The University of Idaho Murders: The Strange Battle Over Investigative Genetic Genealogy

[00:00:00] The search for truth never ends. Introducing June's Journey, a hidden object mobile game with a captivating story. Connect with friends, explore the roaring 20s and enjoy thrilling activities and challenges while supporting environmental causes. After seven years, the adventure continues with our immersive travels feature. Explore distant cultures and engage in exciting experiences. There's always something new to discover. Are you ready? Download June's Journey now on Android or iOS.

[00:00:30] You deserve little luxuries, items and experiences that make your day special that lighten your mood. Well, if you want luxury that won't break the bank, you ought to check out our wonderful sponsor, Quince. Do not miss out. Quince is a brand that's providing luxury products for all of us ordinary people. Silkshires and dresses that are not only quality made, but also washable. 14 karat gold jewelry for when you want something sparkly. Sweaters of Mongolian cashmere in organic cotton.

[00:00:57] Those are the kind of premium products that Quince offers at a great price. All Quince items are 50% to 80% less costly than those of their competitors. Plus, Murder Sheet listeners are going to get a great deal on shipping and returns. But Quince is able to do all of this by cutting out the middleman. The savings pass on to you. And just remember, by supporting our sponsors, you're really supporting us.

[00:01:20] We recently gifted ourselves some luxurious pieces from Quince. I got their suede bomber jacket and I love it. And whenever I wear it out, I get lots of compliments, which, of course, I enjoy. It's also highly functional and comfortable. And I've really appreciated it during this cold Indiana winter. Give yourself the luxury you deserve with Quince. Go to Quince.com slash msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.

[00:01:50] That's Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash msheet to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash msheet. Content warning, this episode contains discussion of violence and murder. So today we're going back to Moscow, Idaho. We're going to be covering the University of Idaho murders. This, of course, is the murder, the quadruple homicide of four young students at the University of Idaho.

[00:02:18] The man who stands accused of that horrible crime is a man named Brian Koberger. He was a PhD student studying at Washington State University, not too far away. So this is a case that's gotten a lot of attention. This is a case that's had a lot of filings so far, long pretrial phase. And we're going to talk about some of the recent filings that have come out over investigative genetic genealogy and its use in this case.

[00:02:46] And how even though the defense and the prosecution are fundamentally arguing different things, they come to a rather strangely similar conclusion. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:03:12] And this is The University of Idaho Murders, The Strange Battle Over Investigative Genetic Genealogy.

[00:04:04] So, Anya, what's the filing we're going to be discussing today in this case? Well, we're going to be discussing the state's response to defendants' motion in limine number 11 regarding excluding investigative genetic genealogy evidence. Can we start by maybe defining some terms? When we talk about a motion in limine, what is that? Why are you asking? You're the lawyer, sir. And I'm going to be rambling on enough today.

[00:04:29] So, why don't you tell us what a—well, okay, I'll tell you what I think it is and then you correct me, okay? A motion in limine is one of the parties in a case essentially saying, hey, can we not bring this into things? Can we exclude this?

[00:04:45] Basically, before a trial, a motion in limine is filed by one side or the other asking the judge to make a preliminary ruling around some piece of evidence. Like saying, definitely say this can be included. Definitely say this can be excluded. So, in this case, it was the defense asked that this IgG evidence be excluded.

[00:05:12] It's important to note that the rulings on motion in limine are not necessarily final and that it can be changed if more evidence comes to light. The other thing, what's investigative genetic genealogy? Investigative. So, investigative genetic genealogy is the process of as advances in genetic testing and DNA have kind of come to the forefront.

[00:05:38] You have websites where people can upload their genetic information in order to create genealogy profiles and create family trees. So, if I do that, I can see all my cousins potentially or like what families I might be related to. And there are certain ones that allow more for law enforcement sources—for law enforcement searches.

[00:06:01] So, what's happened is that law enforcement can sometimes use these genealogical records and the combination of those with the genetics to form family trees and find perpetrators. So, if you have a perpetrator, leave behind a DNA profile at a scene. If investigators cannot find a match for that, perhaps the person's not in the system. They're not in CODIS. They can build out the family tree and say, oh, it looks like this guy would be cousins with these people.

[00:06:31] So, let's look at the available public records. Oh, well, their cousin lives in that town. So, let's look at him as a suspect. So, it's essentially been used to crack a lot of cases. It's an investigative technique. And it has certainly come up in this case. So, let's look at the facts here. Let's do it. How does IGG come up in the Idaho case?

[00:06:53] Well, on November 13, 2022, police found a knife sheath at the crime scene at the house on King Road where the four victims were murdered in Moscow, Idaho. And they analyzed the sheath. They found a DNA profile. They put that through the typical STR methods through the Idaho State Police Laboratory and then uploaded it to CODIS. And no match. No offender. No known offender matched the DNA.

[00:07:22] So, then what they did was Moscow Police Department as well as the Idaho State Forensic Lab. They took that DNA and sent it to Othram Labs. Othram Labs is a company, a private lab that does a lot of this work. They're pretty well known within the true crime space. And they were the ones who worked on this one.

[00:07:44] So, they translated that DNA into a SNP profile, which allowed them to then look at it in comparison with the different databases to find relatives for this person. Now, we're not scientists. I don't know if anyone knows this. We're pretty clear that we're a journalist and a lawyer who also majored in history and English.

[00:08:07] So, if you want some more information that you might find helpful about IgG, how this works, all the different terms, I would strongly suggest that you listen to our episode with the wonderful ladies from Ignite DNA. They specialize in this. This is what they do. And they actually talked to us about the Koberger case. So, we talked to the founders, Nancy Landini, Lisa Needler.

[00:08:35] I'll link to that episode in our show notes because it might be a good refresher as we're going through this. But they talked to us and how this kind of pertains to the murders of Ethan Chapin, Zander Cronodal, Madison Mogan, and Kaylee Gonsalves. So, that's the kind of background. Now, and just a reminder of who we're talking about here. William Thompson Jr. is the prosecuting attorney for Latah County. So, he's kind of the leader of the prosecutors here.

[00:09:04] And Taylor is the lead defense counsel. So, she's leading Koberger's team. That's who we're dealing with. So, it's funny. We're talking about Thompson's filing, but he's really responding to Taylor's filing. So, that's, you know. So, this particular filing comes from the state. So, as we go through it, it's important to remember that this means we're looking at things through the prism of the prosecution. This is their point of view. Exactly.

[00:09:32] And, you know, one of these things is it's kind of like an ongoing conversation sometimes. So, you kind of have to hear out both sides here. So, let's see. Let's go back to the background on the DNA, though. So, the police use this IgG via the DNA from the knife sheath.

