In criminal cases, plea deals can be influenced by defense attorneys who may strategically pressure defendants into accepting guilty pleas while potentially concealing exculpatory evidence. The case of Brian Kohberger illustrates how defense attorney Anne Taylor may have withheld critical evidence (such as hair found in a victim's hand) from testing, which could have revealed alternative suspects. This highlights the importance of thorough evidence examination and the potential for prosecutorial misconduct when defense teams fail to fully investigate all available evidence before accepting plea deals.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
🔴LIVE: TURVEY GOES NUCLEARl!! #idaho4 #bryankohbergerAdded:
Well, hello there. How is everyone? I hope you are all well.
Ah, bit of a later one. It's like 5 to 11. It's 5 to 11. Should be tucked up in bed. Should be touched. Touched up.
Freudian slip. It should be touched up in bed. This show is going to be good.
I'll tell you what, we got something else to look at before we get into the um the the the turvy drama.
I'll wait for a few people to get in and then um I'll um I'll show you this. Some of you will have already seen, I imagine, some of you won't.
Um ah but I'm here. Oh, didn't turn that [ __ ] noise off, did I? Every time there's a message, it like bleeps in me air. How is everyone anyway? Let's just see where the chat things come up. So, it comes up on there. That'll do, isn't it? Hello, Idaho 3D. Um, I'll put you down there.
Um, YouTube is not receiving enough video to maintain smooth streaming.
As such, viewers will experience delay.
What are you talking about? I don't know why it does that. Don't know why it does that. That's ridiculous.
Hello everybody coming in. Hello. Hello.
Hello. 5 to midnight here. Yeah. 5 to 11. Well, 3 minutes to 11 now. Evening Dush Bunny. Evening. Evening. Evening. I don't really know what's going on around YouTube at the minute. I don't know who's live. If anyone else is live.
I'm trying to sort out a live with Murder Metal Mayhem for Tuesday. That's what I'm trying to do.
Um, did I see someone say Ron was in the house? Um, hi Ron. If you where have you I'm trying to keep an eye on the chat because I've got like the chat over here which is like the back end of YouTube on that screen.
But I'm trying to look through the monitor arm. Then I've got the other screen there. And then I've got chat on this screen in the middle.
But that is a bit that's not in time with that one. This one goes behind a little bit. So hello Aunt B. Hello Aunt B. Good to see you. Good to see you. So Aunt B is in the house moderating. Who else we got in the house moderating? I think you're the only one here at the moment.
I did see that Harley was in earlier.
I don't know. But hello people as you're coming in. Hello. Hello. Hello. Like I say, the idea will be to go through Turvy's interview. Now, I have sped it up. Now, there isn't going to be any ads in it. Um, a lot of pe I did see a few people talking about there being a lot of ads. The downside with YouTube and I don't know why it does this is when you do a live and then it renders the live in the background when it then uploads it, it just [ __ ] puts live. It's put ads all in it. And sometimes there can be loads of ads. But if you go into it and then try and slim the ads down, as soon as you try and remove one of the ads, it says that that you can't just remove one. It will remove them all. And then if you then remove them all and then try to put your own ones in, it then doesn't work. It then won't show ads. So, it's it drives you up the wall since they changed to like this automated system, but um it's a bit of a pain in the ass. You can set it like to be more conservative, I think. But like I generally put mine to be quite conservative, but it still puts [ __ ] loads in. But um I've got, like I say, I've got premium, so you won't have ads, but you will have me talking, which is a bit like an ad, but a better one. But um I have sped it up. I've put it up to 1.5 speed because um it's mental.
Um I can't be doing with listening to people at normal speed.
But hello, hello, hello. Um, Dena, YouTube has been adding a lot of ads.
You have to get YouTube Premium. Yeah, it's like I say, since it's gone automated, it's one way or the other.
It's It's mental.
Removing an ad will delete my comment at times. YouTube delete comments anyway.
It's mental. They're constantly removing com even my own comments on my own channel. I don't know what's going on with this chair. I feel like a little bit of a hobbit. I could probably zoom out a little bit actually, couldn't I?
So, I wouldn't look that much of a hobbit. What if we do that? And then raise it. That's as high as that'll go.
I still look like a bit of a hobbit.
What does that then do to that screen?
That's kind of all right, is it? Which we'll come to this in a minute.
Who's in? I'm interested in the significance of bag of cloves you mentioned.
Yeah. Weren't this the bloody clo This was in the book, weren't I? I'll see if I can find that later on. That was in Christopher Wickham's book, I believe. I don't know whether Turvy mentions it in this interview as well because I don't know whether it was him who brought it up, but it was in the book. apparently some clothes with blood on them. Um, was it in Dylan's wardrobe, I believe.
Uh, that book I'm I'm doing it back to front. I'm kind of reading the book from the from end of it going back the other way.
Um, if you use Verizon as your mobile provider, they offer discounts on YouTube Premium. To be fair, YouTube Premium, if you use YouTube a lot, like for me, it's a no-brainer because I'm obviously on it all the time and I obviously go through videos, so it is literally a no-brainer. But it is one of them where it depends on how much you are on YouTube, I think. But let's start. We need to look at this first. I saw this. This is um an interesting one.
I don't know whether you guys have seen this or not. Um but another fatal stabbing in an campus off-campus home says student says man who broke into their apartment matches suspect description in fatal stabbing.
So this is look um some students who live in the same apartment complex where the team was fatally stabbed in the laundry room say man matching the suspect's description tried breaking into the apartment in late April.
And this is Seattle. Seattle police are searching for the suspect in a brutal stabbing in an off-c campus housing unit that killed University of Washington student. says the backstory is um officers say the 19-year-old transgender woman was killed in the laundry room of the Nordm Court Apartments. Some students who live at the Nordome Court Apartments tell us that they caught a man breaking them into their apartment in April just a couple of weeks before the fatal stabin in the same apartment complex Sunday.
Um, got pictures of it there that the court Apartments, but um, Seattle is full of wack jobs.
It's not like Moscow.
They say the suspect in their case closely matches a suspect description in the deadly stab. And students say the attempted breakin happened on April the 25th in their lower level unit of the Nordom Court Apartments.
Um, what they're saying, the three roommates that were talked to said they were terrified.
They say they had cracked open the wi kitchen window to let some breeze in and the man had pulled out their screen and was trying to crawl into the apartment when one of the roommates caught him.
It's definitely something that was very traumatic, said one of the students who wanted to keep their identity private for safety reasons. They say when they first heard glasses rattling below the kitchen window on April 25th at around 10:17 p.m. I didn't think much of it. We did hear them and thought it was the cat and ultimately realized it wasn't, said the student. One of the roommates ran into the kitchen and found a man halfway inside the window and with the scream pulled out. A roommate who saw him screamed, "Get out of our house," said the student. They say the man backed out and fled while they called 911. So these they're screaming at the person who's in the house telling them to get out and they obviously called 911.
And it was at the same time as well.
They didn't wait 8 hours. They pretty much call straight away as that's what normal do.
But bag of clothes, not clothes.
I've been researching bags of clothes.
Believe it or not, that's a thing. Yeah, I'm I'm guessing there probably to ward off spirits or something. Rich, um, one of the roommates had the kids found. Yeah, call 911. I came running and we all barricaded ourselves in my room at the back of the apartment, said the students. Um, the students say responding officers found a knife, but the man was never caught. The case was logged as a burglary by the University of Washington Police Department.
Um, and it says the dig deeper. When they heard about Sunday night's deadly stabbing in their apartment complex, laundry room, they were concerned. It was about 10:20, almost the exact same time as the murder that happened last night, said the student. They tell us a person they saw closely matched the description of the suspect in the stabbing case, which was released Monday. The suspect in the homicide case uh case case is described as a black man about 5'6 to 5'7 with a slim build and a bed. Um no bushy eyebrows mentioned but he had a bed. He was last seen wearing a button-up shirt, dark vest, and blue jeans. We've been living on edge since that happened, said the students. The roommates have since moved to an upper level unit at the Nordom Court Apartments for safety, but don't live too far from the laundry room where the murder occurred. Sharing video that shows the laundry room window where the stabin took place, which they say has since been covered from view. That's the window there.
But this person hasn't been caught. We do believe if my roommate hadn't spotted him and he lost his advantage that he would have come inside and probably possibly done something to us to us, said the student. Um, we reached out to SPD to see if they were looking at the April 25th burglary at the Nordom Court Apartment to see if they might be related. Seattle Police referred us back to the University of Washington Police Department, saying it is their jurisdiction.
We reached out for more information from the University of Washington Police Department and are waiting to hear back.
