[00:22.620 --> 00:29.660]  Well, hey everybody. I made it through day eight. Another day in the bag in the trial
[00:29.660 --> 00:36.920]  of the state of Indiana versus Richard Allen over here in Delphi. Today was a little bit
[00:36.920 --> 00:41.820]  more of the same. We built on some of the stuff that we've already heard, filled in
[00:41.820 --> 00:47.780]  some themes. So our big picture breakdown for today. We heard from another eyewitness
[00:47.780 --> 00:54.520]  and we got yet another inconsistent description of Bridge Guy. We heard from the forensic
[00:54.520 --> 01:02.540]  pathologist today and as well as the Idaho State Police Officer who conducted a more
[01:02.540 --> 01:12.180]  extensive evaluation of the cell phone extractions from Liberty German's cell phone. And with
[01:12.180 --> 01:19.300]  of these witnesses, they cleared up quite a few questions, but then they also raised
[01:19.300 --> 01:28.960]  quite a few others. So on balance, still left us with some confusion to resolve.
[01:29.720 --> 01:34.400]  And then the big news of the day for me, Judge Gold denied my motion. I admit I am
[01:34.400 --> 01:39.980]  surprised that she even bothered to deal with it, but she did. So I will be evaluating
[01:39.980 --> 01:46.880]  the next steps in the coming days. Well, let's get right into the details, guys.
[01:48.320 --> 01:56.440]  Let me start by... the way that my morning started today, I was blessed by an angel
[01:56.440 --> 02:04.720]  from heaven. I was there at the courthouse steps at 2.30. I made it there and I was
[02:04.720 --> 02:09.060]  walking up the little ramp that we all hang out on with my chair and my blanket and
[02:09.060 --> 02:15.400]  my big heavy down quilt and everything. And a woman greeted me on the ramp and introduced
[02:15.400 --> 02:24.400]  herself as my line sitter. Hallelujah. I'm not going to dox her out her publicly
[02:24.400 --> 02:31.360]  or anything like that. But she was absolutely just a perfect blessing at exactly the
[02:31.360 --> 02:37.340]  right time. And so because of that, I was able to go back to my car and get
[02:37.340 --> 02:43.220]  a few hours of extra sleep in my car. And I can't tell you what a difference it made.
[02:44.360 --> 02:49.440]  You wouldn't think that the difference between, you know, three hours of sleep at night
[02:49.440 --> 02:55.460]  and six hours of sleep would be monumental, but it absolutely was. It just kept me going
[02:55.460 --> 03:01.120]  through the day so much better. So thank you so much. Those of you who are helping
[03:01.120 --> 03:06.200]  to organize line sitting, there's a group of folks on Reddit that got together and
[03:06.200 --> 03:12.880]  just kind of took this initiative. I'm so thankful, really grateful for the help.
[03:14.140 --> 03:20.180]  You guys are amazing. I'm kind of a little bit overwhelmed that people are volunteering
[03:20.180 --> 03:26.080]  to do that on their own accord. So that helped me a lot with getting through the
[03:26.080 --> 03:30.220]  day. And as a result, I do have quite a few notes to get through, although I'll
[03:30.220 --> 03:35.980]  just do my notepad count a little bit early today. I only made it maybe a little
[03:35.980 --> 03:42.360]  bit more than halfway through one legal pad, maybe about, you can't really see
[03:42.360 --> 03:46.840]  that very well, maybe about two thirds of the way through one legal pad. So not
[03:46.840 --> 03:52.100]  quite as much as the last couple days have been. In part, that's because so
[03:52.100 --> 03:57.300]  much of the testimony was during the forensic pathologist's examination. And
[03:57.300 --> 04:03.080]  so we dealt with a lot of photographs and not so much oral testimony to be
[04:03.080 --> 04:09.760]  taken down, but taking in a lot of visual information. But I do want to
[04:09.760 --> 04:15.300]  back up and start at the beginning. So I'll start at the very beginning. Those
[04:15.300 --> 04:21.920]  of you on the Bradley Rossi style watch. Today he was in a navy blue
[04:21.920 --> 04:31.280]  suit. It had a light gray or light blue like square check pattern and a
[04:31.280 --> 04:36.480]  lovely mustard like mustard colored kind of gold colored somewhere in
[04:36.480 --> 04:43.460]  between those two tie over a white shirt. It was quite striking. We
[04:43.460 --> 04:48.660]  started today with Sarah Carbaugh. She was our first witness of the
[04:48.660 --> 04:52.480]  morning when she came into the courtroom. The very first thing that
[04:52.480 --> 04:57.720]  I noticed is she had absolutely beautiful hair, beautiful long
[04:57.720 --> 05:01.980]  strawberry hair down to her waist, strawberry blonde hair down to her
[05:01.980 --> 05:05.380]  waist, just a just a small barrette kind of holding it, you know, like
[05:05.380 --> 05:09.580]  here, a little bit a little bit out of her eyes. It was it was
[05:09.580 --> 05:12.920]  absolutely glorious. I could have I could have looked at that hair all
[05:12.920 --> 05:17.960]  day. So Sarah, Sarah Carbaugh was one of the eyewitnesses to Bridge
[05:17.960 --> 05:22.740]  Guy. She's the one who Mr. Baldwin described in his opening statement as
[05:22.740 --> 05:28.640]  the bookend to Betsy Blair. Betsy Blair would have seen Mr. Mr.
[05:29.180 --> 05:34.080]  Allen before or Mr. Allen, you know, if assuming Mr. Allen is
[05:34.080 --> 05:37.580]  Bridge Guy, she would have seen the Bridge Guy before the time of the
[05:37.580 --> 05:42.940]  murders and the abduction. And then Sarah Carbaugh would have seen him
[05:42.940 --> 05:50.280]  after those events took place. So her testimony went as follows. She is
[05:50.280 --> 05:55.040]  Delphi resident describes herself as as local as you can get. She
[05:55.040 --> 05:58.920]  lives close to the Monon High Bridge Trail. She's familiar with it
[05:58.920 --> 06:02.640]  and visited it daily or nearly daily during this time, because
[06:02.640 --> 06:06.780]  she has dogs, and it was a good place to walk. She would also
[06:06.780 --> 06:10.480]  often pass the trail entrance that Mears entrance that we've
[06:10.480 --> 06:14.980]  talked about on the road. So she always used the Mears entrance
[06:14.980 --> 06:20.560]  when she would visit the trails. She was not one she described
[06:20.560 --> 06:23.600]  herself as like not not one who was big for crossing the bridge.
[06:23.620 --> 06:28.660]  She did do it a few times when she was 16. She chickened out
[06:28.660 --> 06:33.080]  the last time that she did it. And as an adult is not not inclined
[06:33.080 --> 06:40.880]  to cross the railroad bridge. She was on direct a very open and
[06:41.680 --> 06:47.720]  somewhat enthusiastic witness. She she would she seemed to have
[06:47.720 --> 06:52.340]  been prepped. And I say this because she would deliver her
[06:52.340 --> 06:56.740]  answers to the jury. So the orientation of the courtroom,
[06:56.880 --> 07:01.840]  the witness to face the attorney, the attorney is
[07:01.840 --> 07:07.260]  typically either they tend to leave their their, their
[07:07.260 --> 07:10.320]  tables and move around a little bit, they stand at
[07:10.320 --> 07:12.340]  different points in the courtroom, but but typically in
[07:12.340 --> 07:16.240]  the middle middle ish of the courtroom. And so to face the
[07:16.240 --> 07:19.220]  attorney, the witness, it would be facing this one
[07:19.220 --> 07:22.240]  direction. And then the jury box is in the opposite
[07:22.240 --> 07:27.020]  direction. So Ms. Carbaugh was turning to listen to the
[07:27.020 --> 07:29.480]  prosecuting attorney with a question and then deliberately
[07:29.480 --> 07:32.740]  turning to address her answer to the question, direct her
[07:32.740 --> 07:36.300]  answer to the jury. So this is a technique that a lot of
[07:36.300 --> 07:38.940]  law enforcement officers do, they're kind of trained to do
[07:38.940 --> 07:42.900]  that. People have kind of mixed opinions about its
[07:42.900 --> 07:45.280]  effectiveness or whether it's whether it's a good idea,
[07:45.280 --> 07:48.520]  particularly with with lay witnesses, because it does
[07:48.520 --> 07:55.240]  sometimes come across as a bit unnatural. The jury is
[07:55.240 --> 07:58.720]  certainly the audience for your testimony, but the the
[07:58.720 --> 08:01.260]  communication is going on with the prosecuting attorney.
[08:01.260 --> 08:03.600]  And so for most people, it's just your normal
[08:03.600 --> 08:06.300]  conversation, you would be talking with the person who's
[08:06.300 --> 08:09.420]  asking you the question. And so that's what typically seems
[08:09.420 --> 08:13.660]  natural for a witness is to is to address the attorney who
[08:13.660 --> 08:20.160]  is questioning. So she did have that, that mannerism, I
[08:20.160 --> 08:23.200]  guess that did tend to suggest to me that she has
[08:23.200 --> 08:29.040]  probably been prepped for her testimony. She did not know
[08:29.040 --> 08:31.160]  Abby or Libby, she had learned that they were
[08:31.160 --> 08:34.180]  missing the night, the same day that they had gone
[08:34.180 --> 08:37.480]  missing. She got an amber alert and was aware of it that
[08:37.480 --> 08:41.940]  way. So she was in the area of the trail that day, but
[08:41.940 --> 08:44.900]  she did not go out on the trail. What she described is
[08:44.900 --> 08:49.400]  that she was driving by in her car to try to scope out
[08:49.400 --> 08:52.380]  how busy the trail was by just seeing how many people
[08:52.380 --> 08:55.760]  were parked in the parking lot. So I'm she didn't go
[08:55.760 --> 08:58.000]  into detail. I'm assuming she was just sort of going
[08:58.000 --> 09:00.300]  about her business that day, but she would pass the
[09:00.300 --> 09:04.300]  trail periodically and check to see how busy it was
[09:04.300 --> 09:07.460]  in the parking lot. So she said she passed by it
[09:07.460 --> 09:10.200]  three or four times. It was a beautiful day and she
[09:10.200 --> 09:13.220]  was driving around. And every time she went by
[09:13.220 --> 09:16.440]  there, there were vehicles there. So the last time
[09:16.440 --> 09:20.040]  she went she went by, she indicated it was about
[09:20.040 --> 09:23.180]  four o'clock. And she saw a group of people at
[09:23.180 --> 09:26.280]  the entrance, including a girl with bright blonde
[09:26.280 --> 09:29.440]  hair and a hot pink t-shirt, a hot pink shirt.
[09:29.760 --> 09:34.800]  They were kind of talking in a group and seemed
[09:34.800 --> 09:38.180]  very stressed. And at this point in time, she
[09:38.180 --> 09:42.120]  was heading east on that 300 North Road that
[09:42.120 --> 09:45.420]  we've heard about that goes that goes back
[09:45.420 --> 09:49.800]  towards her home. So she continued on past the
[09:49.800 --> 09:54.500]  trailhead and saw a man a little bit further
[09:54.500 --> 09:57.780]  up who she described as being covered in mud
[09:57.780 --> 10:00.960]  and blood walking on the side of the road. So
[10:00.960 --> 10:03.460]  he was on the north side of the road walking
[10:03.460 --> 10:07.560]  back towards Main Street. So it would be
[10:07.560 --> 10:11.880]  westbound on on 300 North. And she was then
[10:11.880 --> 10:14.720]  on the other lane, the opposite lane going
[10:14.720 --> 10:17.040]  eastbound. So he was on the driver's side,
[10:17.040 --> 10:18.780]  meaning like she didn't have to, you know,
[10:18.860 --> 10:20.680]  look through her passenger window to see him
[10:20.680 --> 10:23.140]  or anything like that. He was right there in
[10:23.140 --> 10:28.600]  her line of sight as she was driving by. She
[10:28.600 --> 10:31.960]  describes that she looked at him and he
[10:31.960 --> 10:35.260]  didn't make eye contact with her. She
[10:35.260 --> 10:37.520]  indicated she had been driving about 30 or
[10:37.520 --> 10:40.200]  35 miles an hour, but slowed down slightly
[10:40.200 --> 10:43.380]  when she saw him just just to go past. She
[10:43.380 --> 10:46.440]  didn't recognize him. She did not know Abby
[10:46.440 --> 10:47.980]  and Libby were missing at this point in
[10:47.980 --> 10:49.660]  time. So nothing, you know, she wasn't like
[10:49.660 --> 10:53.600]  on the lookout or anything like that. She
[10:53.600 --> 10:55.900]  designated all of these areas on a map that
[10:55.900 --> 11:00.720]  has been introduced as an exhibit. So then
[11:00.720 --> 11:03.080]  it was when she got home that she learned
[11:03.080 --> 11:07.060]  that Abby and Libby were missing. Later on,
[11:07.060 --> 11:09.520]  she saw a photo of the bridge guy on the
[11:09.520 --> 11:12.920]  news and indicated that she had another one
[11:12.920 --> 11:16.340]  of these recognitions. She recognized it
[11:16.340 --> 11:19.040]  instantly as the man that she had seen
[11:19.040 --> 11:21.580]  walking covered in mud and blood on the
[11:21.580 --> 11:26.660]  road. So her description of him was that
[11:26.660 --> 11:28.740]  again, he was covered in mud and blood. His
[11:28.740 --> 11:31.560]  demeanor was was way off. And she offers
[11:31.560 --> 11:34.540]  to demonstrate this. I took this as an
[11:34.540 --> 11:36.520]  indication that she was she was kind of
[11:36.520 --> 11:39.020]  an eager witness. Like she was she was
[11:39.020 --> 11:42.960]  eager to show the jury what what she she
[11:42.960 --> 11:45.640]  knew. She wanted to demonstrate what she
[11:45.640 --> 11:47.720]  meant by his demeanor while he was
[11:47.720 --> 11:49.460]  walking like she didn't have the words to
[11:49.460 --> 11:51.600]  describe it. So she was eager to kind of
[11:51.600 --> 11:53.180]  get out of her chair and do that
[11:53.180 --> 11:56.080]  demonstration. The prosecutor Stacey Deener
[11:56.080 --> 11:58.400]  was was handling this questioning actually
[11:58.400 --> 12:00.240]  stopped her and paused her said, you know,
[12:00.340 --> 12:04.140]  wait a minute, we'll get to that. She
[12:04.140 --> 12:07.480]  said that his demeanor was sketchy, that
[12:07.480 --> 12:09.920]  he didn't look at her. His head was
[12:09.920 --> 12:14.360]  down. And she said that his pants were
[12:14.360 --> 12:17.680]  covered in mud. The part below his knees
[12:17.680 --> 12:20.800]  were covered in blood and blood splatters.
[12:21.640 --> 12:24.360]  She said she thought he had fallen
[12:24.360 --> 12:26.440]  down off the off the cliff or something
[12:26.440 --> 12:28.440]  like that, like falling onto the rocks.
[12:28.820 --> 12:31.560]  She she, you know, just I think was
[12:31.560 --> 12:33.880]  trying to maybe mentally explain to
[12:33.880 --> 12:36.520]  herself what she what she was seeing. And
[12:36.520 --> 12:38.480]  that was that was kind of her her
[12:38.480 --> 12:39.980]  guess. Maybe he had fallen down the
[12:40.520 --> 12:45.260]  And hurt himself. She put the time at
[12:45.260 --> 12:47.880]  about four to 430 because the sun was
[12:47.880 --> 12:50.100]  in the process of setting at that
[12:50.100 --> 12:52.420]  point in time. And so she had seen a
[12:52.420 --> 12:55.000]  kind of orange hue in the sky behind
[12:55.000 --> 12:58.800]  him when she passed him. So she did
[12:58.800 --> 13:01.620]  contact police about three weeks later.
[13:01.940 --> 13:06.160]  She was questioned about why the delay
[13:06.160 --> 13:08.200]  why did she wait to contact police
[13:08.200 --> 13:10.960]  and her explanation was that she had
[13:10.960 --> 13:13.420]  been very traumatized by this murder.
[13:13.960 --> 13:17.900]  She is a big over thinker and that
[13:17.900 --> 13:20.180]  basically not acting was a combination
[13:20.180 --> 13:23.040]  of her both being upset and being, I
[13:23.040 --> 13:26.220]  think a little unsure about herself
[13:26.220 --> 13:29.500]  about, you know, just her role in
[13:29.500 --> 13:31.800]  it. Stepping stepping forward. Is
[13:31.800 --> 13:33.600]  that, you know, is that appropriate?
[13:33.700 --> 13:35.160]  Does she have the type of information
[13:35.160 --> 13:36.720]  that's that's worth bringing forward?
[13:36.720 --> 13:39.220]  Ultimately, three, about three weeks
[13:39.220 --> 13:42.640]  later, there was an officer at the
[13:42.640 --> 13:44.640]  Mears entrance, they had set up a
[13:44.640 --> 13:46.920]  blockade and apparently at several
[13:46.920 --> 13:50.140]  several parts around around the
[13:50.140 --> 13:51.680]  trails they had they had set up
[13:51.680 --> 13:53.140]  blockades, they were stopping people
[13:53.140 --> 13:55.820]  that were coming by and asking them
[13:55.820 --> 13:57.920]  for tips, they were looking for tips.
[13:58.420 --> 14:00.880]  So she decided at that at that time
[14:00.880 --> 14:03.340]  that it was time it was time for her
[14:03.340 --> 14:05.180]  to be brave and tell somebody what
[14:05.180 --> 14:13.050]  she had seen. She was familiar with
[14:13.050 --> 14:14.630]  the Hoosier, the Hoosier Harvest Store
[14:14.630 --> 14:15.890]  knew where it was. She said she
[14:15.890 --> 14:17.050]  didn't actually know there was a
[14:17.050 --> 14:18.430]  store back there, but she knew the
[14:18.430 --> 14:21.150]  general vicinity. And so the police
[14:21.150 --> 14:23.590]  had shown her the still shots from
[14:23.590 --> 14:26.630]  the camera of what they believed to
[14:26.630 --> 14:28.470]  be her car. And so she was able
[14:28.470 --> 14:31.050]  to identify it as her car, based on
[14:31.050 --> 14:33.950]  the timestamp of that video, the
[14:33.950 --> 14:37.570]  time put it at 3.56pm. And so
[14:37.570 --> 14:39.850]  that tended to corroborate her
[14:39.850 --> 14:42.750]  timeline of when she when she
[14:42.750 --> 14:44.110]  says she saw this man.
[14:46.250 --> 14:48.350]  That was pretty much all that she
[14:48.350 --> 14:50.130]  all that she had on on direct
[14:50.130 --> 14:52.850]  examination. So Mr. Baldwin handled
[14:52.850 --> 14:58.950]  across. And Mr. Baldwin, he he is
[14:58.950 --> 15:00.850]  not he's not an aggressive, he's not
[15:00.850 --> 15:03.470]  a mean lawyer. None of them really
[15:03.470 --> 15:05.310]  are but just in terms of being a
[15:05.310 --> 15:07.390]  little bit more in your face. The
[15:07.390 --> 15:08.870]  most in your face of all of them
[15:08.870 --> 15:12.850]  is is Mr. Rosie by far he's he will
[15:12.850 --> 15:15.330]  smack you with the facts that that
[15:15.330 --> 15:16.630]  he's that he's using for his
[15:16.630 --> 15:20.270]  confrontation. Mr. Baldwin is is
[15:20.270 --> 15:24.330]  much more he handles them with
[15:24.330 --> 15:26.790]  with kid gloves much more like he
[15:26.790 --> 15:29.230]  will get the information out but he
[15:29.230 --> 15:31.750]  seems to try to be fairly gentle
[15:31.750 --> 15:34.890]  about it. But that said fairly
[15:34.890 --> 15:37.810]  instantly. We saw a demeanor shift
[15:37.810 --> 15:40.150]  from from his car by when we went
[15:40.150 --> 15:43.210]  to cross examination. She she
[15:43.210 --> 15:45.290]  began to get defensive pretty much
[15:45.290 --> 15:49.150]  right off the bat. So the first
[15:49.150 --> 15:51.470]  thing that Mr. Baldwin asked was
[15:51.470 --> 15:54.950]  that in your first interview with
[15:54.950 --> 15:58.750]  police you said mud 11 times but
[15:58.750 --> 16:01.750]  you never said the word blood. Her
[16:01.750 --> 16:03.370]  answer was that she believed that
[16:03.370 --> 16:07.230]  she did say blood but it didn't law
[16:07.230 --> 16:08.830]  enforcement didn't pick that up. It
[16:08.830 --> 16:10.190]  didn't get picked up in the
[16:10.190 --> 16:12.630]  interview. She said she described
[16:12.630 --> 16:14.250]  that she was nervous and that she
[16:14.250 --> 16:17.830]  mumbled and that she rambled. And
[16:18.370 --> 16:19.970]  she said she recalled the point
[16:19.970 --> 16:21.250]  where she stood up in the
[16:21.250 --> 16:23.350]  interviews and that's the point
[16:23.350 --> 16:24.810]  where she described the man as
[16:24.810 --> 16:28.170]  being covered in mud and blood. But
[16:28.170 --> 16:30.610]  according to Mr. Baldwin the word
[16:30.610 --> 16:32.430]  blood does not appear anywhere in
[16:32.430 --> 16:35.470]  the transcript. So her memory of
[16:35.470 --> 16:37.750]  what she said seems to not be
[16:37.750 --> 16:40.630]  substantiated by the testimony that
[16:40.630 --> 16:42.450]  or not testimony it was it was a
[16:42.450 --> 16:44.870]  statement but by the transcript of
[16:44.870 --> 16:46.710]  her of her statement that she gave
[16:46.710 --> 16:50.770]  to police. Then a couple weeks
[16:50.770 --> 16:52.390]  later according according to Mr.
[16:52.550 --> 16:54.130]  Baldwin she gave another interview
[16:54.130 --> 16:56.510]  and that time she used the word
[16:56.510 --> 17:00.190]  mud 13 times but again never said
[17:00.190 --> 17:03.010]  the word blood. On this occasion she
[17:03.010 --> 17:04.250]  said that she thought that she
[17:04.250 --> 17:06.750]  did and that there is an hour to
[17:06.750 --> 17:08.690]  an hour and a half portion of the
[17:08.690 --> 17:11.310]  interview that was missing that is
[17:11.310 --> 17:14.230]  just gone. So wasn't clear is this
[17:14.230 --> 17:17.110]  part of the whole interviews getting
[17:17.110 --> 17:20.230]  lost issue that that we've heard
[17:20.230 --> 17:23.250]  quite a bit about from the
[17:23.250 --> 17:25.250]  defense as you know part of just
[17:25.250 --> 17:27.010]  some of some of the failings in
[17:27.010 --> 17:28.790]  this case by by law enforcement the
[17:28.790 --> 17:31.870]  failure to preserve those early day
[17:31.870 --> 17:35.670]  interviews really wasn't clear wasn't
[17:35.670 --> 17:38.190]  clear how or whether that was
[17:38.190 --> 17:39.830]  reflected in the transcript if that
[17:39.830 --> 17:43.290]  was something that Mr. Baldwin knew.
[17:46.050 --> 17:48.790]  That it just we did not we did
[17:48.790 --> 17:50.890]  not really get a crystal clear
[17:50.890 --> 17:53.110]  answer to that. The bottom line
[17:53.110 --> 17:55.390]  according to Mr. Baldwin is that in
[17:55.390 --> 17:57.930]  any event the transcript at no point
[17:57.930 --> 17:59.610]  included the word blood.
[18:01.210 --> 18:03.710]  So Ms. Carbot would she was
[18:03.710 --> 18:05.290]  contesting this she was quite
[18:05.290 --> 18:06.590]  certain she had used the word
[18:06.590 --> 18:09.510]  blood so Mr. Baldwin gave her the
[18:09.510 --> 18:11.370]  transcript she sat there and she
[18:11.370 --> 18:12.930]  flipped through every page of that
[18:12.930 --> 18:15.950]  transcript and the jury I noticed
[18:15.950 --> 18:18.310]  was watching quite attentively while
[18:18.310 --> 18:20.050]  she did that they they they were
[18:20.050 --> 18:22.370]  watching her page through the
[18:22.370 --> 18:25.730]  transcript. Ultimately she says she
[18:25.730 --> 18:27.470]  did not she doesn't see the word
[18:27.470 --> 18:29.650]  in the transcript but she does
[18:29.650 --> 18:31.710]  remember telling the officer and
[18:31.710 --> 18:33.410]  marking it on an image.
[18:35.690 --> 18:37.210]  So then there was a third
[18:37.210 --> 18:39.450]  interview that she gave that was
[18:39.450 --> 18:42.170]  approximately two years later where
[18:42.170 --> 18:44.690]  in this one she never according
[18:44.690 --> 18:46.790]  to Mr. Baldwin said the word
[18:46.790 --> 18:49.790]  muddy she only described him as
[18:49.790 --> 18:50.850]  being bloody.
[18:53.990 --> 18:56.730]  She explained this by saying that
[18:56.730 --> 18:58.450]  at this point in time it was two
[18:58.450 --> 19:00.950]  years later and so the important
[19:00.950 --> 19:03.950]  details were just as simple the
[19:03.950 --> 19:05.470]  simple point that she saw a bridge
[19:05.470 --> 19:07.550]  guy walking covered in mud and
[19:07.550 --> 19:09.930]  blood. Mr. Baldwin's like but you
[19:09.930 --> 19:12.930]  never said mud the third time. She
[19:12.930 --> 19:15.150]  says I believe I said mud and
[19:15.150 --> 19:17.350]  blood and that her description has
[19:17.350 --> 19:21.270]  always been the same. So then now
[19:21.270 --> 19:23.910]  again Mr. Baldwin goes ahead and
[19:23.910 --> 19:25.970]  gives her the the transcript of
[19:25.970 --> 19:28.010]  interview to refresh her
[19:28.010 --> 19:32.490]  recollection and she was flipping
[19:32.490 --> 19:35.210]  through the transcript again jury
[19:35.210 --> 19:36.410]  jury is kind of watching this
[19:36.410 --> 19:38.230]  happening she's flipping through
[19:38.230 --> 19:40.910]  the transcript and ultimately
[19:40.910 --> 19:42.870]  indicates no she did not see the
[19:42.870 --> 19:44.750]  word mud in that transcript.
[19:46.710 --> 19:48.270]  So at this point Mr. Baldwin asked
[19:48.270 --> 19:49.750]  her is I guess it's not true
[19:49.750 --> 19:51.170]  that your description has always
[19:51.170 --> 19:53.850]  been consistent and she conceded
[19:53.850 --> 19:56.570]  I guess not. She did not seem
[19:56.570 --> 19:58.710]  happy about making this making
[19:58.710 --> 20:01.450]  this concession. My impression
[20:01.910 --> 20:03.150]  when they were going through
[20:03.150 --> 20:04.530]  this kind of back and forth
[20:04.530 --> 20:06.050]  about did you say it during the
[20:06.050 --> 20:09.390]  interview. Mr. Baldwin's clearly
[20:10.190 --> 20:11.930]  clearly taking the position she
[20:11.930 --> 20:13.690]  gave inconsistent statements. She
[20:13.690 --> 20:17.030]  is clearly believes that she
[20:17.030 --> 20:18.590]  gave consistent statements every
[20:18.590 --> 20:21.050]  time. It might might just the
[20:21.050 --> 20:22.650]  impression that I had gotten was
[20:22.650 --> 20:24.370]  that she had anticipated that
[20:24.370 --> 20:25.730]  she was going to be challenged
[20:25.730 --> 20:26.930]  on this. It could have been
[20:26.930 --> 20:29.750]  through preparation. It's not
[20:29.750 --> 20:32.510]  uncommon or unethical. Some
[20:32.510 --> 20:33.350]  people think it's like
[20:33.350 --> 20:34.390]  unethical to talk to the
[20:34.390 --> 20:35.730]  witnesses before trial. No it's
[20:35.730 --> 20:37.990]  not. It's perfectly common and
[20:37.990 --> 20:40.130]  perfectly normal to prepare them
[20:40.130 --> 20:41.330]  for what the process is going
[20:41.330 --> 20:43.170]  to look like and the types of
[20:43.170 --> 20:44.610]  questions they might anticipate
[20:44.610 --> 20:45.670]  being asked on cross
[20:45.670 --> 20:47.810]  examination. So if Ms. Deener
[20:47.810 --> 20:49.270]  had sat down with her to
[20:49.270 --> 20:50.130]  prepare her for her
[20:50.130 --> 20:51.630]  testimony she may have mentioned
[20:51.630 --> 20:53.190]  you know Mr. Baldwin's going to
[20:53.190 --> 20:54.890]  say you know you were you were
[20:54.890 --> 20:56.150]  inconsistent or whatever.
[20:58.350 --> 20:59.850]  Either because it's reflected in
[20:59.850 --> 21:01.390]  the transcript or you know a
[21:01.390 --> 21:02.870]  bare minimum because Mr. Baldwin
[21:02.870 --> 21:04.830]  had said that in his opening
[21:04.830 --> 21:11.670]  statement. Mr. Baldwin then
[21:11.670 --> 21:14.870]  approached her with apparently
[21:14.870 --> 21:16.990]  she had described the man as
[21:16.990 --> 21:18.950]  looking like a hog had been
[21:18.950 --> 21:20.470]  slaughtered that that's how much
[21:20.470 --> 21:23.830]  blood that she saw. She said
[21:23.830 --> 21:26.270]  she seemed kind of surprised at
[21:26.270 --> 21:27.510]  that at that description like
[21:27.510 --> 21:28.650]  maybe she didn't remember giving
[21:28.650 --> 21:30.190]  that description. She said I've
[21:30.190 --> 21:32.030]  never seen a hog slaughtered so
[21:32.030 --> 21:33.930]  I don't know how accurate a
[21:33.930 --> 21:37.370]  description that would be. She
[21:37.370 --> 21:39.770]  was getting a little bit a
[21:39.770 --> 21:46.440]  little bit her energy level was
[21:46.440 --> 21:48.580]  going up. She was getting a
[21:48.580 --> 21:50.240]  little bit combative. She was
[21:50.240 --> 21:51.720]  going a little bit from
[21:51.720 --> 21:54.160]  defensive to a little bit more.
[21:55.240 --> 21:56.980]  She was becoming angry and
[21:56.980 --> 21:59.960]  became visible at this point
[22:01.680 --> 22:04.960]  really notably because she
[22:07.960 --> 22:10.060]  not shouted you know but but
[22:10.060 --> 22:13.160]  raised her voice. I didn't
[22:13.160 --> 22:14.580]  think he was a murderer at the
[22:14.580 --> 22:16.760]  time or like why would I think
[22:16.760 --> 22:17.920]  he was a murderer at the time
[22:17.920 --> 22:18.980]  I had no reason to think he
[22:18.980 --> 22:20.160]  was a murderer at the time it
[22:20.160 --> 22:21.700]  was something along those lines
[22:24.440 --> 22:26.440]  kind of kind of seeming to be
[22:26.440 --> 22:30.900]  angry at Mr. Baldwin. And then
[22:30.900 --> 22:32.900]  Mr. Baldwin asked well did
[22:32.900 --> 22:34.760]  you stop to help him seeing a
[22:34.760 --> 22:35.980]  man all covered in blood on
[22:35.980 --> 22:37.520]  the road. At this point she
[22:37.520 --> 22:39.620]  got quite angry and she said
[22:39.620 --> 22:41.100]  no I didn't stop to help him
[22:41.100 --> 22:43.260]  she's like I didn't stop to
[22:43.260 --> 22:44.520]  help him I'm a woman I'm not
[22:44.520 --> 22:45.880]  going to stop and help some
[22:46.500 --> 22:53.020]  man. Mr. Baldwin then
[22:53.020 --> 22:54.700]  confronted her with apparently
[22:54.700 --> 22:56.660]  in the first interview she had
[22:56.660 --> 23:00.320]  described the coat as tan later
[23:00.320 --> 23:02.960]  it became blue. She agreed
[23:02.960 --> 23:05.100]  that calling the coat tan was
[23:05.100 --> 23:07.300]  inaccurate she her explanation
[23:07.300 --> 23:09.060]  for this was that the coat
[23:09.060 --> 23:11.020]  was always blue but she said
[23:11.020 --> 23:12.580]  tan and she thinks the reason
[23:12.580 --> 23:14.600]  why she said tan was just
[23:14.600 --> 23:17.360]  because he was so covered in
[23:17.360 --> 23:22.380]  blood. She said specifically
[23:22.380 --> 23:24.280]  Mr. Baldwin was suggesting
[23:24.880 --> 23:26.620]  you change your story after
[23:26.620 --> 23:27.760]  you saw the photo of Bridge
[23:27.760 --> 23:29.400]  Guy. You know basically you
[23:29.400 --> 23:30.820]  got contaminated by the photo
[23:30.820 --> 23:32.400]  this is certainly a theme the
[23:32.400 --> 23:33.540]  defense has raised with the
[23:33.540 --> 23:35.160]  other eyewitnesses he's raising
[23:35.160 --> 23:37.200]  it again with her. She said
[23:37.200 --> 23:40.200]  that she specifically told the
[23:40.200 --> 23:41.880]  police she didn't want to be
[23:41.880 --> 23:43.300]  contaminated by the photo she
[23:43.300 --> 23:44.580]  didn't want to be shown the
[23:44.580 --> 23:45.900]  photo I believe it might have
[23:45.900 --> 23:47.160]  even been reflected in the
[23:47.160 --> 23:49.040]  transcript that she made that
[23:49.040 --> 23:51.760]  made that comment. But it was
[23:51.760 --> 23:52.840]  everywhere she said it was
[23:52.840 --> 23:54.100]  everywhere all over town it
[23:54.100 --> 23:55.340]  was very hard not to see it
[23:55.340 --> 23:57.100]  was posted like it's still up
[23:57.100 --> 23:58.800]  apparently in in some places.