[00:09:52] They trace the DNA back to Koberger's family and then are able to get DNA from items from the trash at his parents' Pennsylvania residence. That looks, you know, like, yes, this would be a relative of the perpetrator of the offender. And then later they do, once they have him in custody, they do a buckle swab on him. And that's how they kind of get that connection. So, more on that later and how important IgG is within this process.

[00:10:22] But that's kind of the factual background here. So, what the defense alleged will become kind of clear as we talk about what the state's response to that is. But as just to put a pin in it, what essentially they're saying is that the state did not provide the court with a specific document from Othram kind of explaining their standard operating procedures.

[00:10:49] And they're arguing, the defense is arguing that that is a Brady violation, which is something we hear, again, a lot about in true crime. Do you mind just kind of generally throwing out what a Brady violation is? A Brady violation, just generally, I'm sure we're going to this in more detail, is there's some sort of information that the prosecution has that would help the defense's case. And the prosecution is intentionally withholding it. Right. So, defense is arguing that.

[00:11:17] They've argued, you didn't give us this Othram standard operating procedures information. Brady violation. We want IgG excluded from the trial. So, that's kind of where we are. Now, the prosecution is responding to that. And they start off with some background on sort of the litigation around this issue because there's been a lot of back and forth about IgG in this case.

[00:11:45] I believe we've covered some of it in the past. I mentioned our interview with the Ignite ladies. But there's also, you know, I think we've covered it in a few episodes in the past. So, they trace it back to June 2023. And that was when the state put out a protective order, a request for a protective order on the IgG in this case. What they essentially were doing in my analysis was saying, hey, the IgG just got us there. It's essentially like a tip.

[00:12:15] We don't need the defense bringing in every random person who's in his family tree who had nothing to do with this and was not important to this case. We don't need them having everything because it's immaterial. It's irrelevant to the case. All that matters, ultimately, all we care about a trial is that we took that buckle swab and we can say that matches the knife sheath. It doesn't matter how we got there.

[00:12:40] And more than that, they said that the IgG elements did not fall under Idaho Criminal Rule 16, which deals with discovery. They're saying that's irrelevant here. This doesn't count within that scope. And we have the only thing we want to do is have an investigator get up on the stand and say, the IgG functioned as a tip and it directed us toward the defendant. Got us there.

[00:13:08] The equivalent of someone calling from a payphone and saying, hey, I think I saw something and here's what I saw. Ultimately, it matters that you have the evidence connecting someone if the IgG had led there and then somehow there was something terribly wrong and the DNA didn't match. Then obviously Koberger would not be in hot water right now.

[00:13:28] So the state's idea at this time was to have the court review all of the IgG elements in camera and figure out what they should, what the court would then determine what should be given to the defense. What on earth is in camera? Are they doing a little photo shoot? What's going on here? Lawyers love like Latin words. Yes, I love that. Latin terms. Lots of reasons for that, I guess. Yes, so in camera is, I'm no expert.

[00:13:57] I don't know if this is literally a Latin term or if it is somehow derived from a Latin term, but there is a Latin connection there. It basically means if something is done in camera, it's done outside the view of the public, perhaps in the judge's chamber. Reporters aren't there. The public isn't there. It's a private proceeding. It means the direct translation is in a chamber. So pretty literal. I say if the lawyers want to get a little fancy with their Latin, let them. That's great.

[00:14:26] So I think it's cool. But what were we talking about? Okay, so they say that in this filing, they say November 30th, 2023. State hands over materials to the court. They give a whole bunch of different things. So we have emails from ISP, which in this case is Idaho for all of our Indiana friends. Idaho State Police, not Indiana State Police when we talk about ISP in these episodes.

[00:14:56] We have authorim emails. We have authorim documents. We have stuff from the FBI. We have all these different, we have contracts. So Idaho State Police and authorim had to sign some contractual documents talking about what they're going to do, what's going to happen. It sounds like there was some bidding.

[00:15:17] So maybe what I interpret this as is that there are maybe some different labs coming to the state police saying, hey, we'd like to do this work for you or we'd like to work for you in some capacity. It's unclear to me whether this is like directly they're coming in because of the Moscow case or they had previously and they want to contract with them. So you'd see like proposals, different kind of information that they'd be giving somebody through a bidding procedure. Is that?

[00:15:47] It sounds right. Sounds right. Okay. That's how I interpret this. Stay hydrated. Stay healthy. When you podcast as much as we do, you learn that firsthand. We drink lots of water so we don't sound terrible and alienate all of you good people. It's also nice to feel hydrated and refreshed. The thing is, though, I've always encouraged Kevin to drink more water, but he's always the guy that wants bottled water because he doesn't like the taste of tap water. Wow, so fancy.

[00:16:15] Turns out, though, Kevin's pickiness may be right for a change. Exactly. Just this once. Research by the Environmental Working Group finds that many homes in America can have harmful contaminants in their tap water. That's where AquaTrue comes in. This four-stage reverse osmosis water purification system will make your life so much easier and healthier and also help you save a lot of money. AquaTrue removes 15 times more contaminants than ordinary pitcher filters.

[00:16:44] They've got all kinds of water purifiers to fit your needs. Countertop purifiers that don't require a plumber. High capacity under the sink options. Mineral boosting purifiers. One that connects to Wi-Fi. That's the one we have now. I love it. It's easy to use. Plus, it's got both of us drinking more water. Murder Sheet listeners get a great deal. AquaTrue comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee and even makes a great gift. Today, my listeners receive 20% off any AquaTrue purifier.

[00:17:14] Just go to AquaTrue.com. That's A-Q-U-A-T-R-U dot com and enter code M-Sheet at checkout. That's 20% off any AquaTrue water purifier when you go to AquaTrue.com and use promo code M-S-H-E-E-T.

[00:17:32] And what ended up happening through this in-camera procedure is that the court found that, quote, the state's – and this is from Thompson's document – quote, the state's argument that the IGG investigation is wholly irrelevant since it was not used in obtaining any warrants and will not be used at trial as well-supported, end quote. So they're saying they agree with the state. Yes, lawyer talk for the state is right. It's clearer than the Latin.

[00:18:00] So – but, you know, but – but the court did say that some of the IGG information may go to the defense. So they're saying, you know, it's a nuanced point of view. Like largely, yeah, you're right, but some of this should go to them. Let's give that to them. And they – the court issued an order describing which pages of IGG could and should be disclosed to the defense.

