February 21, 2025 • 26 mins
Today, Nancy Grace and Sheryl McCollum dive into a major ruling in the Bryan Kohberger case, where the Idaho judge shut down multiple defense attempts to block key evidence - including DNA, cell phone data, and surveillance footage. Nancy gives a breakdown of the legal principles such as abandonment theory, the Fourth Amendment, and legal privilege so the public can better understand.. Nancy and Sheryl also discuss the latest heartbreaking stories of Hayden Manis, whose family only recently realized he’s been missing for five years, and Oakley Carlson, a little girl failed by the foster care system.
Show Notes:
- (0:00) Welcome! Nancy and Sheryl introduce this week’s crime roundup
- (0:30) Update on legal cases across the country
- (1:00) Hayden Manis missing for 5 years
- (1:10) BOY, 4, VANISHES 5 YEARS AGO WITHOUT FAMILY REALIZING: WHERE'S HAYDEN
- (3:30) Oakley Carlson's heartbreaking case
- (4:30) Latest in Bryan Kohbergers case
- (5:30) Judge strikes down every defense attempt to suppress key evidence
- (7:00) Nancy explains the abandonment theory and privacy
- (12:30) Why the defense tried to fight investigative genetic genealogy
- (16:00) The legal argument over whether Amazon purchase records should be private
- (18:00) Nancy uses Lori Vallow’s Amazon purchase to Kohbergers
- (22:00) Emotional toll behind crime and reasons to keep moving forward
- (25:30) Final sign off
- ---
Nancy Grace is an outspoken, tireless advocate for victims’ rights and one of television's most respected legal analysts. Nancy Grace had a perfect conviction record during her decade as a prosecutor. She is the founder and publisher of CrimeOnline.com, a crime- fighting digital platform that investigates breaking crime news, spreads awareness of missing people and shines a light on cold cases.
In addition, Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, a daily show hosted by Grace, airs on SIRIUS XM’s Triumph Channel 111 and is downloadable as a podcast on all audio platforms - https://www.crimeonline.com/
Connect with Nancy:
X: @nancygrace
Instagram: @thenancygrace
Facebook: @nancygrace
Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an Emmy Award winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnLine, Forensic and Crime Scene Expert for Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, and a CSI for a metro Atlanta Police Department. She is the co-author of the textbook., Cold Case: Pathways to Justice.
Connect with Sheryl:
Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com
Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Welcome to the crime round up, y'all. There's a judge
and Idaho that's got some horse sense, I'm telling you,
and I cannot wait Nancy to talk to you, step
my step of what just occurred?
Speaker 2 (00:25):
How are you hunting?
Speaker 3 (00:26):
I'm great. I'm happy to be alive. It's been a
very very long week in courts across our country and investigations.
A lot happening, Cheryl. A lot between Sean Combs aka
A Diddy aka Puffy aka Puff blah blah blah blah
(00:50):
between him and bestI Kanye. I mean, seriously, I try
not to use cliches because they're so irritating. But with
a best friend like that, and who needs an enemy,
he just walks in and blows up the defense with
all of his defending Puff. I mean, nobody wants to
be associated with Kanye right now, so I don't know
(01:12):
that I would want him on the front seat behind
you know, the defense council at trial that said Idaho.
Just I mean, there's so many cases, Cheryl, I can't keep.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
Up with them.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
And I look, I don't have to have a big
staff looking for me, although they cleanly look Twitter, Facebook, Asta,
you name it. I'm looking and I find cases all
the time. Like Cheryl, I you Wan told about coburg.
I'm getting coburger. Hayden Venice, Cheryl, his family wait for it.
(01:48):
Just realize that as he's been missing for five years.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Oh God, Now.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
I don't drag him into this. Just realize this, Hayden
has been missing for five years. Okay, do you know
how that threw me completely Lee over the edge when
I heard that? Grigged there head been. Let's just say
a family break up, all right. The father, the son, well,
(02:12):
he's the father of Hayden. He has a drug problem.
To put it mildly, he has a big blow up
with his family and he stops out and that they
assume that's why he won't bring Hayden for Christmas and
Thanksgiving and all that. You ever been part of a
family blow up, They're horrible. And people that you grew
(02:35):
up with, you think are your closest friends, or so
I've heard, have nothing to do with their family. The
brothers and sister split. So long story short, they talked
it off to that five years go by and hello,
nobody has seen Hayden Mannas. So that's when they quote
realize he's missing, and I couldn't believe it. I divided
(02:59):
a whole kutting him and compared it to other high
profile cases that you and I have investigated, well one
for instance. I mean, can anybody forget tot Mom, that
poc who went at least thirty one days before she well,
her mother did it. She didn't even report killing missing,
(03:20):
That's right. And you've got Harmony Montgomery. I mean, there's
so many. Just keep it on your radar that Brian
Coburger is not the only alleged evildoer. We got a
lot of crime, Cheryl. Can I just tell you about
one more? When we were discussing Hayden, we had on
another little girl's would be mom, okay, hew londlet me
(03:44):
heat my tea. Her name was Oakley Carlson. And I
can't even think about Oakley without breaking into tears.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
I remember that little fae.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
This little Oakley had a horrible, horrible mother, Uh drug
ada to blah blah blah. And so she went to
a foster home and they told the foster mom that
she was going.
