What Audacious Claim With Kohberger’s Defense Make Next?
In a recent episode of the “Hidden Killers” podcast, Tony Brueski is joined by Deborah Ahrens, a former public defender and Professor of Law at Seattle U School of Law. They continue their intriguing conversation about the latest developments in the case of Brian Berger, who stands accused of murder. At the center of their discussion lies an audacious claim from the defense: the DNA found on the knife sheath, crucial evidence in the case, was allegedly planted by the police.
“Is this part of the process? Is this part of essentially trying to campaign for the potential jurors in Moscow?” Brueski asks Ahrens, trying to understand the logic behind this unexpected defense tactic. Brueski seems skeptical, especially considering the volume of evidence that seems to stack against Berger.
Ahrens proposes that part of the defense’s strategy could indeed be an attempt to plant seeds of doubt in the potential jurors’ minds. However, she elaborates on the increasing skepticism towards supposed scientific inquiries into guilt, as seen in shows like CSI or Forensic Files. Many methodologies, like footprint or bite mark analysis, have been debunked as “junk science” over the years, but DNA is a notable exception.
“DNA is not junk science. The actual underlying science behind DNA matching is really strong, robust, peer reviewed. You can’t do much with it,” Ahrens asserts. Therefore, if the defense wishes to challenge the DNA evidence, they must argue around the ideas of contamination or planting of evidence, rather than refuting the match itself.
Brueski finds the accusation that the police would plant evidence puzzling. After all, why would they try to frame Berger, an average Joe accused of a heinous crime, without any seeming motive? He asks Ahrens if such claims must be substantiated in court or if the defense could simply abandon this line if it proves unconvincing.
Ahrens explains that the defense could question the manner in which the DNA was transferred to the knife sheath, without necessarily having to claim it was deliberately planted. She suggests the defense could argue that the evidence may have been transferred accidentally or, more controversially, purposefully planted due to the public pressure on the police to resolve a horrifying quadruple murder case that has left the Idaho community in fear.
Brueski then brings up another intriguing aspect of the case: Berger’s alleged alibi. He reads a statement from Ann Taylor, Berger’s attorney, that suggests there is evidence corroborating Berger’s presence at a location other than the crime scene. However, the use of the word “may” in the statement appears suspicious to Brueski.
In response, Ahrens clarifies that the defense is under no obligation to disclose all of its strategies, as long as they inform the court if they plan to claim insanity or present an alibi. She speculates that Berger might attempt to establish an alibi through the cross-examination of state witnesses rather than presenting his own, independent alibi witnesses.
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
“Is this part of the process? Is this part of essentially trying to campaign for the potential jurors in Moscow?” Brueski asks Ahrens, trying to understand the logic behind this unexpected defense tactic. Brueski seems skeptical, especially considering the volume of evidence that seems to stack against Berger.
Ahrens proposes that part of the defense’s strategy could indeed be an attempt to plant seeds of doubt in the potential jurors’ minds. However, she elaborates on the increasing skepticism towards supposed scientific inquiries into guilt, as seen in shows like CSI or Forensic Files. Many methodologies, like footprint or bite mark analysis, have been debunked as “junk science” over the years, but DNA is a notable exception.
“DNA is not junk science. The actual underlying science behind DNA matching is really strong, robust, peer reviewed. You can’t do much with it,” Ahrens asserts. Therefore, if the defense wishes to challenge the DNA evidence, they must argue around the ideas of contamination or planting of evidence, rather than refuting the match itself.
Brueski finds the accusation that the police would plant evidence puzzling. After all, why would they try to frame Berger, an average Joe accused of a heinous crime, without any seeming motive? He asks Ahrens if such claims must be substantiated in court or if the defense could simply abandon this line if it proves unconvincing.
Ahrens explains that the defense could question the manner in which the DNA was transferred to the knife sheath, without necessarily having to claim it was deliberately planted. She suggests the defense could argue that the evidence may have been transferred accidentally or, more controversially, purposefully planted due to the public pressure on the police to resolve a horrifying quadruple murder case that has left the Idaho community in fear.
Brueski then brings up another intriguing aspect of the case: Berger’s alleged alibi. He reads a statement from Ann Taylor, Berger’s attorney, that suggests there is evidence corroborating Berger’s presence at a location other than the crime scene. However, the use of the word “may” in the statement appears suspicious to Brueski.
In response, Ahrens clarifies that the defense is under no obligation to disclose all of its strategies, as long as they inform the court if they plan to claim insanity or present an alibi. She speculates that Berger might attempt to establish an alibi through the cross-examination of state witnesses rather than presenting his own, independent alibi witnesses.
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