[24:00.000 --> 24:02.260]  So you know Bridge Guy was
[24:02.260 --> 24:06.420]  was was pervasive. And according
[24:06.420 --> 24:08.120]  to Mr. Baldwin despite her not
[24:08.120 --> 24:09.900]  wanting to see the photo of
[24:09.900 --> 24:11.420]  the bridge guy the police
[24:11.420 --> 24:13.100]  officer during this interview
[24:13.100 --> 24:15.200]  put it on the table and left
[24:15.200 --> 24:16.660]  it in front of her for the
[24:16.660 --> 24:17.880]  entire for the entire
[24:17.880 --> 24:19.640]  interview. She didn't remember
[24:19.640 --> 24:21.360]  if that happened so we didn't
[24:21.360 --> 24:23.060]  get specific confirmation of
[24:25.020 --> 24:29.400]  that. She she she was
[24:29.400 --> 24:32.240]  defensive. She did not like the
[24:32.240 --> 24:33.740]  suggestion that her
[24:33.740 --> 24:35.520]  description was not accurate
[24:35.520 --> 24:37.520]  or that her description had
[24:37.520 --> 24:39.280]  changed. She was very
[24:39.280 --> 24:40.500]  insistent her story has
[24:40.500 --> 24:42.760]  never changed. She was
[24:42.760 --> 24:44.180]  describing herself as being
[24:44.180 --> 24:46.080]  very anxious as a result of
[24:46.080 --> 24:47.140]  all of this she didn't want
[24:47.140 --> 24:49.480]  anything to do with it. You
[24:49.480 --> 24:50.940]  know she's basically here as a
[24:50.940 --> 24:52.320]  witness because she has to be
[24:52.320 --> 24:53.880]  because she's under subpoena.
[24:58.110 --> 24:59.810]  In the second interview
[24:59.810 --> 25:01.830]  according to Mr. Baldwin she
[25:01.830 --> 25:04.050]  said that he was wearing a
[25:04.050 --> 25:05.890]  brown sweater and had a
[25:05.890 --> 25:09.190]  little curl to his hair. So
[25:09.190 --> 25:10.950]  she said that there might
[25:10.950 --> 25:12.030]  have been a little hair
[25:12.030 --> 25:13.610]  sticking out. It was a
[25:13.610 --> 25:14.950]  little hard to say whether
[25:14.950 --> 25:16.930]  it was curly or not but just
[25:16.930 --> 25:18.190]  her recollection was that
[25:18.190 --> 25:19.290]  there was a little hair
[25:19.290 --> 25:21.290]  sticking out. Mr. Baldwin
[25:21.290 --> 25:22.450]  then said during this
[25:22.450 --> 25:24.150]  interview you said he had
[25:24.150 --> 25:27.330]  effeminate eyes. She seemed
[25:27.330 --> 25:29.210]  to be quite offended by
[25:29.210 --> 25:31.790]  this. Not quite clear to
[25:31.790 --> 25:33.610]  me why that would be but
[25:33.610 --> 25:35.590]  she was very emphatic. No
[25:35.590 --> 25:38.390]  I never said that. Mr.
[25:38.530 --> 25:39.550]  Baldwin asked would it
[25:39.550 --> 25:40.610]  help to review the
[25:40.610 --> 25:42.850]  transcript to refresh your
[25:42.850 --> 25:44.230]  recollection and she said
[25:44.230 --> 25:52.830]  no I'm good. He indicated
[25:52.830 --> 25:54.190]  she seemed to have said
[25:54.190 --> 25:55.650]  in the interview that she
[25:55.650 --> 25:57.190]  didn't have her phone with
[25:57.190 --> 26:00.750]  her on the stand. She was
[26:00.750 --> 26:02.850]  kind of dismissive of that.
[26:02.930 --> 26:03.970]  No of course I had my
[26:03.970 --> 26:05.590]  phone. I would not have
[26:05.590 --> 26:06.590]  left. I don't feel like I
[26:06.590 --> 26:07.850]  would have left the house
[26:07.850 --> 26:09.850]  and drove all around and
[26:09.850 --> 26:11.950]  everything without my phone.
[26:12.330 --> 26:15.410]  And also my phone pinged
[26:15.410 --> 26:16.830]  off of the tower. That's
[26:16.830 --> 26:18.010]  part of how they were able
[26:18.010 --> 26:20.570]  to contact me and I know
[26:20.570 --> 26:22.010]  they went into the tower
[26:22.010 --> 26:23.770]  nearby and pulled off
[26:23.770 --> 26:25.410]  every person who pinged off
[26:25.410 --> 26:29.550]  that tower. This was a
[26:29.550 --> 26:30.850]  question to me. Did she
[26:30.850 --> 26:32.350]  open the door to geofence
[26:32.350 --> 26:35.430]  data now? The geofence
[26:35.430 --> 26:36.650]  data has been excluded
[26:36.650 --> 26:40.110]  from court. Not for a
[26:40.110 --> 26:41.270]  particularly good reason
[26:41.270 --> 26:42.910]  as far as I can tell. The
[26:42.910 --> 26:44.410]  reason is because it's
[26:44.410 --> 26:46.790]  unreliable and the gist
[26:46.790 --> 26:48.110]  of why it's unreliable
[26:48.110 --> 26:49.730]  is because the tower
[26:49.730 --> 26:51.750]  coverage is essentially the
[26:51.750 --> 26:53.190]  entire town of Delphi.
[26:56.250 --> 26:57.870]  Geofence data is far more
[26:57.870 --> 26:59.890]  than tower data. So I'm
[26:59.890 --> 27:01.670]  not quite sure that I
[27:01.670 --> 27:02.390]  understand this
[27:02.390 --> 27:04.050]  rationale. Geofence data
[27:04.970 --> 27:06.630]  typically goes to a
[27:06.630 --> 27:08.430]  provider. Like if you're
[27:08.430 --> 27:10.110]  on an iPhone, it's
[27:10.110 --> 27:10.970]  going to go to Apple. If
[27:10.970 --> 27:11.650]  you're on an Android,
[27:11.790 --> 27:12.710]  it's going to go to
[27:12.710 --> 27:13.910]  Google. And what they
[27:13.910 --> 27:14.970]  do is they pull the
[27:17.130 --> 27:18.550]  location information, the
[27:18.550 --> 27:19.590]  location services
[27:19.590 --> 27:21.470]  information off of all
[27:21.470 --> 27:22.410]  phones that have it
[27:22.410 --> 27:24.210]  enabled, that they carry,
[27:24.770 --> 27:26.090]  and they're able to
[27:26.090 --> 27:27.290]  sort through all of that
[27:27.290 --> 27:28.830]  data for a particular
[27:28.830 --> 27:30.990]  geographic area and then
[27:30.990 --> 27:33.210]  provide to police these
[27:33.210 --> 27:36.190]  are the cell users
[27:38.670 --> 27:40.730]  who can be placed,
[27:40.870 --> 27:42.050]  their location services
[27:42.050 --> 27:43.230]  on their phone, place
[27:43.230 --> 27:44.150]  them within this
[27:44.150 --> 27:45.890]  particular geographic area.
[27:47.170 --> 27:49.150]  So tower data can be
[27:49.150 --> 27:50.290]  a source of that, but
[27:50.290 --> 27:52.250]  GPS data is also,
[27:52.270 --> 27:53.390]  it's maybe even a
[27:53.390 --> 27:54.750]  bigger source for
[27:54.750 --> 27:57.570]  geofence data. So I
[27:57.570 --> 27:59.170]  really don't, I don't
[27:59.170 --> 28:00.270]  understand this ruling.
[28:00.390 --> 28:01.390]  It's another one that
[28:01.390 --> 28:02.930]  to me is quite highly
[28:02.930 --> 28:05.070]  problematic, but I
[28:05.070 --> 28:06.210]  don't, I wasn't at
[28:06.210 --> 28:07.530]  that, the evidentiary
[28:07.530 --> 28:08.630]  hearing where kind of
[28:08.630 --> 28:09.390]  all of this stuff was
[28:09.390 --> 28:10.790]  hashed out. So I
[28:10.790 --> 28:12.090]  don't have a lot of
[28:12.090 --> 28:13.090]  information about what,
[28:13.190 --> 28:14.170]  if any, details they
[28:14.170 --> 28:15.330]  had about Mr. Allen's
[28:15.330 --> 28:17.870]  location and whether the
[28:17.870 --> 28:19.870]  exclusion of geofence
[28:19.870 --> 28:21.410]  data information is
[28:21.410 --> 28:22.610]  likely to be considered
[28:22.610 --> 28:23.990]  harmless error on appeal
[28:23.990 --> 28:25.350]  or not. I think it's
[28:25.350 --> 28:26.530]  certainly an error,
[28:26.590 --> 28:28.190]  but it's not necessarily
[28:28.190 --> 28:29.750]  one that is going to
[28:29.750 --> 28:30.690]  get you a new trial
[28:30.690 --> 28:31.830]  if it's not something
[28:31.830 --> 28:34.290]  that is relatively
[28:34.290 --> 28:39.650]  exculpatory. So that
[28:39.650 --> 28:41.530]  was an information
[28:41.530 --> 28:43.170]  that she had volunteered
[28:43.170 --> 28:45.170]  that instantly raised
[28:45.170 --> 28:46.330]  a flag for me.
[28:46.330 --> 28:47.270]  Boy, I think we may
[28:47.270 --> 28:48.090]  have opened the door
[28:48.090 --> 28:49.470]  to the geofence.
[28:50.750 --> 28:52.290]  By this point, the
[28:52.290 --> 28:53.010]  witness is quite
[28:53.010 --> 28:55.810]  hostile. She is very
[28:55.810 --> 28:56.950]  angry. She is not
[28:56.950 --> 28:59.110]  happy with Mr. Baldwin
[28:59.110 --> 29:04.630]  at all. He wanted to
[29:04.630 --> 29:06.050]  kind of pin down
[29:06.050 --> 29:08.070]  exactly her ability
[29:08.070 --> 29:09.430]  to make the observation
[29:09.430 --> 29:10.570]  of the man that she
[29:10.570 --> 29:12.590]  described. So they
[29:12.590 --> 29:13.470]  nailed down the speed.
[29:13.590 --> 29:14.510]  She said she was going
[29:14.510 --> 29:16.670]  about 35 miles an hour.
[29:16.670 --> 29:17.410]  She wasn't looking
[29:17.410 --> 29:18.430]  at the gauge, but
[29:18.430 --> 29:19.450]  obviously she wasn't
[29:19.450 --> 29:21.510]  speeding. And she said
[29:21.510 --> 29:23.650]  she saw him for about
[29:23.650 --> 29:26.350]  30 seconds, which seems
[29:26.350 --> 29:27.990]  like quite a long time
[29:27.990 --> 29:29.630]  for driving on a road
[29:29.630 --> 29:31.270]  and passing somebody.
[29:31.890 --> 29:33.450]  I don't think I don't
[29:33.450 --> 29:35.170]  think that's probably
[29:35.170 --> 29:36.270]  just my opinion,
[29:36.470 --> 29:37.830]  probably a very reliable
[29:37.830 --> 29:41.630]  estimate. I mean,
[29:41.690 --> 29:42.390]  that that would that
[29:42.390 --> 29:44.150]  would be 30, 30 seconds
[29:44.150 --> 29:45.170]  is a long time.
[29:45.170 --> 29:45.910]  And she's driving
[29:45.910 --> 29:47.350]  at 35 miles an hour.
[29:47.350 --> 29:48.590]  That you would be creeping,
[29:48.610 --> 29:50.130]  creeping, creeping past.
[29:50.210 --> 29:51.050]  And that's just not
[29:51.050 --> 29:51.790]  consistent with what
[29:51.790 --> 29:52.450]  she described.
[29:54.310 --> 29:55.430]  She described the man
[29:55.430 --> 29:56.610]  as in his 30s,
[29:56.610 --> 29:57.830]  40s or 50s.
[29:57.830 --> 29:58.930]  She said he caught
[29:58.930 --> 30:00.110]  her attention because
[30:00.110 --> 30:01.090]  he was suspicious.
[30:01.090 --> 30:02.210]  He was wearing
[30:02.210 --> 30:04.350]  extreme layers for the day,
[30:04.350 --> 30:05.130]  for the conditions
[30:05.130 --> 30:05.890]  of the day,
[30:05.930 --> 30:06.930]  which is consistent
[30:06.930 --> 30:08.210]  with the descriptions
[30:08.210 --> 30:10.490]  we heard from the other
[30:10.490 --> 30:11.710]  witnesses about Bridge
[30:11.710 --> 30:12.670]  Guy as well.
[30:12.810 --> 30:14.530]  And just by being
[30:14.530 --> 30:15.770]  being very weird.
[30:15.770 --> 30:18.910]  So Mr. Baldwin pushed back
[30:18.910 --> 30:21.370]  on this 30 seconds to see him,
[30:21.410 --> 30:22.310]  you know, this opportunity
[30:22.310 --> 30:23.550]  to see him for 30 seconds
[30:23.550 --> 30:24.650]  because in her deposition
[30:24.650 --> 30:26.330]  she had said a mere instant.
[30:26.790 --> 30:29.170]  And she said that's
[30:29.170 --> 30:31.750]  yeah, that's 30 seconds to her
[30:31.750 --> 30:33.490]  is is would be consistent
[30:33.490 --> 30:34.950]  with being a mere instant.
[30:37.770 --> 30:39.930]  And then she she said
[30:39.930 --> 30:43.030]  that she didn't have time.
[30:43.230 --> 30:43.950]  You know, it wasn't like
[30:43.950 --> 30:47.290]  an extended staring at him,
[30:47.410 --> 30:48.050]  inspection of him
[30:48.050 --> 30:48.970]  or anything like that.
[30:49.070 --> 30:50.070]  She says she didn't have time
[30:50.070 --> 30:51.130]  to count freckles
[30:51.130 --> 30:52.510]  or to see if he had
[30:52.510 --> 30:53.470]  effeminate eyes.
[30:53.650 --> 30:55.890]  She was still she was still unhappy
[30:56.430 --> 30:58.230]  about that effeminate eyes
[30:58.230 --> 31:00.550]  comment and had to had to kind
[31:00.550 --> 31:01.330]  of throw it back at him.
[31:01.370 --> 31:02.910]  So once again,
[31:03.550 --> 31:05.590]  Mr. Baldwin pushed back on that,
[31:05.850 --> 31:07.910]  asked her, sure, you want to review
[31:07.910 --> 31:09.610]  the transcript to try
[31:09.610 --> 31:10.790]  to refresh your recollection.
[31:10.870 --> 31:12.610]  And once again, no, I'm good.
[31:13.430 --> 31:14.770]  I just don't feel like
[31:14.770 --> 31:15.610]  that probably went
[31:15.610 --> 31:17.230]  over well with the jury.
[31:17.530 --> 31:21.090]  I just I can't imagine it did.
[31:21.650 --> 31:25.170]  It came across as probably
[31:26.350 --> 31:28.350]  knowing that she was
[31:28.350 --> 31:29.310]  it was going to be wrong,
[31:29.410 --> 31:31.050]  that it was going to be in there
[31:31.050 --> 31:32.830]  and that then she was going
[31:32.830 --> 31:34.850]  to be confronted with
[31:34.850 --> 31:36.390]  having to reconcile.
[31:36.750 --> 31:38.650]  She apparently did say this thing
[31:38.650 --> 31:39.850]  during her deposition,
[31:39.930 --> 31:42.390]  but it's it just it really
[31:42.610 --> 31:43.390]  it really did.
[31:43.390 --> 31:45.710]  It seemed like it offended her
[31:45.710 --> 31:47.170]  that the idea
[31:47.170 --> 31:48.370]  that that she would say that
[31:48.370 --> 31:50.730]  that he had effeminate eyes.
[31:53.490 --> 31:54.710]  So then Ms.
[31:54.810 --> 31:55.550]  Diener did redirect.
[31:55.630 --> 31:56.930]  That was that was all across.
[31:57.350 --> 31:59.210]  She she went back to redirect.
[32:00.430 --> 32:01.970]  Ms. Diener clarified that
[32:01.970 --> 32:02.990]  in the interview
[32:02.990 --> 32:04.050]  where she talked about him
[32:04.050 --> 32:05.190]  wearing a tan sweater,
[32:05.190 --> 32:07.470]  that it was more of a hoodie
[32:08.110 --> 32:10.070]  that she had she had intended
[32:10.070 --> 32:11.750]  to describe like a pullover
[32:12.390 --> 32:14.850]  pullover sweater that had a tan hood.
[32:15.950 --> 32:17.650]  She had seen a hat on him
[32:17.650 --> 32:19.210]  and it seemed like an odd hat.
[32:19.250 --> 32:21.290]  She said she's a baseball cap girl.
[32:21.990 --> 32:23.130]  That's pretty much
[32:23.130 --> 32:24.630]  what she's familiar with.
[32:24.930 --> 32:26.110]  And so the man
[32:26.110 --> 32:27.770]  the man that she saw
[32:27.770 --> 32:29.770]  his hat had a bill,
[32:31.970 --> 32:34.390]  but she could have mistaken
[32:34.390 --> 32:37.830]  his hair for part of part of the hat,
[32:37.910 --> 32:39.050]  like she could have
[32:39.050 --> 32:41.590]  just maybe not not seen
[32:41.590 --> 32:43.070]  exactly where where one
[32:43.070 --> 32:44.770]  ended and the other one end.
[32:45.210 --> 32:46.470]  She other one began.
[32:46.570 --> 32:48.770]  She said she saw the bottom of his ears,
[32:48.770 --> 32:50.930]  but he was he was hunched.
[32:50.930 --> 32:52.230]  And so she wasn't sure
[32:52.230 --> 32:54.970]  if perhaps maybe the hat was.
[32:56.630 --> 32:58.330]  Being being moved
[32:58.330 --> 33:00.610]  or just being being compressed
[33:00.610 --> 33:02.370]  or something, maybe being lifted.
[33:02.370 --> 33:03.830]  And that was part of what was
[33:03.830 --> 33:05.710]  making it look weird to her.
[33:06.470 --> 33:08.550]  She said his shoulders were hunched,
[33:08.550 --> 33:10.090]  his hands were in his pocket.
[33:11.290 --> 33:12.730]  His posture, she described,
[33:12.810 --> 33:14.370]  is just weird and sketchy.
[33:14.410 --> 33:16.230]  And when asked to draw,
[33:16.270 --> 33:17.050]  draw, you know,
[33:17.170 --> 33:18.810]  draw that out a little bit more,
[33:18.890 --> 33:19.770]  she said it was like
[33:19.770 --> 33:22.010]  he was kind of curled in on himself.
[33:22.010 --> 33:23.290]  And she sort of demonstrates
[33:23.290 --> 33:24.870]  like a very, you know,
[33:25.030 --> 33:27.030]  shoulders curled, curled forward
[33:27.030 --> 33:28.530]  kind of posture.
[33:31.110 --> 33:33.970]  She reiterated on redirect
[33:33.970 --> 33:36.070]  that she had been ID'd from a ping
[33:36.070 --> 33:38.530]  and that the police had checked
[33:38.530 --> 33:39.550]  all of the numbers.
[33:39.950 --> 33:41.130]  They and she only knew this
[33:41.130 --> 33:43.590]  because all of her family lives nearby.
[33:43.850 --> 33:46.490]  And she had talked to people
[33:46.490 --> 33:49.250]  on social media about how all of them
[33:49.250 --> 33:51.370]  had been pinged
[33:51.370 --> 33:53.310]  during during this investigation.
[33:53.310 --> 33:56.050]  And then one of the during one
[33:56.050 --> 33:56.830]  of either the first
[33:56.830 --> 33:58.110]  or the second interview,
[33:58.270 --> 34:00.510]  the officer had also said
[34:00.510 --> 34:02.690]  that her phone had been pinged.
[34:04.690 --> 34:06.570]  So, yeah, this
[34:07.130 --> 34:09.750]  this really seems like an open door to me
[34:10.870 --> 34:12.050]  because it's again,
[34:12.170 --> 34:13.810]  now it's just something that's out there
[34:13.810 --> 34:14.650]  and the jury is going
[34:14.650 --> 34:16.010]  to have questions about it.
[34:16.010 --> 34:17.590]  What does that mean about Mr. Allen?
[34:17.710 --> 34:18.750]  Did Mr. Allen also
[34:18.750 --> 34:20.150]  ping off of this tower?
[34:20.430 --> 34:21.290]  Because that's something
[34:21.290 --> 34:22.610]  that we would want to know
[34:23.210 --> 34:24.550]  if we want to know
[34:24.550 --> 34:25.990]  if he's bridge guy or not.
[34:27.490 --> 34:29.070]  If he did ping off the tower,
[34:29.330 --> 34:31.790]  it sounds like the issue is that
[34:31.790 --> 34:33.710]  that's not particularly helpful
[34:33.710 --> 34:35.510]  full information because it would just mean
[34:35.510 --> 34:37.990]  he's he's, you know, in Delphi.
[34:38.070 --> 34:39.050]  This is the same issue
[34:39.050 --> 34:40.010]  we're dealing with.
[34:40.050 --> 34:40.710]  If you're following
[34:40.710 --> 34:42.250]  Koberger out in Oregon
[34:42.250 --> 34:43.610]  or out in Idaho,
[34:44.050 --> 34:45.710]  I'm still a little sleep deprived,
[34:45.810 --> 34:48.270]  but not not quite as bad out in Idaho.
[34:50.270 --> 34:51.330]  It came up during
[34:51.330 --> 34:52.710]  the probable cause affidavit.
[34:52.910 --> 34:54.210]  He's his police are trying
[34:54.210 --> 34:55.290]  to ascribe locations
[34:55.290 --> 34:56.910]  to him based on pings.
[34:56.930 --> 35:00.450]  But these cell towers are very
[35:01.250 --> 35:02.850]  there's not very many of them.
[35:02.890 --> 35:04.330]  They're they're very spaced out.
[35:04.330 --> 35:05.810]  They don't have a lot of overlap,
[35:05.990 --> 35:08.370]  so they're not able to triangulate
[35:08.370 --> 35:09.510]  location very well.
[35:09.530 --> 35:10.470]  And that means a ping
[35:11.050 --> 35:13.130]  can only really, really put you
[35:13.130 --> 35:15.650]  in the the the radius
[35:15.650 --> 35:17.630]  of that particular
[35:17.630 --> 35:19.990]  the coverage of that particular tower.
[35:19.990 --> 35:21.550]  And the coverage can be
[35:21.550 --> 35:22.810]  it can be 10 miles.
[35:22.810 --> 35:23.890]  It can be 20 miles.
[35:23.890 --> 35:25.150]  It can be like 30 miles.
[35:25.170 --> 35:26.750]  Some of them can be quite large.
[35:26.750 --> 35:28.510]  So it's not a particularly
[35:28.510 --> 35:30.670]  precise piece of information
[35:30.670 --> 35:32.750]  if you just have a ping on a phone.
[35:35.310 --> 35:37.030]  During the second interview,
[35:37.110 --> 35:38.850]  she said she had noticed
[35:38.850 --> 35:41.390]  that a portion of the interview
[35:41.390 --> 35:43.870]  with the officer was missing.
[35:44.510 --> 35:47.230]  She said it was one to one and a half hours,
[35:47.250 --> 35:49.170]  and she saw this because she was
[35:49.170 --> 35:50.650]  reviewing her deposition
[35:50.650 --> 35:52.590]  in preparation for her testimony.
[35:52.950 --> 35:54.770]  This also seemed to confirm to me
[35:54.770 --> 35:55.770]  that there had been witness
[35:55.770 --> 35:57.350]  preparation that took place
[35:57.350 --> 35:59.730]  because that's pretty typical.
[36:00.470 --> 36:01.950]  What will happen is the prosecutor
[36:01.950 --> 36:03.090]  will bring the witness in
[36:03.090 --> 36:04.650]  if they've given prior statements
[36:04.650 --> 36:06.650]  or taken depositions
[36:06.650 --> 36:07.730]  or something like that.
[36:07.950 --> 36:09.990]  Maybe they gave a written statement to police.
[36:10.110 --> 36:11.670]  Anything like that that's on record,
[36:11.770 --> 36:13.870]  the prosecutor will give it to them
[36:13.870 --> 36:15.430]  so that they can review it
[36:15.430 --> 36:17.390]  and make sure that they remember
[36:17.390 --> 36:19.070]  what they said before
[36:19.070 --> 36:20.790]  before they go in to testify.
[36:27.030 --> 36:29.690]  So she reiterated that during that interview
[36:29.690 --> 36:31.790]  during the missing session
[36:31.790 --> 36:33.970]  is when she told the police officer
[36:33.970 --> 36:35.250]  about the mud and blood.
[36:35.250 --> 36:38.130]  She said she was provided a picture
[36:38.130 --> 36:40.190]  of the bridge guy that
[36:40.890 --> 36:43.290]  was already seen in the media
[36:43.290 --> 36:46.130]  and she had marked on that
[36:46.130 --> 36:47.370]  during the interview
[36:47.370 --> 36:49.610]  where she had seen
[36:49.610 --> 36:50.770]  where she had seen
[36:50.770 --> 36:52.050]  mud and blood on him.
[36:52.750 --> 36:54.130]  So that was published
[36:54.130 --> 36:55.510]  to the jury, this exhibit.
[36:56.470 --> 36:58.070]  She described it
[37:00.250 --> 37:02.490]  like we couldn't see the markings.
[37:02.550 --> 37:04.490]  Once again, this is a paper exhibit.
[37:04.490 --> 37:07.470]  It was provided to the jury with copies.
[37:08.490 --> 37:10.070]  One of the things that's really annoying
[37:10.070 --> 37:12.450]  is that they have an overhead projector
[37:12.450 --> 37:14.670]  there at the prosecutor's table.
[37:14.670 --> 37:16.950]  And I know this because
[37:16.950 --> 37:18.550]  when I stuck around at court
[37:18.550 --> 37:19.970]  yesterday evening,
[37:19.970 --> 37:21.490]  waiting to see if I was going to get
[37:21.490 --> 37:22.990]  to see the big photo of bridge guy,
[37:23.990 --> 37:25.650]  I saw them I saw them working with it.
[37:25.650 --> 37:27.990]  I saw them like messing around with it.
[37:27.990 --> 37:29.610]  So they have the capability
[37:29.610 --> 37:31.350]  to be able to put these things up
[37:31.350 --> 37:32.830]  on the big screen where everybody
[37:32.830 --> 37:34.170]  is able to see them.
[37:34.170 --> 37:35.730]  But they're not doing that.
[37:35.770 --> 37:37.590]  And they didn't do that with this photo.
[37:38.230 --> 37:39.630]  So I don't know exactly
[37:39.630 --> 37:40.750]  what is on the photo
[37:40.750 --> 37:42.530]  and exactly how she marked it.
[37:42.530 --> 37:44.810]  But what she described is that there
[37:44.810 --> 37:46.290]  it sounds like there's a couple
[37:46.290 --> 37:47.930]  of markings on the leg.
[37:48.530 --> 37:50.350]  And so according to her,
[37:50.350 --> 37:52.490]  she was indicating that the bottom
[37:52.490 --> 37:54.870]  part of the leg is where it was.
[37:54.870 --> 37:56.270]  There was mostly blood
[37:56.970 --> 37:58.570]  and then above
[37:59.330 --> 38:00.970]  above that was mud.
[38:01.190 --> 38:03.470]  And then she had drawn another line
[38:03.470 --> 38:05.290]  to indicate the hat.
[38:06.170 --> 38:08.450]  And she said the coat was dark enough
[38:08.450 --> 38:09.310]  that she wouldn't have
[38:09.310 --> 38:10.550]  seen blood on the coat.
[38:10.670 --> 38:12.430]  It was just caked with mud.
[38:12.650 --> 38:13.750]  He was she described him
[38:13.750 --> 38:15.050]  as extremely muddy,
[38:15.230 --> 38:17.190]  like so muddy that she,
[38:17.830 --> 38:19.290]  you know, thought he had
[38:19.290 --> 38:21.170]  certainly been down by the water.
[38:21.210 --> 38:23.390]  Again, maybe it had fallen off the cliff.
[38:25.810 --> 38:26.930]  And that.
[38:29.730 --> 38:31.770]  There were the blood
[38:31.770 --> 38:33.610]  that she saw was like drops.
[38:33.770 --> 38:35.590]  It was like splatters of blood.
[38:38.590 --> 38:39.070]  And.
[38:41.890 --> 38:43.350]  It wasn't at this point,
[38:43.350 --> 38:45.290]  I think it was later, I'll get to that.
[38:46.290 --> 38:48.950]  So then they just went through,
[38:49.050 --> 38:51.450]  she reiterated in the first interview,
[38:51.630 --> 38:52.350]  according to her,
[38:52.350 --> 38:53.770]  she said mud and blood.
[38:54.250 --> 38:56.390]  Second interview, she said mud and blood.
[38:56.450 --> 38:57.930]  And then in the third interview,
[38:57.930 --> 38:59.930]  they were focused on the blood at this point
[38:59.930 --> 39:01.610]  because that's what it was important.
[39:01.610 --> 39:04.850]  And so didn't talk about didn't talk about mud.
[39:04.870 --> 39:08.050]  That was her explanation for for what transpired.
[39:10.310 --> 39:11.950]  Mr. Baldwin then had recross.
[39:12.850 --> 39:14.570]  And so he clarified
[39:15.240 --> 39:16.710]  the reason you didn't say mud
[39:16.710 --> 39:19.630]  in the interview is just because of what you were asked.
[39:20.370 --> 39:22.130]  And and she said it was just
[39:22.130 --> 39:23.550]  that was just what they focused on
[39:23.550 --> 39:25.550]  when they questioned me in the interview.
[39:27.970 --> 39:29.670]  She he reiterated,
[39:29.670 --> 39:32.910]  you said mud 13 times in the second interview.
[39:33.150 --> 39:35.150]  And then he's he's challenging her now.
[39:35.310 --> 39:38.570]  He's getting a little bit more pointed in his questioning.
[39:38.610 --> 39:40.910]  He's still not mean, but he's he's.
[39:41.950 --> 39:43.590]  Maybe she would see it that way.
[39:43.590 --> 39:47.710]  He is being more, more pointed a little bit more.
[39:49.810 --> 39:51.190]  Somewhat more aggressive.
[39:51.590 --> 39:55.050]  So he says, you said mud 13 times in the second interview.
[39:55.050 --> 39:58.210]  And at that point, the video was cut off
[39:59.630 --> 40:03.810]  and that just happens to be when the only time,
[40:03.930 --> 40:05.870]  you know, during the interview that that you mentioned,
[40:05.970 --> 40:10.330]  you mentioned the blood and and that we just have to take your word for it,
[40:10.330 --> 40:11.910]  that that's what happened in this interview.
[40:11.910 --> 40:15.790]  And yes, she was she was in agreement with that.
[40:18.360 --> 40:21.040]  We then had some jury questions.
[40:25.570 --> 40:28.690]  What was your age in February of 2017?
[40:28.690 --> 40:33.290]  She sat there on the stand and ran ran through the math in her head.
[40:33.350 --> 40:37.170]  But she came up with 27 or 28 or possibly 26.
[40:37.990 --> 40:39.950]  They asked, how wide is the road?
[40:40.390 --> 40:43.030]  She described it as a fairly typical country road.
[40:44.150 --> 40:49.550]  So to two pickups can cross, can, you know, pass each other on the road.
[40:49.610 --> 40:52.230]  But she said one of them, if they're crossing,
[40:52.370 --> 40:55.130]  one of them would have their wheels off the road.
[40:55.130 --> 40:59.150]  So it sounds like she's describing a road that's a little bit narrow
[40:59.150 --> 41:02.710]  than a standard, you know, one lane each way kind of road.
[41:04.170 --> 41:06.670]  I don't know that I agree with that.
[41:06.670 --> 41:09.150]  At least the portion of the road that I went on,
[41:09.190 --> 41:12.530]  it was it was just a perfectly normal, normal width road.
[41:14.650 --> 41:18.670]  The jury asked, can you describe why you say you saw blood spatters?
[41:18.870 --> 41:22.590]  She seemed a little defensive at this, too, she said, because I saw them.
[41:24.730 --> 41:27.730]  And then they asked, how do you how did you tell blood?
[41:27.810 --> 41:29.370]  How could you tell blood from mud?
[41:30.310 --> 41:35.950]  Her description then at this point was that the man was wearing whitewashed jeans.
[41:36.390 --> 41:41.070]  This is very different from the description that we got from the other witnesses
[41:41.070 --> 41:45.070]  who saw the bridge guy. They were very clear, dark, dark pants.
[41:46.470 --> 41:49.890]  But according to her, it was it was whitewashed blue jeans.
[41:49.890 --> 41:53.450]  And so that's why the blood showed up in particular
[41:56.010 --> 41:58.070]  on the on the jeans.
[42:00.170 --> 42:03.550]  She was asked how close to the man, how close to the man were you?
[42:03.570 --> 42:04.650]  Like, how close did you get?
[42:04.710 --> 42:09.290]  She said less than three feet away, less than three feet away.