We also reached out to Nordom Court Apartments and are waiting to hear back.
There we go.
Bloody hell. It's just mental in it.
Just absolutely mental.
But there we go. But this this this interview, what is what is every obviously a lot of people have watched it. I'm guessing the vast majority of you guys have watched it. Um, you know, what are your hot takes from it so far? Before we go into it, I'm going to start at about 11 minutes in because I obviously covered the early part this morning. Um, so I'm going to go from there. And like I say, I have sped it up so we ain't going to be listening to it at normal speed and we don't have to cater for ads either. But, um, what what are your hot takes so far from those of you who have seen it? And if you haven't seen it so far, just let me know that you haven't seen it as well.
and then we will um then we'll crack on.
I'll give people a couple more minutes to get people in.
I'm glad it's coming out. Yeah, it needs to be done, you know? It's this but the the thing is is what what can we do now? Like I was talking to Rich earlier, Road Track Rich, and it's like like he said, the downside is this seems to us like it's a real big thing because we're kind of in the thick of it. Do you know what I mean? We're here. We're front row seats and um but on the grander scheme of things, how many people are truly listening to what is still going out going on with this case? Now, the one thing we have got is I think like the book I think Christopher Wickham's book went in at like number number nine of like the book charts.
So there's there's obviously still an audience around the Idaho 4 case but um this person here love habits I don't care how credential turvy is he sound unprofessional on the interview and and look I've I've seen a few people say this but you could say the same about me do you know what I mean we talk about some pretty macab stuff some some we talk about people who have lost their lives.
We talk about crimes and I will at times try to make light of things. Do you know what I mean? I take the piss. Um I say things that some people don't agree with. Uh but the way I look at it is I would prefer someone to be on an interview and just being themselves. Do you know what I mean? Not trying to be fake. Not trying to be someone they're not. If that's what he's like. if he's a bit of a piss taker, if he, you know, if he likes talking about himself and stuff like that, I'd prefer him just to keep doing it. Do you know what I mean? Just be yourself. When people start being being fake and putting on a certain persona for people, that's when I kind of I I lose a bit of interest. You know what I mean? There's so there's so might have thought that he was, you know, being a certain way and they didn't agree with it and felt he should be a different way. I get it. I fully understand and appreciate it. But um I'd prefer for someone to be a bit like that than just to be fake. But shall we get into it? Shall we get into this video?
Let's do it. Shall we? Let's do it.
So, this video, for those of you who don't know, who have been living under a rock, this video is Custody Queens Off the Clock, an interview they did with Dr. Turvy. Now, I'm starting 11 minutes in because I covered the first 11 minutes in an in a previous video that was just basically calling out Anne Taylor about the accusations that she had made against Dr. Turvy. and he kind of rebutted that and he did that pretty well. He he he did it pretty well. Um he might have been [ __ ] star mate but and Taylor started it and Taylor started the argument. He brought out information that he felt was being buried. Um he brought out information that was available to the public. Not everyone would have had access to it because a lot of information is hidden behind a payw wall. But he brought out information that was part of public disclosure rather than go if Anne Taylor felt that a law had been broken that there was something legal that he'd done wrong then she should have gone down the legal route. She hadn't spoken publicly for a year and she decided to come out publicly and try and attack his credibility. She didn't say he was wrong. She didn't challenge what he was saying. She barely said that he was, you know, he he he shouldn't have been talking. Basically, he he he had no right to talk.
Um, no sound. I've got sound.
I've got sound.
It's picking up sound.
Hello.
Can you hear me?
Um, I can hear loud and clear. Someone else can hear loud and clear. I've got the sound thing on there.
So, that's working.
I don't know why some people can't hear.
I know some people are saying you can't hear, but the sound thing's working and some people are saying they can hear.
Some people have got sound, some people haven't. I'd say the people who Let me comment on hair.
If you have if you have no sound, go out and back in.
I'm going to have to do that, aren't I?
That's very strange.
Very strange. So, let's get on. Let's go on. Let's see if this plays. Should do >> I get her attempt I think her attempt was to try to the last line says it all, which is his credibility should be viewed through this lens or whatever.
And I think it should be I think my credibility should be viewed through that lens, which is will I knowingly sit on exculpatory evidence? No, I will not despite whatever consequences might come. And I have, you know, at any given time I have between 35 and 40 open cases. I just finished a huge report in a big case today. Spent the last two weeks working on it. And my clients hire me for that objectivity, for that impartiality. And because they know that I have a reputation for being having integrity in front of a jury and in front of the court. And I have to say it really begs the question as to the credibility of those experts or those attorneys or those participants or those commentators who are arguing for the suppression of this evidence. That's interesting to me.
But there are no specific she's >> and that's the point there, isn't it?
Danielle um Danielle Hair says you'll fully understand exactly that his personality is nothing to do with his job. Um, and this guy is true to himself and his ethics. He can't be brought, swayed, or forced. No cutting corners.
That's it. It's he's just being who he is. Do you know what I mean? Um, yeah.
It's it's it's just being who he is. Who he is. And I would prefer him to be that way.
Um, yes. As far as the um audio goes, it's not my end. It's an issue with YouTube. YouTube at the moment for some reason. Um, the their live feeds, their cut and sound, the cut, it's it's annoying. It's annoying, but there's not a lot I can do about it. I've got a sound meter on the screen, so I can monitor the sound and it's fine my end.
So, if you lose sound, you'll just have to go out and then come back in again and it it should work.
But it isn't um it isn't this end. But let's go. I had to I had to cut that back to 1.25 time because 1.5 was a little bit much.
>> Made no specific allegations of spec specific information and I think I know why that is. So >> and it's also interesting that she hasn't spoke up since the you know following the plea which was almost getting close into that year mark. I thought that was interesting. But you're 100% right. She doesn't try to discredit you. She doesn't try to say that you're wrong. Uh, she basically just says she she's also attacking her own team, which is wild. I mean, that's kind of you have the whole world trying to attack you for the most part and you're trying to prove BK's innocence, but hey, let's start attacking our own, which is think about what it's going to do to her. I mean, remember this, she's not like this clean defense attorney. She's an she's a she's got a conflict of interest starting out of the gate by rep because she represented victim family members when she was working for the public defender.
But she also has a what she worked as a magistrate and a prosecutor, I think, at some point. People who do these things as lawyers, they get confused sometimes about their role. They get confused and their attitude and their posture doesn't change sufficiently when they change their role or their their onus. What's their what is their ownus? Is their ownus to the defense uh to their client, to the state, to the people like them, whatever they get.
>> Well, we know where um Anne Taylor's onus lied, didn't we? And it definitely wasn't with um with Brian Cobberger. You know, for those of you who probably haven't seen my second video today because YouTube fails to put out um notifications, um I did a video video two and it covered a section of Christopher Wickham's book and it was literally um Christopher Wickham and Taylor had been asked whether she believed that um Brian Cobberg was guilty. And she literally said that there was nothing. There was there was nothing. So she doesn't know whether he's innocent or guilty. Which that statement first of all makes her look disingenuous herself because we saw the way that she behaved around Brian Cobberger in the courtroom with a hand on his shoulder and you know the he's he's innocent. But it also said, um, "Yeah, I'm still mad from watching your second video." And and that's why this video is important. This is what pisses me off about YouTube cuz that is an important video. And and people won't see it because it will just get buried.
YouTube will bury it. And one thing I will say is if you watch the videos that I put out, make sure to hit the like button. The like button is a huge metric. Like if you haven't hit like in this live, make sure to hit like. It's gone of the days, the old days where different sort of things push videos out. It's all about likes. It's about engagement, chat, and stuff like that.
But this video, right, the second one, I'll bring this I'll bring it cuz I've got it on this screen behind this screen. So, it literally says um she said there was there was nothing.
She had no idea whether you actually did it or not.
And a source had said um that they were led to believe that Cobberger had been taken to death row to see where he would stay pending execution of um of sentence.
But Taylor refuted that information and told him that it was another lawyer in her office and a mitigation expert that tooured the prison and they explained things to Cobberger as he made up his mind. And it's like you are you actually joking? Like I know that they obviously have to say to Brian, you know, as a worst case scenario thing, if this goes [ __ ] south, you could be executed.