[00:18:27] And what the state is saying that, quote, the courts in-camera order and disclosure order made it clear that all IGG discovery was to be filtered through the court. So what they're – what they're saying is that the court says we're not just giving them, we're not just giving the defense whatever. You know, everything is filtering through the court first so they can determine what's appropriate to give over. Okay, I understand. But then they note that the defense sent a lot of supplemental discovery requests. The state objected to these.

[00:18:57] The state said we already gave all this stuff to the court about IGG and the court already ordered what we're supposed to give over. So, you know, whatever. And then when the defense is coming back, we're like, well, we don't have this. This Laetuck County Prosecutor's Office is going to Othram. Othram saying we already gave you everything to the state. So this is kind of a back and forth for a while. The defense is claiming the IGG evidence in general violates Koberger's rights under the Fourth Amendment.

[00:19:26] And, you know, there's a hearing on January 23rd, 2025, on a motion to suppress where Idaho State Police Lab Director Matthew Gametti testifies that Idaho State Police received Othram standard operating procedures through the bidding process. To kind of set up them doing this work. So. The.

[00:19:54] The what the state says is that the court gave the. And this is in a footnote. The court gave the defense sort of a benefit of the doubt. Instead of assuming that the defense was trying to evade their protective order, they assume that they were just asking for additional materials, not in the mix already, not known to the court. And. And. So. OK, so this is so complicated.

[00:20:22] So what the state was doing was responding to to one of this kind of back and forth, noting that in the quote, the defense's interpretation that the court was saying none of the requested information existed at all is not consistent with the record. They gave the example of one of the defense requested the name, the names and CVs of all the various individuals who did work at Othram on this case. And then the state kind of retorts a little bit, a little bit saucily.

[00:20:51] Quote, obviously, the state never represented to the court that the individuals who worked at Othram did not have names or CVs. They're all named individuals. So, you know, they're kind of there's some there's some tension brewing over this. And then the state realizes that there is something they did not give over to the court. Oh. So. The state figures out that Othram gave Idaho State Police.

[00:21:19] Its document on standard operating procedures. Idaho State Police did not give that to the Latoc County Prosecutor's Office to be disclosed to the court. And in response to the courts, December 29th, 2023, in camera order. And. They kind of they started to realize this on February 9th, 2025. They find this form asking. They see that it's like it's a bidding process. The bidder is asked to submit standard operating and operas. The SOPs.

[00:21:49] Othram's response shows they uploaded it as a specific file. And then they looked out. Did we include that file to the court? No. So they said that two days after this, they gave the defense the file, filed with the court and kind of explained what was going on.

[00:22:11] So then they note that two weeks – they also said that the SOPs were covered by the protective order because the court did not require disclosure of any, quote, bidding documents other than a memorandum of understanding. So they're saying – what I take them to be saying is essentially even if we'd included these, they were not on the list at all of things that would have been handed over anyway because in the documents – so this is what they say actually.

[00:22:41] Quote, the court did not require – sorry, not X out that quote. They're saying that basically there were documents that revealed the existence of the SOPs and the court did not order those disclosed because, quote, the remaining contract documents are not relevant to any issue in the case, end quote. So they're saying, you know, these wouldn't have been included anyway. Is that how you interpret that?

[00:23:11] I think so. But obviously as a defense attorney, I would want to get my hands on that standard operating procedure because I would want to be able to compare what they say, here's how we do it. I'd want that information so I could compare it to what was actually done in this particular case. It's understandable. It's also, I think, understandable from the state where they say none of this matters. This is not relevant. This is immaterial to the entire case.

[00:23:40] So I can see from both sides too. Two weeks after all of this, the defense files a motion in Limonet. They ask for the IGG evidence to be excluded because the state violated Brady. So this is from the defense's motion in Limonet that I just referred to.

[00:23:59] Quote, most troubling is the last statement in the state's February 11th, 2025 objection that while the materials provided to the court for review contained references to the SOPs, the SOPs were inadvertently excluded from the materials. Consequently, the court was misled about the materials reviewed in camera and resulting in deprivation of clearly discoverable documentation. The state objects to the production of materials that it conceded in 2023, Mr. Koberger was entitled to. End quote.

[00:24:28] So basically, we're really upset that these standard operating procedures were excluded from what we were given. I'm putting it in English. Thank you. You're a translator. So then they also break it down in a little helpful list about why they, you know, why this is bad. So and sort of the whole the whole gist of this here. So I'm going to read that. Quote, the Idaho Supreme Court recognized that nondisclosure cases can be placed into three different categories.

[00:24:57] One, quote, the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew or should have known of the perjury. Two, Brady type cases where the prosecution is put on notice of what is specifically desired. Thus, the prosecutor should be well aware of what evidence will be of assistance. Such notice should correspondingly raise the level of the prosecution's duty to disclose. And three, where no specific request for newly discovered and potentially exculpatory evidence was made by the defense.

[00:25:27] Separately, the problem of alleged loss or destruction by the state of allegedly exculpatory evidence raised additional difficulties such as that of deciding how materially favorable the evidence is the defendant's case in implementing an adequate remedy when justified. Usually the only remedy that usually the only feasible remedy is dismissal of the prosecution or suppression of evidence that would have been impeached that would have been impeached by the lost or destroyed evidence.

[00:25:51] Mr. Koberger is now asking for the remedy of exclusion because at this late date, he will be unable to investigate the impact of the evidence itself, as well as the consequences of withholding such evidence. Even if the missing discovery is produced at this point. Mr. Koberger's right to receive and review this evidence is guaranteed by the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the Idaho Constitution. End quote. So that's what they're saying. Put that into plain English for us.

[00:26:19] I basically the state messed up. They didn't include what they were supposed to include. And it's so badly damaged just that even if we get these SOPs right now, right on the dot. Months before the trial. Months and months before the trial. It is just a shattering injury to our case and we cannot proceed. So just throw all this out.

[00:26:43] Well, I'm sure we've all been in situations where we get into like an argument or something of the like with someone and they make some relatively minor mistake and we recognize our advantage and we just try to blow it up as big as possible. Yeah. Yep. That's true. So, you know. So that's what my tendency to think this is. I don't think it's a huge deal.

[00:27:10] I think they're entitled to the standards of operation or whatever it was. Standards of the standard operating procedures. Obviously, the prosecution made a mistake. This the thing about what you have to look at in cases like this is not just was a mistake made. It's how important is. It doesn't matter. And I would argue in this case, a mistake was made and it does not matter. It just doesn't. And another thing to look at is was it a mistake at all or was there some bad actions done? Yeah.