[42:09.830 --> 42:13.970]  That is a very hard one for me to buy, because if you're blowing past
[42:13.970 --> 42:17.630]  a human being in your car at thirty five miles an hour
[42:17.630 --> 42:21.030]  and he's only three feet away, you're like you're coming real close
[42:21.030 --> 42:22.110]  to hitting that guy.
[42:22.530 --> 42:26.390]  And that's again, just not not really what she had described.
[42:26.790 --> 42:29.070]  She had described he's walking on the side of the road.
[42:29.090 --> 42:30.810]  She's walking over in her lane.
[42:30.950 --> 42:32.590]  She's driving by over in her lane.
[42:32.590 --> 42:35.950]  So you'd expect at least the distance of a lane
[42:36.830 --> 42:38.590]  on the road between them.
[42:39.690 --> 42:44.350]  So the attorneys get to follow up to the to the jury questions if they want to.
[42:44.430 --> 42:47.430]  So Mr. Baldwin followed up to this question, said,
[42:47.430 --> 42:51.850]  you previously testified that he was twenty feet away and that
[42:51.850 --> 42:55.510]  and she explained, well, you know, that was at the long point
[42:55.510 --> 42:58.570]  and that as we approached, the distance got got shorter.
[42:59.690 --> 43:03.350]  And and then at this point,
[43:04.450 --> 43:08.830]  she she she concluded with a comment.
[43:09.030 --> 43:12.870]  She she was very irritated at this point and really let it show.
[43:13.730 --> 43:16.310]  She said essentially, I'm driving.
[43:16.310 --> 43:20.970]  I didn't get out a ruler and be like, hey, you're 17 inches away.
[43:21.050 --> 43:23.450]  She's like demonstrating this facing the jury.
[43:24.210 --> 43:26.730]  Very animated, very angry.
[43:28.310 --> 43:31.930]  Of course, I didn't do that, you know, like it's it's it's stupid.
[43:31.930 --> 43:34.170]  I mean, that's not what anybody asked.
[43:34.950 --> 43:36.070]  No, I was driving.
[43:39.050 --> 43:41.630]  That was the conclusion of her testimony.
[43:44.670 --> 43:47.270]  I felt I felt kind of bad for her.
[43:47.270 --> 43:50.710]  I don't think it probably went over very well with the jury.
[43:50.810 --> 43:57.250]  It was just very defensive, very confrontational, very angry.
[43:59.730 --> 44:01.830]  And resistant to
[44:03.210 --> 44:06.770]  what seemed to be, you know, I mean, twice.
[44:06.870 --> 44:10.250]  She got refreshed that, no, you didn't say the word, you know,
[44:10.250 --> 44:13.490]  you didn't say the word in here in the transcript to the point where
[44:13.490 --> 44:16.950]  when she's being, you know, offered the transcript again
[44:16.950 --> 44:19.910]  to corroborate this, you know, a feminine statement.
[44:20.550 --> 44:22.550]  No, she put she wouldn't even allow it.
[44:22.550 --> 44:24.310]  And it was just kind of left at that.
[44:24.670 --> 44:28.590]  Now, the defense did not put those transcripts
[44:28.590 --> 44:32.310]  into evidence or put the page where she had said that into evidence.
[44:34.950 --> 44:37.690]  This may have been may have been an oversight,
[44:37.810 --> 44:38.890]  may have been a mistake.
[44:39.170 --> 44:41.010]  I would have I would have done that.
[44:41.050 --> 44:43.310]  I mean, I'm assuming that this is allowed in Indiana
[44:43.310 --> 44:46.970]  because that's fairly standard impeachment with a prior inconsistent statement.
[44:48.890 --> 44:51.410]  Typically, the way your prior statement comes up,
[44:51.550 --> 44:52.910]  it comes up one of two ways.
[44:53.050 --> 44:56.290]  If you don't remember making a statement,
[44:56.530 --> 44:59.110]  then you can review it to refresh your recollection.
[44:59.190 --> 45:02.430]  And in that case, the document or whatever it is you're looking at,
[45:02.670 --> 45:03.930]  it doesn't come into evidence.
[45:04.390 --> 45:06.950]  It's just there to serve as a memory trigger.
[45:07.270 --> 45:11.490]  And then you will either, you know, do you remember making that statement now?
[45:11.510 --> 45:12.950]  Well, if you read it there, you know,
[45:12.950 --> 45:14.530]  typically most people will say yes.
[45:14.750 --> 45:16.010]  Sometimes they'll still say no.
[45:16.230 --> 45:17.970]  Well, it says that, but I don't remember it.
[45:19.650 --> 45:23.230]  So then you move on to do you deny it?
[45:23.270 --> 45:27.710]  Do you deny that you said that if you watched any part of the Alec Baldwin
[45:27.710 --> 45:31.370]  trial, Alex Spiro was a genius.
[45:31.610 --> 45:36.510]  He was absolutely extremely skilled at laying his foundation
[45:36.510 --> 45:40.290]  to be able to admit a prior inconsistent statement.
[45:40.290 --> 45:41.550]  And that's how you do it.
[45:41.550 --> 45:45.270]  If somebody if somebody just says, I don't know, I don't know if I said,
[45:45.370 --> 45:48.430]  I don't remember if I said it, then you haven't.
[45:48.450 --> 45:51.430]  You don't have enough of a foundation because they haven't denied
[45:51.430 --> 45:52.270]  making the statement.
[45:52.310 --> 45:54.390]  So he would just come out and explicitly ask them,
[45:54.470 --> 45:55.990]  do you deny making that statement?
[45:56.250 --> 45:57.950]  And then they got to think about it.
[45:58.970 --> 46:00.990]  Yes, if they say yes, deny it.
[46:01.330 --> 46:04.150]  Then you get to put that you get to put that transcript into evidence.
[46:04.150 --> 46:06.710]  And then it's there in black and white.
[46:06.950 --> 46:09.710]  The jury knows it's there in black and white.
[46:09.710 --> 46:11.290]  They can read it for themselves and see,
[46:11.290 --> 46:13.870]  oh, yeah, it does say effeminate eyes.
[46:14.570 --> 46:19.130]  If you don't deny it, then the jury just has the ability to accept
[46:19.130 --> 46:22.350]  that as essentially a concession that, well, yeah, you probably did say it.
[46:22.370 --> 46:23.870]  Then you're not denying that you said it.
[46:23.950 --> 46:26.470]  The guy's attorney is saying that you said it.
[46:26.530 --> 46:29.170]  If you didn't say it, you probably would deny it.
[46:30.030 --> 46:33.790]  So Alex Spyro did an outstanding job of illustrating
[46:33.790 --> 46:38.110]  a very effective way of being able to handle that because it can be tricky.
[46:38.570 --> 46:39.550]  If you watch Dep V.
[46:39.670 --> 46:43.870]  Heard, you know, one of the issues there was was was issues
[46:43.870 --> 46:47.150]  with dealing with foundation for prior inconsistent statements.
[46:47.150 --> 46:50.310]  We lost a whole bunch of Jennifer Howell testimony that was
[46:50.310 --> 46:54.830]  that was quite compelling testimony because Johnny Depp's
[46:54.830 --> 46:57.590]  attorneys failed to lay the foundation to impeach
[46:58.570 --> 47:01.990]  Amber Heard's sister Whitney with her prior inconsistent statements.
[47:04.050 --> 47:06.190]  So Mr. Baldwin didn't do that.
[47:06.190 --> 47:08.990]  He didn't didn't get the actual transcript in evidence.
[47:09.350 --> 47:13.490]  I only wonder if that was a mistake just because now they don't know
[47:13.490 --> 47:16.950]  for sure if she if she said it or not, they don't know what to make of it.
[47:17.410 --> 47:21.390]  But that said, her demeanor, unfortunately, it just really
[47:21.390 --> 47:25.850]  it really didn't do her any favors by the time she was concluding concluding.
[47:25.930 --> 47:27.410]  I mean, like I said, she was angry.
[47:27.450 --> 47:30.990]  She was very visibly angry and, you know, demonstrative.
[47:31.250 --> 47:33.850]  I, you know, I didn't have a ruler or something.
[47:34.910 --> 47:39.830]  And even the jury seemed like they were a little, wow, like this is
[47:39.830 --> 47:41.990]  this is this is this is a lot.
[47:46.150 --> 47:49.650]  I don't think they're probably going to give it a lot of weight.
[47:49.870 --> 47:54.050]  It's not that I think anybody is necessarily like, oh, she's lying
[47:54.050 --> 47:58.390]  or anything like that. She probably is, you know, very well intentioned,
[47:59.770 --> 48:03.410]  sincerely believes, you know, what she's what she's testifying to.
[48:03.930 --> 48:07.450]  But it's just too difficult to reconcile with what seemed to be,
[48:07.450 --> 48:11.010]  you know, what seemed to be the inconsistencies from the prior statement.
[48:11.130 --> 48:14.310]  So not clear that the jury is is necessarily
[48:14.310 --> 48:16.950]  going to give her testimony a lot of weight.
[48:19.690 --> 48:21.330]  Give me a second here.
[48:24.470 --> 48:26.130]  Still getting caught up on my hydration.
[48:27.550 --> 48:30.650]  So our next witness was Dr.
[48:30.890 --> 48:33.990]  Roland Kaur, he was the forensic pathologist.
[48:34.770 --> 48:37.010]  He is the one who did the autopsy.
[48:37.010 --> 48:41.750]  And he was so extremely soft spoken
[48:41.750 --> 48:46.590]  that we had once again, a really, really hard time hearing them.
[48:47.750 --> 48:51.010]  So fortunately, most of what we had, the hardest time
[48:51.010 --> 48:54.150]  hearing was just kind of the background information
[48:54.150 --> 48:56.810]  that you kind of always get with these witnesses.
[48:57.090 --> 49:00.450]  They explain what forensic forensic pathology is.
[49:00.470 --> 49:03.170]  What are the subspecialties? How does it work?
[49:03.210 --> 49:03.890]  What do you do?
[49:03.930 --> 49:06.990]  What's your personal background in training and experience?
[49:06.990 --> 49:07.790]  And so forth.
[49:09.970 --> 49:11.510]  So he described all that.
[49:11.610 --> 49:13.510]  I got some kind of bits and pieces of it.
[49:14.830 --> 49:16.470]  Basically, he had been...
[49:18.510 --> 49:22.410]  He had done a few different things.
[49:23.050 --> 49:28.070]  He had mentioned, like at some point, he was doing some surgical work in stents.
[49:28.370 --> 49:31.630]  It sounded like he was saying that he moonlighted for that,
[49:31.650 --> 49:34.550]  but he was doing residencies.
[49:34.550 --> 49:37.670]  He did a residency in anatomical pathology
[49:37.670 --> 49:39.890]  and a residency in clinical pathology.
[49:40.550 --> 49:44.930]  And at some point, he was encouraged to consider running for coroner
[49:44.930 --> 49:48.470]  because he had the experience of doing these autopsies.
[49:48.470 --> 49:52.750]  So he ultimately served four terms as a coroner.
[49:52.810 --> 49:56.750]  He didn't catch which county, but because of term limits,
[49:56.810 --> 49:59.390]  I guess they have constitutional term limits in Indiana.
[49:59.650 --> 50:02.270]  The way it worked is he served two terms,
[50:02.390 --> 50:04.030]  then he had to sit out for two terms.
[50:04.430 --> 50:08.230]  And then he was able to serve two more terms after that.
[50:08.430 --> 50:10.230]  And so in the course of that, he
[50:11.870 --> 50:15.830]  continued to do autopsies and did them for multiple counties.
[50:20.840 --> 50:25.000]  He described himself as always trying to teach during an autopsy.
[50:25.380 --> 50:28.220]  They're often attended by law enforcement and stuff like that.
[50:28.240 --> 50:31.260]  He did seem to describe himself as as kind of an educator.
[50:31.300 --> 50:35.020]  And we got that got that vibe very much on the stand.
[50:35.260 --> 50:36.820]  He had a lot to say.
[50:36.820 --> 50:38.740]  He liked he did like to talk,
[50:39.960 --> 50:41.120]  but it was OK.
[50:41.280 --> 50:46.540]  I mean, you know, most of at least what I could hear was was was
[50:46.540 --> 50:48.000]  I found it very interesting.
[50:49.540 --> 50:54.240]  And so he does sometimes go to crime scenes because of his training.
[50:54.260 --> 50:57.220]  He will he will sometimes see things that others don't.
[50:57.220 --> 50:58.360]  But it does not.
[50:58.820 --> 51:01.960]  There's no indication that he went to this particular crime scene.
[51:03.300 --> 51:06.560]  So he then described the process of the autopsy.
[51:06.560 --> 51:10.520]  This is something that we have heard before in many murder cases.
[51:12.400 --> 51:14.920]  First gets contextual information about the case,
[51:17.180 --> 51:19.060]  transports the body to the morgue.
[51:19.420 --> 51:21.420]  The body is on the autopsy table.
[51:21.540 --> 51:22.400]  They open the bag.
[51:22.540 --> 51:24.940]  They observe the condition of the body in the clothing.
[51:26.380 --> 51:29.700]  They then observe the skin, hair color,
[51:29.860 --> 51:33.120]  look for any obvious wounds, signs of trauma and things like that.
[51:33.640 --> 51:36.000]  At that point, they remove the person from the bag.
[51:36.000 --> 51:38.220]  They undress them and photograph them.
[51:38.460 --> 51:41.220]  They inspect the clothing, look for like holes in the clothing,
[51:41.260 --> 51:46.660]  like a bullet hole, a cut where perhaps a weapon would have been blood,
[51:46.900 --> 51:48.180]  obviously, things like that.
[51:48.720 --> 51:51.820]  They note for make notes of any insect activity
[51:51.820 --> 51:54.860]  or other secondary damage like that.
[51:56.740 --> 51:58.360]  Next step, they clean the body.
[51:58.440 --> 52:02.560]  But he stopped to clarify that before you get to that point,
[52:02.560 --> 52:07.200]  in a case where they are going to do a sexual assault exam, a kit,
[52:07.240 --> 52:11.100]  they do that first because the washing the body is, you know,
[52:11.200 --> 52:13.940]  going to get things wet and going to move stuff around.
[52:13.940 --> 52:17.620]  And so you would increase increase the risk of contamination
[52:17.620 --> 52:19.860]  or potentially losing evidence.
[52:20.200 --> 52:22.720]  So they do those kit components first.
[52:22.860 --> 52:25.860]  We got a very important answer here.
[52:26.220 --> 52:30.440]  The kit is what contains the the
[52:31.400 --> 52:35.720]  basically materials to do the clippings, the fingernail clippings,
[52:36.080 --> 52:39.440]  the swabs, the scrapings and stuff like that.
[52:39.940 --> 52:42.120]  So that is in the sexual assault kit.
[52:42.160 --> 52:45.960]  That's why we didn't hear about it when the crime scene investigator
[52:46.480 --> 52:50.200]  the other day, Olahi, testified about all those items
[52:50.200 --> 52:53.180]  that were put into evidence because he just identified the kit
[52:53.180 --> 52:55.860]  and they are components of the kit.
[52:56.620 --> 52:58.400]  So enormous relief to me here.
[52:58.400 --> 53:00.200]  This was not like some oversight
[53:00.840 --> 53:05.140]  that that was actually was actually part of the autopsy,
[53:05.140 --> 53:08.320]  although there was a wrinkle that I'll get to in a moment.
[53:09.640 --> 53:12.100]  Next step, they measure wounds, make illustrations.
[53:12.400 --> 53:14.360]  They note what type of wound it is.
[53:14.360 --> 53:16.280]  Is this an abrasion? Is this a contusion?
[53:16.380 --> 53:17.700]  Is this an incision?
[53:18.380 --> 53:19.560]  That that type of thing.
[53:20.820 --> 53:24.400]  They take a blood sample from the femoral vein.
[53:25.180 --> 53:28.440]  He went through a he is very much an educator.
[53:28.480 --> 53:31.840]  Went through kind of a long description about why you do it that way.
[53:31.840 --> 53:33.800]  It's a less contaminated sample of blood.
[53:33.800 --> 53:37.480]  And then there's this phenomenon after death where
[53:38.240 --> 53:41.680]  because of the how the blood settles, that if you're doing
[53:41.680 --> 53:45.340]  like a toxicology screen or alcohol or something like that,
[53:45.740 --> 53:47.480]  certain kinds of drugs, I guess they can.
[53:47.560 --> 53:49.380]  It's like it can change the concentration.
[53:49.780 --> 53:52.600]  It makes it seem like maybe they have more of the substance
[53:52.600 --> 53:54.800]  in their blood than in fact, they do.
[53:54.960 --> 54:00.180]  And it's just based on the way that the blood functions after after death.
[54:00.480 --> 54:05.160]  So the femoral vein apparently helps, you know, that not be an issue.
[54:05.460 --> 54:09.820]  And then after all of this, they proceed to the internal exam,
[54:09.820 --> 54:14.260]  the dissection that helps them to get more information about the wounds,
[54:14.400 --> 54:16.740]  to make better identifications of the wounds.
[54:17.120 --> 54:21.300]  They note if there is disruption to any of the organs, if they're normal.
[54:23.520 --> 54:26.280]  Described how they do the incisions and stuff,
[54:26.280 --> 54:31.080]  he made a point of emphasizing the way that he does the incisions,
[54:31.080 --> 54:33.220]  particularly the abdominal incision.
[54:33.340 --> 54:36.680]  You hear about the traditional Y shaped incision.
[54:37.220 --> 54:38.720]  He says he does it differently.
[54:38.800 --> 54:41.820]  He does it more like like football posts
[54:42.680 --> 54:45.980]  because that makes it easier
[54:46.600 --> 54:51.400]  to seal up for and handle for the funeral director
[54:51.400 --> 54:55.420]  for purposes of being able to make the person presentable.
[54:55.940 --> 55:02.220]  And likewise described how he does the the incision on the scalp
[55:02.220 --> 55:06.080]  because they peel back the scalp, basically remove the skull cap.
[55:06.100 --> 55:07.260]  That's how they get to the brain.
[55:07.280 --> 55:10.820]  And he does it in a way that makes it easy to put the put
[55:10.820 --> 55:13.540]  all that back into place and suture it up.
[55:13.560 --> 55:17.400]  And then the person still remains presentable.
[55:18.280 --> 55:22.980]  Said he's done at this point in his career between seventy seven
[55:22.980 --> 55:26.060]  hundred and seventy eight hundred autopsies.
[55:26.060 --> 55:29.320]  That is a lot, a lot of autopsies.
[55:29.320 --> 55:30.620]  I didn't do the math.
[55:32.220 --> 55:34.880]  One a day for 20 years, something like that.
[55:34.880 --> 55:37.840]  I mean, that's a lot. That's a lot.
[55:40.420 --> 55:45.400]  So we he obviously had photographs from the autopsies that were taken.
[55:45.400 --> 55:49.500]  We did view some of those, clarified that there were tons
[55:49.500 --> 55:51.620]  of photographs taken during the autopsy.
[55:51.740 --> 55:54.400]  He goes through and selects the ones
[55:55.040 --> 55:58.920]  that tend to be most pertinent for what he is going to
[55:58.920 --> 56:01.140]  be talking about in his testimony.
[56:02.480 --> 56:07.020]  So basically the things that were the things that were in significant.
[56:07.520 --> 56:09.200]  And so there were no
[56:09.200 --> 56:12.260]  photos that were displayed or introduced
[56:12.260 --> 56:14.940]  during the internal examination.
[56:15.480 --> 56:17.940]  We only had photos from the external examination.
[56:23.140 --> 56:27.080]  So he did the two autopsies at this point.
[56:27.560 --> 56:32.580]  He is up at the screen because we're going to start going through.
[56:32.980 --> 56:35.120]  Well, actually, we weren't quite there yet.
[56:35.540 --> 56:38.420]  He was doing a little bit of a little bit of a summary.
[56:38.680 --> 56:40.800]  So I did catch most of what he had to say,
[56:40.800 --> 56:43.540]  but there were some little parts that I couldn't hear.
[56:44.240 --> 56:48.560]  But so he did describe the first autopsy that he performed.
[56:48.720 --> 56:49.580]  He did on Abby.
[56:50.340 --> 56:53.240]  So the first thing he does is estimate height and weight.
[56:53.780 --> 56:57.160]  He made sure to distinguish it's actually not a height measurement.
[56:57.160 --> 57:01.020]  It's a length measurement because the person is lying on the table
[57:01.020 --> 57:02.400]  and they do a length.
[57:03.040 --> 57:05.000]  He also does not weigh the person.
[57:05.020 --> 57:06.840]  He does a weight estimate.
[57:06.840 --> 57:09.580]  And he says that's just based on his experience,
[57:09.580 --> 57:11.240]  how many of these that he's done.
[57:11.240 --> 57:14.260]  He has the ability to give a pretty good
[57:15.300 --> 57:17.640]  estimate just based on,
[57:18.700 --> 57:21.940]  you know, the the person's the person's physique,
[57:22.840 --> 57:24.860]  for lack of a better way to put it.
[57:24.920 --> 57:30.180]  So Abby was 64 inches and weighed about 95 pounds.
[57:30.880 --> 57:34.920]  She had been in a black hoodie, pair of blue jeans, a gray,
[57:34.980 --> 57:40.640]  gray, a gray sports bra and a black like regular bra.
[57:40.640 --> 57:43.200]  And what he described as a pink camisole,
[57:44.320 --> 57:51.040]  the external wound across her neck was approximately five centimeters long.
[57:52.560 --> 57:56.820]  He said that when muscle fibers are cut, they tend to retract.
[57:57.140 --> 57:59.660]  And so that causes gaping of the wound.
[57:59.680 --> 58:04.020]  That is very consistent with what we saw in the photos of both girls.
[58:04.080 --> 58:06.540]  These wounds were very, very gaping.
[58:06.760 --> 58:10.500]  He measured it as as about two to two and a half inches wide.
[58:10.640 --> 58:12.440]  With with that gaping.
[58:12.840 --> 58:16.740]  So it was it was it was very dramatic, just a single wound.
[58:17.720 --> 58:19.440]  So he used the kit.
[58:19.720 --> 58:23.380]  He described he described what the kit entails.
[58:23.520 --> 58:25.040]  There's a blood sample.
[58:25.140 --> 58:26.560]  There is a vaginal wash.
[58:26.580 --> 58:30.340]  There is vaginal swab, oral swab, hand swab,
[58:30.800 --> 58:34.200]  an external genital swab, an internal genital swab,
[58:34.780 --> 58:38.740]  the fingernail scrapings, hair, pubic hair,
[58:39.900 --> 58:42.000]  a saline syringe.
[58:42.360 --> 58:43.600]  I'm not sure exactly.
[58:43.960 --> 58:47.160]  I'm not sure if that was related to the to the vaginal wash or not.
[58:48.100 --> 58:51.460]  There's combing of the of the pubic hair to look for, you know,
[58:51.540 --> 58:53.680]  like debris or whatever.
[58:54.080 --> 58:58.660]  So a lot is is wrapped up in this in this kit that,
[58:58.660 --> 59:01.020]  you know, when we just see the kits coming into evidence,
[59:01.540 --> 59:03.760]  you know, doesn't doesn't give you all of this detail.
[59:03.760 --> 59:06.720]  So now we have all this detail about what that entails.
[59:06.720 --> 59:09.200]  The wrinkle with the scrapings
[59:09.200 --> 59:13.160]  is that he said Abby was she bit her nails very severely.
[59:13.160 --> 59:17.500]  And so they were so short, they were not able to take scrapings.
[59:18.860 --> 59:22.860]  That said, from the way he described the kit,
[59:22.960 --> 59:25.060]  they would still swab the hands.
[59:25.920 --> 59:30.500]  So that that presumably was done.
[59:30.520 --> 59:32.220]  I'm sure we'll hear more about that
[59:32.220 --> 59:34.700]  when we start getting into the witnesses from the lab,
[59:34.700 --> 59:38.700]  the analysts who handled this evidence and processed it,
[59:38.720 --> 59:41.280]  processed it and tested it and are going to come in
[59:41.280 --> 59:42.460]  and tell us about the results.
[59:43.380 --> 59:48.180]  The hairs that were found on her, he did say hairs multiple.
[59:49.360 --> 59:54.360]  So we already knew about the about the hair on her finger.
[59:54.720 --> 01:00:00.280]  There had been testimony about another another fiber
[01:00:01.040 --> 01:00:03.960]  that was found on on Abby.
[01:00:03.960 --> 01:00:08.000]  I'm going to see if I can find it real quick in my notes from yesterday.
[01:00:08.320 --> 01:00:11.600]  I don't want to spend too much time trying to hunt it down.
[01:00:12.540 --> 01:00:16.920]  But I just would it would be helpful, I think, to
[01:00:18.160 --> 01:00:20.040]  remember where that was.
[01:00:24.340 --> 01:00:26.600]  A strand of fibrous.
[01:00:26.700 --> 01:00:29.840]  Oh, no, that was from Libby's hand. Let's see.
[01:00:43.960 --> 01:00:47.500]  A trace fiber from Abby's upper left arm.
[01:00:48.480 --> 01:00:49.640]  That was the other one.
[01:00:49.700 --> 01:00:54.380]  So we had we had the hair, the fiber that had been entangled in the finger.
[01:00:54.800 --> 01:00:57.860]  But then this other one was a trace fiber.
[01:00:57.940 --> 01:01:02.100]  It was just mentioned a trace fiber from Abby's upper left arm.
[01:01:02.120 --> 01:01:05.260]  And so I'm not sure if that's what they mean,
[01:01:05.800 --> 01:01:09.280]  if that's a hair, if that's why we're getting hairs plural.
[01:01:11.080 --> 01:01:14.040]  But he did address them, said that they had been transferred
[01:01:14.040 --> 01:01:15.100]  from another source.
[01:01:15.100 --> 01:01:19.460]  All of that stuff went into went into the box.
[01:01:19.800 --> 01:01:22.780]  He said there was no injury
[01:01:22.780 --> 01:01:27.460]  that was suggestive of traumatic sexual contact.
[01:01:27.600 --> 01:01:30.480]  So nothing, nothing overt that he saw that would,
[01:01:30.480 --> 01:01:33.720]  you know, indicate traumatic sexual contact.
[01:01:33.740 --> 01:01:36.120]  He says that does not mean that there was none.
[01:01:36.120 --> 01:01:39.020]  This is very important because that is
[01:01:40.100 --> 01:01:42.260]  comes up a lot in these types of cases.
[01:01:42.780 --> 01:01:47.760]  Um, injury is not a very good metric for consent
[01:01:47.760 --> 01:01:52.780]  or not consent or just, you know, really, really, really anything at all.
[01:01:54.500 --> 01:01:57.140]  These parts of the human body are elastic.
[01:01:57.500 --> 01:02:02.860]  They're they're made to be, you know, fairly, fairly resistant to injury.
[01:02:03.420 --> 01:02:07.600]  I was kind of curious because I just I don't know
[01:02:07.600 --> 01:02:10.220]  if there's actually good, good science on this or not.
[01:02:10.220 --> 01:02:13.720]  Some of you in the chat may know the Tanner scale.
[01:02:13.980 --> 01:02:18.200]  There's there's a Tanner scale that establishes it kind of sets
[01:02:19.640 --> 01:02:20.680]  sexual maturity.
[01:02:20.900 --> 01:02:24.340]  It helps you stage where a person is at in sexual maturity,
[01:02:24.560 --> 01:02:26.340]  like in going through puberty
[01:02:27.740 --> 01:02:32.180]  from, you know, very, very immature, very undeveloped to fully mature.
[01:02:32.420 --> 01:02:37.120]  There's different identifiable stages, five, five for both men and for women
[01:02:37.680 --> 01:02:41.060]  that can just kind of help you identify where where somebody is on the scale.
[01:02:41.080 --> 01:02:47.720]  I don't know if there is like good information about whether being lower
[01:02:47.720 --> 01:02:53.580]  on the Tanner scale would tend to maybe produce more injury.
[01:02:53.620 --> 01:02:56.280]  I'm just thinking like, yes, adult women, you know,
[01:02:57.460 --> 01:02:59.940]  they can take a pounding. I just said it.
[01:03:00.000 --> 01:03:02.440]  Sorry, I said it. They're just made.
[01:03:02.440 --> 01:03:05.040]  That's what we're made for, you know, but young women are not.
[01:03:05.040 --> 01:03:09.160]  And so I don't know if there's any real correlation with injury there or not.
[01:03:09.900 --> 01:03:17.040]  But in general, it's very common to have cases, non-consensual, no injury,
[01:03:17.440 --> 01:03:21.500]  also very common to have cases, consensual and injury.
[01:03:22.340 --> 01:03:28.600]  So they're just not necessarily a good indicator of whether there was contact or not.
[01:03:28.940 --> 01:03:33.040]  We're probably going to want to rely mostly on the swabs from the kit
[01:03:33.040 --> 01:03:34.980]  to be able to make that determination.
[01:03:35.560 --> 01:03:40.060]  But still, you know, I am very pleased to hear, relieved to hear, glad to hear
[01:03:40.060 --> 01:03:45.920]  no overt signs of injury because, you know, that that would be that would be extremely bad.
[01:03:48.460 --> 01:03:49.640]  So we saw no trauma.
[01:03:49.840 --> 01:03:52.780]  He described the wound as an incised wound.
[01:03:53.100 --> 01:03:56.160]  So meaning it's a cut. He distinguished this.
[01:03:56.500 --> 01:03:59.940]  Being an educator, he distinguished this from a laceration.
[01:03:59.940 --> 01:04:05.320]  A laceration is a blunt force injury. And so that is technically a tearing.
[01:04:06.240 --> 01:04:11.180]  That's distinct from an incision, which is something that is a sharp force injury.
[01:04:11.180 --> 01:04:13.300]  It comes from a cutting instrument.
[01:04:14.680 --> 01:04:18.040]  So he described that three types of sharp force injuries.
[01:04:18.220 --> 01:04:22.340]  There is a incision, which is something that is longer than it is deep.
[01:04:22.420 --> 01:04:24.780]  There's a stab that is deeper than it is long.
[01:04:24.800 --> 01:04:29.100]  And then there is a chop where, you know, essentially something is something is taken off.
[01:04:31.100 --> 01:04:36.040]  So they can tell the difference between an incision and a laceration because the
[01:04:36.040 --> 01:04:40.740]  laceration has abraded edges and the incision is clean.
[01:04:41.460 --> 01:04:46.540]  So the only wound on Abby at all was this single incision.
[01:04:46.620 --> 01:04:48.520]  They looked for defensive wounds.
[01:04:49.100 --> 01:04:53.740]  He described how a person is just instinctively, when they're being assaulted,
[01:04:53.880 --> 01:04:58.460]  they're going to take a defensive posture. They're going to try to defend themselves.
[01:04:58.920 --> 01:05:04.280]  And so they will typically always look for injuries to the extremities.
[01:05:04.980 --> 01:05:09.480]  So we saw no defensive wounds, no blunt force trauma.
[01:05:10.780 --> 01:05:16.520]  There was something that was very interesting, had not heard about this before.
[01:05:17.620 --> 01:05:25.820]  He said there was a very faint linear mark across her face as if cloth or duct tape
[01:05:25.820 --> 01:05:28.980]  had been there perhaps across her mouth.
[01:05:29.660 --> 01:05:37.940]  He said there was no adhesive residue, however, so didn't sound like it was tape.
[01:05:39.320 --> 01:05:45.120]  Otherwise, there's no ligature, no wound like that, no sign of restraint.
[01:05:46.120 --> 01:05:52.400]  Couldn't tell specifically the timing of when this mark would have been made.
[01:05:54.760 --> 01:05:59.820]  Um, because it was very faint, he just placed it as perimortem,
[01:05:59.860 --> 01:06:05.140]  meaning right around the time frame of the death process.
[01:06:09.100 --> 01:06:15.440]  Said the wound, you couldn't really tell the direction, but there was some indication
[01:06:15.440 --> 01:06:21.880]  because on one side of the wound, this was a horizontal wound, one side of the wound,
[01:06:21.880 --> 01:06:27.040]  there was just a slightly different shape and almost a little bit of,
[01:06:27.040 --> 01:06:29.390]  almost like a bruise, almost a little bit of a bruise.
[01:06:31.500 --> 01:06:40.680]  And so his assumption was that the direction of the wound went right to left.
[01:06:41.500 --> 01:06:44.940]  That the knife would have entered first on the right, it would have caused that
[01:06:44.940 --> 01:06:49.520]  that different shape and the small bit of bruising at the point of entry and then
[01:06:49.520 --> 01:06:55.140]  is drawn to the left and that's what causes the wound.
[01:06:56.000 --> 01:07:03.240]  The internal injury that resulted from that was a partial transection of the left jugular vein.
[01:07:05.300 --> 01:07:17.280]  He then described Libby's injuries. Libby was cut multiple times. She had a
[01:07:17.280 --> 01:07:24.440]  transected right carotid, a partially transected right carotid artery and then a...
