Murder In Moscow: The Experts Behind The case Against Bryan Kohberger (Part 10) (9/4/26)

0:00What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode we're going to get back to the rebuttal of Matthew Notals report up in Moscow. In a report prepared by Matt Notals dated January 22nd, 2025, the following results were reported. The following excerpts from the Notals report are included here to provide further interpretation or assessment considerations beyond what was presented in the Notals report. 1. Notals report page 40, Bates 0-0-3-287, regarding the findings the secondary transfer in the vehicle or residence of Mr. Colberg. The comprehensive search of Brian Colberg's vehicle did not locate any blood or specific evidence in connection with the events that took place at 1122 King Road. On December 30th, 2022, representatives from the Idaho State Police, Forensic Services Laboratory, examined Brian Colberg's apartment at 1630 Northease Valley Road in Pullman, Washington.

1:02In total, the search resulted in testing 51 positions in the apartment for indications of blood with only four of these indicating presumptive positive for the presence of blood, not a which connected to the victims at the King Street Residence, and all four of which were consistent with the known reference sample of Colberg's own DNA. The amount of collected blood distributed within the scene supports the inadvertent secondary transfer of blood would be highly likely. Smudges, smears, and transfers of blood seen on the third floor door, stair, rail, and walls, the second floor rail, and in the room of Quirnoodle are indicators that the assailant had received blood onto themselves or onto objects they possessed. Underlining added, secondary transfer of blood or common when a particularly bloody scene is encountered, because these transfers are known to occur regularly such secondary transfers of blood are purposefully sought during crime scene processing and evaluation. In the textbook Principles of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis, the author wrote,

2:04Smudge, Wipes, and Transfer Patterns of Victims Blood are frequently produced on and within an assailant's vehicle while leaving the scene. Door handles, steering wheel, gear shift apparatus, console, and floor pedals should be examined carefully for these types of blood stains. Sutton comments, as Mr. Noodle stated inserted below, the evidence that the assailant did have blood on their person and door on objects in their possession and the secondary transfer of blood inside the house did occur. Smudges, smears, and transfers of blood seen on the third floor door, stair rails, walls, the second floor rail, and in the room of Quirnoodle are indicators that an assailant had received blood onto themselves or on the objects they possessed. To predict that the amount of secondary transfer blood would be highly likely, as stated in the quotation inserted below, does not agree with a relatively small number and quantity of blood in secondary transfers which were found within the scene. Even during the activity associated with an assault when the perpetrator was focused on the assault instead of exercising caution,

3:09not to create secondary transfers, only a limited amount of blood was transferred outside of the bedrooms. The amount of collective blood distributed within the scene supports that inadvertent secondary transfer of blood would be highly unlikely. While spatter was widely distributed and both bedrooms involved, the amount of spatter in this rounding area, where a perpetrator would be located as to create a void. If a perpetrator had been covered in blood, it seems a void would be identifiable. There was no visible footwear transfer associated with any of the possible exits from the scene. Even though it can be established that the perpetrator left the scene, they did so without leaving visible footwear transfer stains. The significance of the lack of secondary transfer in a vehicle purportedly used when leaving the scene must take into consideration what is applicable to the particular scene in question. One must consider first that there was limited amount of secondary transfer within the scene itself, which is attributable to someone other than Mogen Goncalves' Carnotal or Chapin. Secondly, one must consider how much,

4:15if any, wet blood would still be exposed when the secondary contact was made. In a saline, it can easily remove protective clothing and shoe covers or place unstand coverings overstand clothing or shoes before they contact their vehicle or residents. Cleaning or wiping off excess blood before making contact with secondary surfaces is also possible. Regarding secondary footwear transfers, there are no visible footwear transfers associated with any of the possible exits from the scene. Even though it can be established that the perpetrator left the scene, they did so without leaving visible footwear transfer stains. Even if secondary transfers are in fact created, there is also the possibility that the vehicle or residence has been cleaned before a documented search of the vehicle occurred. Refer to Historic Article entitled Absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence, Kish P. E. McDonald H. L. Guest Editorial 46-2-1996, which is attached as appendix D. I certainly agree with Mr. Nodal statement

5:17inserted below that the vehicle and residence is of any suspect should be examined for blood or other evidence that might have been transferred from the crime scene. Secondary transfers of blood or common when a particularly bloody scene is encountered. Because these transfers are known to occur regularly, such secondary transfers of blood or purposefully sought during crime scene processing and evaluation. The significance of the resultant findings when examining secondary surfaces such as the vehicle or residence of an accused must be interpreted considering all available information. As stated in the textbook Principles of Bloodstained Pattern Analysis, page 120 the authors wrote, the lack of blood stains on an accused person should be viewed as an issue of further inquiry. Often the lack of blood stains on an accused person or his or her clothing will relate to the types and location of the deceased injuries or actions taken by the accused during or subsequent to the violent act. Therefore, analyst should exercise caution,