Speaker 4 (04:08):
To get to adopt.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
They have Oakley for a couple of years. They make
her a nursery they're so happy they're going to have
their own forever baby. Then the mom gets preading again
and they agree to take the sibling. All this is happening,
and all of a sudden they go, oh, no, we're
going to reunify. I hate that word reunification. Over the
(04:32):
foster mom's objections, they give her back and guess what,
she's never been seeing in lime again. And that mom,
it's just heartbreaking. She showed us the nursery, the room,
all the little clothes, all the fun things that they
did together, trips and amusement parks and just daily life,
you know, is like a party when you have a
(04:52):
child that you love. Now that I told you about
Oakley and.
Speaker 4 (04:57):
Hayden, I'm ready to move forward.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
It is such a victory for the prosecution, heck, for
the constitution, and for every single law enforcement agency that
you know responded to this case, which there were multiple.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
I mean even Indiana responded, you know.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Not just Idaho, not just the college, not just local
law enforcement, but so many people. But the judge, honey,
he's struck down every single thing they tried. And I
just want you to go step by step with me
so people understand the importance. The first thing he said
was the cell phone and email records they're in. They
(05:39):
can come in. Now I know you and I know
what you would do with those. That's going to be huge.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
Well, I tell you, Cheryl, under the law as it exists,
this is what the judge had to rule. This is
the law. The judge is Stephen Hefler denied multiple defense motions.
They Coburger's defense team were trying to suppress critical DNA
(06:10):
evidence and other evidence such as you pointed out cell phone,
email records, surveillance footage, Amazon purchases, and DNA. I believe
I got them all. Let's think that through. They wanted
to suppress cell phone data, email records, surveillance footage, Amazon purchases.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
And DNA.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
Okay, I think I got them all because I'm talking
off the top.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
Of my head here and the trash bend.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
Yes, that would be the DNA evidence from the trash,
which is I'll start with that one. The theory is
called abandonment, and that can mean in regular vernacular street talk,
that can mean anything. You abandon your car, you abandon
your child, do you abandon a relationship? Abandonment under search
(06:58):
and seizure fourth A mini law means you abandon an
item that police then rightfully seized without a warrant. Now,
in this case, I believe they did have a warrant
to seize trash that had been abandoned by Coburger's family.
(07:20):
What does that mean when you throw something out where
any civilian can have it, Like you put a chest
of drawers out on the street for the trash people, okay,
and you have your crack cocaine in it, See forgot
and police come on. They can't grab that chest of
George just as well as the trash people and find
your crack, okay. So that is abandonment. Whatever a civilian
(07:44):
can do, police can do. When Coburger's family abandoned their trash,
put the trash out, and police got DNA off an
item from the trash from Coburger's father. If they compared
it to the DNA found on the knife sheath under
(08:05):
a dead victim back at the King Road address, trash
can evidence to knife sheath, it proved to the million
to one, millions and millions to want odds that the
only donor to the DNA on the knife sheath had
to be the male chiled from the trash. There's only
(08:27):
one male child from mister Coburger and that is Brian Coburger. Okay,
they wanted that suppressed, but under the long standing abandonment
theory under the law, the judge had to allow it.
Of course, we see judges all the time make some
zany decision that departs from the law, but there's an
immediate emergency appeal. Immediate the state would appeal it immediately
(08:49):
to the Idaho Supreme Court and they would rule pursue
it to the US Supreme Court, which is the abandonment theory.
So that's why the judge ruled that way, you know,
regardless of what everybody's screaming on X and Facebook and
instead about Brian Kiberger's rights BS. That's the law. Deal
with it.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
And there's a part two to that where the judge
said the knighte sheaf, he had no expectation of privacy
because he left his DNA in public.
Speaker 3 (09:20):
Your theory is correct, your reasoning is correct. He did
not leave the knife sheaf in public. He left it
at a crime scene. There is no expectation of privacy
in anything left at a crime scene, much less a
quadruple murder scene. Expectations of privacy. What is that under
the law. Sounds confusing. It's not in our constitution. We
(09:44):
had the Fourth Amendment, which protects you from unreasonable searches
and seizures. Where did that come from? It came from
the British kicking in people's doors during and before the
Revolutionary War, demanding that they get to stay in there,
just live in somebody's house and eat all their food. No,
the Fourth Amendment says, and that's where it originated, you
(10:07):
are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures from the government.
You're not protected from private citizens. That's to be figured
out in civil court. But from the government, you are protected.
