syrup. They all have different characteristics. But criminologists know how to calculate.
They know how to calculate uh all of those factors and that becomes part of a crime scene investigation. In Pette Sutton's report, without me making any summaries whatsoever, one could look at those stains and go, "Wait a minute.
There are no edges. There is no mass.
There are no characteristics of geometry that show you any sign except for the slightest discoloration that's not visible to the naked eye from a short distance away. Right. So then we go back to Outcast's question. If that is the case, then what happened in the common areas of the second floor and it's a large space, what happened to make those blood stains look different forensically than the blood stains in the two rooms?
Why are they so different? And how could that possibly happen? How could that be explained? And that's one of the things that I that I look at in great depth in the book.
>> Well, we can rule out a rainstorm in there.
>> There's no rainstorm, Ron.
I got the weather reports. It was 28 degrees and a little bit foggy. The the humidity was 82%. The nautical twilight was, you know, I got it all. I got >> and definitely not inside the in the uh common areas.
>> No, we're gonna come back to that. Can Can you guys put a placeholder on coming back to the temperature inside the house?
>> I would love for you to do it right now because I found that part intriguing and I had not heard that before.
>> Okay. I go a lot like you know I've t people say well why are you talking about all the stuff on podcasts you know you're trying to sell a book I'm not trying to sell a book I already got paid for the book you know if you write a book you get paid in the advance it doesn't matter if you sell one copy or 50 to me right that's not the question it is explaining things that maybe my life experience gave me a perspective on whatever but here's the here's one thing that I picked up initially you look at the three-story house and what we know about the house was that the killer came and went through the sliding glass door in the Right. Do we most most people agree on that? I I know there are questions and I and I have questions, but most people would agree that's the the narrative, the prosecution narrative. Okay. So, the crimes occurred sometime around, let's say, sometime around 4:17 in the morning because that's when we hear the video uh the sound at 1112 and people think that might have been Zana yelling and the the loud bang and the dog barking. Sometime around 4:15 in the morning, these crimes occurred, right? And the police arrived.
Mitch Nunees, based on his body camera, excuse me, I'm sorry. I don't know.
Officer Nunees, I shouldn't refer to him as Mitch. Officer Nunees, um, responded at about noon. So, we're talking pretty close to eight hours, right? During that eight hours, it was 28 degrees average temperature for those eight hours in in Idaho. The snow outside was frozen.
There's no debating those facts. If a sliding glass door in your house, you guys live in California, I think, right?
So there's no this is you you might not have a lot of this experience, but I grew up in New England and when it's 20° out 28 degrees outside, you got to heat the house. If that door was open, the sliding glass door in the kitchen, you can look at these photos. I know they're out there. There is a thermostat next to the refrigerator, which I would assume is somewhere like 12, 15t away. So this thermostat is reading the temperature in that part of the house, the middle of the house. And the door, you leave the door to your house open when it's 28° outside. The thermostat is reading that 28 degree temperature. What does it do?
It turns on the heating system and it pumps heat >> to try to bring the temperature up to whatever it's set at and it was set at 68 or 69 degrees based on my reading of the ther of the thermostat. Right. So you imagine living in a three-story house where the thermostat is on and blowing air hot air full force when because it the the heating system works just fine for eight hours.
It would make sense that somebody going into that house would go, damn, it's hot in here because heat rises. That third floor would have been ex, you know, in my opinion would have been very hot. It would have been very warm. And that's not the case. So, there are things um that you extrapolate from there. And what you extrapolate from there is this.
the bed on the third floor where Zana and and Maddie were killed. When police arrived and started doing a crime scene analysis, they found a large pool of liquid blood in the comforter on top of Kaye. I think this is all widely talked about, but you look at it and you say, "Well, wait a minute. Fluid's dry and you have a porous vapor barrier, meaning the comforter. So, there are different characteristics. But if it did in fact got very hot up there, it would dry much much faster than if it were cold. Not freezing obviously, but but cold. So then you start looking at this and you say, "Okay, let's look at the story.
Let's look at the crime scene. Let's look at the entire thing holistically and say, if the sliding glass door of the kitchen was open for eight hours and the thermostat was 12 feet away, reading that 28 degree temperature, why was the house not 90 degrees when police arrived?" So you start I I start to you know as outcasts me where I start I start looking at the second floor and I start looking at things and say wait how is this possible? How is that possible? Do we know that the killer came and went through that door? And then we get down to the door on the first floor where the cars were parked and there were two witnesses, one specifically who said he was watching walking his dog and he walked at 9 and 11 in that time frame.
And he was he was certain he was absolutely certain that the front door to that house was open. When Hunter uh Johnson arrived at that house, the front door was not open. So how did it get closed? Who closed it? Why was it open?
When was it open? When did why when why was the dog outside? When did the dog get back inside? If the door to the kitchen was open, why did Murphy the dog sit outside barking for 45 minutes or an hour and not just go in and just go through the open door? These questions are some of the things that we talk about in the book because there are so many questions and I don't know who among us would not want to know the answers to these questions.
>> Right.
>> I got a question here for you. Murphy is taken outside of the crime scene by the police officers when they arrive. Is that a normal thing they should be doing or should that dog be kept there for evidence? I'm not too sure how that would work. What do you think about that?
>> I think it could go either way. Very good question. Because if the dog had uh somehow uh exposed itself to if the dog had blood on it, then you've got an issue.
The dog did not have blood. The dog was found on the bed in uh in Kayle's room and never barked, never barked, never welt, didn't do anything, didn't get up and you know a dog will come to you affectionately or whatever. None of those things happened. The dog sat on the bed, >> made no noise whatsoever until after the fact when they took the dog outside. So, I think you would want to get the dog out. I think they did the right thing.
You don't want the dog otherwise contaminating the crime scene, right?
and you want to care for the dog and it had no evidentiary value that was obvious. They did take hair samples and they did look at the dog. Uh I don't I think they did what anybody would do. I I think there's no problems at all taking that dog out of there.
>> Okay, >> let's go back to the second floor again and let's go AAM's razor.
What do you think is the most reasonable the simplest explanation for all the for all the blood there being diluted?
>> Okay, I can't say because I don't want to theorize because it's a slippery slope as you lawyers would say, right?
You start down a slippery slope and and it goes from there. I would ask your viewers and I would ask you to look at the photographs, the the prosecution's report, Dr. Turvy's report, look at all those reports and ask you the self same question. Is it is it one plausible answer that people might suggest it was cleaned up?
>> I would say that is one plausible answer, >> especially when you combine it with this. There's blood on the walls.
There's blood on the flat surfaces of that wood shelf on the knee wall in the second floor. There's blood uh dried blood residue on the beer pong table itself. So, you have blood on flat surfaces and vertical surfaces. No blood was found anywhere on the floor outside the bedrooms.
>> How is that conceivable >> except villains?
>> Levitation was my uh was my theory.
>> Levitation.
>> Levitation. Yeah, >> I've got I got a couple other levitation things to talk about, Ron. But yeah, that's one. Levitation is certainly a plausible, you know, a plausible thing.
>> We've also talked about flying unicorns.
Um, you know, a very uh very strong legal theme.
>> Are they real? Are they real?
>> Yeah. Hey, that's for >> just our opinion.
>> That's for book number two.
>> Your opinion. Well, you're from California, so there we go.
>> Okay. Now, >> what >> what do you think about Dylan? The one the one footprint that we found. Well, that wasn't visible to the naked eye, but the one footprint that was outside of of Dylan's room that literally came right to the to the door. So, if she opened it, I mean, they pretty much would have been nose to nose. What did you think about that?
>> Um, two things. one that it's tough for me to talk about it because uh it was not uh because of I don't know what you know. Have you seen photographs of it?
How do you know about that blood stain?
>> We've seen photos.
>> It's in the documents ain't it? That they tested it. It came back a latent print, right? You're talking about the shoe print outside her to >> the shoe print, right?
>> Yeah. But what did it say about the blood?
>> I'm not too sure. I don't >> question. I don't remember. Was it was it blood or was it blood that had been cleaned up and there was a residue?
>> I thought it was more of a cleanup.
Yeah, I thought it was more was cleaned up.
>> So, I'll go back to the original question and that is what was the state of the dried fluid that allowed that footprint to be found? Was it was it a blood stain like you see in the other rooms? The answer is no. So, why was it altered?
How was it altered? And why did they have to test it in the manner they tested it in order to determine that it was blood?
And the answer is uh I don't I want to say something not necessarily as fact. What I would say is what I've seen may not comport with what you have seen in terms of the treatment of that print. How they rec how they reconstituted that print. Does that make sense? So, it's not so much about the shoe print as why it wasn't obvious to the naked eye. Does that make sense?
>> Right. Yeah. Like it was it shows it basically was cleaned up. Not in your words, but my words that we had to they had to investigate a little bit more. It wasn't, you know, you couldn't see it.
You had to find it under the >> and that would go with what I said about the second floor. Why is all the blood evidence found on the second floor? The common areas of the second floor outside bedroom number one on the third floor, just to be clear. bedroom number two on the second floor, Zanna's bedroom. Why is all the Why are all those spaces in between different? Why are they different, including that footprint?
>> Yeah. I mean, from my opinion, and I know you don't like giving opinions, I suggest that it seems like a cleanup happened in that floor area. You know what I mean?
>> I can tell you that among the experts that that helped me with this thing there, we discussed a lot. I'm not going to tell you what I feel. You probably you probably know what I'm what I'm Yeah, I think I don't >> where I'm going, but I but I not one person I've spoken with about this >> in the in the process of writing the book. Not one person I've spoken with didn't say, "Do you think it was cleaned up?" Because my next question would be, "Well, expla explain alternatives. There is the the saliva and the mucus." I think if you believe that that I've got a bridge to sell you someplace.
>> Yeah. Then we're getting into an indoor rainstorm and you know other things that are not very likely. But of the likely rational realworld explanations, there's not a whole lot of options there for us to consider, is there?
>> No, Ron. And and look, I'm an oper outcomes razor guy that in in anything in life, like there's a statistical probability that that ceiling is going to fall on my head and terminate this thing. It's a very low. It's a nonzero but very low. And you look at I'm a physicist, right? I look at quantum mechanics and say nothing's certainty, whatever else. But everything we do in life is probability. You don't run out in the middle of the street the 405 because there's a high probability somebody's going to mow you down and you're going to die. So we everything we do, and I know this frustrates attorneys sometimes in in a court of law because I've been through it before, but there is a probability assigned to everything.
The reality in my years of experience is that the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. That the people that commit these crimes are not as smart as they appear to be on CSI or or whatever the case may be. They they commit a crime uh in a fit of rage or with some motivation that leaves the blueprint of that crime behind. And it's usually not that hard to figure out if you just accept what it tells you. You know, it's like uh be be careful um what somebody says about themselves. You should believe them. You know, it it's the same thing. We could go for days and days and days and days what things might be. But if you look at something and say, "Well, it looks like this." That is certainly a top pri that's certainly a top option.
>> Let let me ask it this way. I'll go Paulette Sutton on you.
>> Thank you. Uh, is the condition of the the blood the the blood residue, blood stains in the second floor consistent with a cleanup?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Well, based on crime scenes I've worked and based on things that I've been in, including my own blood spatter in war zones and otherwise, >> uh, characteristics that I've seen in cleaning up blood in countless violent altercations, uh, are consistent with what you see there. Yes. Now, if there is if there was a cleanup and judging from the scope that it would have been, what does that do to the prosecution's theory of how Brian committed the murders? Well, there's two things.
Another great question, and I love the linear approach to this, logical approach to this. Two questions. One is timeline, and two, how somebody committed all the crimes by themselves.
But the timeline according to the police and they did runroughs. There are documents I've seen where they actually acted out. They ran in the house. They did X Y and Z and they ran out of the house under a stopwatch. In my opinion, this one of the few things that I'll say that is value judgment, it seems preposterous to me. Right? If you count the number of wounds, the mechanism of the wounds, if you count all of the variables, that's not what happened in the recreation. So, um, then it comes down to timeline based on the prosecution's narrative.
And we know elements of it, not all of it, but certainly Pette Sutton's report and what Bill Thompson said at trial. We know from camera video that they tie what they say to be Brian Cobberger's white 2015 Elantra with the 1112 and the Linda Lane video. They track his car and they you have Molly Mcichels visit to the house. You have all of those different factors and they map it out chronologically. Uh and they did a very good job of of that with the white car.
