In forensic DNA analysis, likelihood ratios compare the probability of DNA evidence under different hypotheses, with higher ratios indicating stronger evidence; however, when likelihood ratios fall between 0.01 and 100, they are considered inconclusive, meaning the evidence cannot definitively include or exclude a contributor, and courts must carefully evaluate whether such evidence is misleading or prejudicial to the jury.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
IDAHO--NEW DOCS & EXHIBITS--FOR MY QUEEN MERCYKATAdded:
Oh, well. Hello.
Hello. Hello. Hello, everyone. Let me make sure all my stuff is good here.
Thought I was okay, but let's double check. How's everybody doing? Hello.
Hello. Hello. Okay, I think that's good.
That should be good. Hopefully, everybody can hear me. Okay, it's been so long. I've missed everyone. Hello.
What's going on, friends?
You know, YouTube that I'm inauthentic and that I'm not me. I'm not real. So, I just wanted to Hi. What up, [ __ ] Yeah, I'm real. Um, you know, what you see is what you get, [ __ ] This is me. Hello.
Welcome on in. YouTube says I'm not a real person. I mean, I feel like I'm pretty real. I feel like I'm pretty real. I mean, I feel real, right?
Is this AI or is this AI? Are you being tricked? Is this all a trick?
And it's just the AI. What up everybody?
Miss K, Gina K, check. I'm checking chat. Welcome in everybody. Genuinely, hello Crystal Sharon ASP. Holy everybody, how you been? Jessie, hello.
Frosty Phantom, good to see you.
Haven't seen you in a while. Lori Woody, hello. Hope everybody's having a wonderful, wonderful weekend. I know I've been MIA.
Um, but you know, I've been working on the studio and stuff here at the new place, too. So, um, you know, pretty soon, friends, pretty soon, uh, we're going to be doing Snark Tank podcast. uh couple times a week. So, um you know, that's what we're doing. Um there's going to be a whole new podcast here. Uh we're not [ __ ] around with YouTube anymore. It's actually a waste of time.
I feel bad. Um you know, all you other creators, hey, to each your own. You know what I mean? For me, YouTube is um it's a joke.
It's an actual joke. Um I know that I'm a real person. I know that uh I've been covering this case since day one. Um even though I started going live about this case a couple years ago. Um I've been on this case since day one. Lana knows that. Diego knows that. Lots of people know that. I've been um on their channels. I mod for them. So whatever.
Um they say that I'm not real. Um but we have a whole bunch of new docs. Okay. We have a whole bunch of new docs to get to friends. Um, I originally um was going to do the jury questionnaire, right? The defendants's proposed jury questionnaire form. Um, and then I saw that there was so so much other stuff. So, like it is what it is.
We're just going to go through things.
Um, but there's a lot to get to. There's a lot to get to. Um, when I was checking the website this morning, I saw that um, they have a whole bunch of new stuff.
Um, and sorry, I'm getting to it. Hold, please.
I need my glasses.
So yeah, uh all of these new docs, sorry, should have had it open. It starts on like March 24th, 2025, and it goes all the way down to like we have a new one for March 19th, uh exhibit S1 to the state's response to the defendant's seventh motion to compel.
And then there's a whole bunch for uh March 17th.
Um, there's also a new one for March 6th, which is exhibit A to the defendant 7th motion to compel. There's a bunch for March 3rd, um, February 24th.
There's some for there. So, yeah. I mean, it goes all the way back to February 24th, uh, for some items that we got here finally. Uh, I don't know if you guys saw um my post. I had um emailed the Ada County clerk myself a few days ago to find out like can we get a you know ETA on these docks or like like what's the deal? I basically was like you know it's been 6 months since Hitler ordered these things to be unsealed and released to the docket and I'm not sure like where they are. So, um, they weren't kidding, I guess, when the clerk got back to me and said they should be uploaded very soon to the docket. Uh, they weren't kidding because they were up within like 24 hours of them emailing me back. So, I mean, hey, you know, um, Annette, hello. Welcome on in.
So, yeah. I mean, I don't even know where to start because there's so much.
Um, I feel like we should go in order and start from earliest to latest, you know. Um, but I don't know guys, what do you think? I initially was going to go over the jury questionnaire and then I saw all this other stuff and I was like, wait.
So, yeah. Kane B, good to see you, sir.
Yeah. Sorry I've been gone, guys. Sorry I've been gone. Um, you know, I have a I have a whole new job that I've been working. Um, which I love, by the way.
It's a lot of fun. Um, and I actually enjoy it.
Um so between the new job we have school instructors and things like that it's just really busy plus set up and doingly busy and you know no offense to anyone okay I just want to put this out there I mean no offense to anyone this is just for me for my own personal um you Um, I just have to get this off my chest. All your bippity boppity boosh [ __ ] it don't work here. I just I want to put that out there for the person who needs to hear it. Okay. All that bippity boppity boo [ __ ] it don't work here, okay? It doesn't. Um, it just doesn't work.
I know that there are going to be some of you that have no idea what I'm talking about, but the person who I'm talking to knows exactly what the [ __ ] I'm talking about. And they're stupid bippity boppity boo [ __ ] don't work here. Okay? Your rituals won't work here. Your stupid little curses, your hexes, all of that [ __ ] that you like to throw out. It don't work here. It don't work here. The reason that it doesn't work here is because it may look like I'm alone. It may look like I'm alone.
I'm never alone ever. Don't ever get it twisted.
Okay. Um, all of the the beings that you can't see behind me, okay? These are the [ __ ] that protect me. All right. And they let me know immediately when you try your bippity bobby boo [ __ ] and it don't work here. Um, so I just wanted to put that out there. Okay. So, uh, you could stop now. You could stop now. And I don't even need to return to sender. I just want you to understand that. I don't even need to return it to you. It's just an instant [ __ ] backfire every time you try it. So take your bippity boppity boo [ __ ] and bippity boppity boo the [ __ ] on away from me. Okay. Appreciate it. All right.
A delay in audio, Greg. Well, you know, it is what it is. That's the norm around here, Greg. If you're new here, welcome on in. Welcome to the delay in audio.
Okay. Um, I have my spook assigned to me. You know, that's the other thing I wanted to put out there. Uh, the spook that's assigned to monitor me. That [ __ ] sees everything you do.
Every time you try to hack my [ __ ] they see you. Every time you try to get into my accounts, they see you. I just want to put that out there, okay? You've been caught. We caught the tiger by the toe.
Give it up. You're wasting your time.
And in the end, um, the only thing that's going to happen to you for [ __ ] with me is like prison. I mean, that's just how it that's just what it comes down to. Um, targeting me will only land you in prison. Okay.
So, now that we cleared that up, let me get over here.
Start. Let's start down here. February 24th. What was it? That way I could bring it up for you. We could take a look at it together.
All right. So, we have actually let me do this real quick.
Sorry, friends. Hold please.
Let's fix that. Fix that. Couple things I need to close out here because we're just going to go through it one by one.
And actually, it'll probably help with delay, too, if I close out a bunch of these tabs that I have open. So, sorry, friends. So, good to see everyone.
Appreciate everybody being here. Thanks for hanging out with me today. Happy Sunday.
Um, you know, all that good jazz, we're getting there, friends.
Hopefully, nobody no one's in a rush.
Okay. Uh, it's been a while since I've been live.
Um, we can leave that one open. Oh, okay. Cool.
Leslie and Billy, where are you at? Good to see you. Welcome on in. I don't see Leslie and Billy. Oh, there you are. So, good to see you.
Yeah, of course.
I might be a little bit Everything might be a little bit slow today, friends.
Sorry. It's okay.
Okay. All right. Let's look at this one first. This is the stipulated agreement of the parties uh to not mention the a cell phone incident during trial. Uh it's only three pages, so this one's easy.
This one's stupid.
Yeah, this one's stupid. I don't even need to bring this up on screen. It literally just says, "Come now, Brian C.
Coberger by and through his attorneys of record and the Law County Prosecuting Attorney's Office and hereby provides this honorable court a stipulated agreement between the parties to not mention anything during trial regarding a 2014 cell phone incident where Mr. Cobberger took his sister's cell phone.
[ __ ] Cobberger stealing phones, bro, back in 2014. What are you thinking, homie?" All right, this one I think we can share. This is the Yeah, this one's 12 pages.
Me bring this up for you. Diane Draper.
Twizz is watching. Kane. Oh, good.
Welcome on in, Twizz. Good to see you.
Good to see you, Diane. I hope you're doing well. Let's bring this up for you guys.
Make sure that's shared for you. Let me go back over here. Check this.
We can do that, right? Yeah.
All right. Cool.
I think we're good. Actually, I want to do that.
There we go.
Hopefully, everybody can see that. Okay.
All right. We got 12 pages here. Uh let me see here. This is the motion and limony number five regarding inconclusive data.
I think a lot of this stuff we've already seen before. Um some of it was redacted though, I think, when it was first released. So, I'm not sure. We're just going to go through it all together. Yeah, we'll get through as much as we can.
Okay. So, let's see. Uh, comes now.
Brian, see, actually, do you need me to make this bigger for you guys? I can make it a little bigger. Let's do that.
How's that?