But I have to you have to consider the the situation here and that is that you've got a situation where Brian Cobberger goes through this entire thing. I saw a comment earlier. It was like and all the stages through it was like Brian Cobberger not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty all the way through it. gets to like a few weeks before the the um the the trial and it's like all of a sudden plea deal accepts plea deal you know and all the way through alongside Brian Cobberger sort of not guilty not guilty not guilty not guilty you've got the state going death penalty death penalty death penalty death penalty death penalty and then right at the last minute prosecution approaches defense Brian Coberger all of a sudden he enters into a [ __ ] plea deal and you're thinking to yourself everybody was surprised by that and then you start hearing in the background little things like this and I think to myself um imagine if you are Brian Cobberger and imagine if you have got some mental health issues such as ASD for instance. ance and um you've got ASD and the only person you've rarely had anything to do with cuz that's another thing that was put in that book is that an Taylor seemed to be blocking access to Brian Cobberger. Everything had to be done through her. Nobody could really gain access to him. Now, I don't know whether that was real or not, but that's what it was said. But Brian Cobberger would have processed things incredibly different. And I'll give you a case and point, right? I don't know whether any of you watch the um the YouTuber um Penguins. Um sometimes he's known as Moist Critical. He's a massive YouTuber.
Several million subscribers in the high teens. And he's someone who um No, it wasn't it wasn't Penguins. It was Asmin Gold TV. So, Asmin Gold TV, he is very similar to Penguins. Um, large large channel again. And he was showing a body cam video of a young girl. She must have been probably late teens, perhaps early 20s. And um, she'd gone to the dentist.
She'd gone for a dentist appointment.
And after the dentist appointment, she goes to the counter of the dentists and um she wants the paperwork and the paperwork isn't ready and this escalates into a catastrophic mess. Um it ends up with four bloke police officers pinning her down. She's hysterical. They're threatening to um taser her cuz she's she's getting [ __ ] I rateate. And it was sad, right? Because I watched um the people on the Asmond video taking a piss out of this young girl, right? They they ripping her to shreds. Ripping her to shreds.
And it reminded she reminded me of my daughter Freya because that's exactly the way that things can for some people who have got things like ASD something so simple something so when we look at something and and we can understand it they just it just doesn't compute to them and and it and it escalates into a [ __ ] devast devastating thing in the brain and I think of Brian Coberger and I think you've had nothing really nobody to talk to. You you you've got this trust this bond with and Taylor and Taylor has treat you like she is the your [ __ ] be all and end all. She's on your side. She's got your back. So you trust this person literally with your life.
And just before trial, she is going to him and giving him information about um like death row and and the prison you're going to be staying in the leadup to your execution.
And I think to myself, how does that then compute in someone's brain who has got ASD?
And I genuinely think to myself, if you've got somebody with ASD and they've got to weigh up, do I prefer to be alive or do I prefer to be dead? And it's that simplistic to them. It is literally life, death. Well, I want to be alive.
Thank you so much for the gifted memberships, by the way. Um, I'm going to gift some as we make our way through this live as well. Um, and and it just it's so [ __ ] sad. It is so sad. And you know, you don't even have to sit here and say, "I know." Like someone messaged earlier and um they they turned around and went, "Oh, I suppose you they went, "Oh, I suppose you think the frats did it." And I turned around and went, "I don't know who did it."
And there lies the problem that I don't know who did it. Because at this stage of this case, we should know who did it. We should absolutely know who did it. We should have been proven who did it. It should have been proved. It should have been shown. All of the evidence should be forward. And we should have clarity and a conclusion. And that's not where we are. Every single new piece of information that comes out about this case is not proof of Brian Cobberger's guilt. It's proof of at best case scenario prosecutorial misconduct.
evidence being buried and and and insufficient [ __ ] counsel. Do you know what I mean? And Taylor seems the accusations are there and the evidence is there that she was actually potentially the person who railroaded Brian Cobberger into taking a plea deal while potentially simultaneously knowing about catastrophic failures in the prosecution's case that she could have easily exploited at trial.
So, I just don't get it. I genuinely don't get it. And it ain't even about Brian Cobberger being innocent or guilty. It's about the judicial process and the fact that if you're really honest with yourself and you are being honest with yourself, not just looking through a specific lens of I'm an I'm a guiltter or I'm a proberger or I'm a kind of down the middleer. You if you are being honest, whatever camp you're in, you couldn't look at this case and honestly say everything was done right.
Do you know what I mean? it was done right and the the the outcome has been proven and Brian Coberger has been proven to be the person who did this crime and he did it on his own and the judicial process acted in accordance with how we would expect it to behave and and it's [ __ ] nuts to me and it's sad. It is sad.
It is sad that we got to this place where the we can be in this situation with the Idaho 4 case, see what we see, hear what we hear, have literal people with decades and decades of experience in things such as what Turvy does. And yet there are an abundance of people who are willing to just turn the other way. And that isn't even just in social media land. This is literal family members.
This is now family members who are obviously seeing all this. You can guarantee you Betty Bollocks to a barn dance that the Gonalves family for instance have watched Dr. Turvy's video.
This video will have been watched. Will have been watched.
Now, how could you watch that video and listen to what is being said and not start thinking, "Hold on a second. Something ain't right here." And it's all of them.
It's It's all of them.
It's And it's [ __ ] mental to me. It's It is truly mental where we are with it.
Um, I've got to change this camera.
It's making me look like a hobbit.
I think I don't know what's going on with this camera. Look really like tiny.
I think it's cuz it's close and I've got it kind of I don't know. But anyway, let's go back over and carry on listening to this >> confused. And so when you have this we call roll strain. when you have multiple roles pulling on you, you can wind up saying and doing things you probably shouldn't. What I'm also thinking about is any person who would ever think as of working as an expert for Ann Taylor in the future is probably going to say no.
>> Yeah.
>> And and I'm assuming that the first time you heard this admonishment was publicly. You haven't had any direct contact with her since before the plea.
>> Uh Sam, that's such a great question.
The answer is no. Of course not. I mean, if you were going to No, let me let me back up and say this. If you were going to admonish an expert for some behavior, you would probably want to talk to them first about what they did and why and specifically what they did and why. Um, as part of what's going on, but our relationship dramatically deteriorated once she made this surprise plea deal, which surprised most of the team. Well, there's a guilt phase and then there's a mitigation phase in the death penalty case. And the mitigation experts, we never met them. And even the guilt the guilt phase experts who were trying to reconstruct the crime or determine the events and the actions, we didn't talk to each other. We were very much compartmentalized. So, I wouldn't even have anything to share from them other than the findings that are in the defense autopsy report. There's not an autopsy evaluation done by a defense expert, and I I have access to that, but I obviously haven't shared that with anybody.
>> That's a perfect lead into I think the next question. I know that this is something I'm super interested in, and most people uh in this chat are as well.
How did you get involved with this case, Dr. Turvy?
>> Well, I mean, it's not a secret that I was hired, so I can certainly discuss that. It's not a secret that I wrote a report, nor are my findings a secret because they were publicized in January with all the disclosures. In fact, there was an article written about my findings in Fox News back in January 2025, I think. Wait, >> which there was because I actually looked at that earlier. Like if you literally Google um like let me I'll go on to this one. And if you Google um Dr. Brent, they're still in there. Look. So, Brent Turvy, I'd searched that a week ago.
Um, Fox News, this is new ones. Um, April, page two.
Um, where is it? Where is it? Where is it? There's been so much stuff recently because of the stuff that he's come out.
Um, might have to go back quite far as again there's so much of it that's hooked up to the recent stuff like hair 7th October 2025 um which this is this was on Tik Tok which was a response to um what was obviously in the public eye which you know Brent Turvy had um had made it clear what his findings were.
So, as he said, this wasn't all new stuff. Do you know what I mean? It wasn't it wasn't new.
>> But there we go.
>> 2025. And I was one of the only experts whose findings were disclosed to the public. How did I get involved? Well, I was um I would say collegial good friends and collegial with Barlo who was hired on early on as a DNA expert. I worked cases I worked a case with her in uh California and she brought she asked to bring me on to evaluate the the placement of the scabbard. All right.
because they were concerned that there's evidence that that it was planted because of the things that that have all come to light. And then once I did that, once I was brought on board for that, they expanded my role and they expanded my analysis to the to to a full crime scene analysis so that we could make determinations with certainty. And remember, I prepared a report in this case which was submitted to Ann Taylor, I think at least twice. One evening I was I was traveling. and I was working really late and I submitted we had a deadline we were coming up against in January of 2020 2020 whatever it was 2025 and we I had to meet that deadline and so she reviewed it she accepted it and she put it on file so these findings that I've given in the extent and breadth of my examination are not some great mystery or some great reduction as she tried to suggest in her her um in her admonition which was bizarre trying to pretend oh well he's just this guy we just kind of hired him and just kind of did this and you didn't vet me completely you didn't uh get ask for for report and expand my role and request a report that was x number of pages long and you know submit that to the court >> and that's it in it you know how can an Taylor how can she have the [ __ ] audacity to turn around and question his integrity and say that he wasn't qualified to speak on what he'd spoken on when she would have had to have done her homework on him and brought him in because of his [ __ ] credentials and then off the back end of that you've then got Olivia Gonalves her she's then challenging his credentials and for those of you again who saw my video um the other day I went through his entire CV um just to show that he was actually incredibly qualified. They did mention his kind of his his background at the beginning of this live, but I went through his entire CV. We had actually spoken specifically in his CV about the Idaho 4 case, which was the I believe the 100th case that he'd listed in his CV. So, and there was more cases after that. And you know, he'd said in even in his CV, he'd literally written that there was evidence that was hidden witness coercion, I believe, or it or you know, accused [ __ ] rail paraphrasing, but [ __ ] railroading going on and multiple perpetrator crime scene.