They, you know, I'm not saying they did a good job tying it to Cobra, but they did all of this in great detail. Here's the problem. If you look at the accepted timeline that this happens sometime after 406 or whatever the last thing is, and you look at the white car speeding away at roughly 420, you have a very small window. And if you look at the fact that blood was fresh on the killer when he attacked Zana based on the castoff on the on the surfaces of the common areas of the second floor and you look at the 1112 audio and the thud and the yelling and the dog barking. If you put all of those things together, as the prosecution has, you have a very very small timeline specifically between when many people speculate Zana was attacked, the the the video or the audio signature of a of a voice and the thud, right, and the car speeding away. That's approximately three minutes. So the question, the answer to your question is, how is it conceivable that somebody got out of there covered in blood, which is proven they were covered in blood?
How did they get out of the house without leaving anything on the floors or anything outside or anything in the car or anything in his apartment or anything in Pennsylvania or anything?
The the the DNA on the knife sheath was, you know, human cells, right? Nothing has ever been found. So that's one question in terms of timeline. The next timeline is what if anything could be offered as an excuse as a as evidence of how someone altered that blood, diluted it with an unknown substance, clean up or anything. How is it conceivable that happened in three minutes? So to answer your question, that's why I said at the beginning of this that the second floor is the is the major problem with this whole case. Timeline's a big problem.
So, I know you go into this in your book, but what else is problematic about the beer pong table?
>> Okay. Uh, guys, I love this. I I I like talking to various people, but when you talk to bright lawyers with experience, there's an element of this thing that has to be linear and it has to be calculated and it has to be logical. And here's here's the problem. If you look at photographs, which we all think are everywhere on the internet now, they've been released by the police. and you look that photograph where you're standing at the top of the first floor staircase and you look down the hallway to where Zana is lying on the floor. You know what I'm talking about.
>> To the left is the door to the kitchen.
In between occupying that entire space of the living room at that part of the living room is a white plastic folding table that we now refer to as the beer pong table. Fair enough. It has cups on one end that are intact. The cups at the other end are strewn. And all the cups are strewn as you as you're standing in the kitchen doorway looking toward the knee wall. All the cups go to the right.
There are no cups to the left. A couple of them are standing on the beer pong table. So, one might assume reconstructing what this I mean it's telling us it's AAM razor. It's telling us what happened. But when the killer found Zana coming out of the kitchen, in the kitchen somewhere around the kitchen, but on that side of the beer pong table, he attacked her. And we know that because of the blood that was cast off that ended up on the knee wall.
There's no debate among defense or or prosecution that these things happen.
How they happen and what they say. Yes, there is. So what do you have in the middle of that entire sequence? You have the obstruction of a lightweight folding plastic table. So that means that Zana, when confronted by an asalent and stabbed, attacked, let's just say attacked, however she was attacked, that means she had to get from the opening the door to the kitchen outside Dylan's room at the bottom of the stairs by that utility closet. Had to go through the living room, turn left, go down the hallway to her room. We know that happened because that's where, you know, the blood spatter. It tells us that, right?
How does she get through that space without touching that table? You have to go to the table. You go up that that the uh that step. There's a step that she would have known about, but the killer would probably not have known about because why would you? You know what I'm talking about. There's a like a six inch step there. Then they go she would run toward the beer pong table, which is less than two feet. She's got to take a hard right turn, go down the length of the table, take a hard left turn, and go down the hallway to her room. And you can see from the body camera footage from Officer Nunees when he arrives um that a a grown adult male has to turn sideways to walk through that space. You you measure the average leg wearing a Sam Brown kit. You do basic measurements of the knee wall, which is an accepted dimension because you can go to Home Depot and check it.
You can buy that table and I did buy that same table or something very similar at Costco. I set the whole thing up. It's about 18 in. So this is a woman being attacked in a murderous rage by somebody swinging a knife. She somehow navigates right around the table, goes down the length of the beer pong table, turns left, fits through an 18inch space and goes down that hallway and dies in her room and never knocks the cups off the table. So the first stretch of credul is how could anybody explain that? Then we go from there. So if that you know odd things can be there are a lot of possibilities. Let's narrow it down. So, I went and bought the table. I put the beer cups there and I put it 18 inches from a knee wall with a flat surface. I reconstructed the whole thing and I used a a a liquid that I thought had a consistency similar to blood and I dipped my hand in it and I started casting off with sufficient force to cast blood spatter across to the far wall, across to the ledge where they found blood stains and on the table itself. And I could not, and I challenge your viewers, try this. Why not be a mythbuster? Go out and try it yourself.
I could not find a way to cast blood that missed those red solo cups and land on the wall. I couldn't I couldn't there was no trajectory that I could that I could recreate that created those. So, another thing So, there's another problem. The next problem is this that if we would believe that the blood stains on the top of the table uh you know based on analysis belong to the various victims there is a blood stain as you look down toward the knee wall to the staircase there's a blood stain on the left side of the table it's in Paul Sutton's report right and that look at that stain look at the direction of that stain and let's go back to probability imagine the statistical probability that in a fitter raid Somehow a blood from was cast off and it just somehow ended up tracing the edge the left edge of that table and print on that table and you're getting into some pretty sophisticated math to make sense of that. So then the next thing would be go okay let's look at the possibilities the table was there she was very agile when she ran around it everything is fine the other possibility is that in a violent rage the table was disrupted it was knocked to the ground two things are apparent one it would make noise >> and two it would have to be placed back in that position and reconstructed after the fact so if that's the case what indications do we have that's a possibility we go to Bethany Funk's interview recorded and I've listened to it and I've read the transcripts Bethany Funk in one of her interviews, later interviews, she said unequivocally that she remembered three things about the sequence of events, she heard a loud bang, which she initially thought would be the fireworks. That's where the fireworks came from, right? The firecrackers or whatever, that loud bang cuz ostensibly she was asleep when that happened. She said the next thing I heard was the pool t the beer pong table moving or being moved. I I think I can't remember if she said moving or being moved, but she heard what she told police was the beer pong table being moved and that she heard cups. She said I could hear everything. Her bed was right was pretty much beneath it. Right.
So then we have a witness saying I heard a loud bang. I heard the beer pong table being moved and I heard cups.
Bethany Funk's testimony, right? Or her state her statement. I don't know what she testified to the grand jury. Then you have the body camera, excuse me.
Then you have the ring style camera down the street that records a loud bang contemporaneous with the screaming. And then you look at it and say, let's take everything we just talked about, the probability of the of the the blood cast off printing on the wall, the flat surface, the far wall, the uh the wall to the left where that console was, all of those different things. How you navigate the table. Um, you look at all of those different things and the probability that's the case and then you say, "Wait a minute. Bethany told us she heard a bang. The camera told us it heard a bang and she said she heard somebody moving the the beer pong table and she heard cups, the movement of cups." So, is there any reason we wouldn't believe what she says? So, then the question becomes not how did the table get knocked over? The question becomes who put it back? because when police arrived it was back in the position that the photographs and for me that's a big question.
>> Um I did read the book fully. You do put something in there. I don't really want to leak stuff but you said I believe somebody posted a picture on Snapchat and that table was in there.
>> Is that true? And table was identically the same position as it was the next morning.
>> Okay. That's a that's Thank you for bringing that up. This this is available online. This photograph is online. You can look it up. Okay, it is a picture. I don't know if it was a cell phone. I I don't know if it was a selfie. I think looking back, don't hold me to this, but I think Lakeland actually took the the photograph, but it was a picture of it was a photograph of taken on a cell phone of Dylan lying on the couch about the time that they were watching The Vampire Diaries, right? I know it's online. I've seen it.
>> If you look carefully at that picture, two things are apparent. One, she's sleeping. If you look closely, her eye is open. Like so that's why I was wondering if maybe it was a selfie. I can't really tell. But what's really important is that you can see the beer pong table in the background with the cups intact. So we know the table was in that position at approximately 2:15 2:30 in the morning because we have a photograph of it. Right. She's taken a picture. Lakeland took the picture or Dylan took a selfie. I don't know which.
But we have a photograph of that table in Situ with the cups on it prior to any disturbance. Right. And if you look carefully, you can look at the patterns on the floor. You can look at the floorboards and you can look at the position of that brass console behind it and you can see that it's very similar, but it's not the same.
>> Meaning that it moved.
>> I can't say that it was knocked over and placed back in almost the same place.
Maybe when they were going in the kitchen, they moved it. But that's further evidence of what the table looked like prior to the crimes and what it looked like when police arrived. Very similar, >> which is important. Not the same, which is very important.
>> Okay, Chris, we have a thousand questions in the chat.
>> Guys, am I am I being too am I being too specific about this stuff or >> No, no, no, no, no. Hey, we love it. But I'm I know there's a lot of questions about whose blood was found where. Um and it's I we have I'm just going to put one of these questions.
>> A lot of people are saying that Kayle's blood is on the table as well. Um I'm not >> Kay or Zana.
>> I believe it's Kaylee. You know, I don't know, Chris, because I know in the early reports that they did mention Zana and Maddie were together, but that's was incorrect because they're just wrong.
And I think that was Nunez's report because it's Kaylee and Maddie upstairs.
You know what I mean?
>> Kay and Mattie are upstairs. Kaylee and Mattiey's blood was found in the common areas of the second floor. Yes. Uh there's a slight dispute because uh not all of the blood was was tested inconclusive because it was diluted and because mixtures sometimes make confliction a problem. Um that's it. But Pette Sutton's report says, her first report says that the blood on the left side of the table, the the stain that I said was pl implausible was Zana's blood. So there is in the report an indication that the vast majority of the blood on the second floor was from Kaye and from Maddie on the third floor. meaning that somebody tracked it from the third floor to the second floor and transferred that blood which implies two things. One, the violence was used to cast it off and that the person that killed them on the third floor was covered in blood.
There's no other way to explain it. I mean, if you can come up with something, that's it. So the answer to the question the the answer to the question is the prosecution's report is very clear that the blood stains identified uh were tested to be Kaylee Gonalves, Maddie Mogan, and Santa X.
>> And then the other one was Ethan, but that's a whole different story.
>> Yeah. Wasn't there a correction to some of the identification of the samples?
>> Yes, there was. And that's why I I have to be careful with this because the process of those corrections bears a lot of conversation. Paul Sutton wrote a report under the Brady disclosure rules.
Had to give it to the defense. The defense brought in Dr. Brent Turvy who's been vocal in public in the public eye about this. He looked at a report. He looked she looked at photographs. Her report says I never looked at any evidence. I only looked at photographs.
Right.
>> And wasn't it two years later too? Like wasn't it like two years following that?
That is the same.
>> Yes. It was after the house has been torn down. She looked at photographs of evidence long after the house no longer existed. And she never went to Moscow. I I don't know if she ever went to Moscow.
She never looked at the evidence. And I say that because that's what she says in her own report. Okay.
>> Dr. Brent Turvy was called in by the defense as an expert witness. He went to Moscow and we're going to talk about Ethan and her Ethan's hand here, I hope, at some point. Um he he went to Moscow and he looked through the evidence, the physical evidence. Um so he did his report, that report under the same disclosure laws as you guys know went to the prosecution. So he's refuting >> the contents of an of Pette Sutton's report and she had an opportunity to respond to his report. Then he responded. So they went back and forth in that uh series of reports and arguments. uh she asserted at one point that the photographs that she was given had been changed. The the markings had been changed. So a stain identified as a became a stain identified as something else. Therefore, the information that she gave led to conclusions that may be seen as flawed. And that's where the discrepancy came as to who actually belonged to the blood stain on the table and some other ones. So I don't know.
I've discussed them all. I don't know what the final outcome was because it didn't go to trial, but Pette Sutton based on the prosecution evidence initially said it was Zana's. And I know that I know that that's been uh that's been contested.
>> You have to remember too, we didn't get to see Pette Sutton's initial report. We only the only thing that's been released to us unless it was just released and I'm unaware. Uh but we only got to see her supplemental that was in response to Dr. Churvy's report >> and >> Oh, is that right?
>> Yeah.
>> Yes. And please correct me in the chat if I'm wrong and it's come out in the last couple weeks and I'm just not aware, but it's my understanding we never got to see that. Uh, at least when we filmed, we did an episode just ripping apart Dr. Sutton's report. Um, and then we did one on Dr. Trevy's and I think we did a pretty darn good job. So, if anyone wants to watch, they're back there. But I have a question, Chris. Do you think that was was Zana a target or do you think that just hers was bad timing? She went to the kitchen, maybe went to get food, and it was just really, really bad luck. What is your what is your uh factual understanding of that?
>> Well, I don't have many opinions, but I think this is pretty broadly uh this was even talked about by the prosecution. I don't think there's much I don't think there's any way I I don't think anybody knowledgeable with the case on the law enforcement side, the prosecution side, well, they're the same side, but the prosecution and law enforcement investigators or the defense, Annne Taylor, Andor Turvy and all the other expense experts. Doc Dr. Turvy was one of a significant number of experts. Um, and and again, I have different sources.