That has been extended over centuries in case law. Okay,
case law.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
Here's an example.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
A cop comes up to me and says, hey, roeblant,
let me search your trunk. I'm like, fine, do it,
and then he goes, oh, by the way, I'm now
going to search your handbag and your bra. Like, whoa, whoa, whoa,
Wait a minute, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy
in my purse and my bra. Now that's an outlantish example,
but that's the point for most searches, you must have
(10:49):
a search warrant. I won't go deaf coon Ford and
give you all the times you don't need a warrant,
such as emergency or exigence circumstances where the car is
speeding away with the dead body in the trunk, you
don't need a warrant for that. But there are other
reasons you don't need to warrant in other situations. But
here the legal theory is there is no expectation of
(11:11):
privacy in what you or anyone leaves behind at a
crime scene. Then let's see what else did he do?
Defense argued LA law enforcement violated Coburger's rights. Let's see, oh,
before getting a warrant, before conducting genetic genealogy. Okay, and
(11:35):
before the trash pull. But again, trash is covered by
abandonment theory genetic genealogy. Let's talk about that he made
the right ruling under the law. When you see something
from a crime scene, whether it be the knife, sheath
or DNA or a fingerprint, or let's just say a
(11:57):
bullet round, let's talk about Delphi. Where it is it
Richard Allen cycled a bullet through his gun didn't fire,
but cycled it through to scare the girls and dropped
the darn thing on between the two bodies. Idiot, But
thank the Lord he did because that ballistics match went
directly to his gun. He left that behind. Therefore, no
(12:20):
expectation of privacy and therefore air go. You don't need
a warrant if there's no expectation of privacy. Am I
going too fast?
Speaker 2 (12:28):
No, you're doing fabulous.
Speaker 4 (12:29):
Okay, great, Okay.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
Once you pull a fingerprint and you've done this a
million times, fingerprint DNA hair fiber from a crime scene,
well are you telling me you have to get another
warrant to haven't tested? No, but that's what they argued,
And of course that's crazy talk under the law. I'm
not making up the law. This is the law established
(12:52):
by the US Supreme Court. Okay, so there so far,
all of those rulings are in lot step with the
US Supreme Court. And I don't mean just one decision.
I mean decades and decades, in decades where this has
been hashed out and it's confirmed that Ellie did the
right thing and the judge ruled the right way. One
(13:14):
more thing about the DNA. The defense also argued that
the Constitution was violated when Coburger exposed his DNA. The
judge said, Coburger exposed his DNA to the public, leaving
it on the sheets. Those were his words, but also
(13:37):
it was at a crime scene. They had a whole
slew of alleged constitutional violations with the use of investigative
genetic genealogy. And Cheryl, I'd like to direct direct to
your attention to Bloodline Detectives. Okay, our show that airs
(14:00):
on linear TV, it's completely devoted to advanced genetic genealogy
DNA testing. That's what all the episodes are about. Cutting
edge DNA. I love the science that is used in forensics.
As to you, you're a forensic expert.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
But.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
This has really been I mean, I know that you're
the expert in collecting and observing the actual DNA, what
the trace is left behind. You can have all the
evidence you want, but if you don't have a lawyer
that understands the law and knows how to apply it
to the facts and explain it in an easy to
(14:44):
understand way, then you're screwed. You could be the best
CSI in the world, and if your DA can't explain
it or can't connect the dots to get into evidence.
Speaker 4 (14:55):
You're screwed.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
So I'm really happy with the way the state argued this.
They did a great job.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
I thought it was fantastic.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
And that's the reason I used the word public earlier,
because they did.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
And that's basically what he did.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
He didn't even know where the sheath was, so he
discarded it.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
He left it.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
He didn't control it, so he has no right to
it anymore.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
Carol, how many times have you and I talked about
can't you imagine him? And of course he's innocent until
proven guilty. Can you imagine him driving home or getting
home and then he's like, where's the sheath?
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Nancy?
Speaker 1 (15:35):
When he went all those of that, he had the
knife by itself. It wasn't long before he realized where
it was. Okay, I'm ready to move forward Amazon purchases.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Oh I love that. I love that. So, okay, let
me compare it to this. I hate to even say
his naming connection with the crime, But do you remember
how Christ would speak in parables so all of us
idiots could understand what the hey you is talking about.
I like to give stories like here's a good one,
when I would explain circumstantial versus direct evidence to a jury, which,
(16:14):
of course the law is circumstantial evidence is as probative
as powerful as direct evidence under the law. Whether a
jury accepts it or not is up to a jury.
I would say to describe circumstantial aubdence, pretend you went
into your office building and it's a tall one, and
(16:35):
you were inside all day long in a conference room
that did not have a window. And when you went
in it was bright and sunny. But when you came
out there were pools of water on the street. Traffic
going by, kicking up pulled rain water, women rushing by,
(16:56):
hugging their raincoats, men with umbrellas.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
The sky is dark.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
You didn't see the storm, but you know it rained, right.
It's what you can deduce that is circumstantial evidence. That's
an example in this case how examples can be used
to explain what is happening, Like I'm getting to your
(17:27):
Amazon example when okay, here's another one. When you tell
your lawyer or your priest, your pastor something a secret,
right you expected to be a secret because it's protected
under the law. Priest parishoner privilege, attorney client privilege, husband
(17:49):
wife privilege, However, if you tell them a secret a
gottail party with ten people standing in your circle hearing
everything you say, you have no expectation of privacy, so
you're not protected by attorney client privilege. You screwed that.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
Here Amazon, the defense.