I just want to make sure everybody can see it. Okay. Can you see me? Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. Everything all right?
Am I clippy? Am I choppy? Kane, I feel like you would tell me. Okay.
I feel like you would tell me.
Oh, don't forget everyone say hello. Say hello to the spooks in chat. Well, mine especially. Um, you know, I know I give spooks a lot of [ __ ] around here, but I'm very grateful for my spook. I like my spook. My spook is a cool [ __ ] spook. So, make sure that you give some love to my spook in the chat. Okay.
Okay. Just make sure you throw a bunch of hearts in the chat for my spook and my mercy cap. I don't know where she is. It's Sunday. She's probably doing something cool with King Alroy is my guess. You guys can hear that. Okay. I mean, you can see that. Okay. I just want to make sure you can see it. Okay, cool. Awesome. Thank you. Appreciate you guys being here. I mean, [ __ ] you know, share it far and wide, friends. Tell your friends we're live. It's been a long time since since we've been over here.
All right, let's get into this. Uh, comes now. Bri comes now. Brian C.
Cobberger by and through his attorneys of record hereby moves the court for an order limiting testimony about the stat the statistical analysis of item Q131 fingernail scrapings.
Allowing such testimony would violate Mr. Cobberger's federal and state constitutional rights to due process. a fair trial, effective assistance of counsel, and confrontation of witnesses.
This motion is based on the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution, Idaho Constitution, Article 1, Section 13, and Idaho Criminal Rule 16, and Idaho rules of evidence 102, 104, 701, 702, and 703.
The requested limits are made to quote, "see secure fairness in administration.
To the end, the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined. See 102. Further, the above requested matters are ripe for consideration by the court pursuant to IRE 104 based on the existence of issues that involve preliminary preliminary questions of admissibility.
Statement of facts. In grand jury testimony, Jade Miller testified as to the results of testing done on item Q131. a swab of the left fingernail clippings from Madison Mogan.
The data consists of three of a threeperson mixture.
The statistic, the likelihood ratio, was calculated assuming that Madison Mogan was a contributor to her own fingernails.
Miller testified that Madison Mogan as followed. The DNA profile is at least 77,900,000 times likely, more likely to be seen if it resulted from a mixture of DNA from Madison Mogan, Kaylee Gonzalez, and an unrelated randomly selected individual.
than if it resulted from DNA from Madison Mogan and two unrelated randomly selected individuals.
And that's from grand jury transcript at 366.
The data from that sample was quote inconclusive as to Mr. Cobberger. Grand jury transcript at 365366.
Miller testified that inconclusive means that an analyst is quote unable to say one way or another whether or not Brian Cobberger is included in the mixture end quote. Miller went on to explain that the likelihood ratio for Mr. Cobberger was 0.0469 and that any number less than 0.01 supported exclusion.
argument. The use of misleading language confuses and misleads the finder of fact and is barred by the rules 402 403 as well as due process in that evidence is overly prejuditial. The erroneous admission of irrelevant and prejuditial evidence will offend due process when it renders a trial fundamentally unfair.
Here expanding beyond the language of the report would prejudice Mr. Cobberger in that it might allow the jury to infer that the inconclusive data would mean that he might be included.
Likelihood ratios are different from traditional statistics that court and jur that courts and juries are used to seeing and hearing. The likelihood ratio is a comparison of a hypothesis.
It is not a statement of identity or probability of identity. It simply asks the question given the data which hypothesis tested is more likely for item Q131.
Both hypothes hypothesis tested for each individual assumed that Madison Mogan's DNA was present. So when the lab generated an LR laid out above, the hypothesis tested were Madison Mogan, Kaylee Gonzaleves, and one unknown unrelated person versus Madison Mogan and two unrelated persons.
Sidebar, I think it's very, very interesting that it's only her left fingernail clipping being swabbed.
And you know the reason that I find it very interesting when it comes to the left hand right when it comes to the left hand um because we know that um more than one expert and I don't mean just an expert in the case I mean like crime scene reconstruction experts uh their opinion is you have a left-handed perp And I just find it to be very interesting that it's only her left fingernail clippings that they're testing. I think they did the same thing for um Ethan if I remember correctly.
It's his left hand. Either way, I just wanted to sidebar that and get that out of my brain. Right. Um because you know um Scott Rotor even with his very limited view of a very limited amount of photos that were released a long time ago from what he could ascertain from those photos and the blood spatter and the blood stain, you know, patterns that he could see. in his opinion, you had a left-handed per when it came to uh the two girls upstairs from what he could in his own opinion determine. Uh which I thought was super interesting, you know, that um like I said, we've had a couple of people here. I think uh Turvy even agreed, right? Um, probable. It's probable that you have a left-handed perp. Um, so I don't know. I just wanted to get that that off my brain. I think it's very interesting. It's only the left fingernail clippings that are being swabbed here.
Furthermore, they go on to assume that her own DNA is present. If you're going to go to the trouble of creating the likelihood ratio to begin with, you should probably just ensure that the likelihood ratios you're creating are accurate.
It's very easy to determine whether or not she's a contributor to her own DNA under her fingernails. You shouldn't just assume that.
But anyways, let's carry on.
This comparison was done for all of the individuals listed in report number seven and for Mr. Coberger in report 26 at the ISP lab. Any number greater than 100 is considered a conclusive result indicating inclusion.
Any number less than 0.01 is considered a conclusive result indicating exclusion.
Thus, if an if a likelihood ratio falls within the range of 0.01 01 to 100. The lab cannot draw any conclusions and the data is reported as inconclusive.
In her testimony, Miller did not provide a full context to the analysis. The lab reported a series of likelihood ratios for item 131, including a likelihood ratio of 0.399 for Jack to Core, 0.485 485 for Cole Baronburgg, 0.20 for Xanicodal, 0.0233 for Bethany Funk. Interesting.
H interesting.
So Cole Baronburgg has a higher likelihood ratio than Coberger.
Let's go look at that real quick again.
Coer was 0.0469.
Cole Baronburgg is 0.485.
Jack decor here 0.399 Mr. Cobberger Mr. Cobberger's uh likelihood ratio is actually less than that of Jack Decor and Cole Baronburgg.
Just wanted to point that out.
He's 0.0 469.
They are 0.3 and 0.4 H. All of these individuals sit in the same shoes as Mr. Cobberger, namely that the likelihood ratio is exclusionary but falls in the range of inconclusive.
Of interest is that when a likelihood ratio was calculated for Ethan Chapen, the lab reported 3.33.
Thus, Mr. Kobberger's inconclusive likelihood ratio is similar to almost every other person for whom a likelihood ratio was generated and focusing on his inconclusive likelihood ratio would mislead the jury in that it implies that the likelihood ratio means that Mr. Cobberger's DNA might be present in the sample. Well, we know it wasn't. We know he was fully excluded from this sample.
What is even more interesting to me is that their own expert Christian, what is the guy's name? Christian Westerring, that is the states expert, Christian Westering, if I remember correctly, made it abundantly clear that when you are creating likelihood ratios, the higher the likelihood ratio, the stronger the evidence.
The higher the likelihood ratio, the stronger the evidence.
So Jade Miller here, when she's calculating all of these likelihood ratios, and she finds, well, [ __ ] it looks like our male victim here has the highest likelihood ratio for the DNA underneath Madison Mogan's fingernail clippings.
They didn't follow the protocol of the higher the likelihood ratio, the stronger the evidence.
Interesting, too, that he's 3.33.
It's just a me numbers, you know. Uh, yeah. Mhm. 3.33.
So Ethan Chapen has the highest likelihood ratio of the male DNA contributor under Madison Mogan's left fingernail clippings, which when you look at the clippings clearly, it's blood.
And the male victim in the house is the one who has the highest likelihood ratio for that, not any of the other males that you created a likelihood ratio for.
The higher the likelihood ratio, the stronger the evidence and they ignored the strong evidence.
And I'm sorry if that offends someone.
I'm not here to point fingers or put blame or anything like that at any of these victims. I'm not victim shaming.
I'm literally just looking at their own reports, the forensic data, what we now know this much later compared to what we knew in the beginning. It is very interesting to me that the male victim, for whatever reason, who appears to have the highest likelihood ratio of the male DNA contributor under a female victim's fingernails, it's entirely ignored. You have officer Nunes who it his own assessment, first assessment on scene is that it looks like this kid killed everybody and then killed himself.
Nunes believed it was murder suicide.
Okay.
So, I'm just kind of, you know, I'm just giving you guys my brain worms, man. Um, it's very very interesting that the highest likelihood ratio that was produced out of everyone that a likelihood ratio was produced for in this case, it comes back to Ethan and they ignored it. Even though their own expert Christian Westering is very clear that the higher when you are creating likelihood ratios, the higher the likelihood ratio, the stronger the evidence. And it would appear Miss Miller here ignored that.
So, it's very interesting to me Ethan Chapen has the highest likelihood ratio for the DNA belonging to some male under Madison Mogan's fingernails.
We know Mr. Cobberger was entirely excluded from that sample.
The court should exclude testimony such as that's a range that we determine that there's not enough information to say or conclude one way or another about someone to be a contributor and that's in the grand jury transcript at 367.