I'm not saying who they are, but I'm saying that I didn't go with one source on this thing. Um, but nobody really disputes the fact because of the transfer of the blood from the third floor to the second floor. Nobody disputes the fact that I know of, nobody disputes the fact that Zan, excuse me, that that Kaye and and Maddie were killed on the third floor initially and the supposition was that the killer came downstairs and can encountered Zana at the bottom of the stairs and attacked her. the thinking being that she would be a witness. That, you know, that that is the general uh the general consensus among people that I've talked to on law enforcement and on the defense.
>> And that that's not just based on the identification, which may or may not be accurate, of Zana's blood on the table.
There's other other bits of evidence that lead to that.
>> Well, let's look at those. Let's look at those bits of evidence. We know that we could we can >> uh ascertain a great deal from the crime scene on the third floor. the mechanism the means we know there were three primary causes uh types of mechanisms of injury involving uh kaling and calvis one was exfixiation and I think we have to talk about that >> um which produced peticia the autopsy reports foundia for the for those who don't know it is basically very basically burst blood vessels in the soft tissue uh in this case recorded in the mouth so the inside of the lips it's like a star pattern of little red or discolored dots that's produced by an occlusion of blood uh oxygenated blood going to the brain and the body responds basically screaming I'll leave this to the doctors but it produces this this pattern of blood b of burst blood vessels which he was found to have so there was a mechanism specific and exclusive to Kaylee Gonalves of that mechanism of injury that was not edged weapon and it was not blunt force trauma. The second the second is that she suffered blunt force trauma to the head. Severe. The prosecution has said law enforcement has said that it was more severe than somebody could inflict with their hands. This was not she did not get beat up with somebody's fists.
She was beaten with a blunt object severely. Right? I we don't need to go into that. The third mechanism mechanism of injury was edged weapons. And I say weapons because uh we have a KBAR knife sheath found in the bed. So everybody says KBAR KBAR KBAR. But if you look at the mechan if you look at the injuries themselves the wounds themselves they are very different. KBAR has an ed one edge and it has a flat surface at the top. Um there are double sharp edges.
There are one edge is sharp, one is flat. There are round wounds that look more like uh that look very very different. And nobody's ever talked about that because we've never found a murder weapon.
Right? So, uh, at the change of plea hearing, Bill Thompson never said she was murdered with a KBAR knife. Never said that. And if you look at Kaye, her mechanisms of injury were different than Mattie's in the same bed. In the same bed. And one thing that's not come out, I wrote about it in the book, um, but it's very difficult to talk about, is that each of the two women had four signature wounds. signature meaning that they don't make sense within the within the other wounds. Each of them, if you place the two bodies side by side, they had four wounds on one and four wounds on the other that were that were stunningly symmetrical and similar and unexplainable. They were not uh uh based on the autopsy reports, they did not produce uh death. They were not the killing injuries. And then you start putting all this together and you say, "Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. How did this happen? Why look at at Zana's wounds and at Ethan's wounds and compare them to the wounds of the women in in the bed on the third floor.
Uh a behavioralist and I've talked to several uh and uh law enforcement behavioralists and uh and forensic analysts, meaning the blood, the autopsy, things of that nature. Um the wound Kaylee stood out from all other victims in the house. So, is there basically evidence of multiple weapons being used when you're looking at these?
Uh, >> well, yes, and that's not just me saying that. That's not just me saying that.
The prosecution has said she was she was attacked with uh she suffered blunt force trauma that exceeded something you could inflict with your knuckles.
Meaning she was beaten with a foreign object. It was not recovered at the scene. We haven't even talked about it.
Very few people know about it or talk about it. But where did that go? Right?
Let's just say let's just say for example that there was a KBAR knife in the KBAR sheath and the killer dropped the sheath in the bed. Let's say okay great it was the the murder weapon was a KBAR sheath.
>> Wound characteristics aside where's the object she was beaten with.
>> Few people ever talk about that but it's a big issue.
>> I mean it's always been rumor that it was a golf club. Um, >> oh, um, just real quick, I just, >> okay, we're gonna get to the golf club because that's a thing, but that question just popped up about signature wound. Was it a symbol? Um, no. Great question. And, and I want to be specific. They did not car the killer did not carve a symbol per se in either of the victims. There was no there were no letters. Yeah, like a Greek symbol.
More a brilliant question. It's a Greek community. Gang related. People have talked about cartels. It was not a letter. It was not a symbol. It was not something that you would look at that somebody was le like like they were marked, you know, like a >> Yeah. Like a signature.
>> Yes. I say signature because I mean the characteristics of the four wounds spoke something from the killer that was unlike any of the other dozens of wounds that they suffered. It was a violent altercation where they suffered these two wounds. um uh >> four wounds. Each of the two suffered the four wounds. And that speaks a lot.
Why do that? What are you trying to say?
What's the point?
>> You know, what's the motive anyway? This was not a sexual assault. It was not a robbery. It was a crime committed that expressed rage, hatred, something. You know, they didn't go in and stab somebody and run away. They It was It was profoundly violent.
>> I have to ask a question. I'm sorry. Um the the father Steve G has said on record that they were gagged. Is there any proof that there was that these victims were gagged? I don't know. There is zero evidence that I've seen anywhere suggesting they were gagged. Zero. And but I will also say uh paying honor to the question which is a very good question. Um it would not be able to ascertain what happened to Kaye because of the extent of the injuries.
>> Were you going to ask me about the the golf club? We have >> Yeah. Well, I did bring it up because it has been around for a long time that Ethan's golf clubs were taken.
>> Um, >> Ethan's golf clubs were not taken. The bag of golf clubs was in the empty bedroom on the first floor. Um, nobody counted the clubs, so I can't tell you if it was a full set.
>> That's interesting.
>> So, I can tell you the clubs were in the bedroom. They were standing up in the bedroom on the first floor, the the empty room that people talk about. the clubs were there and they had talked about coming home one time when the door was open and they got clubs and they went through the house, right? So, the golf clubs are something that we could talk about, but I can say unequivocally there's no evidence that they were used on any of the victims. However, there's really no way to tell what was used on Kaye. There there would be there were no marks that you could tie to a to a a specific instrument.
>> Great question.
>> Was there any I'm sorry, Ram. Was there any evidence else in that spare bedroom that >> Oh, hell yes. Hell yes. Hell yes.
>> Was Ethan missing any body parts?
>> No. No. But but we should talk about his injuries.
>> Okay. Really quick before >> you want to get this question out of the way. Somebody's paying good hard money to ask you guys a question.
>> Yes. Go for it.
>> We We don't want to cost you 10 bucks, guys. I mean, that's a >> Okay. Why do you think all three girls had mouth, tongue, oral cavity injuries, not Ethan? All three girls. Another really great question. Um, Kaye had significant obvious injuries to her mouth as did Zana.
Uh, and I mean obvious. I don't remember off the top of my head seeing anything that suggested that Maddie did. I don't remember any specific injury to her mouth. And I don't I and I think there was no there was no evidence of an injury specifically to Ethan's mouth. So uh I don't know of all three. I know Kaylee and I know Zana had obvious visual evidence of uh injury to the mouth. And I would just say with they were different. I there would Kaou was assaulted in a manner that would have to produce injuries to her mouth because of all the injuries to her head.
And Zanna fought like I was I mean I never knew Zanna. God bless her. But she went she went out fighting and it's it's it's very probable she suffered an injury to her mouth during that fight.
>> Now be before we go. I know people want to get to the spare to the spare bedroom, the empty bedroom, but um >> go. You guys done with me already?
>> No. No. No. No. He was saying next topic. Don't think you're getting >> I'm not going to the gym today.
>> The the sign >> the signature injuries and and from what I remember in the book there were double throat slits ear to ear. Not to be too graphic.
>> Yeah, I did say that in the book and I just I didn't know. I mean, you read one of these things and it means something, you know, within the context of the book and then we talk about it here and it takes on a different character. But yeah, I did say that and that is that is accurate. The wounds were >> uh two uh slits of the throat to each person >> and because of the nature um you know you watch I I don't want to become grotesque but everybody watches violent movies and you see when somebody stands behind somebody in a Chuck Norris movie or something and they slit their throat there is a mechanism and uh that mechanism produces a certain type of wound. It's it's it's very plausible that these were inflicted in a very different manner because they were shallow.
>> Does does that suggest somebody maybe who is experienced at this sort of thing as opposed to somebody doing it for the first time?
>> I would say no because I am and they were not. I think it's very very difficult to uh commit that to to create that injury from the front. uh in in a violent manner. It is more making a statement.
It it was the mechanism of that particular injury is inflicted with leverage, a very sharp object, most easily from behind and these were different than that's why I said signatures because they were inflicted in a manner that is different than one might expect for those injuries. Does it suggest that they were intentionally done in that way to send some sort of a message to somebody or is it just something that sort of happened?
>> It was not, you know, like people go, who's this Wick? What does he know? And you know, I lived at the FBI Academy a long time. I've taken all the courses and the criminology, you know, the crime scene investigation, photography. Does that make me an expert? No. But have I done it a lot? Yes. And the answer to that question would be you see in every hom in many many homicide manuals and books that Dr. Turvy has written. You can buy them online. I challenge you buy it buy one of these books. You can see all see somebody else with with letters behind their name talking about it. But I'll say I say it for this reason that the bodies were moved. I'm not saying they were posed. I'm not saying they were staged because those are terms of art.
the criminologists used to make specific statements about specific things. But they were moved uh within the bed itself. And based on the way they they were found, a reasonable person would infer that they were placed in those positions for a reason. But the wounds themselves, those wounds themselves were not obvious to somebody coming into the room. You would not notice those wounds unless the bodies were moved. And in this particular case, at autopsy. Does that make sense?
>> This was not a shock factor. Whoever killed these two women did not mark their bodies in a way that would shock police uh coming into the crime scene.
And that's a very common thing. You see that many many times. You talk about serial killers and you watch crime shows and a lot of times a bad guy will stage a body for shock value. And and I think most of your viewers probably know what I'm talking about. In this case, that was not or in this instance that was that was not it.
So their signature just because they're different from the rest of the wounds.
>> Thank you for clarifying that. Signature in the sense that they were inflicted uh separately from the from the abject violence uh that created death and and signature in the sense that you have two victims lying in bed together and they each had four wounds that matched >> uh and among dozens and dozens and dozens of wounds that didn't. So that's that's what I was saying by signature >> as a term of art.
>> Yeah. So there were the the throat and then on the shoulder was it was it like >> two two gashes on two vertical gashes on the left shoulder of each of the two ver victims. So four uh knife or fouredged weapon incisions that that would not have otherwise been inflicted in in a violent encounter. Is that is that clear enough? I'm trying to be very specific.
would what would the existence of something like that tell an experienced investigator about this?
>> That somebody acted upon these two particular victims.
Uh we no matter what we do like you know we we go like this or I go like this or whatever. We all do things our brains make us do things and we act them out.
You know, there's a very common expression uh people won't uh it's not what people tell you, it's what they show you that you should believe. Right?
You could say, "No, I didn't." Or, "Yes, I did. Yes, I did it. Yes, I did it.
Yes, I did it." Trust the shaking of the head. Right? They teach that in every sales meeting and every interrogation course. Um, you look at the mechanism of these crimes and how they occurred and the violence of the association or the particular producing event, the blunt force trauma and the horrific uh violence of of edged weapon wounds on on Kaye. Those do not match in any way the calculated print of uh signature or I got to stop using this word signature.
They do not match the calculated incision on two people that match to that degree. You know, you have one incision and they've got a a scar on on one arm or whatever. You'd go, "Well, that's the mechanisms of the crime."
These were not mechanisms of the crime.
These were a different uh motivation. It's just a different uh mental state. Okay, let me let me phrase it this way that you have in crime scene investigation, you have forensic analysis, which is the blood spatter and thing and forensic autopsy, DNA analysis like that, the science of it, but you also have the behavioral science, the behavioral aspects of it, and that's the BAU, the behavioral analysis unit at Quantico and the National Center Analysis of Violent Crime, CRG, the whatever the FBI, right?
They're very different things, but they're both critically important because a criminal will show you their motivation.
>> And we have I'll leave it to other experts to talk about this in greater detail. You have based on everybody I've talked to, not just my opinion, you have specific indications in these mechanisms of injury that uh raise significant questions.
All right, Chris, we have a question.
Lana is a uh truth and transparency.
She's another amazing creator. She's been one of the ones that's been following this from the beginning.