[00:27:39] Like, oh, got to hand the hide those SOPs. That doesn't really make any sense. And if they were doing that, it was kind of stupid to include other documentation that referred to the SOPs. Yeah. So it's also I mean, the way the reason I'm saying it's not important is because the judge already ruled essentially, you know, looking at the documents that mentioned the SOPs and looking at all the bidding information that only the memorandum of understanding was truly important.

[00:28:04] So what the state's document here, what the state's filing is doing is mostly fighting with the defense over their interpretation of things. So we heard what the defense is saying, what they want. Does the state feel that the defense characterized the events in the record fully and accurately in the proper context? No.

[00:28:31] So what the state says is, hey, we didn't act in bad faith. The defense is citing cases that don't even make any sense here. They've specifically referenced a case, the Youngblood case, which they say is not even they say they call it, quote, legally erroneous. And. But a pretty good song. What? Go on. Ridiculous.

[00:28:59] So they also say that, you know, they bring up Brady and that's fair to bring up Brady here because that makes more sense than Youngblood. But they don't legally or factually substantiate the claims of a Brady violation. So let's go through some of their points where they kind of are. Take taking this to task and and talking about it. So first they start off with the defense's motion is based on the wrong legal standard.

[00:29:24] So, quote, the defense's motion relies on the wrong legal standard by confusing Brady and Youngblood. The Brady standard asks of the state withheld exculpatory evidence that had a reasonably reasonable probability of changing the outcome of the proceeding and applies irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Brady applies when the state possesses but fails to disclose allegedly exculpatory evidence. In that circumstance, the Youngblood standard asks whether the state acted in bad faith.

[00:29:55] Says Youngblood applies only to situations where the state failed to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence. They also go on to say, quote, determining which legal standard applies is as easy as it sounds. For example, in a case where the state possessed but failed to disclose an allegedly exculpatory social media post, the Idaho Supreme Court held Brady was the correct standard. But in a different case, when the state destroyed or deleted an allegedly exculpatory social media post, the court held that Youngblood applied.

[00:30:25] Here, Brady applies because the defense alleges the state failed to disclose author of standard operating procedures. Youngblood does not apply because the defense has not alleged that the state lost or destroyed author of standard operating procedures. Because Brady applies rather than Youngblood, whether the state acted in good faith or bad faith is irrelevant. Thus, the defense's motion, which rests entirely on its faulty accusations of bad faith, fails from the get-go. So let's talk about that. That was an awful lot of words. Many words. Many, many words.

[00:30:54] So what they're saying here is there are two cases which are similar but crucially different. And each one has slightly different rules as to how to apply it. So in one is the state had something that could potentially help us. We didn't get it. It still exists. Maybe they acted in bad faith.

[00:31:22] And it sounds like that would be a Brady situation. Is that correct? And Brady would actually be good or bad faith either way. Doesn't matter why you did it. Doesn't even matter. The defendant is entitled to this stuff. It could help him. The state didn't turn it over. That's bad. Youngblood says that, okay, what about if there's a case where the state has this information that would help the defendant and then they destroy it?

[00:31:52] They just get rid of it. Burn it down. Yes, they burn it down. And that actually requires bad faith in the part of the state. That's what it sounds like from what they're saying. So two different cases. Similar because in each the defense isn't getting some information it's entitled to. But different in the details as to whether or not the evidence still exists or whether or not it was destroyed.

[00:32:18] But what's funny is that then subsequently the state is saying, but actually we wish it was Youngblood because you guys can't prove bad faith even if you want to do. So they're saying it's Brady. You're incorrectly arguing Youngblood. But we wish it was Youngblood because then we could just kick this out the window even quicker. So that's kind of funny. They're saying that no reasonable quote, no reasonable reading of the record supports a finding of bad faith. They quote another case talking about how bad faith is a very high bar.

[00:32:49] They say, quote, there was no calculated effort to circumvent Brady. To circumvent Brady. The state disclosed to the court the records it had received regarding the bidding process. Then just two days after learning that the standard operating procedures themselves were inadvertently left out of the material provided for in-camera review. The state notified the defense and the court still six months before the trial. The state acted in good faith and there's no reasonable basis to conclude otherwise. End quote. What do you think of that?

[00:33:16] Yeah, this goes back to what we were saying earlier that they were notified of this months before the trial. So if this is, uh, if this SOP is something that they want to investigate and use to try to determine what maybe the lab didn't do what they said they usually do when they were, uh, doing their tests on this evidence, they have time to do those tests.

[00:33:42] Now, if this was turned over to them six days before the trial, maybe we have a different story. I don't know. But six months is an awful long time. And we'll get to this, but they actually bring up another case where something was turned over actually pretty close to trial where they were like, that still was considered okay in that circumstance. So, um, this is, this is, gosh, there's so much here.

[00:34:10] This is a situation where, um, they, they talk about how the defense cannot prove a Brady violation either. So they're saying Brady is what applies here. That's the standard. But then let's look at what Brady, what, what are the ingredients of a Brady violation? They cite State v. Hall. Um, they talk about how one evidence must be favorable to the accused. So it needs to be either exculpatory or impeaching.

[00:34:39] Can you explain what those two things are? Uh, so exculpatory evidence, that would be evidence that directly indicates that Kohlberger was innocent. Maybe it's evidence he was somewhere else, something of that nature. Impeaching evidence would be evidence that would, uh, impugn or cast doubt on the credibility of someone who is testifying or offering evidence against Kohlberger.

[00:35:09] So, one, evidence must be favorable to the accused by either being exculpatory or impeaching. Two, the evidence must be inadvertently or willfully suppressed by the state. Intent doesn't matter. It just has to happen. Three, prejudice must ensue. What the state here is arguing that the defense strikes out on all three of those things. They say that, um, these SOPs are not exculpatory, nor are they impeaching.

[00:35:38] So they're saying this doesn't matter. This is just authors telling us how they do the work. And IgG is literally not going to be in the trial. This, what matters is that his DNA matches the knife sheet. You know, like, one thing that kind of is important to remember is this is a bit of a rabbit hole we're falling down here. Like, we're getting very in the weeds of IgG, which is something that the state keeps contending and has contended from the beginning.

[00:36:06] That, you know, this is kind of a distraction from the fact his DNA matches the knife sheath. I mean, is that fair to say? That's fair to say. That's absolutely fair to say. It's fair to say that the defense wants to distract from elements of the case it finds damaging to them. And the fact that his DNA is found on the knife sheath is damaging to them. So let's not talk about that.

[00:36:34] Let's get into these kind of. It's minutiae. Kind of minutiae, yeah. I would say it's very much minutiae. But it's their job to do this. So, I mean, they got to do it. So here's the thing. Like, it is. You mentioned, like, you've been in an argument with someone. Sometimes you find yourself in an argument with someone and, like, there's a main point. There's a main thing that you're kind of trying to communicate with them about.