[01:07:27.060 --> 01:07:33.780]  Actually, I forget. One was partial and the other was full. I think the right carotid was
[01:07:33.780 --> 01:07:40.180]  partial. The left carotid artery and the left jugular vein were fully transected,
[01:07:40.200 --> 01:07:47.260]  meaning they were completely cut through. So he described the difference between these
[01:07:48.280 --> 01:07:55.540]  the carotids are where you feel your pulse in your neck. You have three of them on
[01:07:55.540 --> 01:08:02.540]  each side. So two carotids. There's a common carotid and then they split into an internal
[01:08:02.540 --> 01:08:09.860]  and an external carotid. And so those three pieces, common internal and external, on both
[01:08:09.860 --> 01:08:15.900]  sides of the body. And then the jugular is right next to the carotid. The artery is what,
[01:08:15.900 --> 01:08:21.220]  as we know from, you know, basic biology, the carotid is what brings the oxygenated blood
[01:08:21.220 --> 01:08:28.420]  from the heart. The jugular vein is what brings the, you know, no longer oxygenated blood
[01:08:28.420 --> 01:08:36.400]  back into the heart from the extremities. So because the arteries are carrying the volume of
[01:08:36.400 --> 01:08:43.440]  blood from the heart, they are much thicker. He described them as muscular and elastic,
[01:08:43.440 --> 01:08:51.980]  whereas the veins are not thick like that. So the arteries, because of that quality,
[01:08:52.120 --> 01:08:59.040]  they're similar to the muscle where they will contract when they're cut. They have that
[01:08:59.040 --> 01:09:07.760]  elasticity to them that then reacts when they get cut. We took our recess at this point.
[01:09:08.680 --> 01:09:13.720]  Judge is being very good about these regular recesses. Now that we have the jury,
[01:09:14.420 --> 01:09:19.550]  the jury is getting their regular breaks. So we all benefit from that.
[01:09:25.130 --> 01:09:31.250]  When we came back on the bench, everybody in the gallery had been asked, like,
[01:09:31.370 --> 01:09:35.150]  can you hear him? I was asking some of the media people get the front row at the courtroom.
[01:09:35.230 --> 01:09:38.390]  So I was asking some of the folks I've been talking to in the media, you know,
[01:09:38.390 --> 01:09:41.330]  were you able to hear anything he said? Like, we couldn't hear anything at all.
[01:09:41.370 --> 01:09:49.310]  Nobody could really hear. Nobody could really hear this man. And so everyone was kind of,
[01:09:49.310 --> 01:09:53.210]  you know, hoping is somebody going to say something? Will somebody please, you know,
[01:09:53.290 --> 01:10:00.310]  ask him to ask him to bring up the volume because it's just extremely difficult to hear,
[01:10:00.370 --> 01:10:04.490]  to hear a lot of what he's saying. Some of this stuff, like these details, the carotid
[01:10:04.490 --> 01:10:08.110]  artery, the jugular vein and stuff like that, I had to kind of fill in after the fact
[01:10:08.110 --> 01:10:13.270]  after we got a little bit more context, a little bit more detail. And then I was able to like,
[01:10:13.370 --> 01:10:17.110]  okay, that's what he was that's what he was saying back then. Really, really difficult
[01:10:17.110 --> 01:10:21.370]  to follow it all in real time. He gave all kinds of details that I'm sure that I missed
[01:10:21.370 --> 01:10:26.110]  because we just could not hear them. So when we came back in from recess,
[01:10:26.350 --> 01:10:33.210]  we got a statement from the judge. It was, it was, it was, it's just that a lot I thought.
[01:10:33.550 --> 01:10:37.830]  So she addresses the fact that we can't hear them. Her statement is that the media has the
[01:10:37.830 --> 01:10:44.350]  best seats in the house. So we trust that they will report the facts, the facts that are being
[01:10:44.350 --> 01:10:51.130]  elicited and that it's important for the jury and the parties to be able to hear. But to
[01:10:51.130 --> 01:10:56.770]  all of the rest of us, apologies to everyone in the audience behind the credentialed media,
[01:10:57.730 --> 01:11:07.370]  those of us who can't hear. So just a little nod there to the preferable treatment that the
[01:11:07.370 --> 01:11:14.570]  seat and calling out that credentialed piece. Not us, not us unofficial peons over here.
[01:11:14.690 --> 01:11:19.050]  Those credentialed folks get the special treatment. So they get to be positioned where
[01:11:19.050 --> 01:11:27.150]  they can hear. We saw at this point, this is when we started transitioning to looking to
[01:11:27.150 --> 01:11:33.750]  seeing the visual, the visual exhibits. So this was helpful because the doctor got up
[01:11:33.750 --> 01:11:38.530]  and went over to by the screen so that he could use the pointer and demonstrate things.
[01:11:38.530 --> 01:11:43.450]  And that meant he had to project his voice over to the jury. And the rest of us were now
[01:11:43.450 --> 01:11:51.410]  able to hear significantly better because he did that. So we saw some diagrams of the injuries
[01:11:51.410 --> 01:11:56.110]  before we saw the photographs of them. We did see the photographs of them.
[01:11:57.650 --> 01:12:04.950]  Uh, so now I have my notes a little bit. So yeah, so the earlier part,
[01:12:04.950 --> 01:12:08.990]  ignore what I said before, because I do think I got it wrong when I could hear him better.
[01:12:10.410 --> 01:12:16.030]  Abby had a partial transection of the jugular vein, like I indicated it was on her left
[01:12:16.030 --> 01:12:22.670]  side. Libby had a partial transection of the left carotid. So the left side was a
[01:12:22.670 --> 01:12:28.190]  partial and then the full transection of the carotid and the jugular vein on the right hand
[01:12:28.190 --> 01:12:40.400]  side. We saw several photos of Abby. And it wasn't clear to me exactly why we saw some of
[01:12:40.400 --> 01:12:50.960]  these photos. There was an interesting comment that was made. So we saw Abby on the autopsy
[01:12:50.960 --> 01:12:56.300]  table. She is still clothed at this point. She's actually still in the like in the bag with the
[01:12:56.300 --> 01:13:02.100]  sheet. The sheet that she had been wrapped in is still underneath her. You can see some pooling
[01:13:02.100 --> 01:13:09.200]  some pooling of blood on the sheet. There's smears. He's pointing out there's smears of
[01:13:09.200 --> 01:13:18.420]  blood on her right arm. And his explanation for that is that that was probably from the
[01:13:19.500 --> 01:13:27.820]  coming off. I'm wondering if he meant the clothes going on. I'm not sure.
[01:13:28.980 --> 01:13:32.360]  Everything else being equal if he had just said that I would assume he meant when they took
[01:13:32.360 --> 01:13:36.400]  them off in the autopsy. But the problem is is that we are now you know the autopsy took
[01:13:36.400 --> 01:13:43.240]  place on December or on February the 15th. So we're now somewhere between you know two
[01:13:43.240 --> 01:13:49.820]  and three days or one to two days after like full days after they they were dead.
[01:13:50.300 --> 01:13:53.900]  And so you would think that the blood on the arm would have already dried. There would not
[01:13:53.900 --> 01:13:59.620]  be a smear from from removing the clothing during the autopsy. So I don't know if he
[01:13:59.620 --> 01:14:07.220]  was making a reference to being clothed and unclothed. That does make sense. It definitely
[01:14:07.220 --> 01:14:12.200]  makes sense as an explanation. If she had blood and then was clothed that would cause
[01:14:12.200 --> 01:14:17.980]  a smear. That's something that I will be filing away in the back of my mind for when
[01:14:17.980 --> 01:14:23.580]  we get those those evidence those evidence technicians and those analysts in to hopefully
[01:14:23.580 --> 01:14:28.660]  tell us about the clothing and trace evidence on the clothing and what we might be able to
[01:14:28.660 --> 01:14:47.220]  ascertain from it. We saw the the measurement of the wound and the description of the the
[01:14:48.000 --> 01:14:54.660]  possibly from from the entry. More than likely in his view a right to left.
[01:14:55.120 --> 01:15:01.940]  So it leaves a little bit of a blunt impact as the the hilt strikes the skin is the way he
[01:15:01.940 --> 01:15:08.180]  described it. It was about an inch or so deep. Some muscle fibers were cut but you know not
[01:15:08.180 --> 01:15:14.820]  not a ton. Some subcutaneous fat was cut. But and then you know confirming the partial
[01:15:14.820 --> 01:15:19.640]  transsection of the of the of the jugular of the jugular vein.
[01:15:21.060 --> 01:15:28.480]  Then a photo where they basically stretched the wound back to what its normal configuration
[01:15:28.480 --> 01:15:34.140]  would have been because of that retraction pulls it open so they stretched it out
[01:15:34.140 --> 01:15:41.460]  to kind of show you know how it matched back together. And that I think was showing
[01:15:41.460 --> 01:15:52.960]  like the true the true length of the wound. We saw a very close up of the wound to just show
[01:15:52.960 --> 01:16:00.420]  exactly where where it's placed. It's just to the center line like just to the left
[01:16:00.420 --> 01:16:06.660]  of the of the center line of her throat. And like you said it's it's five centimeters long.
[01:16:06.760 --> 01:16:12.060]  It's about two inches long. It's it's it's quite a long quite a long wound. And on this
[01:16:12.060 --> 01:16:17.180]  photo is where we were we're able to see the the the marks that he pointed out the linear
[01:16:17.180 --> 01:16:24.720]  marks. So now this this time previously he had suggested maybe you know taper or cloth
[01:16:24.720 --> 01:16:29.140]  or something like that covering her mouth. But this time he pointed out that they were
[01:16:29.140 --> 01:16:33.740]  actually below there there were there there was like the primary mark and there was a
[01:16:33.740 --> 01:16:39.680]  little bit of a mark below it. So it was more on her chin. And so now he was suggesting
[01:16:39.680 --> 01:16:44.700]  that saying that it suggested that her mouth was not covered.
[01:16:46.460 --> 01:16:53.020]  I found that confusing. I wasn't quite sure how to reconcile his testimony from before the
[01:16:53.020 --> 01:16:59.940]  break and his testimony after the break as far as the mouth being covered. Still no indication
[01:16:59.940 --> 01:17:12.220]  of any kind of any kind of you know adhesive. So he didn't seem to think it was tape but didn't
[01:17:12.220 --> 01:17:20.100]  rule out cloth. And so then with that raised a question of in my mind was the handkerchief.
[01:17:20.120 --> 01:17:26.940]  They had recovered a handkerchief from the from the from the creek when they were recovering
[01:17:26.940 --> 01:17:31.180]  all of the other items of clothing the things that had you know come at least a little bit
[01:17:31.180 --> 01:17:36.880]  way of a way downstream and gotten entangled in the roots. Handkerchief was among those things.
[01:17:37.420 --> 01:17:43.500]  And so I wondered maybe you know possibly was this some kind of gag?
[01:17:44.380 --> 01:17:48.960]  One of the things they didn't do in the case that I wish they had because it would have
[01:17:48.960 --> 01:17:55.000]  been helpful at this point was to have somebody identify like somebody from the family identify
[01:17:55.000 --> 01:18:00.220]  these pieces of clothing as whether they belonged to one of the girls or not.
[01:18:01.220 --> 01:18:04.760]  I would have liked to have known this handkerchief. Where did it come from? Did
[01:18:04.760 --> 01:18:08.140]  it belong to one of the girls? Because if it didn't belong to one of the girls then
[01:18:08.140 --> 01:18:14.120]  there's a possibility it belonged to the killer. And I just thought of that because
[01:18:14.120 --> 01:18:21.120]  you know the possibility of it being used as a gag or some type of restraint you know some
[01:18:21.120 --> 01:18:26.160]  you know maybe it was wiggled down. I just I don't know I'm
[01:18:26.160 --> 01:18:30.540]  trying to make sense of the evidence that's that's presented and I don't have a good
[01:18:30.540 --> 01:18:35.820]  explanation for why she would have some kind of you know cloth or tape or something along
[01:18:35.820 --> 01:18:42.720]  the bottom part of her chin but not covering her mouth. The suggestion though of the mouth
[01:18:42.720 --> 01:18:47.920]  being covering that that was that was very new very new information for me very new
[01:18:47.920 --> 01:18:55.440]  suggestion that that was part of the story of the crime seems difficult if that is the case
[01:18:55.440 --> 01:19:00.420]  again to reconcile with the the state's theory of what happened of a basically what was going
[01:19:00.420 --> 01:19:06.360]  to be an attempted rape that then he got interrupted and so killed them instead you know
[01:19:06.360 --> 01:19:13.860]  to uh because he was short on time. I don't I don't know when when that that part of it the
[01:19:13.860 --> 01:19:18.980]  covering the mouth would have taken place and also uh this this was only Abby. Abby was the
[01:19:18.980 --> 01:19:22.800]  only one who had these marks that he didn't describe any similar marks like that on Libby.
[01:19:24.800 --> 01:19:31.140]  So anyway at this point uh in the in the interview uh in the uh testimony he's indicating
[01:19:31.140 --> 01:19:35.300]  he doesn't think it indicates that her mouth was covered it was below that.
[01:19:35.700 --> 01:19:41.800]  We then saw a picture um of Abby's back that was there to show the the lividity the
[01:19:41.800 --> 01:19:48.980]  liver mortis um and she she did have some you could you could see um he explained that uh
[01:19:51.880 --> 01:19:58.600]  because the body like the the blood vessels are like depressurized essentially you know at death
[01:19:58.600 --> 01:20:03.660]  the heart stops beating and so the the blood is not is not you know moving through those
[01:20:03.660 --> 01:20:09.460]  those uh those vessels anymore that when there's pressure on them like from the point of contact
[01:20:09.460 --> 01:20:15.100]  the ground or if there is something like on the ground that they're on, that the blood will not
[01:20:15.100 --> 01:20:20.280]  tend to pool in those areas, it will pool around them. It will move to the low points where there
[01:20:20.280 --> 01:20:29.860]  are no pressure. So she had some spots on her back that he was indicating appeared to be indicative
[01:20:31.560 --> 01:20:39.440]  of lying on her back and potentially being on some debris. So according to him, because of
[01:20:39.440 --> 01:20:45.760]  sets in, it would indicate she had been lying on her back for some point, some time.
[01:20:47.380 --> 01:20:54.900]  What we didn't get an answer to and I didn't, nobody asked and I was curious about was whether
[01:20:55.440 --> 01:21:02.800]  any steps were taken through the collection or storage, you know, until the time that the
[01:21:02.800 --> 01:21:11.180]  autopsy occurred to prevent the liver mortis from progressing. Like if they, for example,
[01:21:11.400 --> 01:21:18.100]  you know, bring her in and have her in, you know, like a refrigerated type of setting,
[01:21:18.720 --> 01:21:24.620]  is that going to, my understanding is that that's going to, you know, at least slow those
[01:21:24.620 --> 01:21:32.320]  processes substantially. So the implication, you know, he didn't specify. I'm just, you know,
[01:21:32.320 --> 01:21:36.960]  think that would be normal process. So I think that would be the case. But so he
[01:21:36.960 --> 01:21:44.800]  didn't specify like when, what time the bodies arrived. So we just don't really know how much
[01:21:44.800 --> 01:21:50.400]  of this would have progressed after the bodies had already had already been recovered. It
[01:21:50.400 --> 01:21:55.900]  would have been nice to have had that documented at the scene. We had one photograph
[01:21:55.900 --> 01:22:04.280]  at the scene that showed Libby being lifted to the side. They were inspecting the ground
[01:22:04.280 --> 01:22:09.800]  underneath her. She was very, very covered in debris. So it was hard. It was kind of,
[01:22:09.820 --> 01:22:15.420]  it was hard to see anything. There wasn't any obvious levitity in those photographs,
[01:22:15.420 --> 01:22:20.980]  but it's also not clear that we would be able to see the spots where levitity would
[01:22:20.980 --> 01:22:27.280]  have occurred. So that is another just, I would have liked to have seen that it would have been,
[01:22:27.280 --> 01:22:33.540]  it would have been helpful. He said that because it takes several hours for the levitity
[01:22:33.540 --> 01:22:42.880]  to become visible, but if it becomes fixed, it has to be in that fixed position for about
[01:22:43.380 --> 01:22:49.580]  eight hours. So that gives us a timeframe of basically being on the back for eight hours,
[01:22:49.580 --> 01:22:58.460]  but we don't know when that started and how long that continued after the bodies had been
[01:22:58.460 --> 01:23:09.670]  collected by the crime scene investigators. Libby then, oh, there was one other detail
[01:23:09.670 --> 01:23:18.930]  from Abby's autopsy, which was a small abrasion, very minor abrasion on her lips.
[01:23:20.810 --> 01:23:24.990]  Didn't tell us any more than that. Nothing about like what might have caused it,
[01:23:25.130 --> 01:23:30.390]  nothing about, you know, was this like chap? Was this like normal chapped lips or was this
[01:23:30.390 --> 01:23:37.270]  something else? We don't know. This again potentially raises a little bit of a specter
[01:23:37.270 --> 01:23:46.130]  of a gag. Like was, was she gagged? We don't know. We don't know. We don't know if like,
[01:23:46.130 --> 01:23:52.830]  it's chapped lips. If she had slightly chapped lips before she went on the hike, you know,
[01:23:52.870 --> 01:23:57.570]  tis the season in February. I don't know about you guys, but yeah, I get super dehydrated in
[01:23:57.570 --> 01:24:06.550]  February. Real common to have things like that happen. So something to note, but didn't
[01:24:06.550 --> 01:24:11.610]  really get answers as to the significance of it and what it meant. It's just another one
[01:24:11.610 --> 01:24:21.530]  these open questions, but does raise that specter of a possible gag. Libby was also
[01:24:21.530 --> 01:24:30.070]  64 inches long, estimated at about 200 pounds. He paused to clarify that between the autopsies,
[01:24:30.230 --> 01:24:35.450]  he goes back and writes his reports while they're still fresh in his mind. He's got
[01:24:35.450 --> 01:24:39.310]  basically templates, so you just sort of fill in the parts, you know, that you remember
[01:24:39.310 --> 01:24:44.970]  he doesn't have to sit and write a whole 20 page thing. And then while he is doing that,
[01:24:45.170 --> 01:24:51.850]  his autopsy assistant will, you know, return the organs to the body, suture up the incisions.
[01:24:52.710 --> 01:24:56.570]  He does say return the body to the cooler. So yes, that does indicate the body was in a
[01:24:56.570 --> 01:25:03.090]  cooler before. Just when did it get in the cooler would be helpful to know. Wash the table
[01:25:03.090 --> 01:25:07.710]  and the instruments. I assume he meant sterilized. He didn't specifically say
[01:25:07.710 --> 01:25:13.010]  sterilized though, but I've got to trust that he meant that they would sterilize the
[01:25:13.010 --> 01:25:20.710]  instruments in the table so as to not contaminate the next autopsy. So with Liberty,
[01:25:21.270 --> 01:25:27.870]  likewise, they did the assault kit. No sign of any type of trauma.
[01:25:30.810 --> 01:25:37.930]  He clarified that these kits do include some extra swabs that can be used just for
[01:25:37.930 --> 01:25:44.830]  miscellaneous purposes. This came out because he indicated that there's no, like the crime
[01:25:44.830 --> 01:25:50.630]  scene investigators are not over there collecting their own swabs. And so these other swabs
[01:25:50.630 --> 01:25:57.150]  that we had noted in evidence for Libby from the breast, from the thigh, like a few different
[01:25:57.150 --> 01:26:02.070]  miscellaneous ones, he was attributing it as likely being to that, these miscellaneous
[01:26:02.070 --> 01:26:07.150]  ones from the kit. I don't know that I believe that though because they weren't in the kit.
[01:26:07.270 --> 01:26:12.070]  They were separate from the kit. Everything that was from the kit went back into the kit
[01:26:12.070 --> 01:26:18.350]  and that's the standard practice for that. So I think it's probably likely that either
[01:26:18.350 --> 01:26:24.610]  the crime scene investigators took their own swabs and packaged them or he took these
[01:26:24.610 --> 01:26:30.310]  additional swabs during the autopsy and maybe just didn't remember. I don't know,
[01:26:30.310 --> 01:26:36.910]  but there is a little tiny bit of a question about exactly where those other swabs came
[01:26:36.910 --> 01:26:43.090]  from. So they're provenance, like where we need somebody. It's always preferable if
[01:26:43.090 --> 01:26:50.990]  we can have somebody specifically identify, okay, this swab on the hands, where on the
[01:26:50.990 --> 01:26:56.390]  hands are big. Was the swab here? Was the swab here? Was the swab on the back of the hand?
[01:26:56.410 --> 01:27:00.430]  Was it on the palm of the hand? We don't know unless we have the person that took the swab
[01:27:00.430 --> 01:27:04.430]  who could tell us this is where I swabbed because they didn't put it on the label. They
[01:27:04.430 --> 01:27:11.830]  just said from the hand, from the breast, from the thigh, so forth. So I hope, I mean,
[01:27:12.090 --> 01:27:17.490]  on the one hand we want evidence, we want results, we want something from those swabs
[01:27:17.490 --> 01:27:24.570]  can help us identify who is the perpetrator of this crime. On the other hand, it may be
[01:27:24.570 --> 01:27:30.370]  difficult for that information to be useful if we can't track down exactly where these swabs
[01:27:30.370 --> 01:27:41.960]  came from. Libby as well had no defensive wounds and no restraint wounds. She had
[01:27:41.960 --> 01:27:49.540]  primarily the wounds to the throat. So there were at least four different wounds and there
[01:27:49.540 --> 01:27:57.400]  was a possible fifth one. It looks like there are three and the reason why is because one of
[01:27:57.400 --> 01:28:04.340]  the ones, the one that was on the far right hand side, it was actually two separate cuts,
[01:28:04.400 --> 01:28:10.660]  almost like in an X shape. And he described it as if somebody had made a cut and then gone
[01:28:10.660 --> 01:28:18.740]  back to do it maybe deeper or something like that and it doesn't follow exactly the same
[01:28:18.740 --> 01:28:25.060]  line as the first cut. So from a distance kind of it looks like it looks like it's just one
[01:28:25.060 --> 01:28:34.200]  but on close inspection it is in fact two. Libby's wounds were mostly vertically oriented,
[01:28:34.240 --> 01:28:43.720]  which I found strange. Again, I've never seen that. So it's basically one on the right side,
[01:28:43.720 --> 01:28:51.780]  one close to the middle, one over on the left side. Obviously the one being one being actually
[01:28:51.780 --> 01:29:01.180]  two. We saw a photo, we also saw a photo of Libby when she was on the table that shows
[01:29:01.180 --> 01:29:06.500]  that her hands had been bagged. This didn't get mentioned by any of the crime scene texts
[01:29:06.500 --> 01:29:13.180]  or we didn't hear from if there were firefighters or first responders or somebody
[01:29:13.180 --> 01:29:18.100]  like that who was in charge of the transport. She was in the coroner's, they had the coroner's
[01:29:18.100 --> 01:29:22.980]  van out there as far as we know. But we didn't hear from any of those people about their
[01:29:22.980 --> 01:29:31.740]  process, what they do when they're transporting a body. So somebody bagged the hands at some
[01:29:31.740 --> 01:29:37.840]  point in time. We don't know who. Generally a good thing that that happened but once again
[01:29:37.840 --> 01:29:43.680]  would be awfully nice to know exactly when that took place because the CSI,
[01:29:45.720 --> 01:29:51.860]  the crime scene investigators, they described that they wrapped her in a sheet and then
[01:29:51.860 --> 01:29:57.300]  placed her in a bag wrapped up in the sheet and zipped up the bag. So if the bag is closed
[01:29:57.300 --> 01:30:03.260]  and nobody's mentioned bagging her hands, I don't think we would probably unzip it,
[01:30:03.260 --> 01:30:07.700]  unwrap her and bag the hands and then put it all back together. Maybe we did,
[01:30:08.320 --> 01:30:12.180]  but it seems more likely to me that just the bagging of the hands got overlooked
[01:30:12.180 --> 01:30:17.600]  before she was before she was placed in the bag and just it didn't it didn't get mentioned.
[01:30:19.580 --> 01:30:26.860]  She also had some she had some smaller kind of secondary injuries. She had what he described
[01:30:26.860 --> 01:30:34.700]  as a very superficial incision that was just below her left shoulder. It was kind of like
[01:30:34.700 --> 01:30:40.560]  over in this area. It was very small. I would say maybe maybe a centimeter. He didn't give
[01:30:40.560 --> 01:30:45.340]  us a measurement. That's just kind of my my my guess based on based on the eyeballing it
[01:30:45.340 --> 01:30:52.480]  from the from the photograph. And then some very tiny abrasions that were just below her
[01:30:53.040 --> 01:30:59.120]  and a small abrasion that was between the wound on the left hand side and the wound on
[01:30:59.120 --> 01:31:10.440]  the center. So like basically right right about there. So okay, so it was the wound on
[01:31:10.440 --> 01:31:14.000]  the left. It was not the one on the right. It was the wound on the left that had the
[01:31:14.000 --> 01:31:23.160]  the overlapping X like pattern. So it basically consisted of two passes that looked like one.
[01:31:23.160 --> 01:31:29.240]  Then there was one that was basically in the center but slightly still to the left side.
[01:31:30.580 --> 01:31:37.680]  And then the one that was over on the right side. He said it was possible that there were
[01:31:37.680 --> 01:31:44.420]  also two passes on the center wound. That's why it's four maybe five incisions. But he
[01:31:44.420 --> 01:31:52.880]  could not be certain. And the reason why is he said because so if the victim is is alert
[01:31:52.880 --> 01:31:59.280]  and is conscious, it's almost instinctive that there is going to be some kind of movement,
[01:31:59.440 --> 01:32:04.940]  some kind of reactive, some kind of reaction. I mean, similar again to the defensive posturing.
[01:32:05.260 --> 01:32:10.440]  And so that can affect the wound. He described he gave an example of like if
[01:32:11.560 --> 01:32:17.900]  if you're if you're stabbed, and you know, you react and you jerk, it's going to twist
[01:32:17.900 --> 01:32:23.900]  the knife. And that will create a different shape of the wound. It will create like more
[01:32:23.900 --> 01:32:29.380]  of an L shape than just like a straight, you know, completely passive incision goes in
[01:32:29.380 --> 01:32:33.480]  straight in straight out. No, you move and it changes the shape of the wound. And so it's
[01:32:33.480 --> 01:32:39.300]  possible that that's what the situation was with the wound to the center part of the
[01:32:39.300 --> 01:32:43.380]  throat could not say definitively if it was one incision or two separate ones.
[01:32:48.120 --> 01:32:58.960]  We saw on the left, the left hand side, the wound, there were these marks at the edge of the
[01:32:58.960 --> 01:33:07.700]  wound that he indicated it appeared like a serrated knife. It had showed scalloped edges.
[01:33:09.280 --> 01:33:16.380]  But then he said that he has thought more about it. Since he did this, since he did
[01:33:16.380 --> 01:33:23.840]  deposition, basically, in very recent days, he's thought more about this conclusion that these
[01:33:23.840 --> 01:33:34.780]  were serrated, serrated, serrated edge marks. So you can see we could see the wound and the
[01:33:34.780 --> 01:33:42.580]  way it looks like is that there are these lines, I mean, like they're distinctive lines,
[01:33:42.580 --> 01:33:49.980]  very linear pattern. The very bottom one, though, is like slightly differently
[01:33:50.600 --> 01:33:55.820]  shaped. It's like maybe a little bit thicker. But otherwise they're fairly consistent. Each
[01:33:55.820 --> 01:34:01.300]  mark is about one to one and a half millimeters wide and about several millimeters in between.
[01:34:01.400 --> 01:34:06.540]  And they're right there adjacent to the wound. So we can see these very clearly.
[01:34:10.080 --> 01:34:16.660]  So he indicates it's probably he's changed his mind because with a typical serrated knife,
[01:34:17.380 --> 01:34:24.360]  the deepest part of the blade is in the center, whereas with this one, the linear
[01:34:24.360 --> 01:34:31.360]  pattern suggested it was that one that was on the edge, like the very first one
[01:34:31.360 --> 01:34:40.700]  that appeared appeared to be that shape. And so he changed his mind, thinks maybe it's no
[01:34:40.700 --> 01:34:48.000]  longer a serrated knife, that it would come from the hilt or perhaps some other part of
[01:34:48.000 --> 01:34:55.020]  the weapon. And that these, he thought, looked maybe more like abrasions than like
[01:34:55.020 --> 01:35:00.600]  the pattern that you would see from a serrated knife. I would think that would still be an
[01:35:00.600 --> 01:35:09.260]  abrasion, but I don't know. So just because that largest one on the edge didn't have the
[01:35:09.260 --> 01:35:15.160]  same pattern, it suggested a different cause. So he acknowledged that in his initial report,
[01:35:15.180 --> 01:35:22.240]  he had indeed said a serrated edge. But then on a later part of his report,
[01:35:24.160 --> 01:35:32.960]  he had suggested that it was serrated like, that it was not typical or classical serrated
[01:35:35.160 --> 01:35:39.860]  knife markings. So because of that, he thought it could have been something else. Now they did
[01:35:39.860 --> 01:35:44.980]  something a little bit unusual here. And I put it and put the notes in my margin because
[01:35:44.980 --> 01:35:49.760]  I'm like, why are they talking about what he told Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Rossi? This is how
[01:35:49.760 --> 01:35:53.940]  Littrell was doing the questioning. This is specifically how he was asking the questions.
[01:35:54.020 --> 01:35:58.860]  Like when you told in your deposit, you told Mr. Rossi and Mr. Baldwin that it was a serrated
[01:35:58.860 --> 01:36:07.540]  knife, but you've reconsidered now. And it became clear because he says now that he had
[01:36:07.540 --> 01:36:16.980]  indicated that perhaps it was a handle or a hilt of a weapon that had a pattern. And then
[01:36:16.980 --> 01:36:22.920]  he says what got him thinking about this was he went out to the garage
[01:36:23.460 --> 01:36:29.560]  and he had a box cutter. And the box cutter has this plastic attachment on the side with
[01:36:29.560 --> 01:36:35.700]  a thumb grip and the thumb grip had some parallel lines on it. And so he was thinking
[01:36:35.700 --> 01:36:44.280]  about that. And now thinks maybe those were from the side of a box cutter.
[01:36:45.020 --> 01:36:51.780]  Well, this is quite a remarkable shift in the testimony, isn't it?
[01:36:52.700 --> 01:36:59.020]  It became clear, as I'll get to, that the reason why Mr. Littrell was asking about what
[01:36:59.020 --> 01:37:04.640]  he had told Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Rossi is because he had not communicated this new
[01:37:04.640 --> 01:37:14.420]  theory to the defense before he testified on the stand today. Before he finished his direct,
[01:37:14.420 --> 01:37:19.320]  he talked about what would be the physiological effect of these injuries. What would the effect
[01:37:19.320 --> 01:37:25.880]  be on the body? And so generally speaking, there are going to be some common responses.
[01:37:26.000 --> 01:37:32.060]  So the first thing you're going to feel pain, these nerves, you're going to feel that.
[01:37:32.680 --> 01:37:37.880]  And there's going to be an autonomic nervous system response, a fight or flight response.
[01:37:37.880 --> 01:37:48.180]  So these are, you know, heart rate speeds up, breathing tends to get shallow and fast,
[01:37:48.380 --> 01:37:55.820]  blood vessels constrict, just these common reactions that occur.
[01:37:57.960 --> 01:38:04.380]  In the case of Abby, because this was an injury to a vein and not an injury to
[01:38:04.380 --> 01:38:11.940]  an artery, it's not pressurized. And so that means the loss of blood would have taken time.
[01:38:12.260 --> 01:38:19.160]  It is not something that would have been instantaneous. And so what happens is that
[01:38:19.160 --> 01:38:25.380]  there's passive blood loss. As the blood volume in the body decreases over time,
[01:38:25.400 --> 01:38:32.880]  that causes the blood pressure to decrease. So then what happens is the heart rate will
[01:38:32.880 --> 01:38:39.400]  speed up, the heart will try to keep up, so the heart rate will go up to try to keep the
[01:38:39.400 --> 01:38:47.200]  pressure maintained. And then basically the body goes into shock. And so the shock system is
[01:38:47.200 --> 01:38:54.040]  trying to prioritize getting the blood to the areas of highest priority, which is the brain.
[01:38:55.180 --> 01:39:00.560]  So what happens is some of the less important organs will shut down, like digestion.
[01:39:00.560 --> 01:39:05.020]  Digestion is no longer a priority. We don't need to be sending blood there. We don't need
[01:39:05.020 --> 01:39:08.640]  to be sending blood to the liver. We're not worried about filtering it and stuff like that.
[01:39:08.660 --> 01:39:12.680]  We're just worried about the priority of getting it up to the brain.
[01:39:14.940 --> 01:39:21.480]  But ultimately with the continued loss of blood, the pressure continues to fall.
[01:39:23.260 --> 01:39:28.080]  And that will result in loss of blood to the brain, loss of oxygen to the brain from
[01:39:28.080 --> 01:39:34.240]  that, and there will be a loss of consciousness and eventually loss of brain function, which will
[01:39:34.240 --> 01:39:40.000]  be basically the cause of death at that point. Without the brain function, there's no longer
[01:39:40.000 --> 01:39:44.940]  signal to the heart to pump and all of those other activities to occur. So that's the
[01:39:44.940 --> 01:39:55.000]  general process of the death. There was a point during this where Mr. Rosie was handling
[01:39:55.000 --> 01:40:00.260]  the cross-examination. He was objecting to leading questions. And Mr. Littrell,
[01:40:00.700 --> 01:40:05.580]  I call him Littrell, but it's really Latrol. I don't know exactly how to pronounce it.
[01:40:05.700 --> 01:40:09.440]  I catch myself saying Littrell because it sounds like it's spelled with an E at the end
[01:40:09.440 --> 01:40:14.680]  and it's not. It's spelled with a U. Anyway, he really struggled to adjust.
[01:40:16.300 --> 01:40:23.160]  He is not Mr. McClelland. Ms. Auger was able to adjust very quick on the fly when she
[01:40:23.160 --> 01:40:27.260]  wasn't able to say, do you agree? She was able to switch very quickly to, is it true?