Another one that all all of us uh watch and I give mass kudos to her. I think she's done a great job with with parts of this. Actually, all of this. But a lot of people sitting here, including myself, what time do you believe that Zana and Ethan either got back to the residence?
if you believe they got back to the King Road residence or two, when did they leave the Sigma Kai party?
Did they go anywhere else in between?
Because we to this day do not have that answer.
>> Okay, first of all, I got to call out Lana because I've been a fan of hers since I started this. I go like, what's out there? Who's talking about this stuff? And I was always a big fan of hers. And then, you know, you reach out to people like you guys. Thank you for doing this. And she didn't respond like she wasn't going to talk to me or whatever. And I was I was crest fallen.
I was broken. I was a broken man. I go, truth and transparency doesn't want to talk to me. I was devastated because I'm such a fan of hers. She's so smart and I have so much respect. So, she came in last night to another one that I was doing. And then her name comes up again and I'm saying, "Lena, what did I do?
Tell me, woman, what did I do wrong? I want to talk to her. She has so much.
She's uncovered so much." And I say, "I know the missing piece. I can give her a missing piece and I've got some that she needs to get." So, anyways, back to the question. And the answer is I don't know. Law enforcement doesn't know. The defense doesn't know. Witnesses don't know. Nobody knows. And the reason is because whatever happened with with Ethan and Zana that night, they were apart. They were together. There were many, many, many different things. And I mentioned a couple of them in the book.
Uh communications.
Um you know, there his sister said in an interview that uh that she went home early. There there are a lot of different things in this and the answer is I don't know because nobody knows nobody knows what timeline makes sense in so many ways but there is a gap in the investigation the prosecution and the defense counter there is a giant gap in what we know about when uh Zana and Ethan return to the house.
>> Should phone data suggest that is there shouldn't they have phone data on that?
It does. And you can narrow it down because everybody knows now at this point. I think that she ordered Door Dash from a long ways away and it took a long time to get there and we know that uh you know this is an interesting thing. I didn't go into it, but like the thing the weird thing about this book is we've been talking now for an hour and a half and we've still covered like 10 pages, right? There's a lot in this thing.
>> No. Yeah, but all good. If you have not bought it, the book is everything. So buy it. Let's let's go just real quick since you brought up placing them at the house. We know Molly Michael came to the house. We know that she walked up and down the street that she you know all of this is widely known. I think the video's out of her walking on the camera at 1112, right?
>> So, we can place her. Everybody knows about the report. They know about her arrest down the line. We know all of this. The one thing, the one silent feature that stands out talking about Miley Mcichael to me is that the f the food was left at the doorstep at 4:00 in the morning. Right.
>> We got a photograph. I think there's a photograph online of it. And I've got another photograph that shows the bag that says Zana on the on the label on the kitchen counter. Somehow the bag went from the door at the front at 4:00 a.m. to the kitchen counter um at some time prior to 4:17. There's a 17-minute gap. And many people know that based on her social med based on her phone records that she was communicating with people and going back to Dylan Mortonson's statement about hearing music, there was a portable speaker on the kitchen table. So that's plausible as well, right? So, we know that she was there sometime between 4 and 4:17 because the because of the Door Dash um uh reports, right?
>> Um and then I have photographs of the interior of the bag, the contents of the bag, and some of that food is very likely when when she was found in her bedroom, there was food on the floor, and some of the the French fry containers and things found in the bag uh in the kitchen were empty. The bag was empty of food. So, the food got out of the bag at 4 the bag got to the third to the second floor kitchen sometime after 4:00 a.m. and the food was emptied from the bag sometime between 4:00 a.m.
and 4:17 a.m. And based on her cell records, it's likely that she was there at what 4:11, isn't it? 4:11 for I forget the specific number. Um, so we can confine it to that. But one other thing that's very important is that when Molly Mcichel delivered the food, she was looking for the house trying to find it. She said very specifically that she was standing outside the house looking at the house trying to get somebody's attention. She saw somebody in the third floor >> window. Yeah.
>> Which would have to be the bathroom, right? Just the wi the window all the way to the left is the bathroom window.
And that's never been further discussed or adequately explained. Um it's very unlikely that was Zana. Maybe I Excuse me. Uh Zanna, I'm sorry, Zana. It's very unlikely Zana. Um because uh who is the woman in the third floor window? Um never been followed up.
>> Did didn't she have brown hair?
>> Yes, she had brown hair. I mean, she had brown hair. But you know, at that time, I'll say this about that house looking at the pictures at night, whatever else.
It's really tough to tell from that angle because in order to look at the window from the street, you have to be way out at the far end of the parking lot. The angle makes it impossible to look in that window unless you're almost out in the street. So from that distance, from the darkness looking into light, it would be very difficult to ascertain hair color. But it she was adamant it was a woman. It was a female.
>> Right.
>> Other than that, I can tell you nothing about timeline. I found nothing that narrows it down more than that.
>> You know, I want to go back to the bodies. There was u hair in Ethan's hand. Talk about that. So, what was exactly found in Ethan's hand when they found his body laying there?
>> Um, uh, the answer is I don't know because has been tested, right?
>> I have photographs and the photographs show Ethan, uh, where police found him in bed. His arm is between the wall and the mattress, his right arm. The police processing the crime scene pull the mattress against the wall and take a photograph of his arm extended straight out down between the wall and the mattress on the bed frame. There's a white wood bed frame with cross slats.
And you can count the slats. You can you can measure precisely where his hand is based on on the bed because his hand actually landed on a slat.
>> And then there's a close-up photograph of his hand and his hand is in in this shape. It's almost exactly in this shape, >> right? and and in the on the bed. And then beneath his hand, you can see that he has there's a very there is a a a pool of blood about about this long, maybe four four inches in diameter um on the bed slat. And then you see his hand pulled away from that bed slat and you see what is very clearly a significant clump of hair that many people would conclude was human hair. Right.
>> Right.
So he was taken from there to the autopsy and I have the autopsy photos that show the same hand in the same position with hair in it.
>> Uh so you can very clearly see where this is going. Right. Right >> then. But this is this is the most important part of the story if you ask this is this is one of the one of the important parts of the story if you ask me. Dr. Turvy was called in two and a half years after the fact to look at the evidence as we discussed, right? And he's been vocal about this. He uh flew to Moscow, Idaho, and was granted under disclosure agreements. Uh access to the evidence that was taken to that building. They I think they built it, right? I think they built a shed to put all the evidence in.
>> And the bed frame was in there by itself. The mattress had been taken off separately. So, he goes over to the bed frame, which is under a cover. I don't know if it was a sheet or a tarp. I don't know. I've se I have the pictures.
Um pulls it off and he looks down at the bed and he looks at that specific part of the bed and guess what? The hair is still in the blood stain on the bed exactly it was as it was. It was when it was found two and a half years earlier.
Nobody ever collected it to test it.
>> Okay. That was the WTF moment for me.
Like, holy crap.
>> It's a WTF moment for a lot of people.
Like, how >> how >> I mean like I mean, again, no theories, but photograph evidence that shows that the blood was directly proximal to his hand in that position. Hand the hair, some of the hair was in his hand when it went to the autopsy. And it was tested, but it was never tested for DNA that I found. Um, it was tested for length and based on I I don't know because I I haven't seen a report that says the length, but based on the width of the slat and based on other things that you would approximate measurement, it looks to me that is between 6 and 8 inches in length and it is uh either dark blonde or light brown in color. So then the next question is well what happened to the hair? And I can again say I don't know because um Dr. Dr. Turvy took this information back to Annne Taylor and it has never it was never tested. It was never tested by the defense and I know that from Dr. Turvy.
It was never tested uh because Brian Cobberger had already pled has plead guilty. I don't know if it was tested but um it was never used in evidence.
But the fact that you know many people watching this now would say well did he pull it out of somebody's head? I think that would be the common >> that would be the common you know, perception.
>> And if that's the case, >> was it the same type, color, length as Brian Cober's? And the answer is absolutely not.
>> No. Right. Right.
>> And if not, then how did it get there?
No matter what, no matter what, whether you pull it out of somebody's head or whatever else, how did that hair get to that place in that bedroom? And why did not why did no one want to know?
>> Right. You think that would be tested right away? I mean, your common sense is why didn't they test it? You know, >> I got >> I got another question for you. There's blood outside the house. Is that proof that that leaked outside of that bedroom out to the outside exterior of the house?
>> Yes.
>> Yes. So, that's okay.
>> Because people, you know, there's been a lot of speculation. Was, you know, is it even possible for that to even happen?
Um, >> yeah. Yeah. I could show you. I mean, it's it's very obvious when you look at the photographs. That's what happened.
Okay, thanks.
>> Now, there's there was also hair found uh with Maddie and Kaye, wasn't there?
>> Yes. And I will say this, um this has not been widely discussed, and I don't have the answer to this one either, but Paul Sutton's report, prosecution's report, shows very clear photographs taken by the Idaho State Police of the crime scene, you know, analysis at the end. And it shows the two women in the bed with the cover pulled over them. And there is what uh I haven't seen it with my own eyes, but if you saw if anybody saw the photograph, it appears to be a another clump of human hair with blood at at one end of the of what appears to be human hair, which would mean roots, meaning that it was pulled out of somebody's head and >> with with roots and with blood. And that's in the prosecution report. I mean, >> so the roots have blood on them of the hair.
>> Clearly. Clearly. Well, there is a substance that appears red consistent with blood uh and consistent with the mechanism that would have removed that hair from somebody's head. So, look, you know, again, I'm not a I'm not a medical doctor. I didn't see it with my own eyes, but those photographs are part of the report and and Dr. Turvy's report includes those photographs, I believe.
So, anybody can look at them. I challenge you to go and find those reports and look at those photographs and you tell me what it is.
>> Was that in the initial report or her supplemental? Do you recall >> that was in her initial report?
>> It was in her initial report. I believe it's in Turvy's report and the the follow-up reports were different because they only they only addressed uh matters of of disagreement. But nobody to the best of my knowledge I've never seen anything to indicate that it was taken and specifically uh analyzed differently. Now, now it could have been, again, I've seen a lot. I've not seen it all. And when I say a lot, I mean tens of thousands of of files and documents. Um, I I don't know. I've seen um lots of lab reports treating various things that were taken, but I know from Dr. Turvy's own analysis, and he was there with with Detective Payne in Moscow looking at the bed. I know unequivocally that that was not taken, tested, or or even seized as evidence because he found it two and a half years after the fact uh roughly two and a half years. Um when it comes to the head, the hair in the on the the comforter on the third floor, I'll say very clearly, I don't know the answer to that. I don't know if it was tested. I do know that it was not brought it was not presented to the defense as evidence of Brian Coberger's participation. I know that.
Was his hair different color than Maddie or Kaye? So, we could know that, hey, it's not their hair. Like, or is it >> I would encourage you to look at it, but I would say it's significantly shorter and significantly darker.
>> Okay. Yeah, cuz they are two blondes right up there.
>> Was it consistent with Brian's hair?
>> No, it's consistent. It's dark. It's not I would say that dark, but it's it's much longer.
>> Much longer. Yeah.
as an attorney.
>> But again, again, please guys, I I'll talk about things that I feel strongly about in terms of veracity, and I would say just look at look at it for yourself. Draw your own conclusions.
>> Right. Right. Yeah.
>> But a bid from the color of the hair, I have never seen something missed or overlooked so blatant in any case ever in my career as an attorney.
And I'm assuming that Sam and Ron can say the same thing.
And you know, we we all understand that that there was a lot dumped on on the defense, the legal team, and discovery was a problematic and and you know, she might not have gotten everything, but how in the hell do you not test this? Literally, like I I help me, Chris, understand that it would even be reasonable for someone not to test this. Um, let me pick up this question because this guy's got three different exclamation points in his question and they're all red. So, I'm guessing this guy wants to jump through the screen and grab me by the throat, right? Does it look male or female? I have no idea. I have no idea. I know men with long uh dirty blonde or light brown hair >> and I know women with short, very dark hair. So, I have no idea. And the and that goes back to your question, Sam, which is um we don't know because there's no report that they were ever tested. The the hair in the bed we know was not tested because Turvy found it more than two years after the fact. And and he will tell you if you ask him, he will tell you that the defense did not test it. Now, that that I'm more concerned why the not why the police didn't test it. I'm more concerned to know why the defense didn't test.
>> That was my question for you, Chris.
That's where I was headed.
>> It's exculpatory. Under any circumstances, if you ask me, >> you guys are the expert.
>> I'm sorry.
>> Did you notice any witnesses that were missing a chunk of hair in your um investigation?
>> Uh >> or or possibly wearing a wig?
>> The answer is no. However, I will say I saw no evidence that anyone was checked.
>> All right.
Well, how many did they clear in We always talk about how quickly they cleared people and it was basically name, contact, you know, and address and you're cleared.