More importantly, Mr. Coberger has disclosed that through further independent laboratory testing, he is eliminated as a contributor to item 131.
When Mr. Cobberger sought to overturn the grand jury indictment, he argued that Miller's testimony was inadmissible and misleading. Right? Because it was.
The state argued that the testimony was presented to the grand jury as exculpatory and in an effort to elicit favorable evidence for Mr. Coberger.
Sure it was. State, I'm sure that you had Jade Miller pop. Did Jade Miller pop up and tell the grand jury that the highest likelihood ratio she created actually belonged to the male victim in the home? Or did the grand jury not get to hear that? I wonder the independent lab testing conducted by the defense related to item 131 is indeed exculpatory. Mr. Coberger is excluded and the state should be procluded from misleading the jury in any way. Okay, then we get down here. So, look at this.
I thought this was pretty funny when you look at this right here. Suspect Jack Decor and then the two subjects along with it are Bethany Funk and Dylan Mortonson.
So, report number seven here by [ __ ] Blaker. All right.
The date the evidence was accepted was November 18th, 2022. So, as of November 18th, within 5 days of the crime, the police are under the assumption that Jack Decor, Bethany Funk, and Dylan Mortonson are the people we need to be looking at.
These are the people that we need to be looking at. And then look at this. So, this is what I was talking about, the left and right. So look at this swab of the right fingernail clippings from Ethan. Then we have left fingernail clippings from Ethan. The right fingernail clippings from Zana. Left fingernail clippings from Zana. Right fingernail from Maddie. Left fingernail from Maddie. And then the same for Kaye.
Right and left. But they only test the left.
For Maddie.
They only tested the left, which I thought was pretty interesting.
All right, so let's see. Um, they used PCR to generate STR profiles from items 61, 71, 131, 151, 161, and a portion of items 3, 91, 101, and 121.
Uh, footnotes here. This would be like Audrey cakes over there, you know. Um, glitch DNA lab. This is her these little footnotes here. The Lokai examined. Uh, that's going to be Audrey's wheelhouse right there. I'm sure she'll cover it at some point. The DNA profile obtained from item three matches that obtained from the known reference sample of Xanocodal.
This DNA profile is at least 12.5 septillion times more likely to be seen if Xanariconodal is the source than if an unrelated individual randomly selected from the general population is the source.
Uh let's see DNA profile obtained from item 61 indicates a mixture of DNA.
right fingernail clippings from Ethan.
So the right fingernail clippings of Ethan contain a mixture. Zanna's a potential contributor.
Assuming they assumed a twoperson mixture and that Ethan Chapen is a contributor, this DNA profile is at least 19.4 4 septillion times more likely to be seen if it was the result of a mixture of DNA from Ethan and Zanna than if it resulted from Ethan and an unrelated individual.
Interesting.
I love it.
Madison Mogan, item 11. Kaylee Gonzalez, item 14, Jack Decor, item 17, Bethany Funk is 18, Dylan Mortonson is 19.
John Shaw Walter, item 1. Cole Baronberg, item two, and Joseé Cruz are excluded as being contributors to this DNA mixture. The DNA profile obtained from item 71 is consistent with that obtained from the known reference sample of Ethan Chapen.
Left fingernail clipping of Ethan 71.
The DNA profile obtained from item 91 indicates a mixture of DNA with a major profile which is consistent of having come from Xanicodal.
91 swab of the right fingernail clippings of Zanna.
Interesting.
Which is consistent having come from Zana. Ethan Chapen is a potential contributor to the minor component of this mixture.
Now it's got me thinking because now we know too that they were talking about how it's Zana who had Ethan's blood all over both of her hands, right and left and how Ethan only had her blood and her hair or whatever on his left.
Right.
Even though she had all of his blood underneath both of her fingernails and all over her hands, he only has her DNA on his left.
Isn't that what was said? Let me go look here real quick.
Right is 61.
DNA profile obtained from 61 indicates a mixture.
So he had her blood all over his right hand, too.
So Ethan and Zanna both have each other's blood all over both of their hands.
Yet, according to Dr. Turvy in the photos that he saw from the crime scene, what's listed as debris in Ethan's hand is actually a clump of someone's hair.
Um, like if it was ripped out at the root and covered in blood.
H, interesting.
DNA profile obtained from item 91 indicates a mixture of DNA with a major profile which is consistent of having come from Zanna. Ethan is a potential contributor to the minor component of the mixture. Assuming a two-person mixture and that Xanicodal is a contributor, this DNA profile is at least 6,150 times more likely to be seen if it were the result of a mixture of DNA from Zana and Ethan than if it resulted from Zana and an unrelated individual.
So we only have for this one here for item 91 indicates a mixture of Ethan and Zanna both but it says it's only 6,150 times more likely whereas the rest of them we're getting like septilian septilian Jack Decor John Schoalter Cole Baronberg and Jose Cruz are excluded as being contributors to this DNA mixture. Well, of course they're excluded because you assumed a twoerson mixture anyway.
That's why they're all excluded because you just went and assumed that these are twoerson mixtures anyway of the victims.
The DNA profile obtained from item 101 indicates a mixture of DNA with a major profile which is consistent with having come from Zana. Ethan is a potential contributor to the minor component.
Assuming a twoperson mixture and that Zanna is a contributor, the DNA profile is at least 8 million340,000 times more likely to be seen if it were the result of a mixture of DNA from Zana and Ethan than if it resulted from Zana and an unrelated individual.
Jack Decor, John Schoalter, Cole Baronburgg, and Joseé Cruz are excluded as being contributors again. Yeah, because you just assumed it says it right here. Assuming a two p a twoperson mixture, the DNA profile obtained from 121 is consistent with that obtained of the known reference sample of Madison Mogan.
The DNA profile obtained from 131 indicates a mixture of DNA with a major profile which is consistent with having come from Madison Mogan. Kaye is a potential contributor to this mixture.
assuming a threeperson mixture and that Madison Mogan is a contributor. This DNA profile is at least 77,900,000 times more likely to be seen as the result of a mixture of DNA from Mattie Kaye and an unrelated randomly selected individual than if it resulted from Madison and two unrelated individuals randomly selected.
Based on the likelihood ratio result Jack Decor is a potential contributor 0.399.
It is inconclusive whether Jack is a potential contributor.
So they're saying it's all inconclusive.
Look at this all of these likelihood ratios. But we were just told by Jade Miller that if it's 0.01 01 to 100.
It's actually falls in the inclusive range.
According to the ISP uh protocol, 0.01 to 100 falls in the inclusive range according to ISP standard and protocol.
Yet look at this. We have Jack Decor at 0.399.
Okay. Cole here 0.485.
Ethan is 3.33.
Look at all these likelihood ratios.
0.0233 for Bethany, 0.201 for Zanna.
And it says that these are all inconclusive. Even though we know looking at these likelihood ratio numbers right here, if we were to take Jade Miller's testimony and what she told the grand jury, the reason that Mr. Coberger fell into the inclusive range is because anything that is between 0.01 to 100, it falls in the inclusive range.
So, if that's true, then how come none of these [ __ ] were considered to be inclusive?
Instead, they're listed as inconclusive.
Isn't that interesting?
It's very, very interesting.
So, Jade Miller testifies to the grand jury that per ISP protocol and standard, the reason that even though Mr. Coberger had this very low likelihood ratio when she was creating them and Ethan had the highest. And even though the higher the likelihood ratio, the stronger the evidence, she chose to have Ethan and these other likelihood ratios that she created for Cole, Jack, and other people, they are inconclusive.
Even though Kobberger has a lower likelihood ratio than the rest of these people, he falls into the inclusive range, but the rest of these [ __ ] don't.
Isn't that interesting? And that's like her own testimony, what she told the grand jury. This is what she has um, you know, put in her own disclosures and things like that, supplemental reports and everything. And then we have Christian Westering who's saying, "No, actually the higher the likelihood ratio, the stronger the evidence."
So Jade Miller here is creating all of these likelihood ratios for the Idaho State Police in this case. And even though she knows that Ethan here has the highest likelihood ratio at 3.33, she's saying he's inconclusive.
They're trying to claim he's in he's inconclusive.
Even though 0.01 to 100, you fall in the inclusive range.
Very interesting.
The DNA profiles obtained from items 151 and 161 are consistent with that obtained from the known reference sample of Kaye.
DNA extraction and quantification employing real time PCR were performed on the swab from item four. No DNA was detected on item four. No further testing was conducted on this item.
Disposition of evidence.
Items 61, 71, 131, 151, and 161, and the swab from item 4 were consumed during testing. However, DNA extract remains for these items. All other items in the empty packaging for items 4, 61, 71, 131, 151, and 161 have been returned to the main laboratory evidence vault for return to the submitting agency.
And then we have when the new evidence comes back with Brian Cobberger listed as the suspect.
date the evidence was accepted was December 27th, 2022 and then January 6th.
This is everything from his apartment.
This is where she came up with her 5.37 octillion number here.
So, we don't have to read through this whole thing because I know that we've already read through this stuff. Okay? I know that we've already read through this I do find it very interesting that um Brian Cobberger we find is excluded. So let's go through it here. Right.