So there we go.
>> Just inaccurate. I mean, come on. It's just it defies credibility. Her posture at this point defies credibility. So that's how I got involved. And that's the that was the nature and range and scope of my examination. Quite extensive.
>> And do you recall that what time frame was it that you were actually hired on as the expert?
>> It would be like in what man I don't remember. Let me just take a tell you right now. I can tell you. Let me go here. Let me just make sure I don't say anything wrong. All right. So, I was brought in in October 2024, but I was interviewed multiple time at least twice before then to screen me. And my report was submitted in January 22nd, 2025.
Does that help?
>> Yeah, that helps quite a bit.
>> Yep.
>> So, what I know that there were uh there was a lot of discussion, a lot of complaints by Ant Taylor to the court about a defense being slow to give evidence over. Did that kind of put the defense team >> not the prosecution prosecution turning him over to the defense? Yeah. Did that kind of kind of put the defense under the gun a bit?
>> Not just that. I mean the before the plea right before the plea we got this mash of data dump that had not been disclosed to us prior and I that I have not seen that I have not seen have not examined we had a whole >> No of course not because the the plea happened right after that so I I when >> it's mental in it which again raises the question and an Taylor gets a massive great dump of information and just shortly after that it seems as if an Taylor then convinces him to take a plea deal. Now, let's not also forget that around this sort of time as well and Taylor was getting involved in the Skyla me case, which was another death penalty case.
So, was it that Anne Taylor just turned around and thought, "Fuck this. I can't be bo I can't be bothered to go I can't be bothered with this anymore. I want to I want to take on the Skyler me case. If I look like I've done a good job there and just made him avoid the death the death penalty. Looks like a win for me.
She has a conversation with Bill Thompson behind closed doors and and [ __ ] Brian Coberger gets railroaded so she can move on to finish the Skyler me case unhindered. I don't I I just can't [ __ ] work it out.
Um When I left her office the last time, the weekend before the the Thursday before the weekend of the plea agreement being announced, um we had all kinds of plans set in motion as you would because we were going to trial and all kinds of uh plans for examining those disclosures, all kinds of plans for uh other examinations for other items of evidence to check on chain of custody and things like that.
There was a bunch of work to be done and that is not some secret. That's that disclosure of that data dump requires examination by the experts. So there's no >> Do you know what was in that data dump?
>> I didn't look at it. So >> Well, no, no. I mean, did they say?
>> Nope.
>> You know, here are photos, here's videos, nothing. You just >> No.
>> No. They she she was not like that. So she wasn't she she you know, the the version of Ant Taylor that I know bears no resemblance to the Ant Taylor that took the plea and is talking in public right now. I don't know this person at all. I don't re >> what you're probably seeing is the version of Anne Taylor who was either threatened um or paid off. Who knows? Who knows? Um what was that comment? Jo Jules alluded to knowing the Cobberger's watch. I hope they are. I hope they can get and fired.
I'm sure their hearts are broken. I'd love to have a conversation with Brian Coberger's family. I truly would if they do watch reach out cuz I'd love to have a conversation with them especially off the back end of this. Do you know what I mean? It's [ __ ] it's a joke. This this is this is a joke. This case >> at all.
>> You so you when you last met with her, you had no indication that the plea was going to happen. And how did you actually find out about the plea?
through the media. How did >> I found out from a colleague? The colleague texted me, texted me and said, "Uh, hey Brent, um, I remember you were working on this case. I remember reading the articles, remember this, remember you mentioning it. Uh, what's going on?
There's a plea agreement? Is that true?"
And I like wrote back and like, "No way.
No way. There's a there's no way it's not happening." And then within over the next 10 minutes, it was like bing bing.
I was getting all kinds of text messages from different colleagues and different um uh friends of mine and and and people who work for me.
>> You see, I can see why people like just there. Do you know what I mean? Cuz you can come, you can step back a bit and you can think to yourself, they're talking about Brian Cobberger basically getting [ __ ] over and they're all kind of having a laugh about it. But I think you've got to kind of take it as it as it is. Do you know what I mean? He's sort of saying he did at that point he just thought that was a [ __ ] joke.
You you clearly it's it's a windup. It's got to be a windup surely.
and it clearly wasn't.
Um, Gaspari Nutrition, good to see you.
Haven't seen you for a while. Nice to see you in chat. Stranger, nice to see you. Nice to see you. Um, like I said, I will be gifting some more memberships in a bit, but we will um carry on.
>> We all found out with the rest of the world.
>> Is it normal?
>> Oh, is it normal?
>> No, I say last time we talked, you were you were renting like a VBO. You had bags. you had your clothes like you were ready to go.
>> Yeah, of course. But let me let me let me back up and say something that hasn't been said before. One, the reason I was hired for this case is I was one of the only people on the whole case who's ever worked a mass homicide before. I've worked dozens. Well, a dozen or more.
Some somewhere between 12 and 20. If you look at my resume, you can go count them. Um, that's the first thing. And I'm working a couple right now.
Actually, I just picked up another one the other day. So that's one of the reasons I was brought in because I have expertise and experience on these kinds of complex mass homicide events. All right. The second thing is that when you are on a death penalty case, it is intensive. Everybody's heads are in the huddle. Okay. Everybody is part of the process because if they're not, you can miss something. And the consequences are life and death. So there's a there's a lot of great articles on the death penalty issue and the the work that's required and the focus that's required.
And what they say is quote death is different unquote. So when you have a death penalty case you are responsible in a way that that you're not in other cases right because there's going to be appeal and there's going to be you know you can you can do it and then you can get a second chance. You can get a couple more bites at the apple if there's a problem or if there's a a procedural error or an innocence issue.
>> In a death penalty case it's dangerous.
So that means there has to be a very high level of trust and communication between the people working on the case and the fact that none of the defense experts were contacted or consulted as part of this deal. In fact, were misled by the defense by the defense attorneys as to whether or not there was going to be a plea deal is is stunning. It's a stunning uh context to be in. I've never expected I've only experienced this kind of thing one time before sort of, but this is pretty stunning. How >> were you misled?
>> What?
>> How are you misled? Exactly.
Well, as I said, the entire posture of the case was going to trial >> and that's it, isn't it? It it was literally just weeks before trial. Even Jeff Nye himself, he he stated that he could he didn't believe that this was go this had gone to Pilly deal. It it literally took everybody by surprise. So if it took everybody by surprise, everybody by surprise, then who was who were the people in control of it happening? Who were the people pulling the strings? And again, that's why again, that's that video that I did earlier is so important because it seems that the the the the defense team was setting the wheels in motion behind everyone's backs to try to convince Brian Cobberger to take a plea deal. So, how did they even know that there was one incoming?
It it just reeks of Anne Taylor, Bill Thompson having conversations behind the scenes together and coming to an agreement that they would try and get Brian Coberger to accept a plea deal.
And they did so, again, the evidence shows, in my opinion, that they did so by scaring him into thinking that he it was a real possibility that he would be executed again, while simultaneously knowing about the issues in the prosecution's case.
And again, they weren't little issues.
They were catastrophic issues that could have been exploited at trial.
Was this about money? Like not just are they covering for someone who's got power and money and influence. that's happening. And that causes them to create a to engage in activity or make decisions and choices and planning and protocol uh and u you know logistics surrounding that and action plans that cause them to do massive amounts of work and and commit to certain time frames and then to sort of have the rug pulled out from underneath you for some reason without any explanation then or now as to why. Uh it's it misleading is a gentle way of saying misle misleading is a kind word. So you don't have any information since the time the plea was entered as to why what changed or why they went that direction?
>> Well, I directly asked that question and I was told nothing nothing changed.