>> I, you know, I've said this over and over again uh to to people in the last, you know, in the last year working on this. I come from law enforcement. I have enormous respon. My brother was a was a a local police officer. I think the Moscow Police Department did an extraordinarily good job doing this investigation, not just with what they had to work with. I think they were diligent. I think they were comprehensive. I think they did a really good job. There's always something that this guy comes back after the fact and goes, "What about this?" Hindsight's 2020, right? So, let's be fair to them.
Let's be fair to those officers. I think Officer Nunees responded to a passed out girl on the second floor and he walks up on a quadruple homicide, right? Officer Warner was a consumate professional in anything that I saw done. The Idaho State Police did a fabulous job with processing the crime scene. I think it was all a very very good job. That said, who is ever perfect, right? Who ever gets everything right? And there are if you guys saw what I if you s if you had access to what I've seen, it is staggering. Just for example, after I wrote the book and you know like two weeks ago, maybe 10 days ago, I found a file uh access to a file. this one file.
And I mean file meaning you on on a desktop it's one icon like you know whatever it was 8,247 pages 8,247 pages of documents and you go what that's what Ann Taylor was dealing with.
That is the extent of the investigation that a document, a file of 8,247 pages could get lost in this vast trunch of information. And then you look at Massoth and Annne Taylor and and Becca Barlo, those three women, those three attorneys, those three those three professionals, they've got to go through all of this stuff and make sense of it. And then in comes Turmy Turvy and and the mitigation team and all the other experts. You're talking about a vast a vast compendion of information that uh is uh it's really hard. I I don't see flaws in this thing as much as I see uh an overwhelming task.
>> Okay, but speaking of imperfections, what about the chain of custody issue and the knife sheath?
>> Dang, come on. We got to go there.
>> Amazing investigation.
>> We got to get there. We got to go there.
We're gonna go there.
>> All right. Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna break it here on I'm gonna break it here to the world with you guys. Um I I used to work for a congressman did all this press dealing with the media and he said, "Hey, kid, never say anything you don't want on the front page of the New York Times." And I go, "Thank you, Mr. Ki." And I said, "O, you know, I'll live by that." And I was a reporter, so I understand what he was saying. So, I did a an interview um with a very very credible reporter who I think very very highly of and I just saw the headline come out and it says uh new book by this Whitam guy says uh the DNA evidence would not have made it to trial and I thought to myself >> I see that >> I hear that comment all the time.
>> Yeah. Um that that is a comment and I I the problem is with you guys I can try to be specific and precise. People will still read into it what they want.
That's what we do as human beings. I understand that. But there is an issue and we got to talk about the issue because it's going to be broadly discussed. And that is that the the prosecution has a three-pillar offense which is the white car, the cell phone tower pings and the DNA. Fair enough.
Among those three things, the DNA uh is the most significant because it's DNA, right? And because Bill Thompson has stated and it's commonly assumed to be fact that Brian Cobberger's DNA was found on a knife sheath. Is that is that a fair assessment?
>> That is what he said.
>> Okay, good. Um and to be fair to Bill Thompson, and I'm trying to be because you know he's a career he's he's had a great career as a prosecutor. He did not actually say that in the change of plea hearing when he went through the evidence. He said something very uh obstruuse about tying it to it, but he never came out and said in that hearing, to be fair to him, he never came out and said Brian Cobberger's DNA was on the knife sheath. That's what we as a public have put together after all this time, right? Because we watch CSI. You get DNA and knife sheath and Brian Cobberger and we say, "Well, it must be, you know, you know, that's the way it was." That's not the way it was. That's not the way it was at all. And I talk about it in great length. And here's here's the the issue that uh Fox News uh in a very well done piece, but you know, it's a tiny tiny piece of a very very large puzzle. Um but it comes down to the chain of custody. So the I don't the Moscow Police Department goes does the initial scene. Officer Nunees goes and writes an affidavit. This is you guys. This is your realm. The affidavit becomes a search warrant. Search warrant goes back to the 1122. The search warrant prompts the the Idaho State Police to come in with their evidence response team because they have greater resources, right? And they process it. Um there is a handwritten report uh that I talk about where the knife sheath was taken and placed in a bag by the team and the handwritten report says KBAR sheath and it's handwritten done at contemporaneous with a seizure with a taking the evidence and it says found on floor next to victim number three. Uh that's not what we know where the knife was found.
The knife was found in the sheath the sheath was found in the bed. So that first of all, you look at that and go, well, wait a minute. Um, let's look at where it was found and how it ended up there, and that's a separate set of issues. But the sheath was placed in a brown paper bag per protocols as law enforcement officers are taught, and it was sealed with evidence tape, and there's one name on the on it that's visible, and it's dated 11162 2022, right? Um, I'll come back to this question. Why was it taken from the floor and placed on the bed? I'm not saying it was, but I want to talk about that that question, right? But the uh it's placed in a bag and there is a a a signature and the date the crimes occurred on the 13th. The knife was taken on the 13th. The signature on the bag is the 16th. That's three days. You as attorneys know chain of custody is very important. So, um, if you look carefully at the bag, you can see it appears that somebody signed the bag under and then put the evidence tape, which is transparent in some places.
It's red and transparent, and it looks like somebody signed for it on the 13th.
Um, and there's a barcode at the bottom of it, which says it's a knife sheath, and it has a number, and it's logged into evidence, but there's no chain of custody. But during the investigation, Dr. Turvy found that there was a second photograph of the bag and a second uh treatment of the bag. And in that um there is suddenly two chain of custody stickers on the bag and it details the chain of custody from the 13th to the 16th where it was delivered to the Idaho State Police Crime Lab. And uh those photographs suggest they were all filled out with the same instrument, meaning a felt tip marker and that it was all the hand the same handwriting. Why is that a problem? Because as attorneys, you know, chain of custody is the provenence that says this particular police piece of evidence was at a specific place at a specific time during the duration.
That does what? It prevents the possibility of contamination. And if there was contamination, it gives some some you can talk about it, right? So you guys can talk about chain of custody here better than I can. It's a big deal.
It's a big deal. So Dr. Turvy went to on behalf of the defense went to Ant Taylor's office and said, "Look, we have a problem here." And and I talk about this in the book, but this comes from Dr. Turvy. He gets credit for finding this. And he's talking about it now, right? He talked to in the same report.
So the problem is this guys it's that the knife sheath to go back to the question that the person said was it found on the floor or was it found in the bed and the answer is we don't know because the the the detective that found the knife sheath hand wrote contemporaneous with the with taking the evidence that it was found on the floor but all the photographs and all of the documents show that it was found in the bed. So does that is does that mean is it life or death? maybe not to a defense attorney. Is it a major issue? You guys tell me, right? And then when it was placed in the bag, how do you go to court? How do you show up at trial uh at at the trial that was scheduled?
How do you show up and introduce the knife sheath which is has the DNA? How do you introduce that evidence when the defense goes, "Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. not only was there no chain of custody for a significant period of time, but who filled out the chain of custody and wrote down six people's names? Is that a problem, counselors?
>> That's a huge problem. And I just want to say one thing and then I'm going to let Sam jump in. But this is okay. So this issue, the chain of custody, this is not her getting and I'm again I'm just asking questions with respect to this. I'm not should have, would have, could have being the attorney on the case. I'm I'm sure. But this is not her getting 250,000 documents regarding the knife sheet. It is or this evidence back. There is no way she didn't see this. Okay.
>> Okay. Great question. But but but she didn't see it.
>> She never saw the envelope ever.
>> No, you should talk to Dr. Turvy. I quote him in the book, right?
>> But he will he he'll tell you. I mean, he's a very direct guy. He's a very animated guy.
>> And he said that he found this discrepancy. And again, we are talking about a vast, vast amount of information. Um, he found this and he found corroborating documents that show it went to the Idaho State Crime Lab.
I'll let him tell you about this because I don't want to speak out of turn, but but they forced themselves to add this chain of custody and it's all documented. It's all documented in police files. So, Dr. Turvy told me and he's now saying publicly that he showed the defense this chain of custody and he said, "Well, if this is wrong, then all the other evidence has to be looked at as well because there's two issues. One, as you guys know, that the evidence itself might be an issue um in terms of admissibility. But if somebody did in fact fill out that chain of custody form um with one pen and write down all of those people's names on that, that means it was altered and that means real problems.
>> Am I am I overstating that?
>> No, just to kind of add on to your point when we talk about the chain of custody, I think everyone obviously knows it's a problem. Uh but the problem when you're going to trial is if it went to trial, you're not there's evidence that you have. there's evidence that's collected and then there's the ability for you to admit it, meaning the jury to consider it. So, what we're essentially suggesting is if there's a broken chain of custody, there's no way that the prosecution would have been able to get the sheath in. If they can't get the sheath in, the juryy's not even considering that portion of the case.
And so, what does that do to the case?
But I have another question with that is what was the time period if you know when this was discovered because it sounds like it was a long time after but prior to Brian taking the plea.
>> I'm sorry. Which which part of it? The timeline when she found out >> the timeline when Dr. Turvy found it and informed an and we can ask him about it but informed an was that shortly before Brian took the plea or was there a large period of time before that? I mean when in the the scope of this investigation was that actually discovered?
>> Yes, it was discovered very very close to the plea. It was found at the very very end when one might step one might speculate that it was already a done deal. This was found Dr. Turby found this evidence and presented it to the defense at the very very very end of this just prior to the plea and he obviously he was shocked and he'll tell you that he was shocked tells everybody who asks about it that he was shocked and I got all this from Dr. Turvy. Um but uh it was at the very end and nothing happened. Nothing happened. It was just okay well you know who cares.
>> Yeah. Dr. Turvy actually said it was four days from the time that he discovered Mhm.
>> that he discovered this chain of custody issue and the time that Brian accepted the plea deal.
>> Yes.
>> I didn't want to say it, but yes, that's what he told me.
>> Four days. And in my mind, >> we've all talked about it a lot between the like the three of us and other creators is something changed.
>> Something changed.
>> Something changed from him. I'm ready to go. You know, we have we've heard very little, but that's not unusual for defendants not to speak. We've heard very little, but we did know that he, you know, he was saying he was innocent and he was going to be exonerated and that's a whole other issue. But what changed? What changed?
>> Um, you guys have been wonderful to me and I would love talking to you. I I I know I know, but I don't feel like I can say.
>> I think that would come down to Dr. Turvy. I think Dr. Turvy will tell you.
I think he will say, "But only two people know what happened, right? If we accept Brian Coberger's guilty plea, and lawyers would stipulate that it's obvious, a grown male, uh, of sound mind, well educated, he's a PhD student in criminology. He stood in court, raised his right hand, where he didn't raise his right hand, but he stood in court and told Judge Hipler that he was guilty of four horrific murders and he took a deal where where he's going to prison for the rest of his life." Right?
So, you can argue all you want. I'm I choose not to argue that that's that's what happened, right? However, you go back and look at how that happened. How did he go from two and a half years of no no, okay, you got me. That is a big question. Everybody I've talked to about writing this book, they said they say, well, do you believe he did it? Whatever else, why would the end question, why would he take a plea if he didn't do it?
And that's a separate discussion that I would encourage you to have that with Dr. turvy because only Brian Kberger knows that and only Ann Taylor knows that because he did not allocate he did not allocate so he never told us anything about means uh motive or mechanism we don't know any of the answers to all these questions we're talking about right now but we know that he changed and it changed very abruptly nobody in this case the defense the experts uh the police officers the families nobody knew about this until it appeared on CNN right and that created did a lot of heartache that that created a lot of problems because Dr. Turvy had already taken uh personal items there in in prepared for the trial. Everybody's moving up there for the trial. This thing happened in a vacuum uh for for everybody except for Ann Taylor. So anyways, Brian Coberger who's not saying anything and Anne Taylor who actually has >> and Dr. Turvy would be to talk to about that.
>> Yeah, we talked to him briefly a couple weeks ago. Um but uh yeah, he's very passionate about that and I know that people Yeah, people were getting, you know, long-term rentals and they were preparing for this. So it is very clear if you're looking at the analysis, at least from my perspective, is that something changed? Something happened. Uh we have to keep digging. But we've also thrown out the theory is did he even know all of this? Did he know that?
>> Well, you can ask me about what I don't know or what I do know. I do know. What did do you think that Brian knew that there was a chain of custody issue? What did you think Brian knew about all of this evidence that was in his favor should this case go to trial?
>> I heard Ann Taylor say in her own voice that Brian Brian Kberger had access to every single piece of evidence that was presented. I know she said that from her own voice and I can back it up with a I can prove it. I can prove it. Okay.