The DNA profile previously obtained from item 11 one matches that obtained from the known reference sample of Brian Cobberger. This DNA profile is at least 5.37 octillion times more likely to be seen if Brian Cobberger is the source than if an unrelated individual randomly selected from the general population is the source. The DNA profile previously obtained from item 14 indicates a mixture of DNA with a major profile. Assuming a two-person mixture, Brian Cobberger is excluded as being a contributor to this DNA mixture. A sidebar, item Q14 is the [ __ ] stains from the back of the sheath.
Swabs of stains from the back of the sheath.
Um, so item Q14 indicates a mixture of DNA with a major profile that CoBer has been excluded from.
So, there's a male profile on the back of the sheath.
It's a mixture and it doesn't belong to Cobberger.
Do you think that they ever bothered to try and identify that person?
Anyone?
who thinks that they actually um bother to try to identify the male contributor to item Q14 when they realized it's not him.
So all this time that they're saying sole single source DNA recovered from the sheath, in fact, it was not single source.
There's another man's DNA on that sheath that doesn't match Cobberger. And it did didn't come from the button, the strap, the snap, none of it. It's on the back of the sheet.
It's a mixture on the back and it's in their own [ __ ] here. This is Jade Miller's own report. Item Q14 indicates a mixture of DNA with a major profile. assuming a two-person mixture, Brian Coberger is excluded. So, they knew as early as January 6th here, they knew as early as January 6th that there is other men's DNA on that sheet mixed with victim's DNA and it doesn't belong to him.
They've known this since then and didn't bother to identify that male.
The DNA previously obtained from item 61 indicates a mixture of DNA. Assuming a twoperson mixture, Brian Coberger is excluded.
Another one, item 91. So, let's see.
Item 61, item 91, item 101, item 131.
He's been excluded from all of them.
They're trying to say here based on the likelihood ratio result of 0.0469, it is inconclusive whether Brian Cobberger is a potential contributor to the DNA. Even though we just saw up here, well, wait a minute. So, he's 0.04 04 something and you can't [ __ ] conclude whether or not he is a contributor, but Ethan has a 3.33 likelihood ratio. And you're saying he's it's inconclusive based on the likelihood ratio result of 3.33. It is inconclusive whether Ethan Chapel Chapen is a potential contributor. Cole Baronberg has the same. He's right up there. same likelihood ratio numbers as Coberger, right? He's listed as a potential contributor.
Uh Ethan is listed, sorry, as a potential contributor to the DNA under Mattiey's fingernails.
Right.
DNA profile previously obtained from 131 indicates a mixture assumed to be from three individuals with a major profile.
Based on the likelihood ratio result 0.469, it is inconclusive whether Brian Cobberger is a potential contributor to this DNA mixture.
The DNA profile previously obtained from item 23 indicates a mixture of DNA with a major profile. Assuming a two-person mixture, Brian Cobberger is excluded.
The DNA profile obtained from item 30 indicates a mixture of DNA assumed to be from three individuals with a major profile. Brian Coberger is not the source of the major male DNA profile from this item. Due to the low-level results and limited data, no conclusions can be made regarding the minor contributors. [ __ ] The DNA profiles previously obtained from items 371 and 372 were determined to be from the same unknown male. Brian Cobberger is not the source of the DNA profiles from these items.
Partial DNA previously obtained from item 41 was determined to be from an unknown male. Brian Cobberger is not the source.
The partial DNA profile previously obtained from item 40.4 indicates a mixture of DNA with a major profile.
Assuming a two-person mixture, Brian Cobberger is not the source of the major male DNA profile from this item. Due to the low-level results and limited data, no conclusions can be made.
Interesting.
30 and 40.
Okay.
The DNA profile obtained from item 72 indicates a mixture of DNA with a major profile which matches that previously obtained from the known reference sample of Kaylee Gonzalez. Assuming a two-person mixture, this DNA profile is at least 779 septillion times more likely to be seen if it were the result of a mixture of DNA from Kaye and an unrelated randomly selected individual than if it resulted from two unrelated individuals randomly selected from the general population.
Madison Mogan is a potential contributor to the minor component of this mixture.
Assuming a twoperson mixture, this DNA profile is at least 6.83 83 septillion times more likely to be seen if it were the result of a mixture of DNA from Madison Mogan and an unrelated randomly selected individual than if it resulted from two unrelated individuals randomly selected from the general population.
Ethan Chapen, item five, Xanerodal, item eight, Jack Decor, item 17, Bethany Funk, item 18, Dylan Mortonson, item 19, John Shaw Walter, item one, Cole Baronburgg, item two, uh, Jose Cruz, Henry Clark, Kenneth Anderson, Donald McDonald, Mason Barstow, Jeremy Rean, Ky Nan, Derek Agna, Patrick Butner, Courage Elubber, Alloru, James Deskins, Connor Chestnut, and Brian Coberger are excluded as contributors to this DNA mixture.
The DNA profile obtained from item 73 indicates a mixture of DNA with a major profile which matches that previously obtained from the known reference sample of Kaylee Gonzalez. Assuming a two-person mixture, this DNA profile is at least five 525 septillion times more likely to be seen if it were the result of a mixture of DNA from Kaye and an unrelated randomly selected individual than if it resulted from two unrelated individuals randomly selected from the general population. Madison Mogan is a potential contributor to the minor component of this mixture. Assuming a twoperson mixture, this DNA profile is a 44.6 six quadrillion times more likely to be seen if it were the result of a mixture of DNA from Maddie and unrelated randomly selected individual than if it resulted from two unrelated individuals randomly selected Ethan Chapen Xanodal Jack Dor Bethany Funk Dylan Mortonson John Schaw Walter Cole Baronberg Jose Cruz Henry Clark all of these people and Brian Cobberger are excluded as contributors to this DNA mixure The DNA profiles obtained from items 74,75 and 78 match that previously obtained from the known reference sample of Xanarchodal.
This DNA profile is at least 9.25 septillion times more likely to be seen if Xanocodal is the source than if an unrelated individual randomly selected from the general population is the source.
The DNA profiles obtained from items 76 and 77 match that previously obtained from the known reference sample of Kaye.
This DNA profile is at least 1.01 octillion times more likely to be seen if Kaye is the source than if an unrelated individual randomly selected from the general population is the source. The DNA profiles obtained from items 101.1, 103.1, 103.2, 2 and 103.3 are consistent with that obtained from the known reference sample of Brian Cobberger.
Item 108 was previously returned to the submitting agency. All remaining items have returned to the main laboratory evidence vault for return to the submitting agency.
Item 108 was previously returned.
What was 108?
reference and oral swabs for Coberger.
Interesting.
Okay, that's the end of that one. Stop sharing that.
Isn't it very very interesting? Isn't it so freaking interesting that um you know, like I said, I don't know, guys. Um, all I know is that it's very interesting to me that you have um, Jade Miller here creating all of these likelihood ratios.
She's very well aware that ISP has a different protocol um, in their lab than a lot of other labs across the country.
So for them, if you are 0.01 through 100, you would fall in the inclusive range.
Even though if you have a say 0.042 likelihood ratio, right? But another likelihood ratio say for Ethan is 3.33.
The the higher the likelihood ratio, the stronger the evidence.
So, you know, that's where you're supposed to go with your evidence.
That's where it's pointing you towards.
Okay, sorry. It's just it is what it is. Once you're in the lab and you're generating all of these likelihood ratios based off of all of these profiles that you've been given and DNA samples and blah blah blah and all of this stuff, fact of the matter is that at the time, your highest likelihood ratio was your strongest piece of evidence and it was not pursued.
Okay? And I'm not trying to throw shade on Ethan here. I'm not trying to throw shade at any of the victims. I'm just pointing out a simple fact that even the state's own expert, Christian Westering, puts in his own disclosure.
His own disclosure states very clearly that when a lab is creating likelihood ratios, the higher the likelihood ratio, the stronger the evidence. You do not pursue the least likelihood ratio as your strongest piece of evidence.
That's just not what you do.
Why they did that here, I have no idea.
Uh, but let's continue.
So, now we can screw on up. Uh, order on the party's agreement not to mention the 2014 cell phone incident. We don't really need to go over that. They both agreed. They're not going to mention it and the judge ordered it. It's fine.
Uh, what's this one?
Ah, yes. Exhibits. Okay. So, I can share this one with you. Let's get into this one. Next one is 31 pages.
Okay. Uh these are the exhibits to the defendant's second supplemental response to request for discovery regarding expert witnesses uh for David Howell and Gary Shutler.
here.
Make that a little bigger for you guys.
Make sure you can see that. Okay.
Okay. Cool.
All right.
Welcome on in everybody. Hey, if you're just joining, you know, if you're just joining the live, you know, thumbs it up, thumbs it down. Follow your heart, not your frown. You know what to do here. Okay.
Um, also you should be grateful. There's no ads here. We're monetized. Um, and going forward. Oh, disclaimer. By the way, friends, listen mods. As much as I love you guys, don't take it personal. Um, I'm not going to have any mods. Uh, after today, I'm going to go ahead and just kind of delete everybody as a mod.