>> Was the was Hitler or the court were they encouraging the negotiations regarding the plea deal or or there's so many different theories that we've all heard online. um some that that Hitler was encouraging the two team or the two sides to mediate, see if they can come to a plea deal or was it just completely like you had no clue that these negotiations it sounds like to me you had no clue that these negotiations were going to go down that weekend?
>> None at all. And it would be it's none at all. And that's sort of in my perspective and I don't I don't Taylor doesn't have that much experience working death penalty cases. I do. I've done this many many years 30 years now.
And in my experience, it is completely inappropriate to start making major decisions like that without first getting a sense of where the evidence really is at.
>> Like they asked about whether um Judge Hitler was mediating this and in the broken plea book on page, let me have a look because I've got it here.
Uh uh uh uh uh uh uh. I think it's on page 332.
It is stated that I'm sure it's that or is it um I'm just trying to find it.
talking about the plea deal and it would appear that um and Taylor consented blah blah blah um wave trial wanted reason behind change of plea we'd all had a meeting Wednesday change um I'm sure it is on page 333 of the Broken Plea book where they're talking about that even Judge Hitler got involved with um with this trying to get them together to to get a plea deal together.
Where the [ __ ] is it?
Where the bloody hell is it? I was reading earlier where the bloody hell is it um that's just talking about talking about the psychologist and parents leading up to the decision to change his plea and said the decision was his.
So, this is around this death this deaf [ __ ] death row visit.
Um, where the bloody hell is it? Oh, it's annoying me. I'd literally read it.
I'd read it earlier.
Um, I don't know.
I don't know. Getting ready at the moves and park roller coaster. It's around page 233.
It is around there somewhere. I can't be bothered to read it all. I was reading it earlier cuz they were talking about um Judge Hitler being involved in discussions and how that was kind of unheard of for that to happen.
>> Having a team meeting and talking about it and that didn't happen. Uh I I will just say this without betraying any confidence. I can say that I asked multiple times. I was g well I asked multiple I actually at least twice and was given a third version of events.
Every single time there was a discussion about this after the fact I got a different answer as to what the precise sequence of events was. And in a normal case >> I found it. So it's at the the bottom part of page 332.
Um, it says she told me it happened right after the deline leak. He said I had been told that the judge had gotten involved as a mediator between the two parties. In my opinion, that's completely inappropriate. So, I told her so, but she said once the offer came in from the prosecution, things happened quickly with no back and forth. So, no, not even any back and forth about it.
So, this had obviously been [ __ ] discussed prior to it, ain't it? Why would there not be any back and forth?
They want to go to trial and been said they want to go to trial. The state have been saying they want to get him executed and all of a sudden there's a plea deal and there's no back and forth.
It's like, do you want to accept the plea deal? Yeah, sign us up. [ __ ] don't make any sense. Doesn't make any sense.
It's wonky. This case is wonky. Like I, like I said, I have clients that I've worked with for 10, 15 years. I got clients who I who I work with constantly on every case they work. I got clients who I, you know, I trust them to to do anything with me. I trust them to watch my kids. I trust them to watch my cats.
I trust them with everything because over time and and temperance, you learn sort of uh the ethical character of the people you're working with. And that's why you work with them again because you don't you don't have a u you don't have any problems with the way they conduct themselves. and you know that when you're not in the room, the best the best evidence and the best ethical posture is going to be taken. In this case, I have zero faith and confidence in Ann Taylor in terms of her posture because every sing every single time I've spoken with her, she's given a different version of events about whether and why and how. And so, at this moment, I can't violate any privilege with you because I don't know what the truth is. Because I have not been told the truth yet that I can tell. I've been given.
>> Ain't that the [ __ ] truth?
How can how can you say that I'm leaking truthful information if I don't even know what the [ __ ] truth is? I'm waiting to see whether she comes out publicly and has a discussion about this. How is she going to come back from what is being claimed here? And if she does it publicly, what can she possibly say? It's going to be quite, like I said, there's a storm coming, mate.
There is a storm coming here. Um, we'll see how this pans out. We'll see how this pans out because he has basically decimated her character and her integrity as a defense attorney.
>> Three different versions of events relating specifically to your question.
When did the deal start? When did they start in how did they get Brian to agree to it? And the involvement of Hipper.
And I don't I'm not a legal I'm not a legal expert. I know what my role is and I won't know what my um I know what my uh onus is to. I know that my my first onus is to being a um f first we start with you have to do d do you have to do your due diligence in every case because that's what satisfy due process and due process is a requirement of the constitution. If you don't follow that logic you have no business being an expert or being involved in the criminal justice system. Due diligence equals due process equals equals uh constitutionality. Okay. I don't know that that's that's the extent of my sort of my grasp of my my situation or my um my role and I don't know what the legal realities are around Dan Taylor taking this case. I don't know what the legal realities are of whether or not Hipper was involved and how he was involved with the judge or the prosecutor and I suspect that it was done in such a way that was problematic which is why I'm getting three different versions. All right, that's the problem. So, I'm not disclosing anything because I got nothing to disclose. I just don't know what the truth is. I'm I'm as stunned, shocked, and and appalled as arrested as as the rest of you. which is why I was happy to discuss uh the publicly disclosed elements of this case and as they relate to chain of custody for the sheath and as they relate to the untested DNA evidence from the hair found in Ethan's hand. All this was was obscured in different ways. And so bringing that to light is actually not a violation, it's a responsibility. If you don't think >> that's [ __ ] right, isn't it? it.
It's like he qu he asks at the beginning of this, he said, "What would you think of me from a professional standpoint if I'd have been involved in the burying of this?" And then later on down the line, all of a sudden, it comes out and I was part of the the people who who buried it. Do you know what I mean? It's like we want people to come out. We want people to come out and physically say what's going on here. Do you know what I mean? Hi Jules. Hi Jules. Good to see you. Good to see you.
>> Responsibility. Please God stay out of this profession.
>> We are going to get there. Absolutely.
But I got I got something. Uh um because I'm an appellet attorney. I I do primarily civil appeals, family law, and so forth. But I certainly understand the appellet process and I know that with criminal appeals uh one big uh avenue for challenging even a plea is ineffective assistance of counsel. Now as I understand it a lot of times defense attorneys are almost encouraging of their clients you know hey you need to you need to pursue this you need to look at ineffective assistance of counsel get with a an appellet attorney or post judgment attorney.
>> Um is is that your experience in general? Let's just talk in general not about this particular case >> so that we can we can dial in right >> in general I am often called uh in appellet context for major cases you know death penalty cases or you know lwap life without parole cases to do a review to determine whether or not let's say for example if the attorney had hired an expert such as myself at the time of the trial using those standard practices using those uh protocols and procedures that are available at the time using the science available at time would they have discovered the evidence that was missed. That's one of the reasons why I have a library that's worth about 30 grand because I I collect old forensic investigative textbooks because sometimes I'm asked to go back to 1970. Sometime sometimes I'm focused on 1980, sometimes it's 2005. What were the practice standards at the time? So, this is a very normal involvement for me. We call it IA, ineffective assistance of counsel. Uh, and if you can demonstrate that the attorney was ineffective in terms of hiring experts or using experts or investigating evidence, it's a big deal. Like for example, I do a lot of case work in Kansas and they had a I can't remember the stupid rule case, but it was a case involving a cell phone evaluation and the defense attorney did not have the cell phone extracted and examined. It was sitting in police holding and when the appellet attorney got involved, they found a bunch of stuff on it apparently.
And so they used that, they took that all the way to the Supreme Court of Kansas who ruled that um fail negligent failure to engage an expert to examine critical evidence is actually a reversible error evidencing ineffective instances of counsel. So, >> so in that just something as simple as that, the phone, do you know what I mean? They get a phone, they don't get in it or whatever, later on they get the phone and get in it and that's ineffective assistance council. Do you know what I mean? That how many things happened in the Idaho 4 case?
You know, you literally had situations where Anne Taylor stood in the [ __ ] courtroom and said she was not ready for trial. Not ready for trial. You've literally just heard Turvy say that literally what would have been what four or five weeks before trial, they literally get a huge data dump. And we're talking about terabytes of information.
And that's information that he hasn't seen that we haven't even seen yet. Do you know what I mean? It's uh and mad. Again, 360 people in, 278 likes. Do me a favor, just smash the like button. Let's push it over to 300 and that'll just help get the live out to more people. Some notifications going out.
>> Question is appropo and it is absolutely relevant to this the present case that we're in. Uh, imagine again an expert who did not want to have that hair tested, >> right? How do you argue that?
>> I think we all [ __ ] our pants when we read um that in Chris's book. Excuse my, you know, that's literally what I think most of us did. Uh, there was we were all reading it together till late late hours in the night texting each other going there's hair. There's hair in his fist.