[01:40:27.740 --> 01:40:33.200]  Mr. Littrell did not have that quick adjustment. He had to abandon his line of questioning
[01:40:33.200 --> 01:40:39.320]  because he couldn't really think about how to get there. And it was unfortunate
[01:40:39.320 --> 01:40:43.560]  because it was a question I had wanted to know the answer to. He was asked to give
[01:40:43.560 --> 01:40:48.920]  a ballpark estimate of the process of getting to unconsciousness or death.
[01:40:48.920 --> 01:40:54.500]  I didn't like this question. It's compound. That didn't get answered. That didn't get objected
[01:40:54.500 --> 01:40:59.000]  to. So his answer was that the ballpark estimate would have been five to 10 minutes,
[01:40:59.040 --> 01:41:04.840]  maybe longer. And there's just variables involved. It would take longer if the
[01:41:04.840 --> 01:41:10.740]  person is lying down. If the person is moving up and moving around, it would be faster.
[01:41:11.880 --> 01:41:17.500]  So the question and the follow-up question was how long would it take to reach
[01:41:17.500 --> 01:41:23.080]  unconsciousness? That's where the objection came in. And because he couldn't think of
[01:41:23.080 --> 01:41:29.460]  a non-leading way to ask this question, we didn't get the answer to that. So five to 10
[01:41:29.460 --> 01:41:34.880]  minutes was the answer to the compound question of death, unconsciousness or death.
[01:41:36.300 --> 01:41:43.760]  But we don't really know which one. So Libby would have gone through the same
[01:41:43.760 --> 01:41:49.300]  physiological process, but because it was all three vessels and because some of them were
[01:41:49.300 --> 01:42:00.340]  arteries, it would have been more rapid. So he said that there's instinct. The first instinct
[01:42:01.040 --> 01:42:11.020]  is going to be to apply the hands to the wound. So that's the theory for Libby's bloody
[01:42:11.020 --> 01:42:16.760]  hands. Probably she reached for her throat in an effort to try to slow the blood loss.
[01:42:16.880 --> 01:42:21.440]  You know, you can get a cut, you put pressure on it, and then eventually it will congeal and
[01:42:21.440 --> 01:42:31.860]  stop. That's his view of what Libby was probably trying to do. Said it could slow
[01:42:31.860 --> 01:42:38.360]  blood loss again with the estimate probably five to 10 minutes, but probably closer to five.
[01:42:41.480 --> 01:42:49.770]  Libby also had a mild cerebral edema, and Abby did not have that. It was only Libby.
[01:42:50.520 --> 01:42:56.460]  And so he was asked about that and what some of the causes could be and stuff.
[01:42:57.460 --> 01:43:04.740]  So it can be caused by loss of oxygen, loss of blood pressure, like by strangulation.
[01:43:04.740 --> 01:43:11.100]  Strangulation will often cut off the source of blood to the brain that can result in swelling
[01:43:11.100 --> 01:43:17.100]  to the brain. You can get cerebral edema from a closed head injury. There's like a few different
[01:43:17.100 --> 01:43:23.500]  causes of it. What was significant for him was that it would take a few minutes for that to
[01:43:23.500 --> 01:43:28.140]  develop. It would take time for that to develop. So once again, we don't have
[01:43:29.260 --> 01:43:36.200]  instantaneous. We don't have an instantaneous process. It sounded like he was suggesting
[01:43:36.200 --> 01:43:44.360]  possibly. I hate to say this because it's horrifying. But the implication was that
[01:43:44.360 --> 01:43:51.980]  Libby would have been trying to hold her wounds together so hard that she may have
[01:43:51.980 --> 01:43:56.380]  cut off some of the blood flow to her brain and caused this edema.
[01:44:01.020 --> 01:44:09.020]  He concluded his direct by just noting that you really can't determine a time of death with any
[01:44:09.020 --> 01:44:16.480]  kind of precision and that they were consistent, that their condition was consistent with
[01:44:16.480 --> 01:44:22.040]  death occurring 40 to 41 hours before. That was a suggestion that he got from Mr. Littrell.
[01:44:22.520 --> 01:44:27.860]  He said, yeah, it's consistent with that. Maybe it's consistent with other times too,
[01:44:27.860 --> 01:44:35.840]  a different range of times. We didn't get follow up on that. So Mr. Rosie came out,
[01:44:35.840 --> 01:44:42.600]  came out firing, came out firing, hit him right off with 98% of the time. He works for the
[01:44:42.600 --> 01:44:49.940]  state. He has opportunities. This was something I had wondered about previously, the process
[01:44:49.940 --> 01:44:58.500]  for a deposition in Indiana because Judge Gull had gotten snappy at Mr. Baldwin about the
[01:44:58.500 --> 01:45:04.940]  timing of submitting a deposition as part of his offer of proof. The deposition had been taken
[01:45:04.940 --> 01:45:08.900]  back at the end of August. She's like, well, couldn't you have filed this earlier? Mr. Baldwin's
[01:45:08.900 --> 01:45:17.580]  like, no. Well, so one of the issues that can complicate the timing of a deposition is
[01:45:17.580 --> 01:45:22.560]  the witness in Indiana is the same process basically that we have in Washington. They
[01:45:22.560 --> 01:45:28.060]  are given an opportunity to be able to review the deposition, make changes to it, and then
[01:45:28.060 --> 01:45:37.680]  sign off. So he had that opportunity. He didn't make any changes. So he conceded. He did not
[01:45:37.680 --> 01:45:44.560]  know, starting with Abby, when she died in his deposition, the best he could do was that
[01:45:44.560 --> 01:45:49.920]  sometime between the last time she was seen alive and when she was discovered. Thanks,
[01:45:50.060 --> 01:45:54.540]  Sherlock. Couldn't have figured that out on our own. We needed an expert for that.
[01:45:56.340 --> 01:46:04.240]  But had accepted a range of 24 to 48 hours before they had been discovered.
[01:46:06.060 --> 01:46:10.120]  Said it can be very difficult to investigate the time of death.
[01:46:10.680 --> 01:46:16.520]  Um, so I think we know that. I think that's consistent with what we've heard.
[01:46:17.800 --> 01:46:22.900]  Certainly, we didn't hear anything about, you know, again, efforts to take the internal
[01:46:22.900 --> 01:46:27.780]  body temperature, do the liver probe, even do like a rectal thermometer. We'd heard from
[01:46:27.780 --> 01:46:34.860]  the CSI guy that they don't do things like that with a sexual assault case, because
[01:46:34.860 --> 01:46:39.460]  there's a risk of contamination. So I suppose it's possible that at this point in time it's
[01:46:39.460 --> 01:46:44.620]  too late for there to be any meaningful information like they would have just reached,
[01:46:44.620 --> 01:46:51.500]  you know, reached room temperature or cooler temperature or whatever. And so there wouldn't
[01:46:51.500 --> 01:46:55.280]  be viable information that they could get from that. But we also didn't hear anything
[01:46:55.280 --> 01:47:02.260]  about stomach contents, you know. We heard that very slight bit about the liver mortis
[01:47:03.440 --> 01:47:10.160]  being fixed within roughly eight hours. So that gives us a little bit of a time frame,
[01:47:10.180 --> 01:47:14.960]  but just not a whole lot. Not a whole lot. He didn't tell us much about,
[01:47:14.960 --> 01:47:20.480]  you know, rigor mortis. We heard from the CSI guy that it had set in at the scene. So
[01:47:20.480 --> 01:47:25.260]  we have just only a very little bit of information to be able to draw those kinds
[01:47:25.260 --> 01:47:31.380]  of inferences. It doesn't sound like they really tried to determine or to reach an opinion
[01:47:31.380 --> 01:47:37.060]  about the cause of the time of death. They just sort of concluded, we can't do it precise
[01:47:37.060 --> 01:47:48.620]  enough so we're not going to bother. In the deposition, he acknowledged he had
[01:47:48.620 --> 01:47:53.320]  seen crime scene photos, but he wasn't able to draw any conclusions about time of death
[01:47:53.320 --> 01:47:59.380]  or anything from those photos. He could not say much about the type of the instrument that
[01:47:59.380 --> 01:48:05.260]  used. He could say that it was sharp bladed, but as far as like a knife versus a scalpel,
[01:48:05.260 --> 01:48:12.520]  he wasn't able to say. He couldn't draw any conclusions about the length. He had said it
[01:48:12.520 --> 01:48:17.180]  could be anything from a pocket knife to a kitchen knife. And Mr. Rosie was very angry and
[01:48:17.180 --> 01:48:28.140]  you didn't mention a box cutter, did you? No, he did not. He could not say if the
[01:48:28.140 --> 01:48:34.380]  would go in that with, is the wound inflicted from behind? Is it inflicted from the front?
[01:48:36.000 --> 01:48:43.820]  You know, what's the direction of the movement? All that type of thing. We did get the
[01:48:43.820 --> 01:48:52.620]  impression from Abby if it was a right to left drawing motion, like he described,
[01:48:52.620 --> 01:48:58.940]  then that would suggest if a person behind would be using the left hand to do that on
[01:48:58.940 --> 01:49:05.220]  the left hand side of the throat. That seems to be fairly logical, but he did not make
[01:49:05.220 --> 01:49:11.040]  any kinds of inferences about that. With Libby, it just seems a lot harder to say because
[01:49:11.040 --> 01:49:17.840]  the wounds were vertical. They were vertically oriented and not horizontal like Abby's was.
[01:49:20.660 --> 01:49:27.820]  He agreed death was not instantaneous. There would have been several minutes potentially before
[01:49:28.720 --> 01:49:36.160]  unconsciousness in Abby. He had estimated in the deposition four, six, maybe 10 minutes.
[01:49:36.740 --> 01:49:40.560]  Because of that, she may have been able to react. She may have been able to make
[01:49:40.560 --> 01:49:45.160]  noise. She may have been able to move around. Her trachea was not damaged,
[01:49:45.160 --> 01:49:54.320]  so airflow was not restricted. Again, this is really horrifying information. It is hard to
[01:49:54.320 --> 01:49:59.650]  hear. I do not like thinking about it. The reason why the defense is bringing it up,
[01:50:01.260 --> 01:50:07.980]  one, just because of the opportunity to raise an alert, raise the alarm.
[01:50:10.260 --> 01:50:15.940]  The whole concept, the whole theory here is that the girls would have kept quiet as
[01:50:15.940 --> 01:50:20.040]  mouses because they were scared of the gun. The gun kept them under control. Once you have
[01:50:20.040 --> 01:50:28.340]  had a lethal blow inflicted on you, that incentive to stay quiet is probably gone.
[01:50:28.340 --> 01:50:35.920]  Now, that said, there is going to be shock, not just like the medical,
[01:50:36.220 --> 01:50:42.300]  formal medical world of shock, but just psychologically. I would think you are
[01:50:42.300 --> 01:50:47.100]  not going to believe. You are not going to believe what has happened.
[01:50:47.880 --> 01:50:55.760]  You are not going to be thinking logically in that moment. I do not know that that is
[01:50:55.760 --> 01:51:00.460]  really great evidence one way or the other about where they killed there at the scene.
[01:51:00.520 --> 01:51:05.180]  That is clearly where the defense is going with it. What I took from it, though,
[01:51:06.020 --> 01:51:13.280]  was a little bit different. It went back to how the condition of Abby's body was so clean.
[01:51:13.740 --> 01:51:20.840]  It was so clean and pristine. And the sharp contrast between Libby, who had the blood on
[01:51:20.840 --> 01:51:28.260]  her hands, and they described that, even though Libby would have reached unconsciousness and
[01:51:28.260 --> 01:51:35.400]  death faster. Abby, you know, this would have been a slower process. You would think she would
[01:51:35.400 --> 01:51:44.860]  have, you know, moved, made gestures. Blood would have dripped. There just would have been
[01:51:44.860 --> 01:51:53.640]  more. More of that. But there wasn't. And so it is very peculiar. It has raised the question
[01:51:53.640 --> 01:52:02.160]  in my mind. Was she washed? And does that explain why the clothes were wet? Not that
[01:52:02.160 --> 01:52:08.620]  the girls went across the creek. But she was washed. And then she was re-clothed
[01:52:08.620 --> 01:52:16.100]  while she's still wet. It's possible. Just really put it in my mind, hearing about
[01:52:16.100 --> 01:52:22.640]  how this process went and trying to reconcile that with the condition of the girls when they
[01:52:22.640 --> 01:52:30.400]  were found. Confirmed the, you know, mark on the bottom of her mouth, whatever, was there.
[01:52:30.580 --> 01:52:37.540]  Wouldn't have restricted her breathing if it didn't cover her mouth. He says it's possible
[01:52:37.540 --> 01:52:43.560]  something was put in her mouth, but that would be speculative. Confirmed he could not get
[01:52:43.560 --> 01:52:49.440]  scrapings from her fingernails because they were so short. No trauma to her sex organs.
[01:52:49.760 --> 01:52:57.380]  But no opinion on whether there was, in fact, any sexual activity before death.
[01:52:59.760 --> 01:53:04.740]  So then Libby. Similarly, the four to five injuries. Couldn't tell if it's a right or
[01:53:04.740 --> 01:53:11.480]  left-handed person. There's too many variables. At the deposition, of course, he'd indicated
[01:53:11.480 --> 01:53:17.140]  they were serrated marks and that possibly two, three, or four weapons could have been used.
[01:53:17.480 --> 01:53:25.980]  But there was only one of these wounds with these marks. The doctor suggested,
[01:53:25.980 --> 01:53:31.620]  well, that could just be affected by the angle or the force of the insertion.
[01:53:33.220 --> 01:53:40.260]  What he seems to be saying, if he's suggesting that there are marks on the handle, the handle
[01:53:40.260 --> 01:53:48.020]  of the of the weapon, that it basically like there would be a cut and then force forceful,
[01:53:48.240 --> 01:53:52.980]  you know, if it's a forceful cut, then the the handle would like strike it with some force.
[01:53:52.980 --> 01:54:03.440]  It would cause these abrasions. It would leave these marks. That, to me, it just didn't seem
[01:54:03.440 --> 01:54:10.880]  to line up with the way that the marks were oriented to the wound itself. They were right
[01:54:10.880 --> 01:54:18.380]  next to it. The handle is below the blade. And so you would think if the blade is making
[01:54:18.380 --> 01:54:26.160]  it, you know, an incision, the marks would be below that because these were not deep.
[01:54:26.160 --> 01:54:32.960]  Remember, this was not deep. The jugular vein is not deep in the body. He said it's,
[01:54:32.960 --> 01:54:38.380]  I think, like a quarter, maybe a quarter inch below the surface. And it was not cut all the
[01:54:38.380 --> 01:54:44.020]  way through in Abby. It was just it was just cut part part of her. Wait, I'm sorry. Now I'm
[01:54:44.020 --> 01:54:52.340]  talking about Abby. Maybe an inch, maybe an inch deep. So, I mean, I guess it could be
[01:54:52.340 --> 01:54:58.940]  a one inch blade with a handle. Could that be consistent with a box cutter? Yeah, okay. Yeah,
[01:54:58.940 --> 01:55:05.820]  I guess it could. I guess it could. My point is just that I would otherwise expect the marks to
[01:55:05.820 --> 01:55:11.620]  be below the point of the point of the blade and not not like adjacent to it.
[01:55:19.160 --> 01:55:25.700]  The cerebral edema, he, he again, he clarified it's, it's likely from the oxygen flow to
[01:55:25.700 --> 01:55:31.600]  the brain being cut off while in this process of bleeding out that it takes time for it
[01:55:31.600 --> 01:55:37.240]  to develop. And it was mild, but it does indicate that death was not instantaneous.
[01:55:38.100 --> 01:55:44.920]  In his deposition, he had estimated three, 10, maybe 20 minutes as the time that it would
[01:55:44.920 --> 01:55:51.220]  take to lead to death, but didn't specify the breakdown between death and unconsciousness.
[01:55:53.620 --> 01:56:00.740]  So he also confirmed that the injuries to the artery could cause projection of blood.
[01:56:00.740 --> 01:56:08.420]  This is the arterial spray that you hear about. Up to, he estimated up to about six feet
[01:56:08.420 --> 01:56:15.500]  that that would be possible. The debris on the leg, he agreed it was possible that that
[01:56:15.500 --> 01:56:24.460]  indicated she had been dragged from another location. They addressed the sheet. He said that
[01:56:24.460 --> 01:56:31.720]  the sheet is often in the body bag. It's not used all the time. It can be reused,
[01:56:31.900 --> 01:56:37.900]  but there are concerns about contamination. So sometimes these sheets come from the hospital.
[01:56:38.340 --> 01:56:44.090]  He suggested that there are higher, like more sterilization practices going on there
[01:56:44.360 --> 01:56:50.680]  that would result to it, but he ultimately did not know what the source of the sheet was.
[01:56:52.760 --> 01:57:00.240]  He again emphasized that these were not classic serrations. It was just the best matchup he had
[01:57:00.240 --> 01:57:06.040]  come up with at the time that he wrote his initial autopsy report and that afterwards he
[01:57:06.040 --> 01:57:13.380]  considered other causes. And this was where Mr. Rosie was kind of confronting him about
[01:57:13.380 --> 01:57:18.120]  you didn't file a supplemental report. You didn't say anything about this in your deposition.
[01:57:20.680 --> 01:57:26.300]  Clarified, you talked to the prosecutor several times between the deposition that took place
[01:57:26.300 --> 01:57:32.360]  in February and now. Yes, he did, but at no point did he talk to the defense. He didn't
[01:57:32.360 --> 01:57:38.020]  raise any of this to the defense. Mr. Rosie is clearly not happy about this at all.
[01:57:39.600 --> 01:57:44.400]  There's no way to tell, conceded, no way to tell if it's a box cutter that caused the wound.
[01:57:45.680 --> 01:57:53.120]  He says that maybe 10% of the time he'll change his mind after the deposition about some detail.
[01:57:53.680 --> 01:57:59.500]  That seems like a lot. That makes it sound like his autopsy poor report isn't necessarily
[01:57:59.500 --> 01:58:07.000]  all that reliable. If it's something that one in ten times it's not right and he's going
[01:58:07.000 --> 01:58:13.260]  to revise it after the fact. That seems like not a good position for him to be taking,
[01:58:13.260 --> 01:58:19.720]  but that is what he said approximately about 10% of the time. Mr. Rosie then was eliciting that
[01:58:19.720 --> 01:58:24.860]  he knew this was a high-profile case. He had in fact met with a reporter at some point,
[01:58:25.800 --> 01:58:31.380]  had coffee with a reporter, and chatted about the case, knew that it had gotten attention.
[01:58:32.800 --> 01:58:38.100]  And he got the doctor to concede that the report is for the definitive information.
[01:58:38.100 --> 01:58:43.500]  What he is talking about with the box cutter is more like speculation.
[01:58:45.320 --> 01:58:51.000]  We then went to redirect by Mr. Littrell who just asked what was the minimum number of knives
[01:58:51.000 --> 01:58:55.440]  that would be needed to cause all of these wounds and he said one. So possible that one
[01:58:55.440 --> 01:59:05.500]  knife caused all of the wounds. Asked if the artifact that was next to the wound indicated
[01:59:05.500 --> 01:59:12.160]  that it was probably more than one instrument and he said no. The jury had no questions for
[01:59:12.160 --> 01:59:20.900]  Dr. Corr. I had a question for Dr. Corr that nobody asked and my question for Dr. Corr
[01:59:20.900 --> 01:59:27.500]  would have been did he learn at some point perhaps during these series of meetings with
[01:59:27.500 --> 01:59:37.200]  prosecutor between February and the time of trial that Richard Allen had allegedly confessed
[01:59:37.200 --> 01:59:45.420]  to using a box cutter to kill the girls. I think it would be rather important to know if he had
[01:59:45.420 --> 01:59:52.350]  that piece of information because that would suggest he tailored his testimony to fit it.
[01:59:52.970 --> 01:59:58.510]  That this was not just oh I happened to see a box cutter in my garage and thought of it
[01:59:58.510 --> 02:00:07.250]  spontaneously. It frankly doesn't seem like as good of an explanation as just an atypical
[02:00:07.250 --> 02:00:16.290]  serrated blade. A serrated blade could have a part that's broken. The cut could have been
[02:00:17.030 --> 02:00:21.390]  performed you know not with the tip like with a different you know perhaps a different
[02:00:21.390 --> 02:00:28.310]  part of the blade than he would expect to see. If it otherwise looks like a serrated
[02:00:28.910 --> 02:00:33.430]  marking which it does. I mean you can see in the photos it really does kind of look like
[02:00:33.430 --> 02:00:43.780]  that. It's got this scalloped sort of effect to it. It's just it's just problematic this
[02:00:43.780 --> 02:00:49.600]  late in the day changing and it's coincidentally to the same thing that Richard Allen has
[02:00:49.600 --> 02:00:55.240]  allegedly confessed to using. I don't know how it's going to sit with the jury. I found
[02:00:55.240 --> 02:01:02.560]  it quite suspicious but as we've established I am by nature a very very skeptical person
[02:01:03.240 --> 02:01:13.260]  so that did not sit well with me. We had our lunch. As I mentioned we are now able to bring
[02:01:13.260 --> 02:01:18.760]  food and drink into the courthouse. We simply may not consume it in the courtroom so I did
[02:01:18.760 --> 02:01:23.720]  get to have some lunch today. Got to have some water. Things are going things are going
[02:01:23.720 --> 02:01:27.860]  much better in that sense. I think we're all getting a little bit used to the routine
[02:01:30.380 --> 02:01:37.360]  and having those having that that that angel from heaven descend into the line for me this
[02:01:37.360 --> 02:01:42.700]  morning certainly made a big difference. Somebody had asked yesterday in the in the
[02:01:42.700 --> 02:01:52.320]  super chats about how Rick is holding up and so today after lunch I did notice I saw him
[02:01:52.320 --> 02:01:59.260]  smiling and talking and he does appear much more relaxed. So
[02:02:00.720 --> 02:02:05.620]  don't know does he have a perception that things are going well is he just decompressing
[02:02:05.620 --> 02:02:10.560]  you know continuing to decompress from his time in prison like we talked about yesterday.
[02:02:10.560 --> 02:02:16.380]  Hard to say but he seemed to be in good spirits so that is a little bit more
[02:02:16.380 --> 02:02:25.450]  in response to that question. After lunch we just had one witness. He went on for quite some
[02:02:25.450 --> 02:02:34.790]  time. This was Christopher Cecil. He has he's a marine guy and he has a very formal
[02:02:34.790 --> 02:02:40.770]  militaristic bearing and one of the things that stood out to me is that you know in
[02:02:40.770 --> 02:02:47.030]  these these these militaristic like hierarchical kinds of structures rank is very important rank
[02:02:47.030 --> 02:02:55.030]  is very important and so Christopher Cecil was first sergeant not sergeant first sergeant
[02:02:56.350 --> 02:03:01.090]  wrote that down underlined make sure we know he's first sergeant Christopher Cecil.
[02:03:02.490 --> 02:03:10.630]  So he is another computer forensics guy with the Idaho State Police. In 2019 the Idaho State
[02:03:10.630 --> 02:03:16.630]  Police got a new piece of equipment called a gray key and what gray key does is it allows
[02:03:16.630 --> 02:03:22.030]  them to allows law enforcement to access encrypted information from Apple devices.
[02:03:22.410 --> 02:03:28.530]  So those of you with Apple devices who are relying on the encryption to keep your
[02:03:28.530 --> 02:03:36.070]  information secure sounds like it's not. They have these devices now that allow them to
[02:03:36.070 --> 02:03:43.010]  access encrypted information. So they got this got this new got this new piece of equipment.
[02:03:43.010 --> 02:03:48.570]  He went through the training for how to how to work with it and based on that he then
[02:03:48.570 --> 02:03:57.110]  volunteered to re-examine Libby's iPhone. So he did a full file system extraction with
[02:03:57.110 --> 02:04:04.170]  the gray key and then he that what that does it gives him everything all the entire contents
[02:04:04.170 --> 02:04:12.110]  of the Apple device and so it was more than the prior according to his this this this got
[02:04:12.110 --> 02:04:19.050]  inconsistent a bit in the testimony. I'll cover that a little bit. He said it gives them more
[02:04:19.050 --> 02:04:24.250]  than the prior programs would enable them to be able to extract. So he got that raw data
[02:04:24.250 --> 02:04:29.610]  and then he ran that raw data through the celebrite or through the magnet in order to
[02:04:29.610 --> 02:04:36.230]  process and parse it. And then he did an individual exam to go through the contents
[02:04:36.230 --> 02:04:41.330]  basically and produce his reports based on what he found in his examination.
[02:04:43.570 --> 02:04:48.670]  It took him a while to do this analysis. He spent about two months on it between June and
[02:04:48.670 --> 02:04:54.570]  August of 2019. He ran it through both magnet and celebrite to try to get make sure that
[02:04:54.570 --> 02:05:00.450]  he got all of the available information and did his analysis based on both of those analyses.
[02:05:02.550 --> 02:05:11.070]  He knew that Libby had recorded the video of the suspected abductor back in February
[02:05:11.070 --> 02:05:20.910]  13th of 2017. So he focused his analysis on that day and he was trying to use the phone
[02:05:20.910 --> 02:05:26.350]  to establish a sequence of events to see what the phone data would be able to tell him about
[02:05:26.350 --> 02:05:35.970]  the events of that day. So we saw his first report. His first report was admitted into
[02:05:35.970 --> 02:05:40.810]  evidence. Once again you know these reports being in evidence I don't get it but they
[02:05:40.810 --> 02:05:45.530]  are and the defense doesn't seem to mind they stipulated to them being admitted so
[02:05:45.530 --> 02:05:56.930]  I guess I guess it's okay. And so we worked through what was contained in that report.
[02:05:57.070 --> 02:06:02.970]  The report confirmed to people that Libby and Abby had both been users of this phone. They
[02:06:02.970 --> 02:06:10.330]  both had user accounts for different apps and programs. There was biometric data. Touch ID
[02:06:10.330 --> 02:06:16.930]  was enabled and there were three biometric fingerprints saved. We don't know exactly whose
[02:06:16.930 --> 02:06:22.670]  but that was in there. That gave me that flashback. Remember what Mr. Baldwin said in
[02:06:22.670 --> 02:06:30.070]  the opening about human hands. I wonder what that might be referring to. Through this
[02:06:30.070 --> 02:06:37.110]  extraction he gets Apple Health ID. So this is what gives you the steps, the distance,
[02:06:37.110 --> 02:06:42.430]  and elevation changes. If you watch the care and read trial you certainly heard about this,
[02:06:42.530 --> 02:06:48.690]  about the Apple Health information. This is based on information that's aggregated from
[02:06:48.690 --> 02:06:55.910]  all kinds of different programs and apps and then it's constantly running in the background
[02:06:55.910 --> 02:07:04.570]  and Apple is synthesizing that information into this health data. So it has an internal
[02:07:04.570 --> 02:07:11.670]  accelerometer and a gyrometer and it uses that to calculate steps and elevation.
[02:07:12.430 --> 02:07:17.670]  It will also track the start and the stop times when the movements occurred. So based on
[02:07:17.670 --> 02:07:23.950]  that he was able to make certain notations about the time period that we are all interested
[02:07:23.950 --> 02:07:32.290]  in, the time period on the bridge. So from about 1.30 to about 2.08 in the afternoon the
[02:07:32.290 --> 02:07:44.050]  Apple Health data noted 1,682 steps between 2.08 in the afternoon and 2.18 in the afternoon.
[02:07:44.150 --> 02:07:52.230]  This would include the time period when Libby had video recorded, that down the hill video.
[02:07:52.730 --> 02:08:04.490]  It recorded traveling 414.38 meters, so not quite half a kilometer over that distance.
[02:08:07.430 --> 02:08:19.450]  From 2.31 to approximately 2.32 p.m. the Apple Health data showed a movement equivalent
[02:08:19.450 --> 02:08:27.310]  to two flights of stairs, an elevation change. It did not indicate whether it went up or whether
[02:08:27.310 --> 02:08:36.510]  it went down. And then the 2.32 was the last record of movement of the phone, the steps
[02:08:36.510 --> 02:08:48.210]  basically, last record of any kind of steps taken with the phone. He emphasized if they had
[02:08:48.210 --> 02:08:53.810]  started walking later and had the phones that it would have registered later movement based on
[02:08:53.810 --> 02:09:01.870]  that. But he did suggest that the phone could detect movement if it was, if it's not a step,
[02:09:01.910 --> 02:09:09.330]  if it's in a car and there is a bump or a bounce that could register movement in the phone.
[02:09:11.350 --> 02:09:15.890]  He turned then to the Knowledge C database analysis. Remember this from yesterday,
[02:09:15.890 --> 02:09:21.970]  this was a big thing for me. I'm like, why don't you go back and take this extraction that you
[02:09:21.970 --> 02:09:29.810]  said had the Knowledge C stuff in it and run it through your updated program? So that is, in fact,
[02:09:30.110 --> 02:09:35.710]  what they ultimately did. He describes the background a little bit of the Knowledge C
[02:09:35.710 --> 02:09:41.950]  database. He describes it as a volatile database, meaning the information does not
[02:09:41.950 --> 02:09:48.510]  on it very long. It's not something that you're typically aware that the phone is logging.
[02:09:50.010 --> 02:09:54.570]  The type of data that it's tracking are things like when the phone is locked,
[02:09:54.670 --> 02:09:58.610]  when it's unlocked, when the screen light is on, when the screen light is off,
[02:10:00.350 --> 02:10:09.030]  that type of sort of use-related data. They had a whole list of not inclusive,
[02:10:09.030 --> 02:10:16.550]  like not exclusive, like a total list, not an exhaustive list, but a fairly large list of
[02:10:16.550 --> 02:10:22.510]  some of the data that this Knowledge C database will track. I couldn't write all of it down,
[02:10:22.590 --> 02:10:26.550]  couldn't quite see all of it on the screen, but those are some of the things that I got.
[02:10:28.070 --> 02:10:36.390]  So he indicated that it was in 2019 that he learned of the existence of the Knowledge C
[02:10:36.390 --> 02:10:45.150]  database. This was unknown in the forensic community. What happens is that the programmers
[02:10:45.150 --> 02:10:49.670]  for Apple, they aren't out there telling the forensic examiners, here's what's in the phone
[02:10:49.670 --> 02:10:53.590]  and here's how you get to it. They're not given instructions. They're reverse engineering.
[02:10:53.790 --> 02:10:57.950]  They're getting the phones. They're figuring out what's on there. And so the Knowledge C
[02:10:57.950 --> 02:11:03.110]  database was the situation where the data is there, but they just didn't know. They didn't
[02:11:03.110 --> 02:11:10.230]  see it. They didn't recognize it. They didn't realize exactly what it was. So before the
[02:11:10.230 --> 02:11:16.870]  gray key, his testimony was that before gray key, they would use celebrate for these
[02:11:16.870 --> 02:11:24.710]  extractions and that that did not grab the Knowledge C database information. So that would
[02:11:24.710 --> 02:11:29.310]  be why they wouldn't use one of the original extractions. That's why they needed the gray
[02:11:29.310 --> 02:11:34.550]  key to pull the phone again in 2019 and then run it back through celebrate.
[02:11:36.050 --> 02:11:42.090]  Other things that it tracks, the app activities, device logs. So he created a timeline
[02:11:42.090 --> 02:11:47.770]  based on the Knowledge C database information that he was able to get out of the phone.
[02:11:48.530 --> 02:11:54.950]  So at 1.38, the phone, there was a phone call made. The phone was charging. There was
[02:11:55.510 --> 02:12:02.750]  Snapchat being used at 1.41. There was a Snapchat picture that was posted. He was able to find
[02:12:02.750 --> 02:12:08.290]  the corresponding picture inside the Snapchat application. That was a question we had from
[02:12:08.290 --> 02:12:18.010]  the other day. The phone, the picture of Abby on the bridge was not in the camera roll.
[02:12:18.290 --> 02:12:22.750]  So the question was, could it have been stored in the Snapchat database? That examiner
[02:12:22.750 --> 02:12:27.930]  didn't know the answer to that. So this particular picture he was able to find within
[02:12:27.930 --> 02:12:35.510]  the Snapchat application. At 1.43.59, there's another Snapchat picture posted. This is the
[02:12:35.510 --> 02:12:40.890]  one that was the first exhibit from the state, the photograph, the selfie taken in the car
[02:12:40.890 --> 02:12:44.910]  that Libby took and shows Abby sitting in the back seat behind.
[02:12:46.010 --> 02:12:53.430]  At 2.05.10, there is a Snapchat picture that is uploaded. That is the photograph
[02:12:53.430 --> 02:12:59.550]  of the plane photograph of the Monon High Bridge. He was able to find that on the phone.
[02:13:01.690 --> 02:13:08.590]  At 2.07.20 is the last time the phone was unlocked. Now, he doesn't note
[02:13:09.230 --> 02:13:17.730]  on this timeline when the photo of Abby was posted. We're gonna get to this. There's questions
[02:13:17.730 --> 02:13:26.610]  about that. So at 2.07.20 was the last time the phone was unlocked. 2.13.51 is when the
[02:13:26.610 --> 02:13:31.790]  video was recorded of Abby walking across the bridge with the person behind her. He said it's
[02:13:32.510 --> 02:13:41.330]  video. Really didn't seem like that, but I'll trust him that it was. And so
[02:13:42.570 --> 02:13:53.210]  at 2.14.41, somebody tries to biometrically unlock the phone, but apparently is not
[02:13:53.210 --> 02:13:57.230]  successful and I don't think we have information about who that was.