Speaker 5 (18:10):
Tried to argue, I'm so happy it's trying to argue
that Coburger's Amazon order was privileged, that the state couldn't
dig up his Amazon order where he ordered the exact
knife and sheath.
Speaker 3 (18:29):
Same thing like the cocktail party. When you tell Amazon,
even if it's an Amazon order on your iPad or
you call, you don't have a privilege anymore because it's
gone to so many people. It's gone to whoever took
the order. It's gone to whoever placed the order. It's
whoever stuffed the boxes, whoever mailed the box.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Forget it.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
There is no Amazon customer privilege. There's no such thing.
What you order from Amazon is not a secret. There's
your credit card. It's like saying credit card receipts are secret. No,
those can be subpoenaed, just like Amazon receipts can be subpoenaed.
Bank records can be subpoena Your cell phone records can
(19:14):
be subpoena.
Speaker 4 (19:15):
You do not.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
Have a privileged communication with Amazon, even the delivery driver. Yes, okay,
here's another good example of that. Remember, dear, I say
her name, I'm afraid to say it might just conjured
her up in some way like an evil demon cult.
Mam Lauri Valo, that pos technical legal term. Ordered a
(19:39):
quote beach b eacch beach wedding dress, her husband soon
to be husband's beach groom's outfit, and her engagement ring
over Amazon on her dead husband's account. His mother found
(20:02):
all of those. The dead husband's mother found all of
that and brought it to the attention. And there's no
mother in law daughter in law privilege either. Okay, put
a side in that found that and it was brought
forth a trial significance. She ordered everything for her wedding,
her Hawaii beachside wedding, to the profit Chad day Bell
(20:26):
before his wife was dead, every Day Bell. That's one
of the reasons she got convicted as a in conspiracy
to kill Tammy because of that Amazon order. So Coburger,
don't jump up and tell me your Amazon records are privileged.
They're not asked. Ault Love Laurie Valo. Uh oh, I
think I just sort of peeker head around the.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Door, honey. I think that's about it. We cleared it.
I mean they feel it is that everything.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
We didn't talk about cell phone records and we didn't
talk about something. Are you trying to get rid of me?
Speaker 4 (20:58):
Because I'm just getting.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
Going not at all, are you, kidd And I can
do this all left noon.
Speaker 3 (21:03):
As an attendum add on to what I said about Amazon,
same thing applies to cell phone records. You can subpoena
AT and t VZW whoever and get the records. They're
very particular. However, they throw a little fit and you
have to go through all kind of hoops to get
cell phone records, but you do get them. And you
(21:24):
can also get serious exim records about triangulation and what
people are listening to, just all sorts of serious XM information.
But they will throw a stink at you. But you
can get them if you're tenacious and you've got a
proper warrant. But the same thing applies to Amazon cell
(21:45):
phone records. With a subpoena and a warrant, you can
get those records. Let's say is that what's left a
surveillance video. I don't know how they complained about surveillance
video because surveillance and video is coming from a third party.
What does that mean? That means if somebody breaks into
(22:05):
your house, if the Feds break in your house without
a warrant and take items, I can't complain about it.
I don't have standing. It has nothing to do with me.
You can complain about it. So the video surveillance taken
from other neighbors, ring cams at home video, home surveillance
(22:27):
video from you know, that gas station that he passed
allegedly in his Lantra at three am and four am
in the morning. He really doesn't have standing to complain
about that surveillance video because it doesn't belong to him.
Wait a minute, are your eyes glazing over with all
this legal discussion, Well.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
I mean a little bit.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
The more levels to something, the more you break something down,
people are going to be able to accept it and
then repeat it correctly. That's what you've done today. That
to me is so important.
Speaker 3 (22:59):
You know, it's one thing to talk about the law
and all of these cases, but I just can't. I
can't stop thinking about Oakley, And you know, I wonder
how these four students' parents feel. You know, they sit there,
they're not in court during all of this because so
far away, but they hear us talking, they read the news,
(23:23):
they hear they know what's going on, and it's all
about that empty house.
Speaker 4 (23:31):
Those four students, that.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Little Oakley, that little Hayden is they're never coming home.
Speaker 6 (23:41):
And it just you know, I can spout off the
lawn and give you examples, and you can talk about
collecting evidence and just the harsh reality of what this
is really about, you know, those crime victims.
Speaker 4 (23:58):
It's just, you know, sometimes it gets to.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
Me, of course, and you mentioned you know, the parents,
they've been waiting, wanting to see justice for their child.
And you've got somebody arguing whether or not we can
know what he bought at Amazon, whether or not the
DNA is going to get in, whether or not they're
going to allow the sew you know, cell phone record, n.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
Cheryl, I think I told this to you. I've never
told this before, but I just recently told it one time.
Of course, everyone by now knows about my fiance kid
getting murdered, but many years later his mom passed away
with cancer and was living in New York of course
at the time.