I'm going to be the only mod here because I don't plan to be doing many lives. Like I said, we're going to be doing a lot of podcasts going forward um that are going to be recorded and then uploaded. So, I'm not going to need mods. As you know, I love you guys. I appreciate you modding for me this entire time. I truly do. You have no idea how much I love my mods, and I appreciate you guys. Uh but after today, I won't have any mods. Uh there's no ads here, okay? Everybody is going to be equal here. You're all going to be gray and it is what it is, okay? You're all equal up in this [ __ ] Don't nobody have rank. The only one who's going to have rank up around here is me. That's it. Okay. But mods, you know, I love you and thank you so much for, you know, always being awesome when I was live before. Um, and I appreciate you guys, you know, allowing people to just say what they want to say and ignoring the trolls and all of that, you know. Um, but yeah, we're not monetized here, friends. So, you know, you want to hit the cash app, you want to hit the Venmo, you want to drop a little Starbeast tip, go for it. Um, I appreciate it, but it's not necessary.
Let's see.
All right, let's do this. Let's do this. I'm going to pause here for a minute. Check my chat. Take a sip of my drink. How's everybody doing? How's everybody Sunday?
Looks like my mods dipped out. Where is everybody?
Oh, Mitchell, hello. Mitchell Callahan, welcome on in. Halls, brooms up. That's right. Aunt Clara, hello. How you doing?
What did that say?
I'm Taylor Noel. Oh, hello, Taylor Noel.
Welcome on in everybody.
Says there's almost 50 people here.
Thumbs it up, thumbs it down. Say hello in chat. You know, even if you're a secret hater, even if you're a lurker, you can still say hi. Okay, sharing. You're listening while you clean. There you go. That's how you do it. It's usually what I'm doing, too.
Listening while I clean. Okay, let's get into this one. So, exhibit D17A, uh, David Howell may testify for the defense as an expert regarding Amazon Discovery. Mr. Howell's opinion and testimony will be based on his experience, education, and training as detailed in his resume, which included with this response as exhibit D17C.
This response serves to supplement the information in the report attached as exhibit D17B.
The below is a summary of Mr. Howell's anticipated testimony, but does not repeat all specific findings that are detailed in his report. It is anticipated that Mr. Howell may testify in the following areas. Uh, one, Amazon records, including how purchases are tracked, account activity, user activity, and the scope of Amazon records.
This disclosure is provided as an aid.
At the present time, Mr. Howell's Mr. Howell's full scope of testimony is unknown. The state has not yet disclosed the opinions of their experts.
Well, no, because they were waiting for you guys to disclose all of your experts first.
That's what they were waiting for. They just wanted you to get all of your expert stuff in first so that they could then, you know, they they have a little insight into what your experts are going to talk about. you know, the state was the state um in my opinion, the prosecutor's office here, like I I don't know what's going on, but you know, if the [ __ ] FBI and the DOJ and internal affairs don't go in and just [ __ ] conduct I hope they've been conducting a massive investigation internally against these people out there and how and what they do in these cases, you know, that's just my personal opinion. You know, every day I'm like, I hope they're all under investigation secretly. Bill, Jennings, I really do. I really do hope that they're all under some kind of an internal investigation for what they did in this case. They know what they did.
Uh, the defense discloses David Howell in the supplementary in the supplemental discovery response. His resume is attached as exhibit A. His prior testimony as an expert was in the federal district court of Idaho in USV Babachenko.
And then there's the case number. At Howell and Associates, Mr. Howell specializes in online brand protection, anti-counterfeiting, marketplace channel management, and digital forensics, guiding brands through the complexities of platforms like Amazon, eBay, Wish, Alibaba, AliExpress, Google Shopping, and others. Mr. Howell's company protects brands and works to eliminate counterfeit threats. Mr. Howell has an extensive work history in the electronic commerce industry in the areas of brand protection, brand strategy, fraud investigations, algorithmic analysis, data manipulation, risk, and market practices.
It is anticipated that Mr. Howell of Howell and Associates will testify based on his experience in education as follows.
uh one Amazon data requested versus produced the form of data produced and a forensic examination of the available produced data in this case. A forensic analysis of whether the data set is complete, unaltered and in a format suitable for forensic examination.
Identification of gaps in data provided by the state and how missing elements impact forensic accuracy.
Identification of gaps in data provided by the state and how missing elements impact forensic accuracy.
Evaluation of metadata, timestamps and tracking information within the Amazon data to assess reliability and forensic validity.
Two, the importance of full purchase history in Amazon account to conduct an accurate forensic examination of the data.
A complete forensic review requires examining full purchase history, search logs, recommendation exposure, and product interactions.
Isolated purchases or searches without full historical context can lead to misleading conclusions.
I already know where they were going with that. I'll reserve it to my brain.
I'll keep it as a brain worm. I know where they were going with this.
Amazon's data retention and account history logs are critical in determining user behavior trends, purchase frequency, and algorithmic influences.
Number three, the role of Amazon's algorithmicdriven recommendation system, and cross-platform tracking. Amazon's AI and machine learning systems do not passively reflect searches. They actively shape user experience and influence product visibility.
The buy box system prioritizes certain sellers and dynamically adjusts pricing based on AI predictions of consumer behavior.
The clickstream tracking system records user interaction data affecting what products are suggested or displayed.
AI powered algorithms determine rankings, autocomplete searches, and personalize product placement. Amazon's data models can reinforce specific product categories, repeatedly exposing users to related items based on engagement rather than intent.
Mhm. And we all know that if you've ever shopped on Amazon, you buy one thing and then the next thing you know they're recommending um the same item but by 50 different vendors to you uh all with a different price. Uh omni channel shopping extends beyond a single device.
Omni channel shopping extends beyond a single device.
You know like when multiple devices are linked to a family account you know like that.
Amazon accounts are synchronized across multiple devices including smartphones, tablets, desktops, laptops and smartome devices meaning Alexa and Echo etc. Shared household accounts introduce forensic challenges as multiple individuals contribute to search history, purchases, and product recommendations.
Crossdevice activity tracking allows Amazon to retain behavioral data across different platforms affecting search results and purchase recommendations.
Retargeting ads from Google, Facebook, and YouTube further influence Amazon search suggestions and ad displays.
Number five, the influence of Amazon's advertising system on click and purchase behavior.
Amazon's advertising ecosystem is deeply integrated into the search and recommendation process. Sponsored listings, retargeting ads, and display ads shape user choices, often overriding organic search results. Unlike a simple search and buy experience, Amazon actively pushes promoted content through AIdriven and AIdriven ad targeting.
Personalized recommendations are not neutral but based on bidding systems where advertisers pay to appear in a user's feed.
Number six, Amazon sponsored products and display ads allow sellers to pay for visibility impacting product exposure and forensic interpretation.
A product can appear in search results not because a user searched for it but because an advertiser paid for the placement.
The frequently bought together and customers also bought sections are influenced by paid paid sponsorships and algorithmic waiting not purely organic trends. To properly assess forensic relevance, all Amazon ad data should be reviewed, including A, what sponsored products were displayed to this account.
B, what retargeting ads followed the user across platforms based on past activity? And C, were certain product recommendations organic or manipulated through paid placements? and D, did Amazon's algorithm repeatedly push certain products based on prior engagement rather than active user searches?
Number seven, cart and wish list data are an important part of forensic examination as it relates to Amazon.
The addition, removal, or modification of items in a cart or wish list provides insight into purchasing intent.
Indecision and comparative shopping behaviors are common and forensic analysis must account for all list interactions.
Amazon's AI tracks wish list and cart activity to refine recommendations and alter subsequent search results. Number eight, in his expert opinion, when evaluating the purchase or search of a product on Amazon as evidence, it is essential to ensure that is presented in its full context rather than in isolation.
Forensic best practices. Oh, we all know that word. Thank you, Sire. You badass [ __ ] video. Forensic best practices require examining broader user engagement trends rather than isolated transactions.
A search or purchase cannot be evaluated without consideration of Amazon's AIdriven content curation and advertising models. Clickstream analysis, browsing history, and algorithmic reinforcement must be considered before attributing a specific intent to an individual search or purchase.
Number nine, many Amazon accounts, including the one in this case, are shared among family members, making it difficult to attribute a single purchase to one specific individual.
Amazon does not differentiate between users within a shared account. Without analyzing full account activity logs, it is not possible to determine who conducted a specific search or made a purchase.
Device usage history, login timestamps, and behavioral tracking data are critical to accurate forensic conclusions.
Obtaining and reviewing Amazon data prior to March 2022 is critical to the ability to draw conclusions or put context into any purchasing.
Pre-Marchch 2022 purchase and search data is necessary to establish historical buying patterns and determine whether a transaction was an anomaly or part of a long-term behavioral trend.
Interesting.
It's almost like what the defense is getting at here was like, "Hey, actually, um, it wasn't him who bought that [ __ ] knife on Amazon. It was one of his family members actually.
that he shares the account with. Like, um, didn't his mom, wasn't it said that his mother wanted him to get a knife for protection for when he was out there hiking and running in the woods in the Pacific Northwest? She was worried about him like possibly being attacked, you know, by animals and [ __ ] wild animals.
She wanted him to get a knife. Anybody remember that?