And I can also say that she was adamant that Brian Coberger made this decision alone. I I know that's also on that.
>> But I can also say that two things in in two things specifically happened on the defense side in the 48 hours uh I want to be accurate. Let's say 72 hours to be conservative. in the 72 hours prior to the plea that various people have taken huge umbrage with including Dr. Turvy.
But I I I I don't want to speak out of turn. I I I believe strongly that he'll tell you about it. I just don't want to do it for him.
>> Right.
>> But I know the answer and I'll tell you what, >> we got a lot of really cool stuff that's that's happening.
>> I'll tell you guys after we hang up.
>> Stay tuned, people.
>> Yeah. And when we talked to him two weeks ago, it, you know, it was really cool. I think he actually follows us on TikTok now, so we're like, you know, pretty cool. But as soon as he dropped the first fbomb, I knew we were gonna >> freaking you. You take Turvy and me, like you guys are attorneys, so you've been through a lot, but you take guys like me and Turvy and, you know, we're pretty rough around the edges because we've lived lifetimes >> in in violence, right? I mean, slightly different aspects of it, but that's the but that's the thing. So, we do get some rough language from time to time. Um, and that's to be expected. But I I'll say this, too, that that's a tough life.
I mean, he chose a tough life. He's testified in more than 75 murder trials.
Uh, he's made a life of it. And he's a very very very bright guy.
>> Brilliant.
>> And he believes he's a he is a brilliant brilliant mind. And he is the most maybe myself. Well, I I I agree with him.
>> He loves you.
>> Is what? He loves you, too, by the way.
Like, >> I love that man.
>> Yeah. He said that uh >> we're dramatically different guys.
>> Very unfavorably about you.
>> We're we're dramatically different guys, but we believe very strongly in truth and justice. And I mean, I got to tell you this thing. There's since you dropped the fbomb where you talked about that I love physics, right? So, it used to be a small story, but now everybody knows the story where Richard Feman, the physicist, used to teach a freshman class of physics. I think it was at Cornell. and he would go into this classroom, this auditorium. He'd stand on stage and one of his assistants would bring a a bowling ball that was tethered to the ceiling, right? So, it's like a pendulum. And he'd take the bowling ball and hold it up to his nose and let it go. And this bowling ball goes 70 feet down in this giant arc. And he's and he's just talking like, "Hey, I'm, you know, I'm Dr. Fineman." He's doing this thing. And the bowling ball comes right back up to his nose and it stops just before his nose. And the class gasps and everybody does their thing. He does the whole thing without mentioning the bowling ball at the end of the class.
And I I know this is a well-known story, but when I first heard it, I thought it was great. And and he goes and and the class is getting ready to leave and the bowling ball and I was hanging, you know, straight down. And he looks and he goes, "Oh, oh, oh, about the bowling ball. I just want you to know that I believe in this shit."
And if you remember anything as as we hang up or whenever we go or or or whatever, I believe in this [ __ ] I spent my life on it. So, um I'm happy to talk about it. I'm happy to investigate and do all these things. Do I get things wrong? Of course I do. Will I get things wrong here? Of course I will. Um but guys, if we're Americans, you you've dedicated your lives to the law. I believe in you. I believe in what you do to protect me and other people. And if we believe in the American system of justice, we have to it's a in in my opinion, having worked in it for a long time, in my opinion, it's incumbent to realize that we have to ask these questions or or we're never going to make progress, right? I mean, if you go back to the beginning of time and let's just say whatever religion, you got Adam and Eve and Adam's first wife, Lilith, which a lot of people don't talk about.
I mean, I was a kind of a dysfunction crime family to begin with, right? I mean, the first two kids, one commits murder and then becomes a fugitive in the land and nod, right? So, what I'm saying is we've been at this game for a long time. A long time. It is part of being a human being and we're still trying to get it right, but why not keep trying? That's my That's my stick.
>> So, in looking Sorry, Ron, go ahead.
want to ask this.
In all the evidence that you saw, did you ever see any specific reports tying DNA on the knife sheath directly to Brian?
Absolutely not. And I and I will say this, um Annne Taylor asked Detective Brett Payne that exact question. Uh not exact question. She said, "Did the FBI ever tell you they found Brian Cobberger's DNA on the knife sheath?"
And he said, "No." He didn't say, "Um uh uh maybe uh whatever." He said, "No."
And then she asked the follow-up question. What did they say? And he said that we should we were told we should teach it. We should afford it no more uh weight than a tip.
Than a tip.
>> And that's important.
>> And you're because you're former FBI.
Why would an FBI agent say something like that to a police officer?
>> Because they were telling the truth.
They were telling the truth. Nobody found Brian Cobber. The FBI Let me Let me rephrase that. I don't want to say something.
>> Yeah.
>> That's an opinion. The FBI and Taylor asked Detective Payne in Frank's hearing if the FBI ever told him they found Brian Kberger's DNA on a knife sheath. I quote I there's a direct quotation. They got Brian's name from the from this tip from the FBI. Why would why would they do that?
>> Um, that's not what happened. That's not That's not what happened. That's not what happened. No, >> correct me though.
>> I want to know.
>> Well, I mean, you know, that's a 25page explanation in the book, right? But it's all laid out. It's all, you know, I I quote other people saying it. I quote the parties involved in saying it. I don't say I think this happened. I think that's I quote them saying what happened and what happened is the the the DNA evidence was originally sent to a crime lab in Texas called Aram Laboratories and then they treated it and then it came back and Taylor found out about that because there were no reports and Anne Taylor asked during this hearing for those reports and found out that there were no reports. So the DNA went to this lab author laboratories in Texas and there's this part about four brothers being identified that were not named Coberger. The evidence was taken back and the evidence was sent to the FBI. But if we start this conversation, we've got to look at a couple different things and and I know just enough about >> for that way.
>> I said we could you can do this and then we'll save that for our next show because I'm already booking you for another one, you know.
>> Oh, okay. Well, yeah. I mean, I'm ready to go whenever whenever you guys want to come. No, I I'm booking you for a part two.
>> Okay. But the the Well, we you know, still we've covered 10 pages out of a 400page book. There's so so much to talk about. So much to talk about. But when it comes to DNA, what's going to come out >> um is a is a frank, open, hopefully honest discussion of what really actually happened with the DNA and what it said about Brian Cobberger. Uh that one thing. I mean, we're not talking about the car. We're not talking about social media. We're not talking about his phone. We're not talking about selfies. We're not talking talking about ping cell tower pings. We're not talking about any of those things. We're talking about one specific uh piece of information evidence, which is DNA, and and I will say Bill Thompson, to be fair to Bill Thompson, and I want to be because I have great respect for Bill Thompson. Um, to be fair to him, he stood up in court in front of Judge Hitler and he did not say Brian Cobberger's DNA was on a knife sheath.
He said something much more uh accurate but much much softer, right? And you can go and just go watch it. Go and listen to what he said. But at the end of the day, it's complex for this reason that when I joined the FBI, you're going to get a kick out of this, guys. When I joined the FBI, they had a fingerprint database for the entire country, right?
It was on 3x5 cards.
>> Oh my gosh. Like a Dewey decimal.
>> Yes. It was not computer. I mean, listen, I you know, whatever. Um, it is what it is. When I joined the FBI, the laboratory, which at the time was in Washington DC, it's now in Quantico. You would in the field an agent would take a fingerprint in the crime scene, send it to the to the lab to the lab and they literally had people that looked at this thing and they would go through CAD Dewey decimal cards catalog looking at three five 3x5 cards to match it up.
They didn't it was not computerized. Now fast forward to where we are today and we have DNA and everybody thinks it's failroof, it's failafe. Um which is not the case. But there are two primary categories of DNA without getting too involved. One is uh referred to as SNIP and one of it is referred to as STR. And STRs in in very re in very vague terms are a genetic fingerprint. You find uh a DNA sample at a crime scene and you match it to an exemplar, a buckle swab or something from the person, you go, "Yeah, they match." Then it's over. And that's run through Cotus, right? We all know about COTUS. So that's what we hope for. We hope to find something at a crime scene, match it to somebody in Cotus. Case closed. It's over. That's it. Right. In fact, that's what the Innocence Foundation now, the Innocence Project is doing now to exonerate people. That's what they're that's what they're doing. The other side of it is I I mail off through Amazon and I get a kit for Yumi and 23 and I send it in and they do a snip profile which allows them to map me to a population group or to a I don't know if that's a proper term to a demographic and it says I'm part Irish and part German and part uh whatever whatever group, right? And that's what we know. What we have in this case is uh some kind of a no man's land between those two things. And that's how we ended up with the trash pole at the Cobberger residence in Albertsville and where we now have this conversation. So, do you you want more specificity or have I already driven all your viewers away?
>> No, you're you're you're amazing. But if if we don't ask a couple questions, I think the chat's going to get really mad at us. So, I'm gonna I'm gonna give you three, Chris, and you can start. Uh well, and this one I think this one I did not know until we read the book.
like a holy cow. Like, did I just read what I thought I read? Um, and we had late night hour chats going on with all of us. But who the heck is Erica and why was she texting about Ethan being cheated on? And did we know anymore?
>> No. No, we know no more. Why did I put it in there? Because why bring up the personal lives of these poor kids? And I felt horrible about I debated it, you know, for a significant length of time.
But I think it's important because nobody knows much about what happened with Ethan and Zana that night. There were so many different reports of where they were, what they were doing, whatever else. And because um we don't talk about other people involved in this, but they're human beings. They're college kids, right? There there's nothing bad in it. There's nobody getting bad about getting texted. I mean, it's probably happened to most people over time, but um I wanted to point out how much of this case has not been uh investigated because victimology is a very very important part. You know, I printed Chris Holland's victimology in this book and I thought he did a great job in a lot on various different parts of it to show people how these investigations go. It's you've got to know the victims in order to try and find the people that would have victimized them. Fair enough.
>> Fair So, um, there's nothing bad in any way. There's no allegation that somebody named Erica had anything to do with any of this.
Nothing. But is it important to know that these people were human beings?
They had social lives and that they interacted with people. I I in my opinion, I think that's important. It was certainly important to the police.
>> I think it's very important.
>> Yeah. I'm glad you put it in the book as well. I don't I think it's >> I hope people don't try to track down Erica because you wouldn't be able to.
Number one. Number two, who cares if he had interactions. I I can tell you right now, you go back to the video at the at the grub truck. You go back to the video at the corner club. You look at what everybody said about that night. You're talking about a college campus of fraternities and sororities where Greek life was important, right? And you look at the interactions of all those people.
I can tell you that I have a hundred pages that I could have put in there about the interactions of the people involved in this thing and wow. I mean, you know, it's what it's what you might expect of four years in college and we've all been there. Um, and and what it's like socially. Does that have any bearing on the crime? No. Does it have bearing on the complexity of what police were trying to figure out? Hell yes.
Hell yes. So, um, uh, she is not otherwise mentioned anywhere in any file that I've ever seen.
>> Chris, I do have a question. It might be off topic, but it has to do with video.
>> So, 1320 Linda Lane has 30 minutes missing of footage from 3:35 to 4:05 a.m. Has that ever been anyone ever questioned why there's 30 minutes missing of this footage at that particular time?
>> No, but which one? the Lindel Lane, the parking lot one or the dumpster one?
>> It would be the dumpster one. It would be the dumpster one. There's 30 minutes of time just gone that's been released to the public. And I've always wondered what is the reasoning for that footage to be missing.
>> I did not know that. And it's missing to whom? It's missing to the internet.
>> Public.
>> Yeah. So they released they released them. Foyer requested as well. There's a half hour missing in this time frame that we've never seen as 30 minutes are just gone. 3:30 to 4:05.
>> I can check, but I I don't know the answer to that offhand because I don't remember a gap. So, I don't know the answer to that. Maybe it was taken I don't know the answer. I think I've seen it, but you know, I may be wrong. But, you know, that's another thing we haven't talked about is the SUV. That's a big deal.
>> Can we talk about that because that's a big >> Do you have time?
>> Yes. Oh, I just know you have something, but yeah, we have 45 minutes.
>> Okay. Well, um, uh, let's see. How do we even start this? So, whoever committed these crimes, if Brian Kberger committing these crimes, arrives in a white Elantra, commits the crimes, gets in a white Elantra, and leaves, right? That's the That's what he plead guilty to, right?