[02:13:58.790 --> 02:14:05.150]  232.39 is the last recorded movement in the Apple Health data. He is calling this movement
[02:14:05.150 --> 02:14:16.070]  of the phone, but that is not accurate. If the phone moves and it's not in a step,
[02:14:16.250 --> 02:14:27.210]  like if the phone is in my car and somebody is driving my car, the phone is not going
[02:14:27.210 --> 02:14:32.350]  to register steps. He did get to that in cross-examination, but I just pointed that
[02:14:32.350 --> 02:14:35.630]  out because he's using this language, last recorded movement of the phone. Now, it's
[02:14:35.630 --> 02:14:40.310]  not the phone movement that's being recorded. It's the steps that are being recorded. So
[02:14:40.310 --> 02:14:49.650]  no steps recorded after 232.239. And then at 10.32.36 is because remember he only did
[02:14:49.650 --> 02:14:58.010]  this for one day. He only did the February 13th analysis. So at 10.32.36 this was,
[02:14:58.070 --> 02:15:02.570]  according to him, the last recorded data from the iPhone and because of that he
[02:15:02.570 --> 02:15:07.670]  thought the battery was depleted, but he now knows that that is incorrect.
[02:15:12.330 --> 02:15:19.750]  So he gave his report to the investigators. After that, programs continue to be developed,
[02:15:19.750 --> 02:15:25.350]  continue to be updated and more and more data can be extracted, more and more data can be
[02:15:25.350 --> 02:15:31.310]  analyzed. There were updates to Celebrite and Magnet that allow more info to be able to be
[02:15:31.310 --> 02:15:36.550]  analyzed and decoded. So at this point, then what he did is he went back to those original
[02:15:36.550 --> 02:15:42.010]  extractions and then he reprocessed them through the updated version of Celebrite. So
[02:15:42.010 --> 02:15:46.830]  he did not do a new extraction for this part of his examination.
[02:15:51.310 --> 02:16:02.430]  He says he did not compare the 2017 data to the 2019 data, like to see if those extractions
[02:16:02.430 --> 02:16:09.310]  got the same thing. He had previously, earlier in his testimony, however, said that the
[02:16:09.310 --> 02:16:14.650]  the whole point of the gray key extraction is that it can pull more than what those original
[02:16:14.650 --> 02:16:25.820]  ones do. But he says he didn't compare them. There was an interesting thing that was happening
[02:16:25.820 --> 02:16:32.600]  during this questioning. Mr. McLeiland was handling the direct examination. He would ask
[02:16:32.600 --> 02:16:42.760]  a question that would be kind of a technical question. And on occasion, the witness would
[02:16:42.760 --> 02:16:53.120]  say, can you rephrase that? Can you rephrase that? He didn't want to answer the question
[02:16:53.120 --> 02:17:01.140]  the way it was asked. And there could be different reasons for that. Typically, if it's
[02:17:01.140 --> 02:17:08.320]  a bad question, you just would clarify, you know, I mean, I feel like I feel like most
[02:17:08.320 --> 02:17:12.120]  witnesses, you would just clarify, is this what you're trying to get at? Okay, I'll answer
[02:17:12.120 --> 02:17:23.780]  that. I will just tell you the impression I got is that they were trying to make sure that the
[02:17:23.780 --> 02:17:36.790]  testimony was very specific and that the ultimate impression that I got was that they
[02:17:37.510 --> 02:17:45.290]  suggest that the 2017 extraction, the data that came from that, and then the 2019
[02:17:45.290 --> 02:17:53.070]  extraction that he did, that they both pulled the same data. And so that would tend to
[02:17:53.070 --> 02:18:00.030]  minimize the suggestion that had been raised in the previous examiner's cross exam that
[02:18:00.030 --> 02:18:06.270]  the way that he handled the phone could have resulted in a loss of some of the data.
[02:18:06.270 --> 02:18:11.850]  Because that then would show up, right? There would be more data on the 2019 extraction than
[02:18:11.850 --> 02:18:23.150]  there would be on the 2017 extraction. So there was a lot of care and wordsmithing
[02:18:23.150 --> 02:18:33.110]  of these questions to kind of avoid certain explicit questions being asked like straight up
[02:18:33.110 --> 02:18:43.930]  was the amount of data the same? Could you rephrase that? That I thought it made me
[02:18:43.930 --> 02:18:53.990]  uncomfortable a little bit. So then in 2024, he took his first extraction that he did in 2017,
[02:18:55.110 --> 02:19:05.630]  the one that Bunner did, and he reviewed it. He reviewed the timeline. He knew that Bunner had
[02:19:05.630 --> 02:19:11.710]  connected it to the cell network. And so as a result of that, there would be additional data
[02:19:11.710 --> 02:19:18.890]  in the new extraction that was not there on the February 15 extraction.
[02:19:20.110 --> 02:19:26.150]  This again was like they're really skirting around the comparison of the data between these
[02:19:26.150 --> 02:19:34.410]  two. And so he didn't compare them, but it's like probably deliberate that he didn't compare
[02:19:34.410 --> 02:19:46.760]  them. He says that the connecting to the network would not have affected the data that
[02:19:46.760 --> 02:19:53.180]  was previously collected, the method one collection, the very first one that he did,
[02:19:53.420 --> 02:19:57.640]  he connected to the network after that. So that would not have affected the first extraction.
[02:19:57.640 --> 02:20:05.020]  He was clear about that. But then at one point in here, he did say they compared the
[02:20:05.020 --> 02:20:11.060]  information gathered between the extractions and they were the same. This is going to come back
[02:20:11.060 --> 02:20:16.920]  in cross-examination. So he finally, he previously said, no, I didn't compare them.
[02:20:17.240 --> 02:20:21.760]  But then just a few minutes later, he says I compared them and they were the same.
[02:20:25.830 --> 02:20:35.310]  So then he did another detailed analysis between May and August of 2024. So this was all
[02:20:35.310 --> 02:20:43.570]  continuing to occur very recently. And then he wrote a second report in August of 2024.
[02:20:44.670 --> 02:20:52.310]  In that report, the first thing he did is he corrected some of the previous data. He had made
[02:20:52.310 --> 02:20:58.690]  a few typos about times. He had indicated that the phone had been unlocked by Celebrite when
[02:20:58.690 --> 02:21:03.530]  in fact law enforcement had provided the passcode. So the phone did not need to be broken.
[02:21:04.310 --> 02:21:11.590]  It was open with the passcode. And then he had made an incorrect notation about the time of
[02:21:11.590 --> 02:21:18.570]  last activity on February the 13th. So relatively minor things, but he did start that report by
[02:21:18.570 --> 02:21:24.690]  making the corrections. So now we go back to knowledge C and the knowledge C database. He
[02:21:24.690 --> 02:21:36.260]  said that it usually retains about a month worth of records of data. Some information is
[02:21:36.260 --> 02:21:42.320]  stored for weeks. Some information is stored for months. Some information is stored longer.
[02:21:42.420 --> 02:21:49.880]  It just depends on what events the knowledge C is tracking. And so whenever the phone
[02:21:50.780 --> 02:21:56.260]  wants to delete that old data, it will overwrite it with the new information. And
[02:21:56.260 --> 02:22:01.000]  it's on a first in first out system. So that means the oldest stuff is the first
[02:22:01.000 --> 02:22:09.960]  be deleted and then overwritten. He clarified that to kind of illustrate what it is that
[02:22:09.960 --> 02:22:16.600]  the knowledge C database is doing. Pictures and videos, for example, are not stored in the
[02:22:16.600 --> 02:22:22.140]  knowledge C database. But what the knowledge C database does store is information about the
[02:22:22.140 --> 02:22:27.520]  use of the camera. And so it will indicate the camera was used, but it doesn't store
[02:22:27.520 --> 02:22:35.060]  the content, the product of that use of the camera. So because of that, the knowledge C
[02:22:35.060 --> 02:22:40.880]  database, it can lose information. It is volatile like he described. And that occurs
[02:22:40.880 --> 02:22:50.760]  when the phone is powered on and powered off. He indicated that internet cached information
[02:22:50.760 --> 02:22:57.280]  is what will be deleted, whereas user created data will stay. So if you are personally
[02:22:57.520 --> 02:23:03.320]  doing something with your phone, you're entering a contact, you're taking a photograph,
[02:23:04.200 --> 02:23:12.740]  you are setting your alarm, those end products will not be subject to the knowledge C
[02:23:12.740 --> 02:23:21.000]  database. They won't be deleted. It's the information about the usage and then the internet
[02:23:21.000 --> 02:23:28.180]  cached data. He didn't specify, he didn't clarify exactly what that means. But that's
[02:23:28.180 --> 02:23:33.460]  just the distinction that he drew. He also indicated that the health app data, that is
[02:23:33.460 --> 02:23:40.420]  not a part of the knowledge C database. So in this new analysis that he did, he did not
[02:23:40.420 --> 02:23:50.020]  get any new information from the Apple health data. He confirmed that the way that iPhone
[02:23:50.020 --> 02:23:56.380]  calculates the steps that in a controlled environment, they are pretty accurate.
[02:23:56.760 --> 02:24:02.860]  Over long distances of time, though, it becomes a little bit less accurate and it would tend to
[02:24:02.860 --> 02:24:20.240]  overestimate the distances. I think we are on Ms. OJ's cross-examination now. I forgot,
[02:24:20.240 --> 02:24:29.740]  forgot to write down her name. I usually write her name in the margin to let me know
[02:24:29.740 --> 02:24:34.700]  that that's what happened. But I forgot to do that here. So we are in cross-examination now.
[02:24:34.900 --> 02:24:40.960]  Here's what caught it for me. She's the one that's drawing out all this information.
[02:24:42.700 --> 02:24:50.040]  So when he testified in his direct examination that sometimes if the phone is in a car and
[02:24:50.040 --> 02:24:56.720]  car hits a bump, it will register movement. That, according to Ms. OJ, it apparently derives
[02:24:56.720 --> 02:25:06.560]  from a study that was done where one time, sometimes an iPhone would mistake hitting a speed
[02:25:06.560 --> 02:25:15.960]  bump for a step. So he conceded that and so she was making the point that this is not
[02:25:15.960 --> 02:25:21.000]  just any movement. It didn't account for potholes. It's not accounting for climbing
[02:25:21.000 --> 02:25:27.520]  the hill like you remember from Karen Reed, stuff like that. It's very specifically a study
[02:25:27.520 --> 02:25:36.940]  about a speed bump and that it is only sometimes that that would register incorrectly.
[02:25:41.660 --> 02:25:47.920]  The health data doesn't give location data, but the other apps do. And if you've allowed
[02:25:47.920 --> 02:25:54.660]  access to the location data on your phone. So on Libby's phone, she had had location services
[02:25:54.660 --> 02:26:02.460]  enabled for a variety of apps. So you can enable it for sometimes while you're using
[02:26:02.460 --> 02:26:06.720]  the app. You can have it always enabled. You can have it never enabled. There were several
[02:26:06.720 --> 02:26:11.200]  that were enabled while she was using the app, the camera, the maps, the Snapchat,
[02:26:11.200 --> 02:26:20.180]  the App Store, Siri. It was always enabled for the weather app. It was never enabled
[02:26:20.180 --> 02:26:24.660]  for Walmart. I thought this is really a girl after my own heart.
[02:26:29.860 --> 02:26:35.260]  So to get the location data, it's because the phone is connecting with a GPS network
[02:26:35.260 --> 02:26:44.380]  or with cell towers or with Wi-Fi. He confirms that CPS is very good accuracy. It's very
[02:26:44.380 --> 02:26:54.560]  high accuracy. During this cross-examination, I want to emphasize part of how this went because
[02:26:54.560 --> 02:27:04.480]  there was a big misstep from my perspective, a major defense misstep in this cross-examination.
[02:27:05.680 --> 02:27:13.300]  So initially, Ms. Auger, she is really making points. She knows what she's talking about.
[02:27:13.300 --> 02:27:21.660]  He's agreeing with everything that she said. And something that Julie Melvin, I was speaking
[02:27:21.660 --> 02:27:31.340]  to her a few times today, she noticed that sometimes when the defense is cross-examining
[02:27:31.340 --> 02:27:37.620]  the witnesses, they start to speak much more quietly. And I hadn't noticed this. I hadn't
[02:27:37.620 --> 02:27:41.580]  noticed this with any of the prior witnesses she had pointed it out to me earlier in the
[02:27:41.580 --> 02:27:49.460]  day. With this witness now, noticed it. He's gotten real quiet. He's gotten real quiet.
[02:27:49.900 --> 02:27:54.460]  There's only a couple times that Mr. McClelland objects. When he objects, he is also
[02:27:54.880 --> 02:28:05.320]  real quiet. They've gotten quiet. Ms. Auger, she is making hay with this cross-examination.
[02:28:05.320 --> 02:28:12.840]  So she's getting good information out. So the video, she points out the location data starts
[02:28:12.840 --> 02:28:23.520]  near the Delphi High School as the video records. And then as it progresses within four
[02:28:23.520 --> 02:28:31.980]  seconds, the data then came back to the trail. And that it was... he claimed it was
[02:28:31.980 --> 02:28:37.980]  accurate to within about 30 meters at that point. So they got... it sounds like they got
[02:28:37.980 --> 02:28:45.600]  additional location data through this subsequent extraction that the first analysis that the
[02:28:45.600 --> 02:28:53.440]  first time they extracted it with the tools at the time when the analyst mapped it and just
[02:28:53.440 --> 02:28:59.160]  got like the whole town of Delphi. This new analysis was able to show that actually that
[02:28:59.160 --> 02:29:10.020]  did go down to more precise, more pinpointed, and it was within about 30 meters, about 30 meter
[02:29:10.020 --> 02:29:20.820]  accuracy. And he described the way that that happens. So what happens is that when they first...
[02:29:20.820 --> 02:29:26.360]  when you first open the app or open the phone or just whatever is triggering the location
[02:29:26.360 --> 02:29:34.780]  data to be pulled, the phone is programmed to default to what is going to preserve the
[02:29:34.780 --> 02:29:42.460]  battery and to use what is going to preserve the battery like when possible. And so that's
[02:29:42.460 --> 02:29:48.760]  what it first uses when it opens. And those are going to be likely cell tower data. And
[02:29:48.760 --> 02:29:55.100]  the cell tower data is what is, like we've been talking about here, not particularly precise
[02:29:55.100 --> 02:30:04.900]  you're just connecting to a single phone or to a single tower. So then as time passes,
[02:30:05.700 --> 02:30:10.900]  it will start to use more battery to perform this function. And that's then when it will
[02:30:10.900 --> 02:30:18.080]  start to use these satellite-based systems to get more detailed information as the time goes
[02:30:18.080 --> 02:30:31.580]  as the video progresses. Liberty had location services on for Snapchat. And so the Knowledge
[02:30:31.580 --> 02:30:39.340]  Sea database shows when it's being used. The location services should have gotten it within
[02:30:39.340 --> 02:30:46.060]  about a five meter range. It doesn't map continuously. None of these apps will map
[02:30:46.060 --> 02:30:50.440]  continuously because that would drain the battery. So the app has to be open for the
[02:30:50.440 --> 02:31:01.840]  mapping to take place. But the Snapchat location services seems to be a fairly precise location
[02:31:02.860 --> 02:31:14.040]  information. He did say that having the battery low, like if the battery goes low or if it's
[02:31:14.040 --> 02:31:23.600]  to save the battery, that would not interfere with the Apple health data. So based on the
[02:31:23.600 --> 02:31:29.340]  new information, they conclude that the phone, he had previously thought it went off at 1030
[02:31:29.340 --> 02:31:33.660]  because the battery was low. No, the new conclusion is the phone stayed on until
[02:31:33.660 --> 02:31:40.840]  sometime after 430 a.m. the following day. And the reason why is because at that time,
[02:31:40.840 --> 02:31:47.700]  the phone suddenly received a bunch of SMS messages. And there was no indication that
[02:31:47.700 --> 02:31:52.780]  the phone was turned off, nothing in the log that would indicate that the phone was turned off.
[02:31:57.950 --> 02:32:03.750]  But there was no movement that was tracked in the phone up to that point that, you know,
[02:32:03.910 --> 02:32:11.190]  432 a.m. when the SMS messages came flooding in.
[02:32:13.550 --> 02:32:21.030]  So they kind of modified the timeline after the phone stopped moving at 233 p.m.
[02:32:21.430 --> 02:32:31.410]  So he said the phone is receiving calls, SMS. And he clarifies what SMS is, is it's a
[02:32:31.410 --> 02:32:39.090]  message that's sent solely over the cell network, not over the information, the data network,
[02:32:39.090 --> 02:32:44.530]  satellite based and stuff. So it's just calls and texts and things like that can typically
[02:32:44.530 --> 02:32:51.490]  go by either network. But SMS is specifically only over the cell network. So during this
[02:32:51.490 --> 02:32:56.410]  time frame, the phone is receiving calls, it's receiving SMS, it's receiving texts.
[02:32:56.690 --> 02:33:04.290]  At 406 p.m. it receives an SMS from Becky Patty. You need to call me now with
[02:33:05.170 --> 02:33:13.070]  several exclamation points and that there's more after that. It's noting this information is
[02:33:13.070 --> 02:33:20.450]  noting the fact of the communication, but not the detail, not the text detail or the call
[02:33:20.450 --> 02:33:27.250]  detail or anything like that. It will show the name of the contact if that person is saved on
[02:33:27.250 --> 02:33:35.910]  the phone. And so then those messages continued to February 14th. And then again, several came
[02:33:35.910 --> 02:33:45.190]  in at 438 a.m., about 15 to 20 all at once. She asked him if he knew why all of these SMS
[02:33:45.190 --> 02:33:54.570]  messages came in all at once at 438 or 433 a.m. He doesn't know. He doesn't know why. He
[02:33:54.570 --> 02:34:06.470]  doesn't have an answer or an explanation. On February 14th at 434 a.m. he says that's the
[02:34:06.470 --> 02:34:13.430]  last operating system activity and they are not sure what happens after that. So there
[02:34:13.430 --> 02:34:23.520]  doesn't seem to be a record of what happened to the phone. It's on February 15th, the
[02:34:23.520 --> 02:34:32.720]  day at about 7 p.m. that the iPhone then is booting up. That's when Bunner had turned
[02:34:32.720 --> 02:34:37.960]  it on and plugged it in and charged it for his extraction. So at some point before that
[02:34:37.960 --> 02:34:55.620]  the phone had lost power, but there is not a record of that. You know what? I think maybe I
[02:34:55.620 --> 02:35:01.840]  was wrong. I think maybe this was not crossed yet. The reason why I say that is because
[02:35:02.720 --> 02:35:14.430]  I think it wasn't... I thought we were because of that
[02:35:14.430 --> 02:35:30.570]  that concession about the speed bump. The study of the speed bump. Maybe he just specified
[02:35:31.590 --> 02:35:38.650]  that in his questioning and Ms. Auger drew it out later in cross-examination. I think that is
[02:35:38.650 --> 02:35:44.510]  what happened. So I am sorry, guys. I was right the first time. This has all been information
[02:35:44.510 --> 02:35:49.750]  that's elicited on direct. The reason why I know that is because at this point we went
[02:35:49.750 --> 02:35:54.990]  to recess and when we came back from recess Mr. McClelland asked for permission. He had
[02:35:54.990 --> 02:36:00.150]  passed the witness so he was done with his questions. It's going to go to Ms. Auger. But
[02:36:00.150 --> 02:36:04.610]  then he came back after recess and told the court he asked for permission to ask omitted
[02:36:04.610 --> 02:36:10.410]  questions. He forgot to ask some things so he wanted to follow up on that before she proceeded
[02:36:10.410 --> 02:36:17.110]  to her cross. So that's... I apologize. I had it right the first time. This was all
[02:36:17.110 --> 02:36:23.630]  direct examination. So the omitted questions that he had wanted to ask on the first report,
[02:36:24.130 --> 02:36:29.170]  there had been some asterisks by some of the entries and this was very important.
[02:36:29.170 --> 02:36:36.470]  He had the timeline for when the photo of Abby on the bridge was posted to Snapchat
[02:36:37.250 --> 02:36:43.170]  but he was not able to find that picture on the phone and he didn't know why.
[02:36:44.210 --> 02:36:51.410]  So he had found a picture on the internet of Abby on the bridge that had a time stamp
[02:36:51.410 --> 02:36:58.670]  that was the same or, you know, roughly I think the same as the time stamp that was showing
[02:36:58.670 --> 02:37:07.090]  in the KnowledgeSee database for when that event had taken place.
[02:37:07.850 --> 02:37:14.390]  So that was introduced as an exhibit. It was just the one that he found on the internet
[02:37:14.390 --> 02:37:21.730]  to confirm that yes this was a photo and maybe corresponds with this time stamp that is there
[02:37:21.730 --> 02:37:28.630]  in the report. But he didn't find it in the phone so it was not in the Snapchat database
[02:37:28.630 --> 02:37:41.710]  like the other photos which is odd. He also clarified that the measurement for the
[02:37:41.710 --> 02:37:50.270]  elevation change that's used for this program is one flight of stairs is equivalent to
[02:37:50.270 --> 02:37:56.970]  approximately 10 feet in elevation or 16 steps. So the two floors that were noted
[02:37:56.970 --> 02:38:05.250]  in this particular case on February 13th at the like 233-ish time was about 20 feet
[02:38:05.250 --> 02:38:11.390]  elevation change but they did not know if it was elevation change up or elevation change down.
[02:38:14.510 --> 02:38:29.930]  And then he also said that between 12... on February 13th between 1201 p.m. and 131 p.m.
[02:38:29.950 --> 02:38:38.110]  there was no entry and so according to him that means the phone isn't moving. So now we go to
[02:38:38.110 --> 02:38:44.690]  examination and the many many points that she scored. And so we'll get back to some of these
[02:38:44.690 --> 02:38:49.990]  some of these other things. So first thing she hits on this exhibit the photo he got from the
[02:38:49.990 --> 02:38:54.730]  internet. It was just a random photo he got on the internet. She asked him how where'd you
[02:38:54.730 --> 02:38:59.390]  find it? He's like I think I did a Google search. He doesn't remember what he searched
[02:38:59.650 --> 02:39:07.410]  for. The time stamp was I think on the...
[02:39:07.410 --> 02:39:14.150]  I couldn't see exactly what they were talking about but there is a time stamp of 207
[02:39:14.150 --> 02:39:21.030]  that I believe is the information from the report. But then the time I think on the photo
[02:39:21.030 --> 02:39:27.550]  like if it was screenshot or something it says seven hours ago. That you know could
[02:39:27.550 --> 02:39:36.810]  mean anything. Nobody knows what that means. She then presented the defense exhibit A that's
[02:39:36.810 --> 02:39:43.210]  already been introduced. She represented it as being the original picture and the original
[02:39:43.210 --> 02:39:50.970]  picture has no date or time stamp. So I don't know yet where exhibit A came from
[02:39:50.970 --> 02:39:58.170]  because they didn't find the original on the phone. So I don't know how this is the original.
[02:39:59.110 --> 02:40:04.370]  I don't know if there's been a defense analysis that maybe was able to recover
[02:40:04.370 --> 02:40:11.450]  some deleted data or something like that and that's where it came from. It's not clear to me.
[02:40:12.610 --> 02:40:22.230]  So she just elicited that he doesn't know who put the 207 marking on that photo. It was just
[02:40:22.230 --> 02:40:30.550]  some random person out on the internet and we don't know when the photo was actually posted
[02:40:30.550 --> 02:40:36.950]  you know from looking at the photo. So she walked through the timeline of the Snapchat
[02:40:36.950 --> 02:40:43.450]  photos that 140 there was a photo taken. It was found in the Snapchat cache.
[02:40:43.930 --> 02:40:49.790]  At 141 a photo was taken. It was found in the Snapchat cache. 143 a photo is taken. It's
[02:40:49.790 --> 02:40:56.150]  found in the Snapchat cache. 205 these are all photos that are posted to Snapchat.
[02:40:56.970 --> 02:41:04.410]  It's found in the Snapchat cache but he didn't find the one from 207 and it's also not on
[02:41:04.410 --> 02:41:14.790]  camera roll. So it's an outlier. This picture of Abby. It's gone. It's quite curious.
[02:41:16.850 --> 02:41:24.310]  So she asked one possible explanation could it have been posted to her account from another
[02:41:24.310 --> 02:41:35.470]  device? He said possibly. Possibly could have done that. I'm not sure what that's implying
[02:41:36.110 --> 02:41:41.170]  at 207. Bridge guy is still not there.
[02:41:43.570 --> 02:41:48.990]  Maybe she's suggesting there's more than one person that took the photo and
[02:41:50.810 --> 02:41:56.510]  put Libby's Snapchat information in their phone and then uploaded the photo to Libby's account.
[02:41:56.590 --> 02:42:03.530]  That seems to kind of be what's implied. It seems far-fetched to me. It seems far-fetched
[02:42:03.530 --> 02:42:11.450]  to me. To me it seems like a more logical explanation is someone somewhere somehow
[02:42:11.450 --> 02:42:26.160]  deleted that photo. Don't know how. They agree Abby's in the same clothes as she was in
[02:42:27.450 --> 02:42:32.040]  that day on the 13th. It looks like it's the same time and place so it doesn't look
[02:42:32.040 --> 02:42:38.180]  like it's a situation where a photo gets posted to Snapchat and it's like some old photo.
[02:42:39.940 --> 02:42:43.240]  Really does. It appears to be time and place accurate.
[02:42:45.180 --> 02:42:49.700]  Just can't really track down where it is.
[02:42:52.360 --> 02:42:59.520]  So if it had been... you can post things. They asked if you can post things that you upload
[02:42:59.520 --> 02:43:06.180]  to Snapchat. He says yeah you can but it would still be on the phone. You would find
[02:43:06.180 --> 02:43:12.780]  it somewhere on the phone. So he conceded that the phone, cell phone data, it's accurate,
[02:43:12.860 --> 02:43:18.100]  it's reliable, including the Apple Health data and including the KnowledgeSea database. These
[02:43:18.100 --> 02:43:23.280]  are hard sources of data is clearly what the defense wants to establish.
[02:43:24.600 --> 02:43:30.920]  She asked him about an encrypted cache. He did not know what this was. He said he wasn't
[02:43:30.920 --> 02:43:40.620]  aware of an encrypted cache. She asked him about what's called an UFED, which is an
[02:43:40.620 --> 02:43:46.940]  acronym for a Universal Forensic Extraction Device. She says that it has been around since
[02:43:47.740 --> 02:43:54.280]  2007. She asked him, you know, she's like and this allows for a physical extraction.
[02:43:54.400 --> 02:43:59.760]  He first says no it does not but then he stopped and said well it could but it depends
[02:43:59.760 --> 02:44:07.320]  on the make and model of the phone whether that was going to be available before 2017.
[02:44:08.240 --> 02:44:14.180]  So this is harkening back to the first extraction that the first analyst did was the
[02:44:14.180 --> 02:44:22.220]  logical extraction which is very basic. And so she's just kind of pointing out or suggesting
[02:44:22.220 --> 02:44:28.840]  there could have been a much more thorough extraction done back in early 2017.
[02:44:29.760 --> 02:44:36.180]  So we got a little bit more description with this analyst of those different levels of extraction.
[02:44:36.180 --> 02:44:41.660]  We heard about the methods, the method one, method two, method three, and how method two
[02:44:41.660 --> 02:44:46.920]  and method three didn't become available until later. But so we got a little bit more,
[02:44:46.940 --> 02:44:51.340]  we didn't hear more about that but we got more of a breakdown of what the logical,
[02:44:51.340 --> 02:45:00.140]  the advanced logical, and the full file system extractions are. And so the logical he describes
[02:45:00.140 --> 02:45:06.080]  is typically what the user can see. So it's just the visible data on the phone, the things
[02:45:06.080 --> 02:45:11.480]  that you would be interacting with that you would have knowledge of. The advanced logical
[02:45:11.480 --> 02:45:19.760]  he said it's typically like an iPhone backup is what that's going after. Gets you just a
[02:45:19.760 --> 02:45:26.600]  bit more than the logical extraction. And then the full file system is what she described as
[02:45:26.600 --> 02:45:31.600]  the data under the hood. So it's the system files, it's logs, it's the knowledge C database,
[02:45:31.760 --> 02:45:37.620]  all of this stuff. This is where they drew out how Apple doesn't tell the forensic people
[02:45:37.620 --> 02:45:41.940]  what's in the phone. They have to figure it out and how to get to it. And so that's why
[02:45:41.940 --> 02:45:48.460]  the knowledge C database was unknown. She asked if he was familiar with a power off log.
[02:45:48.460 --> 02:45:55.720]  He was, although he referred to it as a shut down log. He acknowledged that the shut down
[02:45:55.720 --> 02:46:03.060]  log is volatile and that every time you power the phone it overwrites that log. And so
[02:46:03.060 --> 02:46:13.340]  when Bunner powered off the phone it would reset the log. And so because of that,
[02:46:14.720 --> 02:46:24.200]  that's why we don't have access to what time the phone was shut off back on February 14th. After
[02:46:24.200 --> 02:46:29.260]  it came alive, you know, for something in the morning and received all of the SMS messages. At
[02:46:29.260 --> 02:46:35.460]  some point it powered off because Bunner had to power it back on to do the extraction. But
[02:46:35.460 --> 02:46:41.120]  there's no log of it and we won't be able to find out when because it's been overwritten.
[02:46:46.520 --> 02:46:52.840]  Two iPhones, she confirmed again. We revisited this. They can use iMessaging, which is the
[02:46:52.840 --> 02:47:00.780]  encrypted message service that Apple provides to its users. And it uses SMS communications
[02:47:00.780 --> 02:47:07.320]  with androids. And so those, again, those don't use data. Those just use the cell network.
[02:47:07.320 --> 02:47:17.960]  When an iPhone talks with an Apple, they are using SMS. So she clarifies then,
[02:47:18.260 --> 02:47:25.820]  the phone, it received no calls or SMS messages between 4.06 p.m. on the 13th
[02:47:25.820 --> 02:47:35.000]  and 4.33 a.m. on the 14th. He had said previously that it received some iMessages
[02:47:35.000 --> 02:47:46.420]  throughout the night. But at 4.33, the distinction is that the SMS messages need
[02:47:46.420 --> 02:47:53.960]  the tower. And so at 4.33, it received 15 SMS messages and he did not know why.
[02:47:55.400 --> 02:48:03.220]  So Ms. Auger used what I think is a fairly commonplace example, a relatable type of
[02:48:03.220 --> 02:48:08.680]  example of if you go to an area where your phone is out of service and then you go back
[02:48:08.680 --> 02:48:14.120]  to where it's in service and the phone reconnects, all of these things will pop up on the phone.
[02:48:16.940 --> 02:48:21.520]  Does that happen? She asked him, does that happen to you? Yeah, that's happened to him.
[02:48:22.300 --> 02:48:28.580]  So that's clearly what she wants to imply is the reason for the SMS messages suddenly coming
[02:48:28.580 --> 02:48:33.660]  in at 4.33 a.m. is because that would be when the phone reconnected with the network.
[02:48:34.120 --> 02:48:37.420]  Everything else that went through is able to use the data system.
[02:48:47.020 --> 02:48:53.100]  Most SMS messages are timestamped at the time of receipt. So it's not until they actually
[02:48:53.100 --> 02:48:58.300]  land in the phone that they get timestamped. So all of those 15, 15 to 20 or whatever that
[02:48:58.300 --> 02:49:04.280]  they would be timestamped at the time of receipt. iMessages, by contrast,
[02:49:04.680 --> 02:49:10.580]  are timestamped at the time they are sent. So regardless of the time that they are received,
[02:49:11.000 --> 02:49:16.940]  it doesn't mean that the phone had power when those iMessages are timestamped. It doesn't mean
[02:49:16.940 --> 02:49:23.480]  that they are received. So the fact that it sounds like there are iMessages that are
[02:49:23.480 --> 02:49:30.760]  timestamped between the 4.06 p.m. and the 4.33 a.m., it doesn't mean that the phone had
[02:49:30.760 --> 02:49:45.480]  received them. And he conceded that point. He had had his deposition on September the 12th
[02:49:46.400 --> 02:49:54.580]  in that he acknowledges that the KnowledgeSea database, it exists on the phone, it contains
[02:49:54.580 --> 02:50:00.260]  information and that he had used all of the different extractions to prepare this very
[02:50:00.260 --> 02:50:09.900]  detailed 2017 report with the timeline. She introduced exhibit P, which is basically the
[02:50:09.900 --> 02:50:16.820]  original source of all of the... it sounds like it's all of the KnowledgeSea database.