Speaker 4 (24:36):
She passed away.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
And I asked Keith's sister.
Speaker 4 (24:41):
Was she in pain at the end? How was she?
What did she say?
Speaker 3 (24:48):
And Judy told me that she said, Mom, what's thinking
about she? The mom answered, I'm just having memories, memories,
And she was having memories of Keith on.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
Her dying bed. What do I mean?
Speaker 3 (25:09):
It never goes away? Sheryl or her during bed she
was remembering Keith and what happened to Keith. It never
goes away. And these parents, they got a long road
ho right ahead of them.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
I don't think there's anything left to say.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
But hey, hey, hate David. Wait, you're trying to sneak
out without giving me a hot tea? Is this really happening? Well?
Speaker 4 (25:35):
Can you give me the thermus at least? Cool? I mean,
I'm working here for Pete's sake, and they say the
romance is dead.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Oh that poor man Florida.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Hey, are we gonna go say about that sheriff that
shot the judge?
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Absolutely?
Speaker 3 (25:57):
Yes, Okay, all right.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
You have a great weekend and I will talk to
you soon.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
God willing, my dear by honey
Speaker 4 (26:08):
M
Welcome to the crime round up, y'all. There's a judge
and Idaho that's got some horse sense, I'm telling you,
and I cannot wait Nancy to talk to you, step
my step of what just occurred?
Speaker 2 (00:25):
How are you hunting?
Speaker 3 (00:26):
I'm great. I'm happy to be alive. It's been a
very very long week in courts across our country and investigations.
A lot happening, Cheryl. A lot between Sean Combs aka
A Diddy aka Puffy aka Puff blah blah blah blah
(00:50):
between him and bestI Kanye. I mean, seriously, I try
not to use cliches because they're so irritating. But with
a best friend like that, and who needs an enemy,
he just walks in and blows up the defense with
all of his defending Puff. I mean, nobody wants to
be associated with Kanye right now, so I don't know
(01:12):
that I would want him on the front seat behind
you know, the defense council at trial that said Idaho.
Just I mean, there's so many cases, Cheryl, I can't keep.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
Up with them.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
And I look, I don't have to have a big
staff looking for me, although they cleanly look Twitter, Facebook, Asta,
you name it. I'm looking and I find cases all
the time. Like Cheryl, I you Wan told about coburg.
I'm getting coburger. Hayden Venice, Cheryl, his family wait for it.
(01:48):
Just realize that as he's been missing for five years.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Oh God, Now.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
I don't drag him into this. Just realize this, Hayden
has been missing for five years. Okay, do you know
how that threw me completely Lee over the edge when
I heard that? Grigged there head been. Let's just say
a family break up, all right. The father, the son, well,
(02:12):
he's the father of Hayden. He has a drug problem.
To put it mildly, he has a big blow up
with his family and he stops out and that they
assume that's why he won't bring Hayden for Christmas and
Thanksgiving and all that. You ever been part of a
family blow up, They're horrible. And people that you grew
(02:35):
up with, you think are your closest friends, or so
I've heard, have nothing to do with their family. The
brothers and sister split. So long story short, they talked
it off to that five years go by and hello,
nobody has seen Hayden Mannas. So that's when they quote
realize he's missing, and I couldn't believe it. I divided
(02:59):
a whole kutting him and compared it to other high
profile cases that you and I have investigated, well one
for instance. I mean, can anybody forget tot Mom, that
poc who went at least thirty one days before she well,
her mother did it. She didn't even report killing missing,
(03:20):
That's right. And you've got Harmony Montgomery. I mean, there's
so many. Just keep it on your radar that Brian
Coburger is not the only alleged evildoer. We got a
lot of crime, Cheryl. Can I just tell you about
one more? When we were discussing Hayden, we had on
another little girl's would be mom, okay, hew londlet me
(03:44):
heat my tea. Her name was Oakley Carlson. And I
can't even think about Oakley without breaking into tears.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
I remember that little fae.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
This little Oakley had a horrible, horrible mother, Uh drug
ada to blah blah blah. And so she went to
a foster home and they told the foster mom that
she was going.
Speaker 4 (04:08):
To get to adopt.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
They have Oakley for a couple of years. They make
her a nursery they're so happy they're going to have
their own forever baby. Then the mom gets preading again
and they agree to take the sibling. All this is happening,
and all of a sudden they go, oh, no, we're
going to reunify. I hate that word reunification. Over the
(04:32):
foster mom's objections, they give her back and guess what,
she's never been seeing in lime again. And that mom,
it's just heartbreaking. She showed us the nursery, the room,
all the little clothes, all the fun things that they
did together, trips and amusement parks and just daily life,
you know, is like a party when you have a
(04:52):
child that you love. Now that I told you about
Oakley and.