>> Lots of questions about the white Elantra. Lots of ident questions about I mean listen there was a a white Chevy Cruise parked in the outside the house that that fit the description of that car right the window in the back and the white sedan four-door sedan whatever Molly Mcichel saying this the white car is a whole thing that's a whole part of the book that we haven't talked about yet and it's very important and and I've got after for our second thing we'll go back to there because there is a video of a compilation done by analysts where they take every video clip that's ever been found featuring a white car jutsapose it against GPS coordinates and shows you each clip of every camera in Idaho and Washington and it's really something to watch right you know what you can actually say about this car and the missing the front license plate and things like that that's one issue the white car like how'd you get there and how'd you get away that's one thing okay so let's go back now this is this is me finding things that I'm presenting to the public saying I don't know what this is but maybe you can figure it Lana. Lana, call me.
>> I'm joking. I'm joking. She's the kind of person that could figure it out.
She's the kind of person that could figure it out. Uh because she's so into that. But here's here's what I found.
I'm looking at >> Oh, there's Lena right there.
>> Okay. Okay. Great.
>> From Chris and his time. Okay. Thank you. Um I just I just sent you a uh I just sent you a lead, Lana. Um because she's done such great work on this thing. So, I've got to qualify it by saying many people already know about elements of this. Many people have talked about this, but I think they don't know where it goes. So, we all know there's the the 1112 camera video.
We know there's the the Linda Lane camera, which shows the white car coming up and driving around the park. I call it the parking lot video. And then you have the one that the trash can, which is also Linda Lane, but that's a trash can, right? So, you have three different camera angles. So, the car speeds away at 4. You guys will know better than I whatever the time hack is. Roughly 420, something like 420. The car speeds away.
At about 4:24, the Lindelane camera shows somebody walking from the direction of 1122 wearing a back what appears to be a backpack. They walk to the back of a large of a full-size boxy SUV. Have you guys seen this video?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. They go to that, the the tailgate opens. It appears that they put something in the back. The tailgate comes down. They get in the driver's side and it appears they're not wearing the thing. The thing takes off. You see it go and the the signal is is what? Why do we know that vehicle? Because it has loud exhaust, >> right?
>> Yeah.
>> Really loud exhaust. So, we hear it the the audio signature, which is important.
That goes down um past the 1112 video.
It turns right and we know it doesn't go up Wellenta because we don't see it go up. So, you go back to the Linda Lane, excuse me, you go back to the trash can video, uh, from Linda Lane and you see it going down Taylor Road, right? You can see it and you can hear it.
>> It goes and it's gone for, >> forgive me, but roughly three minutes, roughly three and a half minutes or something like that. And if you look at a tra if you look at a map of Taylor Road, >> um, there's no place to go for three minutes. There's no McDonald's. There's no get and go or, you know, wherever that you're going to go get a cup of coffee or whatever the case may be. It turns around and it comes back.
It goes back to turns left and goes up past 11112. What happens there is quite odd because it's out of the view but because of the signature of its exhaust and the loud nature of it signature of exhaust that you could uh I was just reading this question um you can tell that that it stops behind the camera which would imply that it's in front of the house and it the engine idles and then you can hear it under strain get louder and stop you know going the the the vehicle is doing something there. I don't know if it's parking. I don't know what it's doing.
It doesn't matter. The engine shuts off.
It doesn't drive away. The engine shuts off and the only way that where place I could be is the the front of the house.
And then I think when you listen to the video, I think it seems to me that you hear the door close and you don't hear the vehicle anymore. So the first question is why did somebody drive go?
Why did someone walk up to the Linda Lane parking lot? That's the Queens Queens Road apartments, I think. I'm not I'm not positive offh hand, but >> um they get they put something in the back, they drive away, and then when they come back, they don't go back to their parking spot, they stop at the house.
>> Um still not. It's like, what's the big deal? Um but if you go back and you follow that video, you see that vehicle return to its original parking spot at 6:30 a.m. in daylight, and you can see it. So you can see that SUV and all the videos of the white car because when the white car goes up to the Linda lane video for the parking lot, it highlights that vehicle so you can tell what it is, where it is, which parking spot, all of those details. It leaves. It's gone for 5 minutes. Comes back, parks proximal to the house and stays there until you follow that video out, the Linda Lane video out to 6:30 and that vehicle comes back and parks its original parking spot and the driver gets out, walks behind it and walks back down toward the house. And I'm not trying to load that by saying, you know, they're they're walking back to the house. I'm saying there's nothing else in between. There's no doors there.
There are no residences there. So, they're walking in that back back in that general direction. And I believe that anybody that ascribes to the theory that the second floor was altered and that there's very unusual things about a potential cleanup, one might argue where did all that bloody stuff go? Where did all the clothes go? Where did all the towels go? Where did all the stuff used to clean the floor if that happened?
Where did it all go? And I think that's one thing that nobody to the best of my knowledge has ever looked into except I know everybody's screaming at me. Well, you know, everybody knows this. What people have talked about, including Annne Taylor sent investigators to talk to those witnesses who told police that they heard the loud exhaust at 420. And you know what I'm talking about. The guy that was outside working on his car. I think whatever he heard it, saw it, whatever else. And I think there's news footage. I think a camera crew went out there and they record uh an SUV that was thought to be that vehicle that was still parked there the next day and it's not the same vehicle. It's a different vehicle. So even though I think many people true crime sleuths out there, let me ask you, I think even though you think you know about that SUV, I believe uh somebody needs to look into that in great detail. And and if you need help, I have a I have a spreadsheet that shows every vehicle registered to an Idaho State student at the time. So, somebody with good data mining skills could probably figure out what that is. Am I saying they're involved? No. Am I saying we should find out what's going on? I think that's I think that's >> Well, they should have been questioned at least.
>> Somebody should have tracked down that vehicle.
>> I mean, they're Who are you? Yeah.
>> Yeah. Who are you and what did you do?
Even if it's not involved, the guys uh you know around the scene 50 feet away going to a truck and leaving. I I think it >> Yeah. Well, you know what stands out in my mind is why would you leave at 4:20 in the morning and and again it's all plausible. We got to ask the question why not, right?
>> Why would you leave at 4:20 in the morning, leave, drive for 4 minutes and 23 seconds or whatever it is in the direction of nothing? There's nothing.
There's no place to go there. turn around, come back, park in front of the house, and then two hours later at 6:30 in the morning, go back out and get in the car and drive back to your original parking speed, which parking space, which is 100 feet away. It it is compelling as a question.
>> So maybe that person's watching now and they'll say, "Hey, it was me. Shut up."
>> They're most definitely watching.
>> They'll volunteer to talk to you. We'll have you on next.
Chris, this is uh this is Rolo Mottom420. He's another incredible creator. We have so many creators in the chat that that we should connect you with. I know Bubbly Waters is here. Um Outcast is right there. You're talking to Birdie. Uh there's another one named Pav. Um there's so many amazing creators that have really foraged uh this path even before the three of us got into this case. Um, but uh it it this is a great question. So, I wanted you to I wanted you to answer it because we we get this one a lot and frankly I don't know that three of us have enough information to really be able to answer that.
>> The only thing I can tell you about this and and and I couldn't talk about any of these people in the book, right? All the people whose names have come up, the various jacks and the various hoodies and all of these various people I couldn't talk about um for for various reasons uh legal reasons, you know. Um but it's a very big it's a very big consideration because there were very there was a significant people a number of people who were looked at as persons of interest and several names have become prominent but I can tell you guys I think maybe we talked about this yesterday. Did I tell you about that that lunatic that had that was that was eating people and killing women and eating them and bragging about it. I mean there was some really really out there characters that that arose during this investigation. I mean wow. Um, but um, let's talk about the the blood stains. And I all I can tell you is this. I can tell you that I've seen the photographs. I've seen the reports saying that they were that they were taken as evidence and that they were going to be sent off and be tested. And I could tell you that they were not uh that they were not used by uh prosecutors or even investigators from that point on to identify andor further investigate suspects. So the answer is nothing. Nothing came of them.
>> Was there a fridge of evidence that went bad during this investigation? Was there samples in a fridge? Um that just >> I've never heard that. I've never seen that. I've never heard that. I've never heard it mentioned by the defense. And it seems like they would know that. But I can say that the the evidence seized at the scene, some of it was still uh the evidence that was exposed to blood or other serum, other fluid, human fluids. Um that was all treated in what I thought was a very professional manner. Uh in terms of drying, there were mechanisms that police departments use because fluids as evidence can go bad if they're left that way. So they're typically uh dry stored uh they're treated, dried, and stored in a particular manner. And based on what I've seen, everything was done properly.
I have I've seen no evidence of anything going bad in the fridge. I think I would have seen that, but I don't know.
>> I I have a question kind of following up and it's part of it. I I read your book.
I read parts of it multiple times, some of it late at night, so I may have reading comprehension issues here. Um, what was what first raised I I guess identified Brian Coberger as a potential suspect to the police?
>> Um, the answer is I don't know, but I will quote again and it and this is in the book. Um, during the Frank's hearing, Anne Taylor asked I think it was Ann Taylor's a member of Anne Taylor's team. I think it was Annne Taylor asked um Detective Payne when he first heard Brian Cobberger's name and he said he heard it from an FBI agent >> who was a member of the cell phone analysis cell self cell self analysis support team the cast team he said that was the first time he heard Brian Coberger's name so I don't know but that's what he said >> but we don't have a followup on when what on the circumstances of that or >> well we don't have a followup but you know you guys are highly capable experienced and very very impressive legal minds. And the next question would be explain the chronology of the finding of the white elantra, the cell phone tower dump that led to a an to that analysis and the identification of the DNA on a knife sheath. Like that is that is far beyond my pay grade at this point, but it's it's a big deal.
>> Like did they find the car based on something else? Did they find the cell phone tower ping after they identified Cobberger? When did they suspect somebody had DNA here, there, or otherwise? And the answers are are out there. They've said them. I put a lot of those answers in the book, but I I can't say that I could make sense of them. I I'm I don't know that I can make sense of them.
>> Well, I don't feel so bad because I'm still having trouble wrapping my mind around it.
>> I think Ian Taylor and the defense had trouble wrapping their mind around it as well based on what they've said. And and you could ask Turvy about this as well.
Um but yeah, that's a big question. It's a very very big question.
>> And I just want to remind everyone that, you know, Chris got into this case following the the plea agreement.
Correct.
>> Um no, uh I I actually started this when they were preparing for trial. I started looking at this as it was leading I I planned my my whole thing my whole pitch was I was going to go uh prep go to Idaho sit through the entire trial and then write about the process. That was the intention. So I wrote up to the point where I I researched. I never started writing until after the agreement. But you can imagine this is months and months of 12-hour days going through this information. I I can't even I couldn't calculate the hours I've spent researching this thing. But um I never start I never wrote a word until after the plea the change of plea uh was was announced.
>> Uh here's a good question because it gets floated around a lot. Was there ever a CI mentioned in this case at all?
A confidential informant, a victim or someone else involved in this case whatsoever?
>> Um yes, lots. I mean, you cannot imagine a police agency, meaning the the Moscow Police Department, the Idaho State Police, the FBI, or anybody else not having informants, right? I mean, that's the way the system works. And there was a robust uh confidential informant uh not database, but uh you know, collection of people and and they were all asked. I mean, there was there was a strong attempt by law enforcement to check with sources about information that might lead to this. The police, I'll say it again, I think the Moscow police did a comprehensive, extraordinary, and really really uh did a great job with a huge investigation. I think they left no stone on turn unturned until Kberger became the name and then everything changed. So yes, there was and and it produced nothing of of value. But I guess the more of the question was was any of the victims this confidential informant that people may think, you know, >> I've never I've never Well, first of all, I never thought about that or asked that or whatever else, but there's nothing to indicate that they were in any way involved with police. No.
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you.
And the reason I brought that up, Chris, is I know people are are commenting, but you have to remember that Chris went through what was it 59,000 plus files, 200,000 documents if I mean, I don't want to even >> I don't know what the exact number is, but that's, you know, I tried to estimate it and then, you know, as soon as I wrote that down, like I said, 10 days ago, I found a file that had 8,247 pages that I had never even seen. So, I mean, it's staggering how much information.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And so I just I want to remind everyone that as Chris has probably spent hundreds of hours researching this, there are are still things that might have happened before he started re researching or after or just I mean could you imagine just opening up an email and hey there's 8,000 documents that you need to go through >> this one document that I never even saw because there's so many of them. But you know I I want to address that question because it's a great question. And many people have this question. And what I'll say is um if if you had seen if you had access to what I had access to with in in each have everybody has their own expertise. You're going to see things I didn't whatever else. I will I always come back to this. What we truly know about this case no matter how many documents it could have been five million documents. It doesn't matter.
What we truly know about this case is what Bill Thompson told us at the change of plea hearing. He could have said I've got this, this, and this. It would have been whatever he did. We know what Bill Thompson told us.
He said it. All you got to do is go back and watch that change of plea hearing where he laid out the evidence, right?