>> It's not just that there's hair in his hand. Okay, because this is really important to understand the context.
Glad we bringing this up. The hair in the hand was described in report in investigative and forensic reports as debris. There's no debris. Debris indicates like multiple different types of small sort of maybe commercial material. Maybe hair, maybe dust, maybe piece of pieces of paint or carpet, things like that. Bunch of different stuff. Debris. Okay.
>> This was just a clump of hair in Ethan's right hand.
>> And the hand slipped down into the uh space between the mattress and the uh wall. And the blood went down his arm.
And it glued the hair to his hand. And it glued this more hair to his to the actual bed frame and I didn't know it was there because it wasn't in.
>> It's [ __ ] up, isn't it?
It's so [ __ ] up. It is so messed up, man. And thank you for gifting more memberships. Bless your heart, Loreno. I did see that. Thank you. Um, it's it's insane to me. It's insane. You can't tell me that saying that that hair is debris is a method of hiding potential exculpatory evidence.
Potential exculpatory evidence being hidden in plain sight by labeling it as debris. How the [ __ ] hell can they get away with that?
And how can anybody around this case and I'm rarely focusing on the families here if you truly are in a mindset that you want the people who murdered your children to be held accountable, everybody who was involved to be held accountable? How can you with a straight face go along with there being hair in one of the victim's hands? That would suggest that there was a struggle that they ripped hair out of someone's [ __ ] head and that get listed as debris. And then subsequently you go on some sort of crusade to act as if you are now being an advocate for forensic analysis and funding forensic analysis for future cases when you're not even that interested in the forensic analysis of your own child's death.
[ __ ] hell.
Oh my word. It is absolutely oh insane.
>> It wasn't being discussed until I actually went to Moscow and examined the evidence. I examined the bed frame myself and all the other evidence in the case.
>> Can you walk us through that? When you went to the locker with I think Pay escorted you, right?
>> All they were all there. We had um we had a you know everybody was there. We had we had Payne and his and one another guy and we had the defense defense investigator taking pictures and I took pictures and you know this is not some again this is not some secret I build for it. Somebody can want to go look at it. They can see it's in my report that I actually went there and and documented everything before I come to came to my conclusions and one of the things I found was this huge amount of blood with a bunch of hair and I'm like what the hell is this?
>> Like oh yeah hair.
>> So it was not evident in the documentation I yeah it wasn't evident in the documentation that I had nor in the investigation reports nor in the autopsy report. It was written in such a way to obscure that fact, which in my view is um problematic. And of course, >> that's a [ __ ] understatement, isn't it? It's problematic.
Problematic >> at the time. Everybody else thought it was problematic, too. So, it was, this is, again, this is not secret. This is something that everybody knows. It was submitted to the FBI for macroscopic, not microscopic, but macroscopic examination, which means looking at the uh physical features of the hair, the length, the color, the shape, the curls, the all that good stuff that you can describe. And they excluded it as being as coming from Brian Cobber. In other words, they could tell this did not belong to Brian Cobberg. Wrong color, too long, all that good stuff. Okay.
Now, the next question is, let's test it and find out who's it is. Nobody wanted to test it. And that is also not secret because it was never tested. Because it was never tested, we can infer that nobody wanted to test it. Now either side.
>> Oh my god.
How is that a [ __ ] thing? And the frustrating thing here is when you think back like Christopher Tap's case for instance, another Idaho case, Idaho Falls, the guy does decades in prison.
Later on, they f they examine DNA that was at the scene all along. He's been in in jail literal decades.
And it turns out that he didn't do it.
And there was DNA at the scene that wasn't tested. They tested it, find out it was someone else. He gets out. They have to pay him several million dollars.
Later on, he dies tragically. Um, so a tragic story, but he's lost decades of his life for for what what happened here potentially.
That DNA that was at the scene, literally found in the [ __ ] hand of one of the victims and in the bed of another one. We've got DNA under Madison Mogan's [ __ ] fingernails. It is absolutely bewildering to me that there are people around this case. And again, predominantly family members who are not seeing a problem in this. It's it is bewildering to me.
>> So Ann did not want that tested. Ann did not want that hair tested.
>> Well, it didn't get tested and she knew about it. So that's the inference.
There's no there's no there's no violation of privilege here. This is something that we know existed. Didn't get tested and they were and they knew about it. So, >> did you suggest that it should be tested >> vehemently multiple times? It was even one of the last things I said I was as I was walking out the door. I I will just tell you this in general. I would not want to be on the stand with such a piece of evidence untested. I would not to be on the on the stand having to explain why if the prosecution, well, Dr. Turby, if this was such an important piece of evidence, why wasn't it tested?
That would be >> Did you ever get an explanation why the defense did not have it tested? No.
>> [ __ ] Oh my god.
There's there's no coming back from that, is there? There is no coming back from that. And just that and this is obvious there's loads of other things between what Turvy's going to go on to say, what is in this book written by Christopher Wickham and there's no doubt an abundance of stuff that we're yet to see. There's there's loads of stuff that are going to come out and it's I I'm speechless.
There isn't much that will stop me from talking. Do you know what I mean? But that is that that just blows my damn mind. uh that Anne Taylor, why would Anne Taylor not want that tested?
Honestly, why would why would Anne Taylor not want that tested?
>> Wow.
>> Yeah, I have the same response because there's a lot of, you know, a lot of people wonder, did she know about this?
Did she get this? How much discovery did she have? But it's very clear that she knew this hair existed. She knew that it should have been tested.
>> I can only imagine your >> what you felt inside when you saw that at the evidence locker. I mean, if I was prosecution, yeah, I wouldn't want that tested either.
>> Well, just so you know, I don't I don't have those kind I'm not a regular person. I don't have those kinds of feelings. I mean, I've been doing this a long time. And I know I can kind of, how do I say? I have sort of the Cassandra syndrome problem where I know what's coming. I know what's going to happen next. And either you believe me and take action, which is why you hired me in the first place, or you don't believe me and then you suffer the consequences.
Cassandra syndrome is where you're doomed to know the future but not be believed when you tell it.
So when I see this, I don't sit there and go, "Oh my god, I don't have those kinds of responses." I'm like, "Well, that's interesting." You know, let's make another that and circle back later on and we'll have a conversation. You know, I don't a little school I don't to get excited like a school girl over stuff like that. I sky like a little school girl over my cats.
>> We we we're the same way with family law. You get a little jaded uh unfortunately for doing it as long as we do.
>> Here's the thing. It's not about being jaded for me because what I have learned is this. I have learned that my inept little fingers should not be in charge of anything. my inept little fingers can make things worse if I don't have all the information. So, I don't I'm not jaded. What I what I do get is disappointed. If I were jaded, I would stop with doing this work. I think it's important. I think it's necessary. And I like to work with competent, ethical people. Uh but what happens is I get disappointed by people who don't tell me the truth.
>> So, I just want people who expect me to keep their secrets, which I'm not going to do.
>> I want to just kind of close the loop on that hair that was found in Ethan's hand. Um you said that it was excluded as co-workers. Was it excluded as to the victims or any of the residents of the house as well.
>> It was never compared to anyone else in the house. In fact, I'll give you another reality check here, which is that as we are all learning, we don't know all the people who were in the house that night. We don't know. We don't have that list. We we know who was who claimed to live there or who had who who were legitimately there, but we don't know who all the visitors were. We don't know where people were sleeping necessarily up until the moment of the attack.
Were there any notable characteristics of the hair that was found?
>> Yeah.
>> Well, were about that long. This or that long. And it was a blonde reddish sort of sandy brown and um uh I didn't look at the macroscopic detail, but the macroscop the macroscopic detail that they were able to discern other macroscopic detail um you know eliminated it from being Kber. Kber's hair is short and black.
Right.
This is medium long medium length and um and blondish blondish sandy brown.
>> Like just just think right where would the hair have come from? Why would it be in Ethan's hand?
Why would it why would it be in his hand?
You just got to ask you just as a as a test.
Why did he have that hair in his hand?
Do you know what I mean? Answer that question.
At what at what point in the evening would Ethan have had that hair in his hand?
Oh, I just don't get it.
Yeah, Tony, you know, and and Taylor did not request it tested. It's It's I just don't know.
Um I I don't know. Just Yeah, make it make sense, Lena. Make it make sense.
It's It's It's bonkers. It is absolutely bonkers.
more than that. All you need is one point of difference and you're done. So, >> was there sufficient substance to that hair that DNA testing could have been done?
>> It's a fun question. I don't know because I didn't examine it. What you're asking, I think, Ron, is whether or not there were roots, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Roots can give you one kind of DNA, but it's hair. Hair has mitochondrial DNA.