[02:50:16.820 --> 02:50:23.180]  And then what he had done is he had gone through and selected the ones that
[02:50:24.080 --> 02:50:32.280]  seemed to be pertinent, seemed to be most helpful for interpreting the timeline in terms
[02:50:32.280 --> 02:50:43.810]  of events in the real world. So that original was admitted into evidence, but we did not
[02:50:43.810 --> 02:50:53.310]  really follow up on that. And that leads me to think this stage is being set for something
[02:50:53.310 --> 02:50:58.470]  that is coming in the future. Same thing with the reference to the encrypted cache,
[02:50:59.170 --> 02:51:05.150]  which he didn't know about. It sounds like that's something that she knows about from
[02:51:05.150 --> 02:51:10.870]  another source and so we will probably hear about that later. I'm filing that away for
[02:51:10.870 --> 02:51:21.540]  future reference. She confronted him on whether the phone would track the movement in a car
[02:51:21.540 --> 02:51:26.120]  because he said he had gone and researched it and he'd found this white paper that said
[02:51:26.120 --> 02:51:37.000]  sometimes on the speed bump it would record it. But you aren't able to know if it does or
[02:51:37.000 --> 02:51:42.740]  if it doesn't. He said the source is first off it's a preliminary research report so it's
[02:51:42.740 --> 02:51:48.600]  not like a final, thorough, peer-reviewed anything. It's some preliminary research that
[02:51:48.600 --> 02:51:55.180]  somebody has done. And it says that the iPhone sometimes mistakenly reports the speed bumps
[02:51:55.180 --> 02:52:00.300]  as steps. So not that it always does or even that it predictably does, just that it
[02:52:00.300 --> 02:52:08.560]  sometimes has happened. But also that it seems to be limited to speed bumps. Maybe that's
[02:52:08.560 --> 02:52:15.800]  of the elevation and the elevation is kind of similar to, you know, what you would do in a
[02:52:15.800 --> 02:52:20.980]  step. I don't know. I don't have an explanation for it. But it's just based on speed bumps.
[02:52:21.320 --> 02:52:27.700]  Otherwise, remember his earlier testimony was that the health app data is very accurate.
[02:52:27.800 --> 02:52:37.200]  Accurate and reliable. She pulled out that the gray key can and did recover some deleted
[02:52:37.200 --> 02:52:45.340]  files. This was also just sort of left hanging out there. This is what made me get thinking
[02:52:45.340 --> 02:52:53.240]  about that photo. The photo of Abby on the bridge that we can't find anywhere but somehow
[02:52:53.240 --> 02:53:00.540]  the defense has the original. Seems like it got deleted somehow. Don't know if it was
[02:53:00.540 --> 02:53:06.280]  intentional. Don't know if it's inadvertent. Don't know when or where or how. But that's
[02:53:06.280 --> 02:53:11.020]  the implication I got. That that's kind of the stage that's being set. They did in fact
[02:53:11.020 --> 02:53:17.840]  recover some deleted files. So didn't hear much about that from this expert. Think the stage is
[02:53:17.840 --> 02:53:25.940]  being set for whatever the defense has that they're going to bring. So she established again
[02:53:25.940 --> 02:53:34.140]  on February 23rd of 2017. Bunner conceded in his examination. He had connected the
[02:53:34.140 --> 02:53:42.340]  phone to a cell network and she got this witness to agree that as a digital forensic
[02:53:42.340 --> 02:53:50.700]  analyst that is typically a no-no. Because there's other ways that you can get cloud
[02:53:50.700 --> 02:53:58.300]  information and that can again it can just cause problems with loss of data. Data to be
[02:53:58.300 --> 02:54:07.760]  written things to be not what you want. She also elicited from him that you want to get
[02:54:07.760 --> 02:54:14.080]  everything the first time you do an extraction. Because every time you plug it in you're
[02:54:14.080 --> 02:54:20.040]  potentially losing data. Plus anytime the phone is powered on you are potentially losing
[02:54:20.040 --> 02:54:29.920]  over time. So there she is clearly getting at, you know, Bunner did an extraction,
[02:54:30.140 --> 02:54:35.500]  you know, did like four or five extractions that he described. Like several ones over and
[02:54:35.500 --> 02:54:40.640]  over and over again. The implication is that every time you do this you are potentially
[02:54:40.640 --> 02:54:50.020]  losing data in that phone. He agreed that with these analyses it's helpful to have a
[02:54:50.020 --> 02:54:57.500]  in 2019 the FBI requested the full file extraction that he had done and that he had asked
[02:54:59.940 --> 02:55:07.720]  Mr. Holman, deputy, is he deputy? I don't know his formal title, Jerry Holman,
[02:55:08.060 --> 02:55:13.640]  if he could provide it. You can't ask him what Jerry Holman said because that would be
[02:55:13.640 --> 02:55:19.320]  hearsay. But so asked him what he did at that point and his answer was he did not
[02:55:19.320 --> 02:55:28.020]  follow up. So he didn't give the FBI the new extraction. They didn't want the FBI
[02:55:28.020 --> 02:55:35.340]  looking at the new extraction. This is troubling. This is troubling. This is alarming. We just
[02:55:35.340 --> 02:55:42.840]  have heard over and over again. More information is better. More information is better in an
[02:55:42.840 --> 02:55:46.000]  investigation. That's going to get you closer to the truth. But you don't want to know
[02:55:46.000 --> 02:55:54.040]  the FBI is going to tell you is on this phone. That's not good. Really not good.
[02:56:00.060 --> 02:56:08.160]  We had what really looked like a very strong moment here at the conclusion of the defense
[02:56:08.160 --> 02:56:20.720]  case. Ms. Auger got him to say she confirmed that he had also extracted Richard Allen's
[02:56:20.720 --> 02:56:27.740]  devices. She went and stood next to Mr. Allen. She had her hand on his shoulder
[02:56:27.740 --> 02:56:33.600]  and she says nothing that you found ties Richard Allen to Liberty German.
[02:56:34.540 --> 02:56:43.420]  Nothing in those devices ties him to Abby Williams and nothing that you found in those
[02:56:43.420 --> 02:56:48.860]  devices tied him to this murder. And he agreed with all of those propositions.
[02:56:49.340 --> 02:56:56.460]  Nothing in the extractions of Richard Allen's devices tied him to that. This was very
[02:56:56.460 --> 02:57:06.200]  powerful. Unfortunately, it went very south when Mr. McClelland got up on his redirect.
[02:57:08.560 --> 02:57:15.160]  So the first thing he addressed is that he confirmed data is lost when the phone is turned
[02:57:15.160 --> 02:57:30.040]  on and off. Not only revisited the issue of the 2017 and the 2019 extractions,
[02:57:30.100 --> 02:57:34.820]  remember we had that discrepancy between didn't compare them, but they matched,
[02:57:34.940 --> 02:57:38.420]  but they didn't match, right? They're kind of all over the place with this.
[02:57:38.980 --> 02:57:44.680]  Didn't compare them, they didn't match, but then they did match. So he clarifies now at
[02:57:44.680 --> 02:57:53.140]  this point that it was only the user created content that he got from Bunner's extraction
[02:57:53.140 --> 02:57:58.860]  because that's what you get from the logical file extraction. So all of that stuff matched,
[02:57:59.400 --> 02:58:10.240]  right? But his extraction is going to have a lot more. So yeah, he got the same stuff out
[02:58:10.240 --> 02:58:17.600]  Bunner had originally gotten out in that first extraction, but it doesn't speak to like,
[02:58:18.300 --> 02:58:24.100]  does that mean stuff didn't get deleted then or whatever. So whatever implication they were
[02:58:24.100 --> 02:58:29.040]  trying to draw, like to suggest everything you want is it was it was all fine what they did
[02:58:29.040 --> 02:58:33.760]  back in 2017 because the data matched what you got in 2019. No, they're just saying
[02:58:33.760 --> 02:58:39.860]  this was limited data that you got in 2017 and that was still there in 2019. The stuff
[02:58:39.860 --> 02:58:45.780]  we pulled in 2019, we already heard from him from GreyKey, it's pulling much much more
[02:58:45.780 --> 02:58:53.200]  information and you're able to parse more information from that. So it's not like a
[02:58:53.200 --> 02:59:00.080]  one-to-one match. It's a very limited stuff that matched and the use of the phone data
[02:59:00.080 --> 02:59:06.120]  that's held in the KnowledgeSea database, that is only available in the 2019 extraction.
[02:59:06.920 --> 02:59:13.020]  So no way to tell what's not there because it was never there in 2017 in the first place.
[02:59:15.900 --> 02:59:24.600]  So he confirmed that the phone was not shut down until some time after 4 33 a.m. on February
[02:59:24.600 --> 02:59:30.780]  the 14th, but we of course we don't know when. And there's no movement recorded again
[02:59:30.780 --> 02:59:39.720]  after 2 33 p.m. on February 13. So no more steps recorded. Here's where things went very south.
[02:59:41.100 --> 02:59:46.640]  When Ms. Auger was asking that question about Richard Allen's extractions, I immediately
[02:59:46.640 --> 02:59:51.020]  thought why isn't he objecting to it being beyond the scope? We've seen that happen before,
[02:59:51.020 --> 02:59:56.480]  right? He actually did it. He actually did it just before with some of the questions
[02:59:57.090 --> 03:00:06.380]  that she had asked. When she was asking about is it bad for an analyst to connect to the
[03:00:06.380 --> 03:00:14.560]  wireless, to the cellular network, Mr. McClellan had objected to that as beyond the scope.
[03:00:14.660 --> 03:00:24.740]  And she was saying they talked about this on direct and so it was overruled. So
[03:00:24.740 --> 03:00:29.700]  he knows this objection. It's not like, oh, he's maybe not used to using that one,
[03:00:29.760 --> 03:00:33.620]  doesn't think about it or whatever. He had literally just used it and she's
[03:00:33.620 --> 03:00:38.680]  switching gears to something that is clearly not what they had talked about on direct,
[03:00:38.780 --> 03:00:43.320]  this extraction of Richard Allen's devices. I had noticed that at the time, huh? He's
[03:00:43.320 --> 03:00:50.680]  not objecting. Reminds me of, what is it, Napoleon? Is it Napoleon that said never
[03:00:50.680 --> 03:00:55.320]  interrupt your enemy when he's in the middle of making a mistake? Oh, this is very
[03:00:55.320 --> 03:01:04.120]  devastating. So he elicited that they analyzed 23 devices that they got when they executed
[03:01:04.120 --> 03:01:11.740]  that search warrant at Richard Allen's home. They knew what the release dates were for all
[03:01:11.740 --> 03:01:21.920]  his cell phones. So what they had is they had the individual identifiers for his devices,
[03:01:22.080 --> 03:01:28.600]  the IMEI or the NEID, I guess is another one that they may use for cell phones.
[03:01:28.720 --> 03:01:37.980]  It's a unique identifier for all cell phones. So they had the IMEI for his cell phone in 2017,
[03:01:37.980 --> 03:01:42.100]  the one that he had then. They probably subpoenaed it from the carrier. Didn't say
[03:01:42.100 --> 03:01:49.340]  that explicitly, but I would suspect that's how they got it. Because they then compared
[03:01:49.340 --> 03:01:57.580]  that IMEI to the list of devices that they seized from the house. And the 2017 phone
[03:01:57.580 --> 03:02:02.580]  wasn't included in the analysis. They didn't find it in the house.
[03:02:04.600 --> 03:02:16.000]  That's where he ended. That's really devastating. Really devastating. Because, one, you the defense
[03:02:16.000 --> 03:02:21.680]  really oversold your position. And now you look sketchy. Now you look shady. Now you look
[03:02:21.680 --> 03:02:28.360]  like you're trying to mislead the jury about what they knew. Of course, if you didn't have
[03:02:29.080 --> 03:02:33.720]  2017 devices, they wouldn't show any connection with Abbey or Libby or with the murders.
[03:02:34.360 --> 03:02:44.120]  Of course, they wouldn't show that. But when you have 23 devices that they analyzed,
[03:02:44.600 --> 03:02:49.720]  we don't know what those devices were. A device can be a lot of things. It can be a
[03:02:49.720 --> 03:02:53.720]  cell phone, but it can be a laptop. It can be an external hard drive. It can be a thumb
[03:02:53.720 --> 03:02:57.280]  drive. It can be a lot of different things that will store data.
[03:03:00.810 --> 03:03:05.510]  And now I think it's going to be really important that we know exactly what all
[03:03:05.510 --> 03:03:12.010]  23 of those devices are. Because if somebody just doesn't have their 2017 phone anymore
[03:03:12.010 --> 03:03:18.450]  in 2022 when he's arrested and the search warrant is executed before he's arrested,
[03:03:18.770 --> 03:03:23.990]  but at that general time frame, that in and of itself I don't think is too unusual.
[03:03:23.990 --> 03:03:33.910]  Who keeps their old cell phone for five years without updating it? I'm not going to say I
[03:03:33.910 --> 03:03:41.010]  never have. I find it a pain to upgrade the phone, so I probably suffer through an old
[03:03:41.010 --> 03:03:47.330]  outdated phone longer than I really should. Jeff can tell you I had a phone that I cracked
[03:03:47.330 --> 03:03:56.470]  screen and I so didn't want to go through the updating, the changing it over to the new phone
[03:03:56.470 --> 03:04:01.970]  that I was using this cracked phone for, I don't know, months, many months. It drove
[03:04:01.970 --> 03:04:06.510]  him nuts. He hated it. It didn't really bother me that much. So that's me with
[03:04:06.510 --> 03:04:11.150]  my cell phones. I'll hang on to one forever. But I think most people, it's really not
[03:04:11.150 --> 03:04:17.230]  uncommon. New model comes out. Your old one is getting slow because you've
[03:04:17.230 --> 03:04:21.550]  loaded it up with apps and stuff like that. You just get a new phone, you trade in the old one.
[03:04:22.590 --> 03:04:29.250]  In and of itself would not be that strange to not have the 2017 phone in 2022.
[03:04:29.770 --> 03:04:34.630]  But we need to know what all of these other devices are now because if he had devices
[03:04:34.630 --> 03:04:40.210]  that were older than that, and it's like just the 2017 phone that's missing,
[03:04:40.890 --> 03:04:46.750]  holy cow, does that look bad? Is that incriminating or what? We need to know now.
[03:04:50.050 --> 03:04:57.130]  Big, big, big own goal by the defense, in my view, on that one. So Ms. Auger did
[03:04:57.130 --> 03:05:05.050]  do a very brief redirect. She clarified, yes, he had gotten the devices on November the 8th
[03:05:05.050 --> 03:05:14.410]  of 2022. That was just sort of where she left it. Yes, five years after the murders.
[03:05:14.410 --> 03:05:21.610]  Uh-huh. But you're the one who implied they would have had the 2017 phone
[03:05:21.610 --> 03:05:28.050]  when they did the extractions, because otherwise, of course, they didn't have any
[03:05:28.050 --> 03:05:37.780]  link with Richard Allen and the murders in Libby and Abbey. And then just reiterated
[03:05:37.780 --> 03:05:43.940]  that this after 2.32 p.m. when the phone stopped moving or 2.33 p.m. when the phone
[03:05:43.940 --> 03:05:48.900]  stops moving on on April 13th that the Apple Health data records the steps. And so if they
[03:05:48.900 --> 03:05:57.900]  had been if it was in a car, it wouldn't necessarily record steps. So providing some
[03:05:57.900 --> 03:06:02.200]  evidence, some some implication there supporting that defense theory that maybe there was a
[03:06:02.200 --> 03:06:07.800]  maybe there was a car down at the drive at the far end of the bridge that would have
[03:06:07.800 --> 03:06:11.340]  taken the girls away from the scene. And if that had happened, there wouldn't have been
[03:06:11.340 --> 03:06:13.500]  there wouldn't have been step data recorded.
[03:06:17.340 --> 03:06:24.360]  The defense has put a really big burden on itself with its own expert to support this
[03:06:24.360 --> 03:06:31.380]  theory now in my mind, because they're they're putting these pieces together, right? OK,
[03:06:31.440 --> 03:06:35.960]  no Apple Health data doesn't mean that the girls themselves didn't move. It just means they
[03:06:35.960 --> 03:06:40.100]  didn't walk. So they could have been transported by car. That's consistent with
[03:06:40.100 --> 03:06:46.140]  defense theory. They could have been transported by the car out of the tower range. That would
[03:06:46.140 --> 03:06:50.120]  also be consistent with the defense theory. You know, this is it went out of range and
[03:06:50.120 --> 03:06:56.140]  then it came back in. That's when the SMS messages flooded in. But if the phone is on
[03:06:56.140 --> 03:07:01.280]  this whole time, there's other sources of location data on that phone. And they better
[03:07:01.280 --> 03:07:10.420]  be able to show me some that moved. They better be able to show me the phone powered
[03:07:10.420 --> 03:07:14.920]  off and back on. They better be able to show me location data that moved. I mean,
[03:07:15.100 --> 03:07:22.820]  something that's that's going to that's going to corroborate that. Because otherwise
[03:07:24.300 --> 03:07:25.920]  it just seems like
[03:07:28.400 --> 03:07:37.120]  this this this absence of location data after 2000 after 223 p.m.
[03:07:38.560 --> 03:07:43.440]  There's not a good explanation for it, right? I haven't heard an explanation for it why that
[03:07:43.440 --> 03:07:49.860]  would be cell tower. Sure, it could be it could be you lost power. It could be that you went
[03:07:49.860 --> 03:07:54.500]  out of service, but you don't go out of service of the satellites. Satellites are always
[03:07:54.500 --> 03:08:00.060]  there. You know, there's always something that that you can connect to. So if the phone was on,
[03:08:00.500 --> 03:08:06.280]  should be connected to satellite and things that are using location services should be
[03:08:06.280 --> 03:08:15.800]  tracking location data. I haven't heard anything about that. It's strange.
[03:08:19.230 --> 03:08:24.070]  I'm going to want to hear about that from the defense if if they want to substantiate
[03:08:24.070 --> 03:08:31.730]  a theory that the that the girls left. I suppose they can, you know, still hang on.
[03:08:31.810 --> 03:08:35.450]  Well, it's possible. And so if it's possible, it's a reasonable doubt. You know,
[03:08:35.450 --> 03:08:38.890]  it's consistent with the evidence. They don't have the burden of proof, of course.
[03:08:43.840 --> 03:08:49.640]  But this is just I'm just I'm having a hard time reconciling this. And I feel like this was just
[03:08:49.640 --> 03:08:55.940]  such a major misstep with the jury. They made themselves unnecessarily look shady
[03:08:56.480 --> 03:09:01.800]  to score the point. And it was a it was a it was a strong point for the brief moment
[03:09:01.800 --> 03:09:10.040]  that it lasted. And once it came undone now, unfortunately, I think the jury is is not
[03:09:10.040 --> 03:09:15.480]  trusting the defense on the on the on the phone data. And so it's very unfortunate,
[03:09:15.740 --> 03:09:19.480]  got all these concessions. The phone data is the hard data. It's the reliable stuff.
[03:09:19.900 --> 03:09:24.460]  But now I feel like they have kind of by that move assumed a burden on themselves
[03:09:26.060 --> 03:09:30.880]  to substantiate what they're saying. They can't be trusted to just have the
[03:09:30.880 --> 03:09:35.620]  implication. And that's it's just it's very unfortunate, very big own goal.
[03:09:37.980 --> 03:09:43.900]  A whole bunch of jury questions about the cell phone stuff like like four pages of jury
[03:09:43.900 --> 03:09:47.400]  questions, three and a half pages of jury questions about the cell phone stuff.
[03:09:48.140 --> 03:09:56.280]  I tried to capture. I'm pretty sure I captured them. Hopefully, I hopefully I got most of the
[03:09:56.280 --> 03:10:01.920]  details. By the way, at this point in time, I had another I had just I was blessed. I had
[03:10:01.920 --> 03:10:09.220]  many blessings around me today. And one of those blessings was was lawyer Lee. I was having I
[03:10:09.220 --> 03:10:15.660]  had three pins today. Okay. They all ran dry. So I had I had my pin that I came into court with.
[03:10:16.080 --> 03:10:22.200]  It ran dry. I had actually given lawyer Lee one of my pins yesterday. She like wanted to
[03:10:22.200 --> 03:10:25.920]  try it out. I was like, Oh, yeah, go ahead and take one and try it. Who nice pin,
[03:10:25.920 --> 03:10:32.320]  and so so she'd had my pin. And I was like, I'm so sorry, because this happened mid morning
[03:10:32.320 --> 03:10:37.620]  before lunchtime. I was like, I'm so sorry. Can I can I get that pin back from you? My pin
[03:10:37.620 --> 03:10:43.800]  has gone dry. Very kindly give me my pin back. So I use that pin. And it also went dry.
[03:10:44.060 --> 03:10:49.040]  It was like going dry before lunch. I'm sitting here shaking my pins, you know, to get as
[03:10:49.040 --> 03:10:52.980]  much ink down to the tip as I can. Like, let's just get it. Can we get to lunch?
[03:10:52.980 --> 03:10:58.660]  Because I got a pin in my car, I can run out to my car and get get that pin. So I did I ran out
[03:10:58.660 --> 03:11:07.120]  to my car and I got that pin and I brought it in and it started to go dry. So Lee kindly,
[03:11:07.380 --> 03:11:12.160]  kindly gave me one of her pins. Here's here's my pins. Here's Lee's pin. I got a Lee pin.
[03:11:12.200 --> 03:11:22.960]  It's actually quite a nice pin, too. I really like it. It's this is Sharpie S gel. It's
[03:11:23.600 --> 03:11:30.520]  Thank you to lawyer Lee for saving my skin with getting all of these jury questions.
[03:11:30.660 --> 03:11:35.480]  I would not have gotten them without her pin. I'm going to give her one of my
[03:11:35.480 --> 03:11:39.140]  another one of my pins again tomorrow. So we got we got a fair trade there.
[03:11:39.600 --> 03:11:46.360]  So first jury question was in the first report, the picture of the Monon High Bridge
[03:11:46.360 --> 03:11:55.460]  the Monon High Bridge at 205 with nobody in the image. Did you locate it? He said he did not.
[03:11:58.360 --> 03:12:05.360]  That I thought he said that he did. This was when they went through
[03:12:05.760 --> 03:12:13.240]  the cross examination, they very specifically walked through the pictures from the different
[03:12:13.240 --> 03:12:20.360]  frames and they had been posted by Snapchat. They said specifically the 205 one it was found
[03:12:20.360 --> 03:12:26.580]  in the Snapchat cache. It was just the 207 one, which is the one of Abby on the bridge
[03:12:26.580 --> 03:12:31.800]  that they weren't able to find. So he said he didn't locate it. But I don't think that's
[03:12:31.800 --> 03:12:39.160]  right. Or I think maybe. I don't know. I can't explain his answer. He said no,
[03:12:39.160 --> 03:12:46.000]  previously he had said yes. In the timeline on the first report, there were a whole bunch of
[03:12:46.000 --> 03:12:53.000]  blank spaces under the event section. It was like empty spaces. They asked what are those about?
[03:12:53.940 --> 03:13:00.020]  And he said it had to do with the battery levels. He was trying to track that separately
[03:13:00.680 --> 03:13:08.540]  from the other info, the battery info from the other information. So that's what these
[03:13:09.220 --> 03:13:15.600]  spaces were when that exhibit is someday maybe ultimately made public and we're able to see that.
[03:13:17.060 --> 03:13:20.940]  Then we'll have a better idea maybe of what that one is about.
[03:13:23.500 --> 03:13:30.120]  Auger then clarified, okay, this was it. Auger clarified that 205, he did not print
[03:13:30.120 --> 03:13:35.820]  that picture. So I think he did locate it. It was just that he didn't print it.
[03:13:36.720 --> 03:13:41.300]  So that was, I think, the discrepancy between those answers.
[03:13:43.780 --> 03:13:49.480]  Next question. How does a phone receive iMessages, calls, et cetera, but not SMS
[03:13:49.480 --> 03:13:55.460]  without a cell connection? And he said he had no answer for that.
[03:13:58.420 --> 03:14:03.280]  He doesn't have an answer for how a phone would be receiving iMessages, calls, et cetera,
[03:14:03.280 --> 03:14:12.560]  not SMS without the cell tower connection. Yeah, I don't know...
[03:14:12.560 --> 03:14:19.040]  I don't know the answer to that either because that data information is transmitted through the
[03:14:19.040 --> 03:14:24.700]  cell towers. That's not the satellite stuff is the location data stuff, but you're not
[03:14:24.700 --> 03:14:29.280]  running your data system by a satellite unless you got Starlink. And that's not what we're
[03:14:29.280 --> 03:14:37.920]  talking about. So that is also, that is peculiar. He doesn't know because it seems like
[03:14:39.880 --> 03:14:44.660]  maybe the phone is connected to the network, but it also seems like maybe the phone is not
[03:14:44.660 --> 03:14:50.220]  connected to the network. He has no answer. I will be interested to see if there is a
[03:14:50.220 --> 03:14:57.860]  defense expert who has an answer. Question. Did you check to see if AT&T had tower issues
[03:14:57.860 --> 03:15:10.260]  at that time? No. Ms. Auger clarified that he would not do that. Other investigators would do
[03:15:10.260 --> 03:15:17.700]  that. But we haven't heard anything about other investigators doing that. I wonder if they did.
[03:15:18.320 --> 03:15:24.500]  Maybe. I don't know. But that really does seem like that should be a really obvious follow
[03:15:24.500 --> 03:15:29.280]  up. If there's sketchy stuff going on with connectivity, we would check the tower.
[03:15:30.040 --> 03:15:34.720]  I don't know if there's something going on in the tower that would affect the ability to get
[03:15:34.720 --> 03:15:44.560]  SMS, but not to use these other message types. No idea. Question. Does Snapchat save
[03:15:44.560 --> 03:15:52.660]  photos that are not uploaded to the story? Answer. No. Ms. Auger said, but you'd expect
[03:15:52.660 --> 03:16:00.960]  uploaded photos to be there. I think if they were uploaded the stories,
[03:16:01.160 --> 03:16:08.660]  you'd expect them to be there. And the answer is yes. Question. Do pictures
[03:16:08.660 --> 03:16:13.960]  sent via Snapchat, not through the stories, but just through the other Snapchat function?
[03:16:14.000 --> 03:16:17.600]  I don't know if it's messages or just like some other. I don't know Snapchat, like I said.
[03:16:18.200 --> 03:16:26.580]  Do pictures sent the other way via Snapchat get saved? He did not know. Mr. McLeiland asked,
[03:16:26.720 --> 03:16:34.660]  if it's uploaded to the story, where is it saved? He didn't know. He speculated that the
[03:16:34.660 --> 03:16:41.020]  story photos would be saved in the cache, but he said that would be speculation. And Ms.
[03:16:41.280 --> 03:16:47.580]  Auger pointed out and confirmed that three of these photos had been saved in the Snapchat
[03:16:47.580 --> 03:16:58.900]  cache. Question. Can iMessages be sent via cell service? Yes. And Ms. Auger again just confirmed
[03:16:58.900 --> 03:17:04.240]  they are timestamped as of the time they are sent, not the time that they are received. So
[03:17:04.240 --> 03:17:08.580]  that could explain part of that discrepancy about not receiving
[03:17:11.420 --> 03:17:16.680]  iMessages. The iMessages, the timestamp would be... it wouldn't be accurate. If it came
[03:17:16.680 --> 03:17:24.140]  in at... the report would show it coming in with the timestamp of the time that it was sent,
[03:17:24.160 --> 03:17:31.380]  but that doesn't necessarily mean that the phone had received it. So it would not be that
[03:17:31.380 --> 03:17:38.240]  the phone had received calls and texts and iMessages and SMS messages, but not SMS messages
[03:17:38.240 --> 03:17:45.300]  during that time frame. We don't know if it received the iMessages. So then we're still
[03:17:45.300 --> 03:17:50.860]  with calls and texts. I would love to know about their timestamping. Is it the same
[03:17:50.860 --> 03:17:57.500]  as the iMessages or is it different? Do we know if the phone was actually receiving this
[03:17:57.500 --> 03:18:02.420]  stuff during that time frame or is it just timestamped because it was being sent then?
[03:18:05.340 --> 03:18:11.900]  Question. How much data is lost if the phone is off for a month? He doesn't know.
[03:18:15.020 --> 03:18:20.460]  Question. Is the month a period of 30 days
[03:18:23.260 --> 03:18:29.300]  between powering it on and off or is it a calendar month? He did not know.
[03:18:29.940 --> 03:18:34.180]  This I think is just relating back to when he said some data is stored for weeks, some
[03:18:34.180 --> 03:18:42.840]  data is stored for months. What does that mean? What's a month? We don't know what a month is.
[03:18:45.990 --> 03:18:56.910]  Asked if the Method 1 extraction garnished the Knowledge C database. That information,
[03:18:57.190 --> 03:19:04.070]  so that original Method 1 extraction, did that pull the Knowledge C database? The answer was
[03:19:04.070 --> 03:19:10.680]  no, it did not. So that's why they needed to do that later extraction in 2019 with the
[03:19:10.680 --> 03:19:20.900]  key. Question. Could the Snapchat photos be deleted in the Knowledge C database without app
[03:19:20.900 --> 03:19:30.640]  usage? He didn't know but thought no. So Ms. Ogier followed up to just establish that
[03:19:30.640 --> 03:19:39.180]  the Snapchat photos are not stored in Knowledge C. So no is probably the right answer. But
[03:19:41.280 --> 03:19:46.520]  you use... I mean, who knows? I guess, yeah, if they weren't in the answer to the question,
[03:19:46.840 --> 03:19:51.380]  if Snapchat photos aren't in the Knowledge C database in the first place, then no,
[03:19:51.380 --> 03:19:56.580]  they can't be deleted off the database by anything at all. So it was just basically a
[03:19:56.580 --> 03:20:06.140]  question that is nonsensical in that sense. Question. Could a picture not be added to the
[03:20:06.820 --> 03:20:13.280]  on battery life? He said he does not think there is any relationship with the battery.
[03:20:14.620 --> 03:20:21.840]  He does not know if it's possible for a photo to not be saved to the Snapchat
[03:20:21.840 --> 03:20:32.550]  cache or if that could be affected by user activity. Could the Snapchat cache photos not
[03:20:32.550 --> 03:20:40.230]  exist depending on how posted or whether they were not posted? He did not know the answer
[03:20:40.230 --> 03:20:48.310]  to that question. I think this is a similar issue with just the previous question about
[03:20:48.310 --> 03:20:53.870]  if there are stories, if they're used the regular, how does this stuff get stored? He
[03:20:53.870 --> 03:21:02.330]  doesn't know the ins and outs of the Snapchat storage. And I guess he has not... maybe nobody
[03:21:02.330 --> 03:21:06.470]  knows. I don't know. Maybe he hasn't bothered to know. I don't know the answer to that,
[03:21:06.470 --> 03:21:14.470]  but he doesn't know. Mr. McLeiland again reconfirmed the 207 picture. It was not
[03:21:14.470 --> 03:21:19.210]  recovered and he doesn't have an answer for why that one was not collected when the other
[03:21:19.210 --> 03:21:35.330]  ones were. He doesn't have an answer. Ms. Auger asked if... confirmed that the Snapchat
[03:21:35.970 --> 03:21:45.660]  could be accessed from another device. Maybe that's the implication. It was deleted
[03:21:46.180 --> 03:21:54.420]  by another device. Really don't know. Question, does the app give us a start and
[03:21:54.420 --> 03:22:00.440]  end time for the two flights of stairs? This is a very good question, I thought, because
[03:22:00.440 --> 03:22:07.800]  it didn't have a specific time data associated with it. And so the answer was no, that was
[03:22:07.800 --> 03:22:15.340]  included in the other movement data that basically while there were steps being recorded over a
[03:22:15.340 --> 03:22:22.460]  different time frame, the elevation change occurred during that point. So we don't have
[03:22:22.460 --> 03:22:30.420]  specific time data that's exactly from the time of the start of the rise or the descent
[03:22:30.420 --> 03:22:39.780]  to the end point. Also reconfirmed that we do not know if that data is up or down.
[03:22:40.220 --> 03:22:48.160]  Seems fairly logical to assume that it's down consistent with the girls going down the hill.
[03:22:49.580 --> 03:22:57.440]  But it was just encapsulated in this time frame where he says there were 50.60 meters.
[03:22:59.280 --> 03:23:05.360]  That was the distance and it occurred during that movement.
[03:23:07.100 --> 03:23:16.380]  Question, what happened to Apple Health data between 2.18 and 2.25? And he says the phone
[03:23:16.380 --> 03:23:23.980]  was not moving at that time. Again, I think he means there's no steps being taken at that time.
[03:23:25.100 --> 03:23:34.620]  2.18 to 2.25, that's a fairly significant period of time of our abduction, right?
[03:23:35.220 --> 03:23:43.600]  And at some point in here, we're being trapped, we're crossing the river. Maybe this is where
[03:23:43.600 --> 03:23:49.080]  Mr. McClelland is going to piece together like they had stopped because he's going to have his
[03:23:49.080 --> 03:23:55.880]  way with them but gets interrupted. And so it's after that that they cross the creek
[03:23:55.880 --> 03:24:04.680]  and then the killing occurs. I still don't think we have enough time for everything
[03:24:04.680 --> 03:24:10.020]  that happened at that crime scene. And it just doesn't make sense still. It doesn't make
[03:24:10.020 --> 03:24:17.240]  sense if you're in a hurry. Why are you moving the bodies? I mean, they are clearly moved.
[03:24:17.860 --> 03:24:23.880]  This is not a situation in this crime scene given where the blood pools are located and
[03:24:23.880 --> 03:24:34.720]  just the patterns and everything. Whether they died there or not, I've expressed my
[03:24:34.720 --> 03:24:38.440]  skepticism. It doesn't seem like there's enough blood to me, but I am not an expert
[03:24:38.440 --> 03:24:44.020]  and yes, different things can affect it how fast the soil flows. I mean, maybe it does. Maybe
[03:24:44.020 --> 03:24:51.360]  just seeps into the soil. I don't know. But what I do know is that if you are going to
[03:24:52.340 --> 03:24:58.420]  kill somebody by cutting their throat and you're in a hurry, you cut their throat,
[03:24:59.560 --> 03:25:05.280]  drop them on the ground or whatever, they die in place, the blood is going to just pool
[03:25:05.280 --> 03:25:12.500]  there and around. And then that's where that puddle will be. And that's where there will be
[03:25:12.500 --> 03:25:17.440]  the seepage. And that's not what we have at this crime scene. So at a bare minimum, we have
[03:25:17.440 --> 03:25:24.600]  what appears to be some movement of the bodies at the crime scene. And then these branches
[03:25:24.600 --> 03:25:30.160]  put on top of them that is not remotely concealing. It's just not remotely concealing.