And we know what Ann Taylor had in terms of how she refuted that evidence. And the answer to that is she didn't. The answer to that is her client plead guilty. It never went to trial. Had we I say this again, had this gone to trial, it would have saved me the trouble of dealing with any of this. I wouldn't have written the book. I would have gone happily on with life and done whatever else. We didn't. We'll never get those answers unless unless we look a little bit more. But we know this unequivocally. We know what Bill Thompson told us and we know what Ann Taylor showed us with Brian Cobberger's plea. Anything questions you have about about this thing after that is between us. It's, you know, >> and and what was missed. Um, and I just wanted Chris, there is another creator that is is very very very good. And when you said spreadsheets, I was like, man, he's got to talk to Jules. So, I don't know if you know Jules with Two Crane Reactions. She's very very good with the spreadsheets uh and the Excel stuff, which is definitely not my forte. Um, so we'll we'll make sure we get you in touch. We're actually collaborating with her very soon. I think a bunch of people from her chat. And there is a thousand amazing creators. I mean, Senor Wasowski, I don't even want to start going through names because I'm gonna I'm gonna forget someone and then I'm going to get yelled at for forgetting someone. But there are some really truly brilliant brilliant minds uh that I have learned a ton from. But I know that we still have these questions. I have two more I have to get through. Chris, do I know when we talked the other day, you you believed that it was 1,000 million% not possible for one person to have committed this crime.
>> Well, I did not have fixed a statistic.
I did say statistics. I said probability. You know, I like math and I like physics and I believe there is a probability of every outcome, right?
>> We got collapsing wave theories and quantum physics and all that. We're not going to quote any of that stuff. We're paid to it. There's a probability that certain things happened, right? And I do believe that all the evidence that I have seen and all the people that I've spoken with and I will say this includes and I you'll have to research it, but I have seen detectives say during interviews on YouTube that they are not saying somebody else wasn't involved. It's just that Coberger was right.
The police do not openly dispute that somebody was else was involved in this case. I I I f I feel and this is not a theory. I feel if you look at the evidence I've presented in this book and you look at where we are now, all this discussion and everything else, I don't know how a reasoned, honest human being could make sense of what we see here and claim that it was committed by one person. I don't know. I mean, if you look at nothing else and you look at Zana Ly on the floor of that bedroom in a tremendous fight, I mean, the evidence of the fight is tremendous. Her boyfriend, 6'4", 228-lb athlete is lying in bed next to her.
>> How does that man not get out of bed and help his dying girlfriend? Um, if you look at nothing else, not not if you look at nothing else, explain that to me. And why did they cover his body after he'd been after he'd been brutalized?
>> It's a very good point. All right, Chris, what do you know about the spare bedroom?
>> Oh, guys, that's got to be part two because I'm telling you, the spare bedroom is important.
>> I'm telling the book. Go buy the book.
It's in the book.
>> Yeah. I mean, go buy the book.
>> It's in the book. There's a link.
There'sund links in there. Go buy the book. It's on audio or reading or you can be like me.
>> The butter the butterfly effect.
>> The butterfly effect for everyone. And I think someone just said that that you wrote the book, Chris, because you got paid to. And I I'm sorry. I have to respond to that.
>> No, he he didn't. Uh because he didn't have to write the book. And so that's kind of you probably missed the beginning of the show where we talk about that where Chris was explaining that he's in a really good place in his his career. He's been part of the CIA hostage negotiations. Well, not part of the CIA. I was never I was never a CIA officer. No, I wasn't. Did I work with them?
>> You work with him. Okay.
>> I got to be very I got to be very clear.
I was never a CIA officer. No, I wasn't.
>> He worked with the CIA.
>> Kristen is a hype girl if you didn't know. So, he got lost.
>> But at no point, and this was just something we had a really candid conversation about is he was at a point in his life where he doesn't Chris didn't have to do anything. He So, I'm not sure how he wrote a book to get paid if he didn't have to write the book. Um, you know, Okay. Can I can I just address that really quickly?
>> You address it because look, I I I I have no social media by by choice, right? And it's it's because anybody can say anything they want any time just because they get attention saying it.
And I'm not saying this is what you're talking about here. But I'll say this.
What do you do for a living? Do you work at McDonald's? Are you are you a neurosurgeon? Do you drive a truck? How much of that do you do for free?
>> Right. Number one, I'm a writer. This is my sixth published book and most of them have done well. I I write because I choose to write. I could have written a lot of books that had nothing to do with this. But that doesn't matter. It's ne my motivation is neither here nor there.
I can tell you and this is the truth. I get paid the exact same amount of money if you don't buy the book or if you do buy the book. I've already been paid. I got the advance. Uh I'm done. Does the publisher care? They probably care because they want to recoup their investment. I got paid to write it. I don't get paid a dime, a penny, a nickel if you buy it. So, in terms of motivation, I would ask those among your viewers who are picking things apart, have at it. I mean, that's that's your right to do that. But, um, consider for a second that maybe your scrutiny should be directed at the items we bring up in this investigation.
um not not stupid superfluous things around like why I did it and whatever. I did it. You can decide anything you want about it. So, I'm not going to get in the weeds about this. But what was the next question?
>> Well said. And I think for anyone that that thinks that this is not something they've already heard or is something they've already heard, then I encourage everyone else to write a book because the more people that we can get this in front of and the more people that actually educate themselves and know the facts and not everything that's been claimed to be fact because it was on Tik Tok or YouTube. You know, if you know as much about this, then maybe you you know, maybe more people should write books. Uh, I think that, you know, >> or talk on podcast or talk on Reddit or whatever, all these paradigms of virtuous intellectual endeavor, right?
>> My last question for you. Um, >> because I've already booked you for like parts two through 10.
>> And, uh, and I don't even think Chris knows this, but here's the big >> You don't realize, Chris, you don't get to say no to that.
>> You don't.
>> Why would I? You haven't. You haven't >> coming over for Thanksgiving dinner. All right, last two, Chris. I can tell you one turkey. I'll I'll I'll dash it. No pun intended.
>> Um, but >> and here's the big announcement. We've actually been talking to Dr. Turvy for a while. Uh, and Dr. Turvy will be filming with us very, very, very soon.
>> Fantastic.
>> And we could not be more excited. This is something that's been in the works for for several weeks now. Um, and uh, yeah, he's actually following us on TikTok, which is pretty cool. But following our discussion with Turby, we would like to do a panel and get Chris and I we would like to get you two together, invite some other uh, creators up to join us and really just if there's anyone else you think uh, you can email that I should uh, get in touch with.
Like I said, I'm uh, pretty persistent.
So, but here's the final question because I know you have a you have another show that you have to get.
>> First of all, I can't wait for that. I I really look forward to that.
>> Bernie Birdie's show is awesome. His chat's awesome. There's so many great people. So many talk people will be heading straight there after. It truly is an amazing community and I can say this a million times, but we're all better together.
>> The 4chan, you you're you're familiar with the 4chan um the the dark web post?
>> No, I don't know what that is.
>> I I didn't know what 4chan was either until I started looking into this case.
Ces, you want to elaborate? Oh, I guess if you don't know what it is, but >> Yeah. No, it's just people that posted very early on into the into the case, like days after. Just people, you know, speculating on what happened that night.
That's how I >> very disturbing, very descriptive, very detailed.
>> I mean, I would say it's probably common for that to happen. I'm not too sure how much truth or you know what's really there. That's aware.
>> Well, I'll say this guys until we get together next time. I can tell you I don't know. I don't speculate. I have no theories. I don't say any of those things in the book. But if if anything comes out of this, for me personally, it is this type of conversation.
bright believers in the system that can look at it with the scrutiny that you bring, the life experience, uh, the intelligence, the give a [ __ ] Uh, I'm very proud to talk to you guys. I'm proud that you would even listen to a word I say >> because you're going to take it whatever. I don't know the answers, but I know there's questions that really, really compel us to answer them, to find those answers. I believe law enforcement and prosecutors and defense attorneys and criminologists and YouTube viewers and Reddit people and every I believe we all want the same thing. I don't think anybody's saying let's bury this. It's let's look at it. If there are killers out there that would need to be found, why would we say no? Why would we not want to do that? So, >> my opinion doesn't matter. Who gives a crap? I I looked hard at the evidence and you guys have been kind enough to talk about it and I appreciate that.
Well, we certainly appreciate your time and if you haven't read the book, please go read the book because really I just find it so fascinating how you've compiled all of the evidence. Some of the stuff that we've seen before, like the interviews from Dylan and Bethany, just the way that it is arranged, um, I think allows everyone to kind of take a different look at it. And I like that you have suspended your opinion for the most part in it because I think it's important for everyone to be able to draw their own conclusion from it to look at it from a different light and a different perspective. So I certainly enjoyed reading it. I feel like I could read it three more times and get a different thing from it each time. But we really really appreciate um you sitting with us especially almost for three hours today. Uh and no doubt Kristen will stalk you for those next couple interviews. So, you'll be hearing from us shortly, but we can't thank you enough. And everyone out there, thank you so much for joining us for a live, all the creators out there, all the positive comments. Um, we really, really appreciate it.
>> Yes.
>> Same guys. Same.
>> Exactly with Pam. But Chris, it's been such a pleasure talking to you, um, you know, offstream and just getting to know who you are. I think a lot of us have really been waiting for this book to come out to have a different side of the story to be told. Something that was not just repeated and repeated that was put on news cycles without a whole lot of supporting evidence. And so I think you're probably the first biggest person really to get out there and to say that freaking doesn't make sense. Uh we should look at that. And um I am very grateful and I know that the other three on here are as well. And so is all the chat. And you guys, I'm sorry if I did not name you. I will make sure that Chris has a list of everybody that is amazing. Um, there's just a long list of amazing creators. But Chris, you don't, you know, I had one more question. You know, you know, and maybe I'll just leave this as a cliffhanger, but I've lost a lot of hours of sleep about this.
Was there really a fight night?
>> Was there really a fight night?
>> Was there a fight club?
>> Fight night with the fraternities. Uh, was there any evidence on knuckles or fists?
>> I know of three fights that were documented that night. I don't know if they're what you're talking about, but >> interesting.
>> There there was a lot of social activity tonight, guys. Trust me, there's a lot going on that night.
>> I know a lot about social interactions of the people in this thing that I will never say on a podcast, but it was a very busy community in a lot of different ways. I'll talk to you about it afterwards if you call me.
>> Oh, I can't wait.
>> That sounds great. And for anyone whose questions we didn't get to, we are so sorry. We're gonna look at them, pull the good ones, and and we'll move on and keep those, keep track of those for next time. Try to get everyone heard.
>> Yes. So, like, subscribe, Chris. We'll make sure we put um but we've already put a few times where you can buy the book. They have it on audio. They have it um on, you know, written, hardback. I I'm like, look at I'm a paper and a pen kind of girl. We didn't even get to like 90% of my my questions, but Chris, you are you are so uh it was really really really really enjoyed.
>> Same guys. I can't thank you enough.
Seriously.
>> Yeah, we got the SUV. We got more fight night or three fights. We got the We got Murphy because there's more on Murphy.
>> Oh, there's more. We got a We got 410 pages in a 440 page book to talk about.
We've scrapped so few things.
>> But have fun with Turvy. Turvy will be a blast.
>> Yeah.
>> Awesome.
>> We can't wait. And thank you Outcast for joining us as well.
>> I appreciate you for having me too as well.
>> Same outcast.
>> Make sure you guys go buy that book. I'm serious.
Like, subscribe, and until next time.
>> Until next time.
>> Thank you guys. Thank you so much.
Byebye.
>> Thank you, Chris.
>> Byebye.
Related Videos
VALORANT's Latest 'Exclusive' Tier Bundle is Rough...
KangaValorant
17K views•2026-05-28
Flight Attendant Mocks Poor Looking Black Woman — Mid Air Announcement Exposes Her Real Power
SkyboundStories-b4r
184 views•2026-05-28
I FIXED My Friend’s Blown Turbo RX-8… Then Sold It
Cameron-RX8
134 views•2026-05-28
NewsWatch 12 at 5: Top Stories
NewsWatch12
1K views•2026-05-28
Simon Jordan & Danny Murphy deliver PREDICTIONS for Arsenal's Champions League FINAL with PSG
talkSPORTArsenal
6K views•2026-05-28
Botting is OUT OF CONTROL in Classic WoW (Again)...
SolheimGaming
108 views•2026-05-28
The "AI Job Apocalypse" is CANCELLED!
WesRoth
9K views•2026-05-28
STREET FIGHTER 6 - INGRID Story Walkthrough @ 4K 60ᶠᵖˢ ✔
RajmanGamingHD
12K views•2026-05-28