[00:36:57] And then suddenly you've, like, tumbled off a cliff and are, like, debating the finer points of some very specific thing that is only sort of marginally connected to the main point. That's what this reminds me of. Right. We're so in the weeds right now. So I just think that's important because just because something's getting a lot of play in the press and just because something is interesting does not make it important necessarily.

[00:37:24] And you have to kind of be able to, like, look and kind of get that overall context and overall perspective to kind of maintain that. Because when I find myself getting so deep into these, sometimes I'm just like, whoa, okay, like all this is going on. And then I'm like, wait a minute. This is kind of immaterial on some level. I mean, the defense wouldn't argue that, but I think that's sort of how this plays out.

[00:37:46] So what they're saying is, quote, in any event, the defense is wrong about the state's concession.

[00:37:55] The defense omitted from its motion in the beginning of the state's argument at the hearing, which demonstrates that the state maintained its position that none of the IgG information is relevant and that the state's references to the court's order referring to the in-camera order regarding the state to turn IgG information over to the court, not the disclosure order requiring the state to turn some of the IgG information over to the defense. End quote. They talk about, they kind of cite some hearings they were in where they're kind of, like, clarifying that.

[00:38:28] And they talk about how not only did the defense misread the transcript of those, but they also misread the state's motion for protective order and is saying that, you know, they say the defense is saying the state conceded in its motion that all information related to Othram's work was relevant because the state agreed to provide it.

[00:38:48] And the state argues that, quote, the state dedicated an entire section of the motion to explaining why rule 16b5 required only the disclosure of the scientific report and nothing else. So. Now, the next point, they talk about the suppression. So that was all about whether it's exculpatory or not or impeaching or not. Now we're on to suppression. They're saying.

[00:39:13] So there's like whether or not the prosecutor was intending to suppress this information. I don't know if intent matters. There's just just talking about this is what they say. Quote, while Othram standard operating procedures were inadvertently left out of the material presented in camera, the materials that were provided were sufficient to obtain a ruling from the court that the information Othram provided to ISP as part of the bidding process was not relevant to the case.

[00:39:38] So what they're saying here is this doesn't matter because all of the documents of this category, the documents related to the bidding process with ISP were ruled by the judge, including documents that mentioned the SOPs revealing their existence. And already found to be irrelevant. Already found to be irrelevant. The only one was the memorandum of understanding. That was the only one related to bidding that was, you know, that judged OK.

[00:40:07] Other ones that had to do with this, other ones that mentioned SOPs were thrown out. So. Yeah. And let's see. I guess here's something that jumps out at me. A quote. The defense was informed of the standard operating procedure six months before trial. The defense has not even attempted to articulate with any specificity how the standard operating procedures could make any difference in the jury's determination of guilt.

[00:40:36] And the state is not seeking to use the standard operating procedures or any of the IgG information at trial. End quote. So they're saying the defense got this six months before the trial. They haven't even explained why they think this would make a difference to the jury at all. And incidentally, we're not intending to bring any of this up in court. So. Yeah. They also cite thumb, the thumb case.

[00:41:03] And they talk about how that in that the Idaho Supreme Court quote found disclosure of a fingerprint report just one week before trial did not violate Brady because the defense attorney had enough time to review the report and use it to conclusions. If she sought to do so. End quote. That sounds really. That sounds like that sounds like a nightmare for that defense attorney. Yeah. I mean, that is really. That is really close to the start of trial.

[00:41:29] But what they're saying is, like, if that's OK, then this is definitely this should be fine. You'll be fine. Yeah, that sounds. That's a fingerprint report, which is I mean, I would imagine unless I'm totally off base here, I would imagine that would be pretty important and likely used. In a trial. And they've got a week to deal with it. In this case, six months to deal with something that's not going to come up in court. You'll probably you know, you probably survive that.

[00:41:58] So that's what they're saying. And then the third point, they talk about how the defense, quote, the defense has not shown prejudice and the law and logic dictate that the defense cannot show prejudice with respect to author and standard operating procedures. End quote. And the reason for that, the reason they're saying they can't possibly show prejudice is that IgG doesn't matter in this case. What they're saying is it's immaterial. It's. This is this is how they describe it.

[00:42:27] Quote, it is undisputed that IgG is simply a means to generate potential leads as to who DNA found at a crime scene may belong. If one of those leads proves fruitful, law enforcement can conduct a confirmatory test as to whether the DNA belongs to the suspect using an STR comparison. The strength of the evidence against the defendant in terms of DNA evidence depends upon the confirmatory report from the STR DNA analysis between the defendant's DNA and the DNA recovered from the crime scene.

[00:42:57] Here, the IgG information is even less material. If that is possible, then it would otherwise have been because the defense has not disclosed any experts or evidence to challenge the confirmatory STR comparison. The defense has disclosed an expert regarding an end quote. So, OK, we'll get in. We'll get into that in a minute.

[00:43:17] We'll get into that in a minute. We'll get into that in a minute. But, you know, but I think it's important to talk about all this, like legally speaking, because it just it can get it can get confusing otherwise. And I think it's important to for all of us to be empowered with some understanding of what everyone's saying, at least so we can interpret it better.

[00:43:46] Yeah. And I think, obviously, frankly, I'm a heck of a lot more interested in this bit about the defense going to claim that it was planted or what have you. But in deference to the defense, if we really want to try to come to a full understanding of this case and of how the defense intends to present its case, which we probably should. And in fairness, we want to hear both sides.

[00:44:11] Then we ought to try to sit down and hear the defense's point of view, hear what they think is important. And these filings that they're spending time on certainly indicate that they think these issues are important. And so if we want to understand the case, we want to understand the defense. We have to spend time in the weeds sometimes. Got to go in the weeds. So, yeah. So he kind of noted this.

[00:44:36] So this is what the state this is the state's characterization of what the defense is actually planning to do with DNA. Quote, instead of challenging the conclusion that the DNA on the knife sheath belonged to defendant, the defense's expert disclosures reveal that the defense plans to argue. The DNA on the knife sheath does not prove defendant was ever at the crime scene and the knife sheath itself could have been planted by the real perpetrator. End quote.

[00:45:05] So that's that's interesting. Because certainly one thing that could have been argued is there was a mistake in the test. It's not his DNA on there. They goofed it up. They goofed it up or the sample size was too small. Apparently, that's not the claim. Yeah.

[00:45:24] So I would be interested into, well, I guess initially, why would someone plant Kohlberger's DNA there? And I would be also interested, do they have a suspect in mind who they believe did the crimes?