Speaker 4 (04:57):
Hayden, I'm ready to move forward.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
It is such a victory for the prosecution, heck, for
the constitution, and for every single law enforcement agency that
you know responded to this case, which there were multiple.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
I mean even Indiana responded, you know.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Not just Idaho, not just the college, not just local
law enforcement, but so many people. But the judge, honey,
he's struck down every single thing they tried. And I
just want you to go step by step with me
so people understand the importance. The first thing he said
was the cell phone and email records they're in. They
(05:39):
can come in. Now I know you and I know
what you would do with those. That's going to be huge.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
Well, I tell you, Cheryl, under the law as it exists,
this is what the judge had to rule. This is
the law. The judge is Stephen Hefler denied multiple defense motions.
They Coburger's defense team were trying to suppress critical DNA
(06:10):
evidence and other evidence such as you pointed out cell phone,
email records, surveillance footage, Amazon purchases, and DNA. I believe
I got them all. Let's think that through. They wanted
to suppress cell phone data, email records, surveillance footage, Amazon purchases.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
And DNA.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
Okay, I think I got them all because I'm talking
off the top.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
Of my head here and the trash bend.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
Yes, that would be the DNA evidence from the trash,
which is I'll start with that one. The theory is
called abandonment, and that can mean in regular vernacular street talk,
that can mean anything. You abandon your car, you abandon
your child, do you abandon a relationship? Abandonment under search
(06:58):
and seizure fourth A mini law means you abandon an
item that police then rightfully seized without a warrant. Now,
in this case, I believe they did have a warrant
to seize trash that had been abandoned by Coburger's family.
(07:20):
What does that mean when you throw something out where
any civilian can have it, Like you put a chest
of drawers out on the street for the trash people, okay,
and you have your crack cocaine in it, See forgot
and police come on. They can't grab that chest of
George just as well as the trash people and find
your crack, okay. So that is abandonment. Whatever a civilian
(07:44):
can do, police can do. When Coburger's family abandoned their trash,
put the trash out, and police got DNA off an
item from the trash from Coburger's father. If they compared
it to the DNA found on the knife sheath under
(08:05):
a dead victim back at the King Road address, trash
can evidence to knife sheath, it proved to the million
to one, millions and millions to want odds that the
only donor to the DNA on the knife sheath had
to be the male chiled from the trash. There's only
(08:27):
one male child from mister Coburger and that is Brian Coburger. Okay,
they wanted that suppressed, but under the long standing abandonment
theory under the law, the judge had to allow it.
Of course, we see judges all the time make some
zany decision that departs from the law, but there's an
immediate emergency appeal. Immediate the state would appeal it immediately
(08:49):
to the Idaho Supreme Court and they would rule pursue
it to the US Supreme Court, which is the abandonment theory.
So that's why the judge ruled that way, you know,
regardless of what everybody's screaming on X and Facebook and
instead about Brian Kiberger's rights BS. That's the law. Deal
with it.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
And there's a part two to that where the judge
said the knighte sheaf, he had no expectation of privacy
because he left his DNA in public.
Speaker 3 (09:20):
Your theory is correct, your reasoning is correct. He did
not leave the knife sheaf in public. He left it
at a crime scene. There is no expectation of privacy
in anything left at a crime scene, much less a
quadruple murder scene. Expectations of privacy. What is that under
the law. Sounds confusing. It's not in our constitution. We
(09:44):
had the Fourth Amendment, which protects you from unreasonable searches
and seizures. Where did that come from? It came from
the British kicking in people's doors during and before the
Revolutionary War, demanding that they get to stay in there,
just live in somebody's house and eat all their food. No,
the Fourth Amendment says, and that's where it originated, you
(10:07):
are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures from the government.
You're not protected from private citizens. That's to be figured
out in civil court. But from the government, you are protected.
That has been extended over centuries in case law. Okay,
case law.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
Here's an example.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
A cop comes up to me and says, hey, roeblant,
let me search your trunk. I'm like, fine, do it,
and then he goes, oh, by the way, I'm now
going to search your handbag and your bra. Like, whoa, whoa, whoa,
Wait a minute, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy
in my purse and my bra. Now that's an outlantish example,
but that's the point for most searches, you must have
(10:49):
a search warrant. I won't go deaf coon Ford and
give you all the times you don't need a warrant,
such as emergency or exigence circumstances where the car is
speeding away with the dead body in the trunk, you
don't need a warrant for that. But there are other
reasons you don't need to warrant in other situations. But
here the legal theory is there is no expectation of
(11:11):
privacy in what you or anyone leaves behind at a
crime scene. Then let's see what else did he do?
Defense argued LA law enforcement violated Coburger's rights. Let's see, oh,
before getting a warrant, before conducting genetic genealogy. Okay, and
(11:35):
before the trash pull. But again, trash is covered by
abandonment theory genetic genealogy. Let's talk about that he made
the right ruling under the law. When you see something
from a crime scene, whether it be the knife, sheath
or DNA or a fingerprint, or let's just say a
(11:57):
bullet round, let's talk about Delphi. Where it is it
Richard Allen cycled a bullet through his gun didn't fire,
but cycled it through to scare the girls and dropped
the darn thing on between the two bodies. Idiot, But
thank the Lord he did because that ballistics match went
directly to his gun. He left that behind. Therefore, no
(12:20):
expectation of privacy and therefore air go. You don't need
a warrant if there's no expectation of privacy. Am I
going too fast?