Wasn't that like um she put it on Reddit or remember his mother was the one that was like all over Reddit? uh talking about, oh, my baby's leaving me and blah blah blah, and you know, he's going to be going out to Washington and this and that. Like, and then his dad is out there like trying to make friends for him with the neighbors and stuff like that with that Christian guy who lived next door. Like, I don't know, dude. It just seems really, you know, this is going to sound, it just seems like his parents were very very um like involved in linking him up with people out there.
Okay, this is just my opinion. It just it comes across as like so you have a 28-year-old son who's literally in the PhD program at WSU and you're knocking on the neighbor's door of his apartment to ask the neighbor if like he'll be friends with your son.
And I don't know about you, but um I wouldn't do that to one of my kids. Uh especially if it's my adult almost 30year-old child going for their PhD.
They don't need me to help them make friends.
Okay. But I do remember it being said that like his mom was like all over Reddit back in the day. It was like summer of 2022 when he's getting ready to leave to go out there. She was the one that was like all over Reddit worried about her baby boy leaving her.
The father goes out there with him and the father is like knocking on neighbors doors, strangers doors like, "Hey, will you be friends with my kid?" And the next thing you know, Brian's getting invited out to the pool party in Moscow in July within like a week and a half of him being there. And we still to this day don't know who invited him to the pool party. What pool party in Moscow did he go to? Who did he meet there?
What phone numbers did he get? And were those the same people that his phone was pinging all these times in Moscow afterwards?
Was he going back to the same place? And if so, who is it that he's because they're trying to say, "Well, we don't know. We just don't know where he was going in Moscow. We don't know what he was doing in Moscow. We just have all the pings, but you don't know exactly where he was going. Huh.
Interesting.
You're digging some worms. Well, hello.
Digging some worms. You're digging at my brain worms. Is that what you're doing?
You digging up those brain worms?
Welcome on in. Welcome on in, Moonlight Rays. Hello. So happy to see you, Ria Luma. Hello, Anna D. So good to see you.
So, isn't that interesting, huh? You've got like you've got like his parents.
This guy's almost 30 years old. He's in a PhD program. Like, I understand being close with your parents and stuff, but like if that was me, I'd be like, "Dad, did you seriously just knock on the [ __ ] neighbor's door telling I don't want to be friends with anybody?" Like, I don't know. I'm a [ __ ] loner, right? And I feel like if I'm a loner, um, and I like it and I I'm fine with being alone. I enjoy my alone time. I enjoy my solitude, you know, and being at peace. I would be so pissed if my mom or dad went and knocked on my neighbor's door talking about, "Hey, you want to be friends with my kid?"
Especially when I that that kid is an almost 30 yearear-old man. I just find it to be so odd. It's so odd.
And it seems like what they're getting at here when it comes to all of this Amazon stuff is like, hey, actually, it wasn't even him who purchased the knife, sheath, and sharpener. This is a family account. Multiple people were on it.
Multiple devices were connected to it.
It's very interesting to me.
You guys have no idea the amount of brain worms that I have when it comes to like his own parents and his family's um how they behaved like to with him going out there. It to me it's very strange.
It's very very strange behavior. Um because he is not so severely autistic.
It's not like he's non-communicative.
It's not like he can't speak. It's not like he do you get what I'm saying? This is a high functioning, highly intelligent autistic person who has managed to get his uh bachelors, his masters, and he's moving on to PhD. He doesn't need mommy and daddy to make friends for him.
It's very, very weird in my opinion that his mom is online on Reddit all the time. His dad is out there trying to set him up with people and within a week of him getting out there, he's being invited out to Moscow.
Very interesting. It's just very interesting, you know. Yeah. Aunt Clara says it's because of the autism. I mean, I don't know, honey. It's not like he needed them. I could understand if he was like a non-communicative autist then those types of autist you know across the country anyway.
Brian's autism isn't so bad that he couldn't function in life. He managed to make it through bachelor's, masters, and all the way up to PhD. Um you know what I mean?
And some people um even with their autism, they actually prefer to be alone because they enjoy the silence, man.
They have like sensory processing disorders and stuff. They can't be around a lot of people and a lot of noise and a lot of hubbub. Uh it [ __ ] with their brain. So, you know, I just find it very interesting that his parents are the one they're the ones trying to set him up with people out there for when he goes out there.
Um not being confident enough that he is okay to do this himself. If he wants to make friends, he will. And if he doesn't, he doesn't. It is so strange to me that his dad is knocking on strangers doors out in Washington, asking them to be friends with his son. Is so [ __ ] strange in my opinion. Bluebird, hello.
Welcome on in.
But that's just my opinion. So, pre-Marchch 2022, purchase and search data is necessary, right, to determine whether or not this was a long-term behavioral trend of his on Amazon. Was he always looking up these [ __ ] knives? Prior to March of 2022, or did he only look up this KBAR knife, sheath, and sharpener once as a gift for someone? Did somebody else on the family account order it as a gift for someone?
You know what I mean? I'm just saying.
uh without earlier records it is not possible to assess the evolution of search recommendations AI influences or external advertising impact over time.
The warrants in this case ask for extensive amounts of data and important categories of data but the data produced by the state does not reflect the whole of the data requested or supposedly produced.
So the state got everything from Amazon but what they produced in discovery does not reflect the whole of the data requested or supposedly produced.
Interesting.
The limited data set does not include key forensic elements necessary for comprehensive analysis including A sponsored ad exposure records, B algorithmic recommendation tracking, C complete purchase and browsing history, D cross device usage usage logs and user attribution data. Without a full forensic data set, conclusions drawn from the available information lack reliability and are inherently incomplete.
H interesting.
Uh and then we have Howell's um CB here.
And I thought it was super interesting too because this is another guy that it seems to be that a lot of the uh experts that the defense went ahead and got um these are all like ex-military people or and or federal like contractors. Anybody else notice that?
Um a lot of these experts that the defense went and got like Sai like Dr. Turvy like this howl guy here. Uh maybe not Dr. Turvy.
What's his name there?
Um, it's right on the tip of my tongue.
Sorry, guys. Having a brain fart.
Rolloff. If I remember correctly, Rolloff is like ex-military. Um, there's a couple of people they got.
This guy is a proud US Army veteran, Boise State graduate.
Uh let's see.
His journey from the front lines of service to the forefront of safeguarding brands has spanned over two decades.
He's had the privilege of working across multiple industries protecting the reputations and revenue streams of some of the world's most recognized brands.
Uh let's see.
We don't need to get into all of this.
If anybody wants to go through his CV, you can. Um, but he does have uh, let's see. Resolution Arms LLC. Uh, Resolution Arms is a federally licensed veteranowned weapons training and custom manufacturing specializing in military and law enforcement specific needs.
Love it. That's what I like. Weapons training and custom manufacturing of weapons.
It's like one of my favorite things.
Just putting that out there.
Okay. Uh let's see.
There was one thing in here I wanted to look at though and show it to you guys.
Uh channel IQ D.
Was it this one? Citizen Hawk. Either way, this guy has like a top level security clearance. Um all of that good stuff. He has like secret clearance and all of that. Uh US Army. He was a sergeant in the US Army. Uh let's see.
Proudly served with primary MOS as a 13M uh field artillery where precision tactical execution and strategic thinking were key to mission success.
Throughout my military career, I was stationed across the US, Europe, and Korea and deployed in major operations including Desert Storm, Bosnia, and Haiti. Uh he also served as a 68W combat medic. Um it additionally he held the MOS of 31D in Germany conducting investigations and supporting military justice with a top secret security clearance. I was entrusted with sensitive missions and operated across diverse and challenging international settings. These experiences these experiences have ingrained in me the values of duty, leadership and adaptability which continue to guide my professional endeavors today. So he graduated from Boise State University.
Um BA in political science.
Okay. Then we are going to get into Gary Shutler here.
All right. Sorry, guys.
Take a sip of my drink.
All right.
Uh, Dr. Gary Shutler may testify for the defense as an expert regarding DNA testing and lab practices. Uh, Dr. Shutler's opinion and testimony will be based on his experience, education, and training as detailed in his CV, which is included with this response as exhibit D18C.
This response serves to supplement the information in the report attached as exhibit D18B. The below is a summary of Dr. Shutler's anticipated testimony, but does not repeat all specific findings that are detailed in his report. It is anticipated that Dr. Shutler may testify in the following areas. One, analysis of DNA and DNA lab practices. And two, the COTUS database.
This disclosure is provided as an aid.
For further information about his opinion, please see Dr. Shutler's expert report filed here with D.
Okay.
All right.
Let's do this real quick.
Shut that off that way. Okay, before I start reading this, how long is this?
Yeah, this one's a lot. Okay, you know what? I got to pee real quick, friends.
So, I'm going to pee. Don't go anywhere.
Okay, I'll put on some elevator music for you. And I need to use the bathroom.
Okay. Sorry, guys. But I got to pee.
Where is it?
Okay. I'm just going to put on some elevator music for you guys, okay? While I go to the bathroom. Give me two minutes. You can leave if you want, but you shouldn't.
Heat up here.
Heat. Heat.
Heat.
Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Hey, hey, hey.
Heat. Heat.
Heat Okay. So sorry. So sorry, friends. So sorry. I had to go pee and my kid had to ask me a question. Okay. We're back.