[00:45:45] And can they come up with an explanation for why this other suspect would have a knife sheath with Kohlberger's DNA on it? Is there a connection between Kohlberger and whoever it is they believe did this crime? What is their theory? Right. If you kind of can conjure up a specific scenario, let's say you have a fall guy, you have a murder victim and you have the real perpetrator.

[00:46:08] Maybe the fall guy has maybe the real victim dumped the perpetrator and started dating the fall guy. So the perpetrator wants to kill the real victim, the victim, and then destroy the fall guy. So they steal something from the fall guy, plant it at the scene, kill the victim, and then it looks like the fall guy is the murderer. Right. That would be motive because you're out for revenge. This guy stole my girl. I'm going to kill her and frame him.

[00:46:37] So that's a scenario. I'm like, you know, I don't think anyone's arguing that here. Kohlberger does not seem to have any sort of. There's been a lot of media reports about possible loose connections to the victims, like something more of like he went to places where they worked or I've heard, you know, there's been rumors about social media contact, but really nothing concrete. So nobody seems to be alleging he is an ex-boyfriend of anyone or a current boyfriend of anyone or.

[00:47:02] So, yeah, I would be curious, taking their theory seriously, I would be curious why they believe the real perpetrator would select Kohlberger as their fall guy. I would be curious to hear how they believe the real perpetrator somehow gained access to the DNA of Mr. Kohlberger. And here's a question, too. It's interesting that they're.

[00:47:31] They were kind of very upset about one of the surviving roommates being able to testify about the bushy eyebrows, but they're also saying, oh, someone just came in totally unrelated to our guy and did this. So it's like. I don't know. It's kind of interesting. Like we don't want someone to say anything that makes it sound like it's our guy, but it's you know, but I'm sure it was someone else. Right. Someone else. Defense attorneys doing the job. Somebody else with bushy eyebrows. Now, here's here's the thing about this.

[00:48:00] What I'm curious about is, is the argument going to be. The way I see it, there's been a lot of speculation where people have said, well, you know, and people have said this without my understanding is any sort of real indication. So I think it's a level of speculation. But, you know, are they going to say the police planted it? And what I'm reading here from what the state is. And of course, we're getting this sort of secondhand because it's the state's description of what the defense, what they think the defense is here. It's hearsay. It's hearsay. Not really. Not really.

[00:48:30] But they're saying that they're not indicating anything about like a police conspiracy here. They're talking about the real perpetrator. It could have been planted by the real perpetrator. So that seems to suggest they believe the real perpetrator who they believe someone other than Kohlberger had access to Kohlberger's DNA and his knife sheath and intentionally left it as a crime scene in, I guess, what would be an attempt to implicate Mr. Kohlberger.

[00:48:59] Did he also inspire Mr. Kohlberger to go stargazing and running around with his with his car that night? I would also if I was trying to frame somebody, I might leave behind more stuff than just I believe the amount of DNA on this knife sheath was very small. Well, yeah. And it's I mean, it's just one thing. Right. Yeah. You know. Yeah. It's it seems my my my feeling. This is my personal opinion. So you can disregard it if you want.

[00:49:29] But my personal opinion is that without hearing more information and more evidence, which we may get at some point, who knows, that sounds extremely outlandish and far fetched. I would agree with that. But I would add an obvious point that sometimes things that are true sound outlandish when you hear them described in a certain way, because attorneys can describe things in a way to make them sound ridiculous.

[00:49:56] Maybe when the defense explains this theory, they will do so in a way that will make it seem more logical. So we shouldn't really come to too much of a conclusion other than to say, if face value, I have a lot of questions. Maybe the defense attorneys are prepared to answer them in the trial. That we always have to hold that possibility in our minds and hearts that that they will be able to do that. My prediction is that they will not.

[00:50:25] Because that's just what common sense would have me believe. But it's also possible that there's a common sense explanation that they're going to provide. So I think we have to be open to that. Many things sound stupid or outlandish or hard to believe. We don't have all the facts. Yeah. But also sometimes things are what they appear to be. That is very true. I'd actually say they often are. That is also very true. I concede I'm skeptical too.

[00:50:55] But I think in the interest of fairness, we should keep an open mind and see what is presented in the trial itself. Ultimately, all the speculation on the Internet, all the speculation in our minds, all the speculation everywhere in all of our true crime hearts is not worth anything compared to what is actually put on in trial. That's why when I see we've run into this in the Delphi murders case.

[00:51:52] If we're going to bring up something that's really plausible, then more power to them because that's what it's all about. So I think that's important to remember. I think it's interesting to talk about this. I think it's good to talk about this. I think discussion in true crime has a good purpose and raising awareness of just how the legal process works and what the different considerations are is good. But ultimately, it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be borne out or matter terribly if things turn out to be different at trial.

[00:52:21] So let's see. We've kind of gotten through the state's discussion. They talk about, quote, the defense erroneously asserts prejudice on the basis that it will not be able to use the standard operating procedures to cross-examine the state's expert witness, David Middleman, CEO of Othram. But the state disclosed Dr. Middleman only as a rebuttal witness to respond to the two IGG experts the defense initially disclosed.

[00:52:49] Now that the defense has decided not to call their IGG experts, the state has no need to call Dr. Middleman, end quote. You mentioned this earlier. The SOP, the standard operating procedures could be called in to sort of make sure Othram did what it was supposed to do in this. And that's a very good point. But what they're contending here, what the state's contending here is we only were going to bring any of that up in response to the IGG witnesses of the defense. It sounds like they're no longer on the table.

[00:53:18] So we don't need to rebut things that are not going to be happening anymore. So middleman's gone. So, yeah, I think this is what they said, quote, even if Othram failed to follow every standard operating procedure, that does not change the facts that the IGG merely pointed law enforcement toward defendant as a potential owner of the DNA on the knife sheath or that the unchallenged confirmatory SCR comparison showed the DNA on the knife sheath matched defendant. End quote.

[00:53:46] And apparently even the defense is conceding that the DNA on that knife sheath matches the defendant. Yes, we all agree. You know, you know that meme of the like two guys shaking hands like and it's like people post like, you know, like text over one of them to show different sides of an issue agreeing. It's like that. But for defense and prosecution in this case, it's Brian Kober, Kober's DNA on the knife sheath. We agree.

[00:54:11] Our disagreement is what is the relevance to the crime that was done with a knife? You know, is this a case where somebody dropped their knife sheath and left it behind at the scene and that is evidence of them perpetrating this horrible killing? Or is it a sign that somebody was trying to frame Koberger and committed the killing with his DNA on this knife sheath? So I think that's kind of, you know, that's what it comes down to.