You can test it for mitochondrial DNA whether you've got if you just have the shaft. Please do that all the time in other cases. So, yeah, if you even got a little fragment of hair, you can test it for DNA. Not a confirmatory amount to identify a person or a source, but you can exclude people.
>> Sounds like a certain potentially a female's hair.
>> Well, I'll tell you this.
>> I will I will divulge this. When other people saw it, not me. When other people saw it, they thought it was a female's hair.
>> And I thought, okay, well, that's a good theory. It's also possibly a male's hair because men wear their hair different ways. I don't think like that, but let's not guess. That's what I always say.
Hey, let's not guess.
>> Let's test it.
>> Let's test it and find out. There are people who will say and and I don't I don't mean to impugn lawyers, but there are many lawyers who are not as we'll say enlightened or motivated or competent as you. And they will say never ask a question you don't know the answer to. That's the most nonsensical thing I've ever heard. That's something from TV and movies. In reality, if you are trying to find out what's happening in your case, you need to test the evidence that's relevant. You don't ever want to go into court not knowing the answer to those questions. You don't want surprises in court. You want to go in, like the value of me, for example, is you call me in and I'll tell you both the strengths and the weaknesses of your case. You're going to know from where the blade will fall. All right? And that is much more important than me going in and going, "Rah, raw, Duke, you're so great. Your guy's innocent." I don't do that. That's nonsense. That's not help.
It's not going to help you at all. I go in there and I say, "Here's what they got. Here's what it means. And here's what you need to do to figure out whether or not it's accurate."
>> Do you know Do you know where that hair is still today? Is it is it still sitting in the evidence locker? Uh does Anner have access to get that hair tested should she want to at this point?
>> Um I don't know the answer to the the logistical question is where it's at right now. Couldn't tell you. It would be practice for the it would be standard practice for the FBI to return the hair to the Moscow PD. They have the custody of that hair. Um the court can demand testing at any time if they wanted to just like the court could demand an allocution. So like he turns around and says so the court could demand testing of that hair at any time. So could that be that the court could demand testing of that hair now for instance?
So, if I was the families of these um these victims and I had watched this this specific interview, I can promise you now without a shadow of a doubt that I would be getting hold of the Moscow Police Department. I would be asking where that hair is and I would be making sure that that hair was tested 100%. 100%. I would now be all over that like flies on [ __ ] I promise you now.
Promise you 100%. That would be I would have watched that, listened to him talking about it and I would 100% be demanding that that hair is tested.
Especially if that hair then matches the hair that is found in Bethy's bed as well. Because if there's hair in Bethy's bed that matches the hair that is in Ethan Chapman's hand and that hair was to match to someone else in that house, then I think someone's got some serious [ __ ] explaining to do. Some serious serious explaining to do. Just put to put this out there. What would they do if they tested that hair and it was in Ethan Chapman's hand and there was more of it in Bethany Funk's bed and that turned out to be Dylan Mortonson's hair or Bethany Funk's hair? How would you [ __ ] explain that in this case, which they didn't do, which which is actually required to make sure you're not having a false compression. And I want to make that point really quickly before I lose it.
And that is that fully more than 25% of the cases that are worked by the Innocence Project involve innocent people confessing to crimes they didn't commit commit at the urgence of their attorney. Just remember that statistic.
It's pretty important.
>> I think it's important that you brought that up right now. In fact, >> there's other hair that was also found uh upstairs as well. Uh and one of those uh clumps of hair supposedly had bloody roots as well. Is that true?
>> I don't know. I I'm not aware of that.
>> Okay.
>> But I mean, there have been, like I said, there have been tons of disclosures on this case subsequent to my subsequent to the plea. And once the plea occurred, my involvement was over.
>> Okay. Yeah, it actually was. I think it was in Chris's book that there was hair found uh both uh next to Maddie and next to Kaye, which uh one of which might have had bloody roots. and uh which also was not consistent with any of the uh uh people in the house or with Brian Coberger.
>> So that's not something that you saw though, right?
>> That's not something I examined. I I was focused on uh sort of reconstructing the events of the evening, focusing on the the sheath which was clearly, you know, sort of intentionally placed where it was well after the crime occurred and blood had dried and focusing on the state.
>> Did she hear that? He says it very quickly, but the the nose chief was strategically placed. That no chief was placed there after the commission of the crime. So this is again someone who this is what he does for a living and just in the first 42 minutes of this interview he has basically decimated the the the case the evidence just completely decimated it. I'll run this up to the hour point and then I'll probably do um the rest of this on Thursday because we're now getting up to an hour and 20 minutes. So, this will be an hour and a half or so.
I don't want it to be too long.
>> Aing elements focusing on the um the timeline of events and the the meth the different methods of killing that were involved and the different weapons that were involved. So, >> now we're going to get to the knife sheath because I know everybody wants to talk about that, but really quick with respect to the allocation because I don't want to lose my train of thought.
>> Yeah.
>> Can you elab elaborate a little bit more on that? Um I mean I think we were all pretty shocked that Brian didn't have to provide any details regarding the who, what, when, where, why of of these crimes other than him simply admitting guilt. He provided no additional information. Is this consistent with other cases that you've worked on?
>> No. Not not not only not consistent, it's entirely improper. It would be it would be setting the stage for a great miscarriage of justice without having some confirmatory information to demonstrate his because there's no actual direct evidence of his involvement at the crime or the crime scene. You know, we don't we don't have that. So, what we need from any defendant in this case would be an explanation of what was done, how it was done, and that explanation should lead to corroborating evidence.
>> Yeah. And this was confirmed also in the interview that was done with Bill Taylor. Bill Thompson, sorry. Bill Taylor, Freud and Slip. I don't know where one ends and the other one [ __ ] begins. Um he done an interview. I can't remember who he done it with. um he'd done an interview just after the the um the plea deal and um they had even said that why didn't he that was when Bill Thompson had said that he wasn't asked because he just didn't think that he would tell the truth. What he meant was he could he there was no point in asking him questions that he wouldn't have been able to give the answer to. That's they [ __ ] knew that.
People need to open their eyes. If I'm going to say it now, right? If you're a guilter, you need to pull your head out of your ass. You need to pull your head out of your ass and understand that that was strategic. That was strategic what they did there. They didn't ask him questions that they knew would become problematic when he was unable to answer them. Hi, Timmy Fisherman. Good man. Good man.
Nice to see you. Um, yeah, Bill Taylor, that's it. Jamie, and if it doesn't, then we have a problem. And the reason why it matters is because again that statistic I cited which is that you know almost a third of cases involve uh clients or defendants that are pushed to take a plea that are actually innocent because they don't they feel like they don't have an advocate or don't have any support and they're they're but at the time they make the uh the they accept the plea they are alone in the world and mentally deteriorated to the point of giving up.
So, >> that's something talked about quite a bit is I don't even think we were aware of how many people uh take a guilty plea for those reasons you just described, >> which is exactly what I said. Exactly what I said. That's how smart I am. You see, I'm [ __ ] I'm I'm smart, mate.
I'm smart. I know I look stupid, but I know I know what I'm talking about. But you can imagine over a period of time like and and again it can be quite strategic as well like you look at Richard Allen for instance you you physically saw his deterioration over a period of time but they were quite good in how they tried to dress Brian Cobberger up like he looked fine and I almost now almost consider whether that in itself was strategic.
to try and hide the fact that he was becoming mentally fatigued by this situation and it was getting to the point where he could be manipulated.
Do you know what I mean? If he looks all right, like people were saying right the at the plea deal, he looked like he'd been on [ __ ] on on holiday. He had a tan.
Wonder whether Dan Taylor had slipped in his um in his room and [ __ ] rubbed him down with some bronzen oil. Do you know what I mean? Let's get you looking smart, mate. Let's get you looking fresh. Get your old iron shirt on. He's all right. He's all right. You know, if you'd have had him walking into the courtroom looking like Richard Allen, do you know what I mean? Then people would have been like, "Hold on a [ __ ] second. Something's wrong here.
Something's wrong. He's he's [ __ ] didn't he?"
Um, you don't want to know. I call people who believe just because he took the plea deal, it would get political, and I won't do that on your channel. You don't want to know. I call I call them [ __ ] [ __ ] mate. I'll say it. Do you know what I mean? If people are ignoring all of the [ __ ] that's coming out, they just want to just spout crap, then they're [ __ ] [ __ ] >> It's a lot. It's a lot. And that's why people like me have a job on that part of in that part of the criminal justice realm, in the appellet realm. Now, again, I have worked case one time in Colorado, for example. A guy completely confessed to killing somebody. All right. come to find out that person was still alive. He got arrested. He got charged. The guy who confessed to killing was still alive. Right? If a person is going to take a plea, then they must allocate. And that allocution requires that they give details of the crime that nobody else has. So that they can be certain that they are confessing to a crime that they actually committed.