Speaker 2 (12:28):
No, you're doing fabulous.
Speaker 4 (12:29):
Okay, great, Okay.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
Once you pull a fingerprint and you've done this a
million times, fingerprint DNA hair fiber from a crime scene,
well are you telling me you have to get another
warrant to haven't tested? No, but that's what they argued,
And of course that's crazy talk under the law. I'm
not making up the law. This is the law established
(12:52):
by the US Supreme Court. Okay, so there so far,
all of those rulings are in lot step with the
US Supreme Court. And I don't mean just one decision.
I mean decades and decades, in decades where this has
been hashed out and it's confirmed that Ellie did the
right thing and the judge ruled the right way. One
(13:14):
more thing about the DNA. The defense also argued that
the Constitution was violated when Coburger exposed his DNA. The
judge said, Coburger exposed his DNA to the public, leaving
it on the sheets. Those were his words, but also
(13:37):
it was at a crime scene. They had a whole
slew of alleged constitutional violations with the use of investigative
genetic genealogy. And Cheryl, I'd like to direct direct to
your attention to Bloodline Detectives. Okay, our show that airs
(14:00):
on linear TV, it's completely devoted to advanced genetic genealogy
DNA testing. That's what all the episodes are about. Cutting
edge DNA. I love the science that is used in forensics.
As to you, you're a forensic expert.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
But.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
This has really been I mean, I know that you're
the expert in collecting and observing the actual DNA, what
the trace is left behind. You can have all the
evidence you want, but if you don't have a lawyer
that understands the law and knows how to apply it
to the facts and explain it in an easy to
(14:44):
understand way, then you're screwed. You could be the best
CSI in the world, and if your DA can't explain
it or can't connect the dots to get into evidence.
Speaker 4 (14:55):
You're screwed.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
So I'm really happy with the way the state argued this.
They did a great job.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
I thought it was fantastic.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
And that's the reason I used the word public earlier,
because they did.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
And that's basically what he did.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
He didn't even know where the sheath was, so he
discarded it.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
He left it.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
He didn't control it, so he has no right to
it anymore.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
Carol, how many times have you and I talked about
can't you imagine him? And of course he's innocent until
proven guilty. Can you imagine him driving home or getting
home and then he's like, where's the sheath?
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Nancy?
Speaker 1 (15:35):
When he went all those of that, he had the
knife by itself. It wasn't long before he realized where
it was. Okay, I'm ready to move forward Amazon purchases.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Oh I love that. I love that. So, okay, let
me compare it to this. I hate to even say
his naming connection with the crime, But do you remember
how Christ would speak in parables so all of us
idiots could understand what the hey you is talking about.
I like to give stories like here's a good one,
when I would explain circumstantial versus direct evidence to a jury, which,
(16:14):
of course the law is circumstantial evidence is as probative
as powerful as direct evidence under the law. Whether a
jury accepts it or not is up to a jury.
I would say to describe circumstantial aubdence, pretend you went
into your office building and it's a tall one, and
(16:35):
you were inside all day long in a conference room
that did not have a window. And when you went
in it was bright and sunny. But when you came
out there were pools of water on the street. Traffic
going by, kicking up pulled rain water, women rushing by,
(16:56):
hugging their raincoats, men with umbrellas.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
The sky is dark.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
You didn't see the storm, but you know it rained, right.
It's what you can deduce that is circumstantial evidence. That's
an example in this case how examples can be used
to explain what is happening, Like I'm getting to your
(17:27):
Amazon example when okay, here's another one. When you tell
your lawyer or your priest, your pastor something a secret,
right you expected to be a secret because it's protected
under the law. Priest parishoner privilege, attorney client privilege, husband
(17:49):
wife privilege, However, if you tell them a secret a
gottail party with ten people standing in your circle hearing
everything you say, you have no expectation of privacy, so
you're not protected by attorney client privilege. You screwed that.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
Here Amazon, the defense.
Speaker 5 (18:10):
Tried to argue, I'm so happy it's trying to argue
that Coburger's Amazon order was privileged, that the state couldn't
dig up his Amazon order where he ordered the exact
knife and sheath.
Speaker 3 (18:29):
Same thing like the cocktail party. When you tell Amazon,
even if it's an Amazon order on your iPad or
you call, you don't have a privilege anymore because it's
gone to so many people. It's gone to whoever took
the order. It's gone to whoever placed the order. It's
whoever stuffed the boxes, whoever mailed the box.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Forget it.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
There is no Amazon customer privilege. There's no such thing.
What you order from Amazon is not a secret. There's
your credit card. It's like saying credit card receipts are secret. No,
those can be subpoenaed, just like Amazon receipts can be subpoenaed.
Bank records can be subpoena Your cell phone records can
(19:14):
be subpoena.
Speaker 4 (19:15):
You do not.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
Have a privileged communication with Amazon, even the delivery driver. Yes, okay,
here's another good example of that. Remember, dear, I say
her name, I'm afraid to say it might just conjured
her up in some way like an evil demon cult.