[00:54:34] And if that's the case, and I think the state's contention that this all this argument about IgG is ultimately pointless is is is pretty salient. So. This is this is kind of how they they tie it all up. They write the Thompson writes, quote, the defense's factual allegations and legal arguments all fall flat. But perhaps the most perplexing portion of the defense's motion is the relief requested in the ultimate concession of immateriality.

[00:55:03] The defense seeks only the exclusion at trial of the IgG information, even though the state has consistently stated it does not plan to present the IgG information to the jury. This means the state finds itself in the unusual position of strongly disagreeing with the rationale for the defense's motion, but having no objection to the defense's requested relief. As the state has explained, as far back as the beginning of the litigation over the IgG and as recently as this competing motion in limine filed contemporaneously with the defense's motion,

[00:55:32] the state does not intend to introduce the IgG information at trial other than to help the jury understand how the investigation progressed. They can do so by referring to the IgG as a generic tip without revealing the source or the substance of the tip. An investigator can simply testify that law enforcement received a tip and that based on the information received, law enforcement took the next step in the investigation. End quote. What do you make of that? I think it's a pretty compelling argument.

[00:56:02] What do you think of it? Yeah. I mean, like, we're kind of just back to square one after all this argument over IgG. And it's like, yes, just leave it out. Fine. You know, the defense is doing their jobs. They're having they want to challenge everything they want to bring up if anything's done improperly. All of that is is what they should be doing. State's doing what they should be doing, which is saying, like, what the heck are we even talking about anymore? Just throw it out. We never wanted this.

[00:56:35] You're acting like we want this in here and we don't. And, you know, and I think the state's contention about IgG is correct. I think it is functioning more like a tip. Again, if something was horribly done in the laboratory and they come back and they go to the Koberger residence and they find DNA that definitely does not match anything related to their profile of their suspect, then he wouldn't be in this situation. But that's that's not what happened. The DNA matched. The defense concludes that the DNA matched.

[00:57:04] So, you know, we're kind of we're kind of well past all this IgG wrangling at this point. I hope because. You know, it's just been going on for a long time. So this is what the conclusion of the state is. Quote, the state did not act in bad faith and the defense has failed to show the state violated its obligations under Brady. This court should deny the defense's motion to the extent that the defense requests sanctions against the state.

[00:57:31] Parties do seem to agree, however, that the IgG information should not be presented at trial. This court should thus enter an order excluding the IgG information at trial other than as a generic tip for the purpose of helping the jury understand how the investigation progressed. End quote. I imagine on some level, the state must be thinking also like, you know, IgG like you can kind of explain it. To a degree. But maybe if someone gets confused, it might throw things off.

[00:57:59] So what matters is let's keep the focus when we're talking about DNA. Let's keep the focus on the knife sheath and the knife sheath DNA that matches our defendant. I imagine they want that to be what the jury is thinking of when they're thinking of DNA in this case. They don't want to be explaining how IgG works and having the defense come in and say, but did you do it right? You know, like, no, streamline it. Whereas the defense, you know. They're going to they're going to contend something.

[00:58:26] So, I mean, as far as they should be concerned, if they're saying, yeah, that is his DNA, then the IgG got it right. And, you know, it's like, let's figure out how we can prove how this was actually a setup of, you know, a frame job rather than, you know, what it what it might look like on the surface. So, yeah, that's kind of where we are.

[00:58:48] It's kind of the I called it an unusual battle in the title of this episode because I just think it's kind of amusing that on some level there's been all this wrangling, all this hue and cry, all this, you know, vast badminton game back and forth of filings. And at the end, everybody's like, yeah, let's just get this get this IgG stuff out of here. I mean, the defense may be more asking for, like, you know, knocking the DNA out.

[00:59:16] Maybe they'll maybe they'll have some some plans for that later. But in the meantime, yeah, that's where it. So did any of that make any sense? Have I just been rambling? Well, I understood it all perfectly. Oh, thank you. You articulated it wonderfully. You prepared this while I went out to Arby's. Wait, you were at Arby's? Yes.

[00:59:40] Well, I'm hope you had a nice time at Arby's while I'm slaving over this IgG information. Everybody, the potato cakes are back. Guys, this is cruel and unusual punishment for an history major. OK, I'm. Every time I'm reading stuff, I'm like, I literally was like transcribed our episode with the founders of Ignite DNA. I was just trying to look over that to make sure I didn't say anything wrong. But I'm I'm sure I did.

[01:00:09] So if so, I apologize. The mistake is mine. Not Kevin's. And certainly not the Ignite DNA folks who were kind enough to do an interview with us. And. But, you know, it's it's interesting. And I think ultimately this was actually a lot about the legal standards of Brady versus young blood than even necessarily such a discussion on IgG. I have full faith in your accuracy and your comprehension.

[01:00:38] Does I have faith in Arby's potato cakes? I do want to mention that one of the many, many things we love about our audience is how smart you are and how you are willing to reach out if you disagree with us or feel that we've gone too far in any direction.

[01:00:56] And after our last Idaho episode, we actually got some emails from people who had some comments to share that they thought that we went a bit too far in some of our statements about autism. Yeah. So so what people were saying and correct me if I'm wrong, Kevin, but, you know, they were note some people agreed. And then some people with our criticisms of some of the defense's filings feeling it was offensive towards people with autism spectrum disorder.

[01:01:26] Others noted, hey, well, you know, having autism spectrum disorders can have people, you know, be viewed as, you know, antisocial or having, you know, it could cause problems for a defendant at trial. They should bringing it up. You know, it could it could affect the ability of the lawyers to interact with him in a meaningful way.

[01:01:47] And they felt that we understated that a bit. Some people suggested it was because perhaps our views are influenced by the fact that we love someone with autism. So it's fair. Just wanted to throw that out there for people to consider and evaluate. And we genuinely do appreciate it when people reach out. You don't have to agree with everything we say.

[01:02:13] No, you don't. We're not going to come to your house and yell at you again. I think when people state disagreements, I mean, that we have blind spots just like everyone else. And also we, you know, especially when we're hearing from subject matter experts or people with those lived experiences, it's helpful to say, hey, well, I went a little far on that one. Or no, I totally disagree. That's not exactly my experience. So I think, you know, that's something where we appreciate that.

[01:02:42] We appreciate people who are willing to list out this, reach out, educate us, debate, you know. Love it when you agree with us. It's also the murder sheet. Love it when you agree with us. But it's also great. I love having an intelligent, articulate audience. And part of that means is, is that often people don't agree with us. And that is fine because we're all adults. We can agree sometimes, disagree other times. And sometimes we can learn things, too. And sometimes we can learn things.