We're back. Sorry, friends. So sorry. I mean, I figure I should put music on instead of just leaving it like dead air, you know? If you like the music, cool. If you don't, oh well. Suck it up, buttercup. Um, all right, let's get into this.
Okay, so we have here, uh, Gary Shutler, PhD, forensic DNA consultant. Uh, let's see.
Looks like he's out of Washington. Uh, let's see. I have been retained by the defense in Mr. Cobberger's case to assist on issues relating to DNA testing and lab practices.
I hold a 1975 BSC honors from the University of Manitoba, a 1977 uh microbi microbiology from the University of Manitoba, and a 1993 PhD in microbiology and immun immunology from the University of Ottawa, Ontario. My work experience includes 16 years from 2002 to 2018 as the DNA technical leader manager for the Washington State Patrol crime lab division with responsibility for all forensic biology corology and DNA technical and training manuals validations and the DNA quality assurance system.
Damn.
Let's just pause on that for a minute.
16 years. He was the DNA technical leader manager for the Washington State Patrol Crime Lab Division with responsibility for all forensic biology, corology, and DNA technical and training manuals, validations, and the DNA quality assurance system.
My previous positions include case work and support service with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Forensic Laboratory System in the Ottawa and Winnipeg Laboratories.
In the mid to late 1980s, I initiated the RLP DNA typing program for the RCMP prior to taking a period of educational leave. During the mid to late 1990s, my work included validation studies of PCR STR analysis and its initial casework application for the RCMP in Canada. I was involved with the genetic and physical mapping of the myotonic muscular distrophe gene at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario while completing my doctorate degree from the University of Ottawa in 1992.
I have been an independent forensic DNA consultant since approximately October 2018. I have been qualified as an expert, had reports accepted and or testified regarding DNA and or forensic biology corology matters and over 200 court cases in multiple venues. I have retained memberships in several prof professional societies and have authored or co-authored many peer-reviewed scientific publications, served on many committees, including the SWGDAM, which we've heard of that, and the NIJJ Forensic DNA panel, TWWG, as an OS as an OSAC scientific technical review panel chair.
Oh boy.
materials received and basis of opinions formulated.
So in this case there were 10 discovery submissions received in 2023 and 8 in 2024.
These submissions included 95 folders, 31 subfolders containing about 696 PDF files with over 15,000 of redacted and unredacted pages and over 13,000 photos. 375 JPEG files, 159 email files, and DNA data files. My opinions were formulated by examining these materials for information relevant to the forensic biology screening and DNA analysis work conducted in the investigation.
These discovered materials included DNA analysis data along with the lab reports, analyst notes, and worksheets from the ISP forensic lab. The Idaho State Police Forensic Services Biology DNA Casework Methods uh revision 12, Biology DNA quality manual revision 11, evidence procedures manual revision 2, and quality manual revision 8 were also accessed. The above documents were reviewed as requested by council and opinions were formulated.
One, I summarized and organized the results from the biology and DNA reports, reanalyzed the DNA run data, and reviewed analyst notes, worksheets, and reports for any significant shortcomings, mistakes, omissions, etc. No significant impactful issues were observed in the protocols and procedures used. H overall the Idaho State Police Forensic Services DNA analysis lab work in my opinion was done to a high standard.
However, documentation in the case file was poor.
Notes for evidence examination had minimal detail of how items were examined. This issue of concern was evident in the lack of detail documented about how the knife sheath was co-examined at the time of the biology and latent print examination.
The only description on the swabbing of the front strap was for the biology notes stating quote used one swab to swab front of strap. Item 11 one light gray transfer to swab consumptive end quote.
Both the latent print lab notes for Tina Walth Hall and the biology lab notes for Stephanie Wilt did not have the detail of Riley Nan's December 12th through 13th, 2022 emails to Detective Talbot on how the knife sheath was examined and swabbed to preserve potential latent print evidence on the top of the snap cap.
It required Miss Nan to contact one of the forensic scientists to put all that detail together to respond to the inquiry from Detective Talbot on how that exhibit was processed. It certainly wasn't in either the latent print or biology notes from the discovery material examined. Good documentation can prevent problems of this nature and help mitigate a memory lapses.
So, there's nothing in the notes about this whole swabbing of the [ __ ] sheath, the snap on the sheath. None of that's actually in Wilt or Walt Hall's stuff here. It's not in their notes.
Um, none of that is there. And it should have been because Riley Nen, right, Riley Nalen basically had to go back and ask Talbot how this was done cuz it's not in the notes. So for her in order for her to even provide an answer to the question of like well hey okay so we can see in these notes here that like it's not documented so how was this done blah blah blah she's like well I don't know let me call detective Talbot and we have to just go off Talbot's memory good documentation can prevent problems of this nature and help mitigate eight memory lapses.
There were also at least nine male DNA reference samples collected but not typed.
Nine.
There were also at least nine male DNA reference samples collected but not typed. they might have matched to unknown male B or D and provided pertinent information to help with the investigation.
So, there were nine male DNA reference samples collected that were not typed and he's saying they might have matched to unknown male BD and provided pertinent information to help with the investigation had they [ __ ] typed them.
Had they done anything with these nine male DNA samples that were collected?
Nine.
Nine h interesting.
There are limitations of what information the forensic biology and DNA evidence analysis results can provide.
To understand the DNA evidence in this homicide case, in this homicide case investigation, it is helpful to consider the following questions. In particular, for the only DNA profiles reported that were recovered from inside crime scene evidence that were not consistent with any of the victims, it is not unreasonable to expect that the perpetrators of such a violent crime would have left traces of DNA and possibly blood. Right? So, you have nine male DNAs that you are unknown.
You don't bother typing them or figuring out who they belong to, who they who contributed to those profiles. And for all you know, they could have matched to unknown male B or D.
To understand the DNA evidence in this homicide case investigation, it is helpful to consider the following questions in particular for the only DNA profiles reported that were recovered from inside crime scene evidence that were not consistent were with any of the victims. So, there were nine male DNA reference samples collected from inside of the crime scene and crime scene evidence that were not consistent with any of the victims, but they weren't typed.
Wow. So, here's question A. Whose unknown DNA was recovered from the DNA evidence?
There were only two unknown male DNA profiles reported that were recovered from inside the crime scene evidence that were not consistent with the victim Ethan Chapen.
One was called unknown male A from item 111 swab of the front strap on a KBAR knife sheath found close to a victim's body of which only the defendant cannot be excluded as the contributor. The other was called unknown male B from item 30. a swab of a small red stain on the underside of the stair handrail north wall between the first and second floors that excluded all 18 males who had their reference samples collected and tested.
This presumed blood stains location was near presumed blood stains item 311.
Found to be consistent with victim Ethan Chapen and presumed blood stains item 72 in the north wall of the stairwell and 73 in the half wall that were reported to be consistent with victims Kaye and Maddie.
Interesting.
So, unknown male B. The drop of blood on the railing leading downstairs is actually Ethan.
Unknown male B. A swab of a small red stain on the underside of the stair handrail that excluded all 18 males who had their reference sample collected and tested.
H. Item 311 found to be consistent with the victim Ethan Chapen and presumed blood stains. Item 72, north wall of the stairwell belong to Kaye and Maddie.
H interesting.
Okay. What body fluid cell material did the DNA come from? No body fluid testing.
of the item 11 one swab of the KBAR knife sheath front strap was reported right because they did no cerological testing tested for spit semen sweat none of that a positive presumptive test for blood was reported from the item 30 a swab of a small red stain on the underside of the stair handrail north wall between first and second floors C. When did the male DNA get deposited?
There are no reliable, widely adopted test to determine when DNA from biological material was deposited. In this case, neither of the items one one swab of the KBAR knife sheath front strap male DNA profile or item 30 a small a swab of a small red stain on the underside of the stair handrail male DNA profile exhibited severe degra deg degradation often associated with old deposits of biological material.
Interesting. So neither of the items one one the swab the cable or knife sheath front strap or item 30 small red stain underside neither of them exhibited severe degradation often associated with old deposits of biological material so that drop of blood on the handrail that belongs to Ethan.
It sounds like what this guy's saying here is that um that did not exhibit severe degradation often associated with old deposits of biological material. So like you know to say like he cut himself previously and left it there. This guy's saying that neither item 11 one nor that uh red stain under on the handrail exhibited severe degradation.
H D. How did the male DNA get deposited?
The DNA recovered from item 11 one swab of the KBAR knife sheath front strap could have come from direct contact if from skin cells and or by deposits of body fluids with DNA content such as saliva or sweat. There is no confirmatory test or standardized set of factors to support that a specific sample was deposited by direct means versus indirect.
A probabilistic mathematical approach would be required to evaluate one activity as opposed to the other. H interesting.
The DNA recovered from the presumed blood stain on the underside of the stair handrail north wall between the first and second floors must have been deposited after some minor injury by direct contact or indirect contact secondary transfer. But it cannot be determined if the DNA recovered was deposited passively before the crime or actively during the crime. So Ethan's blood on the underside of the handrail can't be determined if this blood that belongs to him was deposited passively before the crime or actively during the crime. But what he can say is that the it's not degraded as though it's old blood. It didn't appear to be It didn't appear to have characteristics of degradation.