Mam Lauri Valo, that pos technical legal term. Ordered a
(19:39):
quote beach b eacch beach wedding dress, her husband soon
to be husband's beach groom's outfit, and her engagement ring
over Amazon on her dead husband's account. His mother found
(20:02):
all of those. The dead husband's mother found all of
that and brought it to the attention. And there's no
mother in law daughter in law privilege either. Okay, put
a side in that found that and it was brought
forth a trial significance. She ordered everything for her wedding,
her Hawaii beachside wedding, to the profit Chad day Bell
(20:26):
before his wife was dead, every Day Bell. That's one
of the reasons she got convicted as a in conspiracy
to kill Tammy because of that Amazon order. So Coburger,
don't jump up and tell me your Amazon records are privileged.
They're not asked. Ault Love Laurie Valo. Uh oh, I
think I just sort of peeker head around the.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Door, honey. I think that's about it. We cleared it.
I mean they feel it is that everything.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
We didn't talk about cell phone records and we didn't
talk about something. Are you trying to get rid of me?
Speaker 4 (20:58):
Because I'm just getting.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
Going not at all, are you, kidd And I can
do this all left noon.
Speaker 3 (21:03):
As an attendum add on to what I said about Amazon,
same thing applies to cell phone records. You can subpoena
AT and t VZW whoever and get the records. They're
very particular. However, they throw a little fit and you
have to go through all kind of hoops to get
cell phone records, but you do get them. And you
(21:24):
can also get serious exim records about triangulation and what
people are listening to, just all sorts of serious XM information.
But they will throw a stink at you. But you
can get them if you're tenacious and you've got a
proper warrant. But the same thing applies to Amazon cell
(21:45):
phone records. With a subpoena and a warrant, you can
get those records. Let's say is that what's left a
surveillance video. I don't know how they complained about surveillance
video because surveillance and video is coming from a third party.
What does that mean? That means if somebody breaks into
(22:05):
your house, if the Feds break in your house without
a warrant and take items, I can't complain about it.
I don't have standing. It has nothing to do with me.
You can complain about it. So the video surveillance taken
from other neighbors, ring cams at home video, home surveillance
(22:27):
video from you know, that gas station that he passed
allegedly in his Lantra at three am and four am
in the morning. He really doesn't have standing to complain
about that surveillance video because it doesn't belong to him.
Wait a minute, are your eyes glazing over with all
this legal discussion, Well.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
I mean a little bit.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
The more levels to something, the more you break something down,
people are going to be able to accept it and
then repeat it correctly. That's what you've done today. That
to me is so important.
Speaker 3 (22:59):
You know, it's one thing to talk about the law
and all of these cases, but I just can't. I
can't stop thinking about Oakley, And you know, I wonder
how these four students' parents feel. You know, they sit there,
they're not in court during all of this because so
far away, but they hear us talking, they read the news,
(23:23):
they hear they know what's going on, and it's all
about that empty house.
Speaker 4 (23:31):
Those four students, that.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Little Oakley, that little Hayden is they're never coming home.
Speaker 6 (23:41):
And it just you know, I can spout off the
lawn and give you examples, and you can talk about
collecting evidence and just the harsh reality of what this
is really about, you know, those crime victims.
Speaker 4 (23:58):
It's just, you know, sometimes it gets to.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
Me, of course, and you mentioned you know, the parents,
they've been waiting, wanting to see justice for their child.
And you've got somebody arguing whether or not we can
know what he bought at Amazon, whether or not the
DNA is going to get in, whether or not they're
going to allow the sew you know, cell phone record, n.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
Cheryl, I think I told this to you. I've never
told this before, but I just recently told it one time.
Of course, everyone by now knows about my fiance kid
getting murdered, but many years later his mom passed away
with cancer and was living in New York of course
at the time.
Speaker 4 (24:36):
She passed away.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
And I asked Keith's sister.
Speaker 4 (24:41):
Was she in pain at the end? How was she?
What did she say?
Speaker 3 (24:48):
And Judy told me that she said, Mom, what's thinking
about she? The mom answered, I'm just having memories, memories,
And she was having memories of Keith on.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
Her dying bed. What do I mean?
Speaker 3 (25:09):
It never goes away? Sheryl or her during bed she
was remembering Keith and what happened to Keith. It never
goes away. And these parents, they got a long road
ho right ahead of them.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
I don't think there's anything left to say.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
But hey, hey, hate David. Wait, you're trying to sneak
out without giving me a hot tea? Is this really happening? Well?
Speaker 4 (25:35):
Can you give me the thermus at least? Cool? I mean,
I'm working here for Pete's sake, and they say the
romance is dead.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Oh that poor man Florida.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Hey, are we gonna go say about that sheriff that
shot the judge?
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Absolutely?
Speaker 3 (25:57):
Yes, Okay, all right.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
You have a great weekend and I will talk to
you soon.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
God willing, my dear by honey
Speaker 4 (26:08):
M
Host
Sheryl McCollum
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.