[01:03:12] We are limited by our experiences. We're limited by our, you know, our professional backgrounds. And so when, especially when it comes to complicated issues around, you know, subjects that. All too often, especially on the Internet, sometimes in discussions of true crime, sometimes in other discussions, many other discussions. It's perceived that if someone says, oh, I disagree with you, that it's like picking a fight or it's some sort of insult. And that's just part of life. Sometimes people agree. Sometimes they disagree.

[01:03:43] Not a big deal. Yeah, I think it's just more important that everyone, you know, we all talk to each other like adults and respectfully. And that's, to me, more important than people having the same exact opinion as me because that would be pretty boring in life if that's what happened. And, you know, or also we're not always right. You know, we're going to overstate things. We're going to be influenced by our own personal opinion sometimes. And in this case, you know, it kind of got me thinking with the issue of ASD as it intersects with the criminal justice system. Autism spectrum disorder.

[01:04:12] Yeah, I feel like having jurors be educated about what that entails and what those symptoms could look like, how that could affect behavior, how that could affect behavior in a courtroom, how that could affect behavior when possibly testifying or just sitting there.

[01:04:31] You know, I think that kind of, I mean, I think, I mean, autism diagnoses have risen and that's largely due to just diagnoses becoming more accurate and the kind of definition expanding, frankly, you know, in recent years. But I think so more people may know someone with autism, but that doesn't mean everyone on the jury will. And also, as people have pointed out, a lot of things in society can be stacked and biased against individuals with autism.

[01:05:01] So, you know, people might look at someone who's having trouble making eye contact and saying, look, he looks like he's guilty because he's not looking at us in the eye or he's not looking at this guy in the eye. And that's not fair because that's that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It's just, you know, that that can happen with with individuals with autism. So having experts to explain that and just raising awareness about that, I think, is helpful.

[01:05:23] And also just trying to push out the scourge of overly looking into body language when we're talking about things on true crime, because that is just the bane of my I do not need some tick tocker telling me this guy looks fidgety. It's like, guess what? I probably look fidgety when I'm standing in line at the frigging target. It doesn't mean I murdered somebody. Jeez. But it does. We have. We've. But it does reveal other things about you. Interesting. Like I got. I was so scared to make that joke. I was like stumbling over my words. That also reveals something about us.

[01:05:53] That was embarrassing for you. Yeah. It reveals that you're inarticulate. As you can see, even I and I disagree with each other. Yeah. Yeah. I actually agree. I think you're very articulate. I just I like to tease you when you when you walk right into it. But anyways, thanks, everyone, for listening. We'll be covering more Idaho filings as they come out. And, you know, interesting case to get into.

[01:06:19] And hopefully you enjoy and, you know, let us know questions, thoughts, all that good stuff. And is there anything else that we wanted to get into? I think that's it. All right. Well, we're recording this on St. Patrick's Day. You're probably going to be listening to it on the following day. But for everyone else. St. Patrick's Boxing Day. What? OK. I understand what you mean, but no. And but yeah, happy St. Patrick's Day. But have a great one. Bye. Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet.

[01:06:47] If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail.com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities. If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet.

[01:07:14] If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support. Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[01:07:38] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience, as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening. Before we go, we just wanted to say another few words about VIA. This is really a wonderful product.

[01:08:07] I think it's really helped both of us get a lot better rest. VIA is pretty much, I guess you'd say, the only lifestyle hemp brand out there. So what does that mean? It means that they're all about crafting different products to elicit different moods. Kevin and I really like their non-THC CBD products. Specifically, Zen really helps me fall asleep. Some Zen can really just kind of help me get more into that state where I can relax and fall asleep pretty easily. And they've been such a wonderful support to us. They're a longtime sponsor.

[01:08:37] We really love working with them, and they really make this show possible. I'm going to say this. You may not realize this, but when you support our sponsors, you're supporting us, and it kind of makes it possible for us to do this show. So if you or one of your loved ones is interested in trying some of this stuff, you're going to get a great deal. It's very high quality, high value. Anya, if I want to get this discount you speak of, what do I do? Okay, if you're 21 and older, head to VIAHemp.com and use the code MSHEET to receive 15% off.

[01:09:07] And if you're new to VIA, get a free gift of your choice. That's V-I-I-A, hemp.com, and use code MSHEET at checkout. Spell the code. M-S-H-E-E-T. And after you purchase, they're going to ask you, hey, where did you hear about us? Say the murder sheet because then it lets them know that our ads are effective, and it really helps us out. So, Anya, before we let people go, I wanted to talk again about the Silver Linings Handbook.

[01:09:35] And more specifically, I want to talk about Jason Blair because certainly there have been times when something happens and we don't know what to do. We're just out here rubbing two sticks together, and we need to turn to somebody for advice. I'm sure everybody's had that experience. We need to turn to somebody for advice. And one of the people we turn to most often is Jason Blair. And he's always been there for us. He's always willing to give you time. He's always willing to give you great advice.

[01:10:05] And so now what's wonderful is that everybody within the Sound of My Voice has access to his insights and his compassion and his advice because you can find all of that on his podcast. Yeah, this podcast is a bit like being able to sort of sit down and sort of hear some interesting insights. I always feel inspired by it.

[01:10:26] He's had on some really incredible guests recently, and they've had just such like heartbreaking, real conversations with people like Jim Schmidt, who his daughter Gabby Petito was murdered. Jim just came across just as such a real and empathetic and wonderful human being. He was even given one of Jason's friends kind of told him recently about some abuse she had suffered. Jim was giving advice. I mean, it was really incredible. I'm thinking of Kimberly Loring. Her sister went missing in Montana.

[01:10:55] It's another case involving a Native woman. So raising awareness about that, talking to the woman who lost her father, who was a Los Angeles Police Department detective. He was murdered so he couldn't testify at a robbery trial. Just like awful stuff. But ultimately, really focusing on the compassion and allowing people the space to tell their stories. I think Jason shines as an interviewer because he has that natural empathy and curiosity, too.

[01:11:22] Whenever I'm thinking of a question like, oh, I hope they get into this, he's asking it two seconds later. So it's a really enjoyable listening experience. And I feel like whenever we listen to it, you and I end up discussing some deep stuff like religion or what kind of positivity we want to share with the world. So I think if you're looking for that and you're looking to have those kind of thought-provoking conversations in your life, this is the show for you. 100%.

[01:11:47] So I would just say that if you're interested, subscribe to The Silver Linings Handbook wherever you listen to podcasts.