Not like in let's say in Latin America for example, people can u take that people will plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit for money and serve the time for wealthy people. That happens a lot. Have you seen any seen?
>> And that happens in this country. I know of situations um going back a few years ago. There was a there was a company um in near where near to where I live where I live and there was a powerful family who literally had people who they employed around them to specifically take the fall for them in the event that there was something that went [ __ ] sideways. and they would and had been involved in um looking after their families in the event that they had done time on someone else's behalf.
And it happens more than you know. It does happen. And not only does things like that happen, but like Turvy said, don't forget that 25% of the cases that are taken up by the Innocence Project are people who have pled guilty to crimes that they haven't committed.
Do you know what I mean? It it happens.
You can't And it shouldn't happen once.
It shouldn't happen once, but it happens multiple times. and it's happened in Idaho.
>> Any cases that have been set aside may after the fact or appealed or or habius corpus based on ineffective assistance or counsel for the lack of requirement of allocation?
>> No, because again it would not be allowed to happen. No, no, nobody would allow that to happen. This this happened this case is is replete with first times with with outlandish and bizarre occurrences that don't occur in other places. And I think we're forgetting that even though Idaho is part of the United States, the United States isn't a country of all these places that get along with the same rules and laws. It's a series of little thiefs where people control the narratives where people can decide when the law gets applied and where. And it's not like we think. And I know because I work in all these there are places I won't testify anymore. I won't testify in Mississippi, for example. I won't testify. I won't go to work cases. There are other places I won't go in the world because I know that the justice system is not reliable or ethical. and participating. It actually makes it look like you're being reliable and ethical when they're not.
So, there are places I will not lend my name to. But Idaho apparently is running it.
>> How [ __ ] sad is that as well that you can have someone who literally can name places and say, "I will not put my name, attach my name to these specific places because I know the judicial system is as bent as a two bob bit." Do you know what I mean? It's [ __ ] wild, mate. own little system there that's not abiding by sort of the the criminal justice norms in death penalty cases that I can tell.
>> And you've worked on it sounds like quite a few cases where there was either DNA or some other evidence that uh led to someone being exonerated, exculpatory evidence, and they're out now.
>> Yeah. Many I worked on a case just a few months ago where I got where I where my where my report it's a Kansas versus Julius Beasley. You can look it up. It was two months ago and I had prepared a report in that case a year ago showing the crime scene was staged and the police had the wrong person. They arrested this homeless woman's boyfriend for stabbing her to death and I was able to prove the crime scene was staged. The body was moved. She was killed somewhere else and dumped there and all the all the elements were there for that. They didn't like that. But they also found out that other people had confessed to the crime describing it exactly as I had my report. And so my report, I wound up doing a second report showing that the police had gone back and tried to scrape over everybody who had given information that was exculpatory and hide video evidence and all this good stuff. They were, you know, so the court, the DA actually, the new DA got assigned the case, read both of my new reports and was like, "We can't take this to trial.
He's not the guy." And they let him out.
So I don't I never think, but I don't think those [ __ ] insane, isn't it? And these are the people who people will trust. These are the people who people trust and yeah, do you know what I mean? And like I say, we'll we'll leave it there.
We'll leave it there. I will come back and I'll do some more with you on Thursday. Um because it's actually quite late. It's like half midnight. Um, but you know, we're 48 minutes in and and you've got to kind of admit to yourself.
I'd like to have some people who like I might have them in chat, I'll ask the question, you know, if there's someone in chat, if there is somebody in chat who tr who truly thinks that Brian Cobberger is um is guilty of this crime, because I know they are around the community. Do you know what I mean? And and you know, I've got no problem with people thinking that Brian Cobberger is guilty of this crime. You know, people are entitled to their opinion. You know, I don't have a problem with people who have a differing opinion. What I have a problem with is people who have a different opinion, but they try and shoot down your opinion.
and they they do so in a way that they support what they're going to say with wi with with no real evidence.
They'll just regurgitate what has been told by the likes of News Nation, Nancy Disgrace, you know, Ashley Butfield, all of them. Do you know what I mean?
and they'll just requ instance. Brian Enon has grown on this platform exponentially. You know, he does a video and it gets [ __ ] the thousands and thousands of views he gets, but then when you listen to what he's saying about cases such as the Idaho 4 case, it he's not being honest.
He's not being honest. He is framing this situation, framing this crime in a way to appease the greater audience, which the greater audience in this situation is the is they believe that Brian Cobberger is guilty of this crime. And you know, you'll talk to to people about this crime and you'll you'll flat out ask them, why is Brian Cobberger guilty? If you believe that Brian Cobberger truly is guilty of this crime beyond a reasonable doubt, then what is the evidence that you have to support that notion? And they and all they can do is regurgitate what we've seen or not not so much what we've been seen, what we've been told.
And I just I don't I can't get on board with that because it to me it just it it screams of people who haven't truly listened to the case.
They haven't truly followed the case.
They've just followed the mouthpieces who are saying what they believe. You know, they've they've they've followed Brian Endon because they think that Brian Enton's credible. Why do you think Brian Enton's credible? because he says what you want him to say. So, you know, it's it's confirmation bias all the all the way through, isn't it? I'm not going to watch people who say something that challenges my thought construct because it's easier to accept what you're being told and follow the larger crowd than it is to think on your [ __ ] own and and have the bollocks to say actually, do you know what I mean?
Something's off air. Something's not right. Like I could have grown this channel exponentially.
exponentially. I could have just by being a guiltter.
Just by being a guiltter, thoroughly committing myself to the the guilt aspect, supporting people like the Gonalves family, getting on board with them, getting on board with mainstream media, then I'd have been open to having people on the channel like Jennifer Coffin Dodger and and those sort of people. And do you know what I mean? it would have grown my audience. You know, I could grow my audience by agreeing with certain narratives around the case, but I haven't. And I won't do it. Do you know what I mean? I I won't do it. And it has damaged my channel. You know, it it does damage the channel, but I've got to the point where I don't [ __ ] care anymore. I don't I don't care. I I don't care about saying things that make me popular. I don't I don't say things that are going to go in the direction of where the larger crowd is. I go with my gut feeling. And my gut feeling in this case is that Brian Cobberg has not been proven to be guilty. And the more information that comes out, it um the more stuff that comes out, the more he he looks like he's been [ __ ] over.
He looks like he's been screwed and that's just how it looks.
Um, do you know what I mean? John Doe, it says if homeboy is so upset about this injustice, he has about as much power as anyone to rarely do something about it, but he's not doing a damn thing. Actions speak louder than words.
But like this statement here, we don't know what he's doing. We don't know what Brian is doing. We don't know what he's not doing. We don't know whether he's planning to do anything. We don't know how he is from a mental perspective. We don't know if he has been scared enough to believe that where he is at the moment is better than the alternative.
We don't know what he was told before he took a plea deal. We don't know. We can guess. We can speculate and we can easily turn around and say, "Oh yeah, because he's not doing anything and we haven't seen him doing anything. Well, he must be guilty then. And all I'll say is you tell yourself whatever you have to tell yourself to make it easier for you to [ __ ] sleep at night. Because if you're rarely around this case and you believe that Brian Cobberger is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then you are not [ __ ] paying attention.
And that is either purposefully or I I just don't know anymore. I don't know. I can't help you. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force it to drink. But with that, I'm going to say good night cuz it's gone half midnight and I've been up since half 4 this morning. Um, and I'm knackered. But thank you so much for joining me this evening, those of you who have. Um, I'm back tomorrow obviously. Um, thank you to the moderators. Um, Lina, Aunt B I saw in the house. Um, Rotek Rich as well. Thank you, my friend. And any of the other mods who popped in and I missed. Thank you to anyone who gifted memberships. Congratulations to those who received memberships. And I have not forgotten about the forever, the Rose Forever giveaway. I am going to be doing that and I'll do it on this channel. Um, I will perhaps do that on Sunday. So, keep your eyes peeled for that. And I'll do I'll pick someone in the comments for that giveaway. Um, Rose Forever did contact me yesterday to ask if I was doing that. Um, so yes, thank you so much. Thank you, Rich. Thank you everyone. And, um, I will catch you all.
Thank you, John Doe, for that my friend.
Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
And I will um yeah, I'll catch you all in the next one.
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