6:19as to what size of the stains or the quantity of spatter is expected to be present at a scene or on a suspect's clothing. Two, nodal report page 14, page number 00-3261, describes three numbering of samples. The initial blood stain area cataloged by Detective Talbot were identified in scene images with white cardboard numbered placards. Many of these areas were sampled into swabs. Detective Talbot identified swab blood samples as seen placards 23-49. These swabs were then turned over to Detective Payne, who remembered, who renumbered the swabs as item 17-43. Then, on November 17, 2022, Idaho State Police Forensic Services Laboratory, personnel were asked to help process the scene and test the previously labeled areas with a presumptive blood test. The IS-PFS laboratory was directed to the location of the previously collected areas, and identified these locations with new yellow numbered stickers applied to the areas,

7:23matching the Talbot placard numbers. The individual areas, tested by the IFPS laboratory, had already been altered from the initial swab collection. The IS-PFS laboratory personnel located additional stains and groups of patterns, each of which were identified with yellow alphabet stickers. Samples that were ultimately tested in the forensic laboratory received new laboratory numbers and the notes associated with the new laboratory numbers referenced the detective Payne renumbering system. Assuming Detective Payne kept the same sequence of blood swabs samples as Detective Talbot, one must add six from the Payne item number to get to the Talbot on scene placard number. IS-PFS laboratory notes, scene images, and descriptions support the sequence used by Detective Talbot was maintained in the Payne renumbering. Sutton comments, specifically referring to the following excerpts from Matt Notals report page 14, bait 0 0 3 2 6 1. One must add six from the Payne item number to get the Talbot on scene placard number.

8:28IS-PFS personnel used yellow stickers but their numbers match the original numbers that Detective Talbot had used. As a result of Payne pre-logged a sample into IS-PFS system as sample 48, it would actually represent sample 42, as depicted in the scene images taken by IS-PFS personnel. The IS-PFS then assigned lab number 77 to this stain and it was shown to be linked to Kaeli Gonsolvus. I was not initially aware of the situation with the scene placards worth the numbers depicted in the IS-PFS laboratory worksheets. All right now moving on to the rebuttal to Dr. Brent Turvy report dated January 22, 2025. One, Turvy comments on lack of blood detected in Co-Burger's vehicle, bait 0 0 4 0 3 8. Despite an extensively and exhaustive forensic examination of the defendant's vehicle for bloody clothing, blood transfer, and other evidence related to these crimes, down to the metal, none was found. This has essentially excluded the defendant's vehicle

9:33as being related to the commission of these crimes. The failure to be absolutely clear and forthcoming about this evidence would be evidence of bias, sudden comments. The failure to detect blood in the defendant's vehicle does not exclude the vehicle from being related to the commission of these crimes. For reasons previously discussed at nodal rebuttal, there can be a bunch of reasons blood was not transferred or detected in the defendant's vehicle. These findings need to be understood in the context of all available information. Two, Turvy comments on lack of blood on the sliding door at floor two, baits 0 0 4 0 3 9. On the second floor there's a sliding glass door which was found to be open by law enforcement. It's been inferred that this was a location where the suspect or suspects may have entered or at least exited. There's no physical evidence to support this as, again, there would need to be requisite blood transfer. If an intruder left the house through this door having left it open upon entry, there would need to be bloody footwear

10:36patterns on the floors from bloody shoes or feet both leading up to and out of that sliding glass door. Sutton comments. If the sliding glass door was in the open position when the intruder entered or if it was left in an open position after the intruder entered the residence, there would be no need for the intruder to touch the door when exiting. Therefore, there would be no need for the intruder or the blood stains on the intruder's person or in their possession to make contact with the sliding glass door. The assailant could have removed bloody gloves or removed blood stains before leaving. The extent of secondary transfer inside the crime scene by someone other than the decedents is minimal. There are three possible exits from the crime scene and there are no visible footwear transfer stains or secondary transfer stains at any of the exits. It can be established that the perpetrator had to have used one of the available exits to leave the crime scene, but no secondary footwear transfer stains or secondary transfer stains were created.

11:36This seems to negate Dr. Turvy's conclusion that lack of secondary transfer stains would preclude the sliding glass door from being the avenue of exit. All right folks, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with three. Dr. Turvy indicates that Gon saw this and Mogen were posed. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.