Very interesting. So, it's Ethan's blood on the underside of the handrail. You have Ethan's blood undiluted smack in the middle of all of the diluted blood that belongs to Kaye and Maddie downstairs. Even though Kaye and Maddie were allegedly never downstairs, you have his blood that is mixed with someone else's that he is the major contributor of. It is undiluted and it is smack in the middle of all of this diluted blood. His blood is also on the hand reel leading downstairs. And he also has the highest likelihood ratio of anyone that a likelihood ratio was created for for being the DNA under Madison Mogan's fingernails.
Very very interesting.
There were missed opportunities with the combined DNA with COTUS. The number of perpetrators involved in committing this complex crime is unknown. It would have been prudent to have considered that more than one of the unknown male profiles might be involved and use COTUS to help answer that question as a case approach strategy by the lead law enforcement agency instead of assuming only one possible perpetrator. Right?
Only unknown male A was searched and uploaded to the National DNA Index System database. Furthermore, not all forensic unknown DNA profiles are eligible for the NDIS upload and would only be in the state DNA index system.
Manual or one-time keyboard searches can be done with forensic unknown DNA profiles that have a minimum of at least six original KODS core loai and a moderate match estimate of at least 60,000 as calculated by the KOD software. Labtolab one-time search requests can be done between NDIS participating laboratories to search SDIS databases from neighboring states.
No manual search requests appear to have been made for any of the unknown profiles for A, B, or D. Oh my god.
So Payne's whole theory there of you can only put one profile into CODUS yet again debunked by another expert.
Actually, this expert is saying, uh, hey, you guys had like at least minimum nine nine male [ __ ] DNAs that you should have been putting into these different databases and con collaborating uh with other labs, other state labs because you can do these searches. You can do manual or one-time keyboard searches. They can be done for forensic unknown DNA profiles that have a minimum of at least six original KODS core loai.
No manual search requests to appear to have been made for any of the unknown male profiles, including profile A, which is allegedly Coberger.
H interesting.
See references PDF photos collected by Payne Hogan and Talbot. ISP marker 23 north wall of stairway area between first and second floors.
This is everything that he relied on here. Um let's see.
Lab item 30 collected by Young Lingling and Bereie.
Bottom handrail north wall of stairway between one and first and second floor.
ISP lab item 73 and then 311 top edge of half wall. Right. That's all Ethan H. Interesting.
And then this has his CV attached to it.
We don't have to read through the whole thing. I think the rest of it is just his CV. I'll double check just to make sure, but if I remember correctly, the rest of this is just his CV. So for anybody who wants to go through it, you're more than welcome. We're not going to read through his whole CV here.
Isn't that interesting? Okay. So we can stop sharing that. So this expert here is saying, "Hey, not only could you guys have put these other profiles into Kodus, even if you didn't use Kotus, you could have went state um you could have searched other databases and collaborated with other state databases to upload these profiles to. And according to him, it wasn't done. They didn't bother. They didn't bother with any of it. They did not bother. No manual search requests appear to have been made for any of the unknown male profiles, A, B, or D.
Crazy.
How's everybody doing over here?
Hi, neighborhood. Hello, Simple Me.
Hello. Welcome on in everybody. Welcome.
Welcome.
So I'm going to wrap it up here. I do think it's very interesting so far that what we have looked at. Okay, we left at uh let's see 33 exhibits to the defendant's second supplemental request for discovery. And then we have Okay, so the next one will be that one. I just want to mark it for myself. Don't worry, we're going to go through more of this.
Uh, I'm just going to stop here because it's 5:00 and I want to go do dinner and movie night with my child and that's what we're going to do. Um, tonight is how to train your dragon part two. Uh, for those of you who don't know, uh, Toothless is my spirit animal. Um, so yeah, there's that. But isn't it interesting here? So according to what we read so far, it would appear that um the highest likelihood ratio that were being created by the lab here belong to Ethan. The um unknown male be blood that is the drop of blood on the handrail also belongs to Ethan.
The undiluted blood smack in the middle of all of the uh diluted blood on the second floor also belongs to Ethan. He's the major contributor. doesn't say who the other contributors are or how many.
Um, very interesting because like if he never left the bedroom and he never got up out of bed, how is his blood not diluted like the other two? So, if the diluted blood belonging to Kaye and Maddie on the second floor is there because the perpetrator is cleaning up and has left these diluted stains, where are the diluted stains for Ethan and Zana?
Why is there no diluted blood stains for Ethan and Zana also on the second floor?
And why is it that the only blood belonging to Ethan or Zana outside of their bedroom is mixed in with all of the diluted blood for the two upstairs?
Because if the perpetrator has killed all four and is now cleaning the crime scene, we should be seeing diluted mixtures of Ethan and Zana as well, not just for the two upstairs.
So, I don't know, friends. Um, you know, I got my own brain worms here. Um, but you know, like I I've said it before, I'll say it again. Never ever listen to me. Uh, I don't know [ __ ] No facts here. We're just reading some documents and I'm giving you my brain worms and that's all that we're doing. Too fast for fleas. You're so pretty. It's okay if you're late to the party. Just go back and put it at two speed or something. Okay. I think uh it's funnier at two speed. Doc Terry, hello. So good to see you. I've missed you, darling. I hope you're well. Hope you're well.
But thanks everybody for hanging out with me. Mods, thank you so much for being here. Kane, thank you. You know, Mercy Cat, I don't know where you are, darling, but I hope that you catch this on the replay. I hope you're having a wonderful Sunday. Design Rhythm, hello.
Um, so yeah, I don't know. It's just very interesting. so far, you know, um it would appear that, and I'm not saying this, I'm going to get a lot of hate for this, but um it it would appear all of their evidence, okay, unfortunately, in the beginning of this, it would appear that a lot of their evidence and a lot of their DNA and a lot of their blood samples and everything, I'm sorry. It just it it looks like it's pointing to your male victim in the house.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Okay? I'm just saying. I don't understand forensically how his blood would if he never left the room. If he was killed in the bed and never ever stood up and left that room, how is his blood undiluted smack in the middle of all of these diluted samples as well as it's on its own one singular drop on its own downstairs on the handrail downstairs first floor.
if he never left the room.
Like if it's the per leaving and cleaning things and he's got Ethan's blood on him or her, you would expect it regardless to be mixed with victims. You would expect to I would expect to see that not only is it just his, but it's also mixed with some of the other victims as well. And I would expect to see it diluted because according to the state's theory here, the whole reason that you have all of this diluted blood on the second floor anyway that belongs to the victims on the third floor is because the perpetrator was cleaning.
H interesting. Very, very interesting.
Yes, Kane B, you invented twospeed.
That's right. Uh the only way to listen to me, as far as I'm concerned, is at two speed. I think it's funnier when you do it that way. But anyways, I hope you guys have a great rest of your Sunday.
I'll try and come back another time. Uh I think I linked, you know, if you want to send a tip, feel free. I think I linked the Cash App, the PayPal, and the Venmo. Okay, so you know, but it's not expected. But if you appreciate my time and you appreciate me going through these docs, feel free to send us send a tip to the Starbeast Fund, okay?
But you guys go enjoy your Sunday. Uh, and the next time that you see me will be uh when I upload our podcast, our first podcast out the gate. Uh, we're going to have a lot to look at. We're going to have a lot to go through. Um, and I won't be live, okay? It's just going to all be pre-recorded. I have my new job and everything that I'm doing.
So, all of the podcast from here on out, everything's going to be pre-recorded and uploaded. And mods, I love you, but after today, you no longer will be mods.
I won't, you know, okay, because we won't be doing lives anymore. But I hope if we do, it's going to be very rare here and there in between, okay? We're going straight podcast style here. We're not relying on YouTube. We're not doing any of that. Okay? It's going to be podcast style. It's going to be uploaded to all of my social media platforms, including Twitter, Kick, Rumble, uh, all of that. Okay? So, uh, make sure that you go ahead and follow me on all of the other platforms and, uh, yeah, thumbs it up, thumbs it down, follow your heart, not your frown. Okay. Hope everybody has an awesome day. Thanks for being here.
Bye.
Related Videos
Secrets of the Sea: The Ocean’s Most Powerful Creatures & Their Amazing Abilities! 🌊🦈
SwampyTales
3K views•2026-05-29
POV: You're a Shark. The Octopus Already Knows You're There.
tentacleeeee
297 views•2026-05-28
How Do You Know If You're Getting Enough Vitamin D?
DrPeterKan
765 views•2026-05-29
800+ New Species Discovered in the Pacific!
raizen05-j6k
295 views•2026-05-30
@CreatureCases - 🌊☀️ 🌈🦊 Kit & Sam’s Sunny Adventures! 💖🐝 | Best Friends in Action 🌴✨| Compilation
CreatureCases
1K views•2026-05-28
Bird Nest Monitoring | Hidden In Plain Sight!!
thegeordierambler4373
251 views•2026-05-30
Seedling under seize #pest #plant_predators
Makeitsimple99
181 views•2026-06-01
When A Lonely Harpy Decides You're Her Mate
dreamaudiova
1K views•2026-05-30