[03:25:30.640 --> 03:25:35.600]  I don't know why we did that. If we're in a hurry, especially, I don't know why we're
[03:25:35.600 --> 03:25:42.300]  doing that. And that's even before we get to, you know, this very open question to me of
[03:25:42.300 --> 03:25:48.160]  was Abby, it just, it does, it seems like she was washed. It seems like she was bathed. She
[03:25:48.160 --> 03:25:55.440]  was so clean. She was so clean, especially those hands. And compared to the very bloody
[03:25:55.440 --> 03:26:01.800]  hands that Libby had that the pathologist explains, this is probably the instinctive
[03:26:01.800 --> 03:26:10.840]  response to cover the wound. Abby's wound, she would not have died as fast. Seemed even
[03:26:10.840 --> 03:26:14.600]  more likely, you know, she would have she would have had it on her hands, but her hands
[03:26:14.600 --> 03:26:22.900]  are pristine. You're not washing her if you're in a hurry. So still a lot of problems
[03:26:22.900 --> 03:26:29.480]  with the state's theory for me. But this, I guess, could be part of their explanation. This
[03:26:29.480 --> 03:26:37.020]  is like a seven minute pause. And, and it's after that, that that may be that he orders
[03:26:37.020 --> 03:26:43.440]  the girls across the creek. How did you determine that Richard Allen had no connection
[03:26:43.440 --> 03:26:50.960]  to Abby and Libby or murders from the phone data? And he said, this was there was no
[03:26:50.960 --> 03:26:57.680]  information on the phone about them, no interaction, no indication that he ever knew them.
[03:26:58.320 --> 03:27:03.840]  So this, I think, also, like deflated that defense point quite a bit, because it wasn't
[03:27:03.840 --> 03:27:09.100]  that he was saying, like, there's the location data on the phone puts him somewhere else,
[03:27:09.300 --> 03:27:13.260]  or like, we can't get location data on the phone that puts him anywhere near the bridge,
[03:27:13.260 --> 03:27:20.920]  or anything like that, that hard, reliable data that the defense was was so bullish on.
[03:27:21.220 --> 03:27:25.800]  It's not that it's just that they didn't have proof of any kind of interaction,
[03:27:25.820 --> 03:27:33.400]  or that they had known each other. Mr. McClelland elicits, he did locate internet
[03:27:33.400 --> 03:27:39.640]  search history about them, about the girls. Ms. Auger then just clarified, though,
[03:27:39.640 --> 03:27:48.280]  this was after the murders had taken place. So not necessarily that incriminating, probably
[03:27:48.280 --> 03:27:54.240]  lots of people in the area did internet searches about the girls after the murders
[03:27:54.240 --> 03:28:00.160]  had taken place. She also elicited that we don't know who performed that search.
[03:28:00.860 --> 03:28:05.340]  There's no way to no way to track that. It's just a search that took place on the device,
[03:28:05.340 --> 03:28:13.280]  and we don't know who has access to the device, and all that stuff. So guys, that was the day.
[03:28:13.460 --> 03:28:18.980]  That's what we got. Like I said, a little little over about two thirds of a right about
[03:28:18.980 --> 03:28:26.040]  two thirds of a notepad. So not quite as much as in the past days, but still still quite a
[03:28:26.040 --> 03:28:35.300]  bit of information. And so I hope you can see now how the day was very unsatisfying in the
[03:28:35.300 --> 03:28:42.540]  that we didn't know about. But did that answer the deeper questions about the case? Not really.
[03:28:43.620 --> 03:28:50.200]  Not really. There is just still a lot of stuff that is that is open, that is really up in the
[03:28:50.200 --> 03:28:55.360]  air that we that we don't know. And I don't know if we're going to get those gaps filled
[03:28:55.360 --> 03:29:02.380]  in. I'm starting to I'm starting to doubt that. It's unfortunate, because everybody wants
[03:29:02.380 --> 03:29:08.070]  answers. Everybody wants to know what happened to the girls real definitively. And I am just not
[03:29:08.860 --> 03:29:17.540]  real confident we're going to get that. I'm still not I'm still not on the state's theory
[03:29:17.540 --> 03:29:23.760]  as far as the timeline goes, as far as just the the mechanism and stuff goes.
[03:29:23.760 --> 03:29:35.400]  I'm not on the theory. I'm still not convinced that Richard Allen particularly fits the
[03:29:35.400 --> 03:29:42.740]  description of bridge guy. We had all of these commonalities in the descriptions of bridge guy.
[03:29:45.580 --> 03:29:54.040]  Average too tall height, young, although that not so much. We didn't get that so much from
[03:29:54.040 --> 03:29:58.400]  Ms. Carbaugh today. She she indicated that she had estimated that the age to be older.
[03:29:58.700 --> 03:30:03.460]  So that that's that's no longer like universal between all of them. But two of them,
[03:30:03.460 --> 03:30:09.560]  you know, had indicated young or three of them had had indicated young because because
[03:30:09.560 --> 03:30:18.100]  Betsy Blair had had said that also. And two of them, two of the four thought he was muscular,
[03:30:18.180 --> 03:30:29.900]  muscular build. I mean, the defining the very distinctive physical characteristic of Mr. Allen,
[03:30:29.940 --> 03:30:35.600]  if you're going to describe him and say he's short. He's a short man. And that is not,
[03:30:35.600 --> 03:30:42.300]  you know, what came up in any of these any of these descriptions. So I'm not
[03:30:42.300 --> 03:30:49.380]  convinced he matches the description of bridge guy. But we also don't have him accounted for
[03:30:49.380 --> 03:30:54.760]  out at the bridge. And he acknowledges he was there. I mean, he puts himself there.
[03:30:55.560 --> 03:31:01.800]  And so this is just this is this is tough stuff to put together because
[03:31:05.160 --> 03:31:11.780]  if he wasn't bridge guy, but he's out there in the time in the same general time frame, then
[03:31:12.580 --> 03:31:17.830]  how come nobody saw him? They saw all these other people. They saw each other.
[03:31:19.280 --> 03:31:26.040]  But but they didn't see him. And he also I believe in in in his statement to the police,
[03:31:26.120 --> 03:31:32.820]  he he acknowledged he acknowledged passing the girls that the three girls, the Voorhees girls
[03:31:32.820 --> 03:31:45.480]  and and Brie Wilbur. Well, they only describe passing bridge guy. Although Brie Wilbur was
[03:31:45.480 --> 03:31:54.100]  a little bit more. She was a little bit more loose as far as just saying they, you know,
[03:31:54.100 --> 03:31:58.160]  they were passing people out there. Like, for example, she was saying that the reason why
[03:31:58.160 --> 03:32:02.080]  guys stood out is because they were passing people on the trail and
[03:32:03.980 --> 03:32:07.760]  Ms. Voorhees was saying hi and everybody would say hi back because this is a small
[03:32:07.760 --> 03:32:17.570]  town and that's just the kind of community it is. So maybe they did pass him and just
[03:32:17.570 --> 03:32:25.070]  didn't take any notice of him. Separate from bridge guy. I don't know. I just don't know.
[03:32:28.010 --> 03:32:33.270]  A lot of questions, guys. I still got a lot of questions. The more this case goes on,
[03:32:33.390 --> 03:32:39.690]  day eight, we're on day eight here. And I almost feel like I have more questions
[03:32:39.690 --> 03:32:47.530]  now than than when than when we started. I really do. I just I'm not sure what to
[03:32:47.530 --> 03:32:53.930]  make of this at this point. And I guess the the the thing to do then is to just continue
[03:32:53.930 --> 03:33:02.930]  to do what Mr. Baldwin has has implored us to do and wait. I'll keep waiting. I'll keep
[03:33:02.930 --> 03:33:08.630]  waiting. I'll see I'll see what else the state has. I will definitely wait and see what the
[03:33:08.630 --> 03:33:14.450]  defense has. It certainly seems like they are even even today that they were laying some
[03:33:14.450 --> 03:33:23.110]  foundations for things to come that I don't know what they are. But I sure hope for
[03:33:23.110 --> 03:33:30.590]  everybody's sake that we start to get more answers as this goes on, because so far,
[03:33:31.270 --> 03:33:36.510]  I don't think anybody's getting closure from this. That's that's very unfortunate.
[03:33:38.370 --> 03:33:42.670]  All right, guys, let's take the time to go ahead and go through some of your comments
[03:33:42.670 --> 03:33:47.230]  and questions. We'll start with Lisa Thomas, just a straight super chat. Thank you so much
[03:33:47.230 --> 03:33:52.870]  for that. FashionChic24 will be on replay crew but wanted to give a little something
[03:33:52.870 --> 03:33:57.350]  for the hammock or hand warmer fund. Thank you for covering this important case. Funny
[03:33:57.350 --> 03:34:01.470]  you mentioned I think I mentioned that. Did I mention yesterday that I was thinking about,
[03:34:01.710 --> 03:34:06.310]  you know, maybe going and seeing if I could like find at the sporting goods store or
[03:34:06.310 --> 03:34:09.270]  something like that, find like a hammock to sleep in something that's a little bit more
[03:34:09.270 --> 03:34:14.110]  comfortable. I was thinking about that. I did actually go pick up a bunch of hand warmers
[03:34:14.110 --> 03:34:19.390]  today. We had we were talking in the line this morning. When I first showed up,
[03:34:19.390 --> 03:34:25.210]  my guardian angel was there. But I stuck around and chatted with some of the people before I
[03:34:25.210 --> 03:34:31.390]  went back to my car. And the weather is predicted to change. It started to cool off
[03:34:31.390 --> 03:34:37.730]  today. The wind has come up. We are forecast to start getting cold overnight. And then I
[03:34:37.730 --> 03:34:44.130]  believe Friday night, it maybe is supposed to rain. So we are going to start to be really
[03:34:44.130 --> 03:34:49.410]  challenged with the conditions out there. I have been very fortunate so far. I think
[03:34:49.410 --> 03:34:55.950]  that I have line sitting set up for the next couple of days. These people are freaking
[03:34:56.630 --> 03:35:02.950]  troopers to take on this weather. Just so I can get some sleep. Like honestly, I am
[03:35:02.950 --> 03:35:14.110]  I'm kind of overwhelmed by it. It's such an awesome thing for people to do. I feel a
[03:35:14.110 --> 03:35:21.310]  should be taking that on. But I did, like I said, I went and got a bunch of hand warmers
[03:35:21.310 --> 03:35:27.930]  today. I also got a big golf umbrella. So if things do turn bad, I will bestow those on the
[03:35:27.930 --> 03:35:34.410]  people sitting in line and hopefully keep everybody reasonably comfortable. So thank you
[03:35:34.410 --> 03:35:39.010]  very much for that contribution. We may need it more than you know at this point.
[03:35:39.890 --> 03:35:45.730]  Underwater panther, endless thanks for your diligence. Well, my pleasure. It's
[03:35:46.250 --> 03:35:52.410]  continues to be a whole adventure this court process. Post-punk mama, thank you. Line
[03:35:52.410 --> 03:35:57.150]  sitter, you're the hero today. Yes, line sitter is the real MVP. Thank you again for
[03:35:57.150 --> 03:36:02.390]  your dedication, Andrea. And thanks Mr. Andrea for supporting us. Thank you, Jeff, my
[03:36:02.390 --> 03:36:08.870]  original mod. He's a big support. He's been helping me out a lot with some of these things
[03:36:08.870 --> 03:36:15.690]  behind the scenes and obviously a big source of moral support for me. So wouldn't be doing
[03:36:15.690 --> 03:36:21.570]  it without him. Jim Green, thank you, Andrea, for your balanced, skillful and
[03:36:21.570 --> 03:36:26.810]  intelligent coverage of this case. My question at this point, I appreciate there is more
[03:36:26.810 --> 03:36:33.730]  prosecution testimony. Is there any evidence presented that ties are a to the crime? Not so
[03:36:33.730 --> 03:36:41.570]  far. Not so far. We have at best the circumstantial evidence, but nobody's identified him as
[03:36:41.570 --> 03:36:46.390]  bridge guy. You know, nobody's identified him as bridge guy. We still, you know,
[03:36:46.390 --> 03:36:52.290]  once again, I mentioned yesterday no in court ID. It was sort of shocking to me that
[03:36:52.290 --> 03:36:56.230]  nobody asked that question. Not so shocking that the parties didn't ask it because
[03:36:56.230 --> 03:37:00.910]  it's a high risk question for the parties. One of them is getting their case blown
[03:37:00.910 --> 03:37:07.130]  up by the answer to that question. But the jury has asked so many questions. I'm really
[03:37:07.130 --> 03:37:11.110]  surprised. None of them has asked any of these eyewitnesses. The bridge man,
[03:37:11.130 --> 03:37:16.550]  you've described him, the bridge guy, the man you saw. Is it him sitting over there at
[03:37:16.550 --> 03:37:21.890]  defense table? Is it Richard Allen? Is he who you saw? Nobody's asked for the in court ID.
[03:37:21.890 --> 03:37:29.870]  Somebody suggested that maybe they did in fact ask and Judge Goal did not allow it.
[03:37:30.630 --> 03:37:35.830]  Obviously, all of the jury questions are not given. We've seen a couple instances so far
[03:37:35.830 --> 03:37:41.830]  that I noticed they got more questions than were asked. So not every question is given.
[03:37:42.330 --> 03:37:47.950]  If it's not appropriate, for whatever reason, it won't be given. The problem, though,
[03:37:47.950 --> 03:37:54.550]  is that as a defense lawyer, when I'm in my role as a defense lawyer, I will make all kinds of
[03:37:54.550 --> 03:37:59.910]  arguments against in court identifications. They're the most suggestive possible thing there
[03:37:59.910 --> 03:38:06.050]  is. You know exactly who you're supposed to identify. He's right there. He's sitting at
[03:38:06.050 --> 03:38:13.650]  the defense table. There's no mystery here. So that's a real problem with the in court
[03:38:13.650 --> 03:38:19.470]  identification and just the reliability of it. But that has never, to my knowledge,
[03:38:19.550 --> 03:38:24.490]  I don't know of a jurisdiction where that is a basis to keep it out. They still let it in.
[03:38:24.970 --> 03:38:29.970]  You just get to argue that to the jury and then it goes to the weight that they assign
[03:38:29.970 --> 03:38:35.970]  to it. So it's not inadmissible as evidence. In court identifications are routinely
[03:38:35.970 --> 03:38:44.090]  routinely admitted. And my perspective on the case at this point, I feel like if Judge Goll
[03:38:44.090 --> 03:38:49.810]  thought that it would inculpate Mr. Allen, she would absolutely let the question be asked.
[03:38:50.450 --> 03:38:56.750]  She would absolutely let it be asked. So I guess those are our possibilities.
[03:38:58.050 --> 03:39:04.330]  They didn't ask. Nobody's asked. Or they did ask and Judge Goll didn't let it in.
[03:39:04.330 --> 03:39:08.390]  If that happens, it's because she thinks the answer is going to be exculpatory.
[03:39:08.850 --> 03:39:13.650]  That either, no, it's not him or I can't say for sure or just something. They're not going
[03:39:13.650 --> 03:39:18.030]  to be able to tie it to him. And that is then going to generate reasonable doubt.
[03:39:18.370 --> 03:39:25.050]  I think is the concern. So that I suppose is possible. But yeah, we didn't get that. So
[03:39:25.050 --> 03:39:32.790]  the direct link then is really only going to come, I think, when we get to the confessions
[03:39:32.790 --> 03:39:40.770]  and what Mr. Allen said, where he places himself at the bridge in this time frame,
[03:39:41.110 --> 03:39:49.710]  and then specifically also puts himself as, you know, passing, having this contact,
[03:39:50.890 --> 03:39:56.910]  so to speak, with the three girls who were out there on their walk and who claimed that they
[03:39:56.910 --> 03:40:02.530]  saw a bridge guy. That I think is what the connection is going to be. But we do have a
[03:40:02.530 --> 03:40:11.070]  lot of evidence still to come. A lot of evidence. I'm very eager for the evidence from the
[03:40:11.070 --> 03:40:18.770]  analysts, the DNA, the blood, you know, trace, all of that other stuff, you know,
[03:40:18.870 --> 03:40:24.530]  body fluids, all of those things. I really want to know the answers to that information.
[03:40:25.830 --> 03:40:30.270]  Dr. Tiny Toff, you would make such a great judge. Andrea, have you ever considered it?
[03:40:30.270 --> 03:40:33.750]  Glad you got to rest. Thank you to the lion's sitter. What an absolute star.
[03:40:34.550 --> 03:40:40.750]  Yeah, it's crossed my mind. But honestly, it's not a position I really aspire to.
[03:40:41.370 --> 03:40:47.450]  I've had people suggest it. I honestly, I swear, I'm not boosting myself or whatever.
[03:40:47.550 --> 03:40:51.410]  I'm just giving you perspective. One of the court of appeals judges suggested,
[03:40:51.630 --> 03:40:56.730]  more than one has suggested, you know, you might consider it because, you know,
[03:40:57.610 --> 03:41:01.310]  they retire, they move on, they do other things and stuff like that.
[03:41:02.810 --> 03:41:07.410]  But it's just not really a position that interests me. In Washington, it's a political
[03:41:07.410 --> 03:41:19.050]  position. Judges are elected. And that's not my scene. I don't like the political process.
[03:41:19.070 --> 03:41:22.890]  I don't like the process of going out and courting the votes.
[03:41:28.460 --> 03:41:33.760]  I just it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't suit me. You know, if it was a situation like the
[03:41:33.760 --> 03:41:38.480]  federal courts where somebody just gives you the nod and then you have the job like forever.
[03:41:38.600 --> 03:41:42.140]  Well, OK, you know, that might be kind of cool. But like everybody wants to be a federal
[03:41:42.140 --> 03:41:45.560]  judge. Nobody's going to make me a federal judge. I don't even practice in federal court.
[03:41:45.700 --> 03:41:51.600]  You know, I mean, not that I couldn't learn. But so, I mean, yes, I've casually
[03:41:51.600 --> 03:41:56.520]  considered it. But I don't I don't think it's something that I really intend to seriously
[03:41:56.520 --> 03:42:02.200]  pursue. And frankly, at this point, you know, I don't know. I don't know how you would do as
[03:42:02.200 --> 03:42:08.760]  a judicial candidate with a whole big record of YouTube commentary and Twitter commentary
[03:42:08.760 --> 03:42:12.880]  and stuff like that. Does that help me become a judge or does it hurt me? I don't know.
[03:42:13.320 --> 03:42:18.460]  I don't know. I guess you guys have to be the judge of that. But yeah, I can't say I
[03:42:18.460 --> 03:42:23.200]  never changed my mind. But definitely at this point in time, it's not something I have an
[03:42:23.200 --> 03:42:29.840]  interest in pursuing. Pantoufle or Pantouffle. I remember this name from last night. Don't know
[03:42:29.840 --> 03:42:34.500]  how people have already decided his guilt or innocence when trial has just begun and more
[03:42:34.500 --> 03:42:40.620]  to be revealed. Make it make sense. Mob mentality. I yeah, you know, this whole
[03:42:40.620 --> 03:42:46.340]  polarization. It happens. It happens a lot. It happens in a lot of these cases. It happens
[03:42:46.340 --> 03:42:53.600]  very quickly. And I'll give you my sort of theory about about how it happens.
[03:42:54.700 --> 03:43:02.360]  I see it. Now, obviously, this is through my perspective as a defense lawyer, but I see it
[03:43:02.360 --> 03:43:06.860]  as the first thing that happens. Okay, somebody is arrested, they're accused, they're
[03:43:06.860 --> 03:43:10.620]  charged, and there's an immediate rush to judgment of guilt. You know, of course he did
[03:43:10.620 --> 03:43:17.280]  the lynch mob is out. Let's string him up. Hopefully, that doesn't get my stream pulled.
[03:43:18.720 --> 03:43:25.780]  You know, there is a certain personality, I feel like, that is judgmental, that is opinionated,
[03:43:25.800 --> 03:43:31.240]  that is fixed, that is closed. And so, you know, he did it, then we're going to be stuck
[03:43:31.240 --> 03:43:36.420]  on that forever. And there's probably, you know, similarly people who are like, you know,
[03:43:36.420 --> 03:43:40.280]  he didn't do it, and they're fixed. But just what comes to my attention
[03:43:42.400 --> 03:43:47.500]  is this fixed opinion of guilt that comes very fast. So then I think the polarization comes
[03:43:47.500 --> 03:43:57.360]  because people that question that either, like, overcompensate, like, as a reaction to
[03:43:57.940 --> 03:44:02.280]  you're so sure he's guilty, well, I'm so sure he's innocent, you know, that there's
[03:44:03.100 --> 03:44:09.160]  aspect to it. But some of it also is just pigeonholing. Some of it I think is not real,
[03:44:09.420 --> 03:44:15.600]  the polarization. It's just the perspective that if you don't agree with what I say,
[03:44:15.660 --> 03:44:19.760]  then you agree with the opposite of my position. And that's simply not the case.
[03:44:20.180 --> 03:44:25.920]  I say this because I don't have an opinion on his guilt or innocence at this point. But I
[03:44:25.920 --> 03:44:30.300]  know there are people already shoehorning me out there, you know, oh, she thinks he's
[03:44:30.300 --> 03:44:35.380]  innocent. They do the same thing with Koberger. She thinks he's innocent. I hold open the
[03:44:35.380 --> 03:44:40.640]  possibility that he's innocent. And I talk about the reasons why I'm skeptical of the evidence
[03:44:40.640 --> 03:44:46.280]  that would lead me to think, yeah, he could be innocent. But I haven't reached an opinion
[03:44:46.280 --> 03:44:53.500]  because we haven't gotten through the trial. So I think a lot of that really is just sort of
[03:44:53.500 --> 03:44:58.380]  projection of one's own fixed mindset onto the people that you're talking with. So if you
[03:44:58.380 --> 03:45:06.320]  agree with me, you're in the opposite camp. And therefore, you know, you either think he's
[03:45:06.320 --> 03:45:09.400]  guilty or you think he's innocent. It's just this very, very black and white thinking,
[03:45:09.440 --> 03:45:12.560]  black and white worldview. I don't have a black and white worldview.
[03:45:13.260 --> 03:45:20.080]  So for me, there's all kinds of room for nuance. That's my thoughts about that
[03:45:20.080 --> 03:45:24.140]  phenomenon. Nicholas Farmer with the Super Chat. Thank you so much for that.
[03:45:25.100 --> 03:45:30.120]  Pantufel, again, is RA's daughter there supporting him, if not why? So I don't
[03:45:30.120 --> 03:45:35.020]  rec... I wouldn't recognize her. I don't know who she is. And so I don't know. I don't know
[03:45:35.020 --> 03:45:40.280]  if she has been there. I do know his wife has been there. I was originally concerned that
[03:45:40.280 --> 03:45:45.360]  his wife was going to be excluded from the courtroom because she's named as a witness. But
[03:45:45.360 --> 03:45:53.040]  it doesn't appear that she has been. She's been allowed to attend. So that probably
[03:45:53.040 --> 03:45:59.660]  means nobody intends to call her. And they already know that. I don't think the state has
[03:45:59.660 --> 03:46:04.040]  her on their witness list. I think it's just the defense. But I'm not 100% sure on that
[03:46:04.900 --> 03:46:10.440]  because we don't have the witness list. And I don't... They rattled through those names so
[03:46:10.440 --> 03:46:14.200]  fast and for dear that I was sort of barely able to get a count, but there was no way
[03:46:14.200 --> 03:46:19.400]  I was going to be able to track whose name was called. Of course, we had the audios. We
[03:46:19.400 --> 03:46:29.680]  could. But so I don't know. I don't know if she's on the state's witness list. If she's
[03:46:29.680 --> 03:46:33.080]  on the defense witness list, they can just release her. They can just say, yeah, we don't
[03:46:33.080 --> 03:46:38.040]  need her. We can make our case without her. And then she'd be able to attend in the
[03:46:38.040 --> 03:46:43.060]  courtroom. But I don't know about the daughter. I don't know. And if she's not there, I don't
[03:46:43.060 --> 03:46:47.040]  know what the answer is for why she is not there. It could be that it's too hard for her.
[03:46:47.040 --> 03:46:52.320]  It could be that he doesn't want her there. It could be that she doesn't support him. You
[03:46:52.320 --> 03:46:55.380]  know, we don't know. I wouldn't want to make assumptions about that.
[03:46:57.780 --> 03:47:04.880]  The Iceman 101-418. If none of the witnesses are willing to link Richard Allen and Bridge
[03:47:04.880 --> 03:47:09.440]  Guy as the same person while under oath in front of a jury, shouldn't this case be
[03:47:09.440 --> 03:47:13.840]  dismissed at the end of the case in chief? Well, it won't be because they will rely on
[03:47:13.840 --> 03:47:18.120]  circumstantial evidence that he is Bridge Guy. And the main circumstantial evidence is going to
[03:47:18.120 --> 03:47:22.380]  be, you know, his, like I said, his own confession, putting him on the bridge in the
[03:47:22.380 --> 03:47:29.220]  timeframe, running into the girls who say, I saw Bridge Guy. It's not a lot. Is that going
[03:47:29.220 --> 03:47:32.620]  to get him to beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't know. It's going to be up to the jury.
[03:47:32.780 --> 03:47:36.820]  It's going to depend on, you know, what else comes out in the sort of sum total of things.
[03:47:37.800 --> 03:47:42.660]  I mean, let's throw a wrench in it, right? We're going to get all this, all this analysis,
[03:47:42.660 --> 03:47:49.460]  all this, you know, all of this swabbing, all this evidence that was taken, the fingernail
[03:47:51.280 --> 03:47:54.400]  scrapings that they were able to get from Libby. They didn't get from Abby,
[03:47:54.400 --> 03:47:58.440]  but they were able to get from Libby. Maybe there's DNA under those, and maybe it's not
[03:47:58.440 --> 03:48:02.980]  his. You know, we don't know who it is, but it's not his. Is that going to throw a
[03:48:02.980 --> 03:48:10.760]  wrench in the situation? Yeah, I think so. I think so. But, you know, we don't know.
[03:48:10.760 --> 03:48:16.260]  We don't know what's going to come out like that. So it's not it's not necessarily a proof
[03:48:16.260 --> 03:48:22.100]  beyond a reasonable doubt case, but it's enough to reach it's enough to clear the very, very
[03:48:22.100 --> 03:48:27.700]  low hurdle of sufficient evidence to go to the jury. And it's just basically the standard
[03:48:27.700 --> 03:48:32.180]  is so permissive. It's just basically look at everything the state's way, you know,
[03:48:32.180 --> 03:48:38.580]  look at all of the evidence as if it means what the state is telling you that it means.
[03:48:38.580 --> 03:48:44.540]  And if based on that, the state has made a credible argument for guilt, a credible case for guilt,
[03:48:44.960 --> 03:48:49.440]  then then it's it's going to be enough to go forward. And you can pretty much tell that
[03:48:49.440 --> 03:48:53.660]  just from the opening just from the opening statement, most of the time in a case,
[03:48:54.480 --> 03:48:59.640]  unless something really falls apart, you know, a witness a witness, something happens to a
[03:48:59.640 --> 03:49:05.100]  witness or, you know, somebody changes their story or something like that. I mean, these things
[03:49:05.100 --> 03:49:11.200]  do happen and the case can fall apart that way. But otherwise, no, it's this will be enough,
[03:49:11.220 --> 03:49:18.160]  it will be circumstantial and not particularly strong, you know, based on what I know so far.
[03:49:18.560 --> 03:49:23.460]  But it's enough to get past that hurdle. Donna Brack, is it possible for some of these
[03:49:23.460 --> 03:49:28.780]  small abrasions left collar front to have been from the tree limbs placed on them?
[03:49:28.980 --> 03:49:34.920]  Very good question. Very good question. They didn't indicate there was any debris
[03:49:34.920 --> 03:49:40.420]  you know, they might they might expect like there would be tiny little pieces of bark or
[03:49:40.420 --> 03:49:45.440]  something or dirt, you know, in the wound if that had been the case. They didn't indicate that.
[03:49:48.300 --> 03:49:54.160]  We only saw all these wounds after they had been washed. We didn't get like the detail
[03:49:54.160 --> 03:49:59.180]  of the wound after the tree limb had been removed, but before it had been washed so that
[03:49:59.180 --> 03:50:07.360]  if there was anything like that. Yeah, it seems possible to me. Definitely seems possible to me.
[03:50:07.880 --> 03:50:12.280]  I don't know if we'll know though they didn't have an explanation for for where those those
[03:50:12.280 --> 03:50:18.060]  small abrasions may have come from. But I think the limbs are a good guess. Janine Harris,
[03:50:18.340 --> 03:50:24.160]  can they do a voice comparison between voice of bridge guy and Richard Allen? They might be
[03:50:24.720 --> 03:50:31.340]  you know, they were able to bring in the state was able to bring in the guy who did the
[03:50:31.340 --> 03:50:38.420]  audio enhancement of the bridge guy video. So a comparison is typically going to have to require
[03:50:38.420 --> 03:50:46.220]  you know, it's going to require some some technical work. It's going to require some
[03:50:46.220 --> 03:50:50.060]  expertise, somebody is going to have to establish their expertise and their technique.
[03:50:50.060 --> 03:50:53.060]  It's going to have to be more than we're all sitting here in the courtroom,
[03:50:53.060 --> 03:50:57.820]  you know, listening, and we think it sounds like him, it's gonna need to probably be more
[03:50:57.820 --> 03:51:02.720]  on a level of like comparing, you know, sound waves and patterns, something a little bit more
[03:51:02.720 --> 03:51:08.880]  objective. And not just and not just yet sounds like him. So if they do have those
[03:51:08.880 --> 03:51:13.760]  methods, and there's something that, you know, this court will find scientifically acceptable,
[03:51:14.540 --> 03:51:19.540]  because you know, it's the defense, I'm assuming that would do this, not the state, then
[03:51:21.280 --> 03:51:27.640]  yeah, they should be able to that hurdle, though, courts got to find it, find it acceptable.
[03:51:28.500 --> 03:51:33.840]  And we already got geofence data excluded as being unreliable.
[03:51:36.200 --> 03:51:40.580]  So I don't know if they would clear that bar, that's that that could potentially
[03:51:40.580 --> 03:51:45.900]  potentially be a tough one. I would have expected emotion and liminey, maybe from
[03:51:45.900 --> 03:51:53.260]  the state to suppress or to exclude something like that. If if they had it on those kinds of
[03:51:53.260 --> 03:51:58.660]  grounds, you know, exclude it for for either not being sound science, not being, you know,
[03:51:59.760 --> 03:52:05.100]  performed correctly, or something like that. But I mean, maybe not. So I suppose it's
[03:52:05.100 --> 03:52:10.040]  possible we could get something like that. But I do tend to doubt, if only because we
[03:52:10.040 --> 03:52:15.260]  know the defense resources are very limited. And so they, you know, they haven't been able to
[03:52:15.820 --> 03:52:21.660]  what they requested from the court. They had to do with that that private, private fundraising
[03:52:21.660 --> 03:52:27.360]  to try to get additional resources to hire experts don't really, you know, we don't have
[03:52:27.360 --> 03:52:32.620]  a record of what they do with that type of thing. All of that stays, all of that stays
[03:52:32.620 --> 03:52:37.020]  concealed, confidential, because it would, you know, reveal too much about the defense's thought
[03:52:37.020 --> 03:52:46.220]  process and, and stuff like that. So leave it at maybe, but I'm going to say probably not.
[03:52:47.860 --> 03:52:54.900]  Daily wellness, is there any footage of our a car on camera? We're gonna have to find out
[03:52:54.900 --> 03:52:58.380]  they didn't pull any from the Hoosier Harvest store that they've told us about.
[03:52:59.540 --> 03:53:04.240]  We haven't really gotten to Richard Allen yet in the investigation, though, you know,
[03:53:04.240 --> 03:53:08.600]  we're doing a lot of this background stuff first. And my sense is that's what the
[03:53:08.600 --> 03:53:16.240]  structure of the case is going to be. We've gone through the girls last day, the fact of the
[03:53:16.240 --> 03:53:22.920]  murders. Now we're getting into the eyewitnesses and that early kind of part of the investigation.
[03:53:23.660 --> 03:53:32.160]  So I'm expecting we'll probably move relatively quickly into the lab analysis stuff. And then
[03:53:32.160 --> 03:53:38.520]  from there, we'll move into the into the future, you know, because I got to presume all this lab
[03:53:38.520 --> 03:53:42.680]  stuff, it didn't, it didn't give them, it didn't give them a lead, it didn't give them a suspect.
[03:53:43.240 --> 03:53:47.200]  I don't know if that's because there wasn't much there to work with, or I don't know if
[03:53:47.200 --> 03:53:52.760]  what there was there, they weren't able to, you know, match it to anybody to use it to
[03:53:52.760 --> 03:53:59.360]  identify, to identify anybody. But so, you know, we're going to get through, I would
[03:53:59.360 --> 03:54:03.920]  suspect get through this stuff to the point where the case went cold. And then we'll move
[03:54:03.920 --> 03:54:09.100]  forward to Richard Allen. And then we're really focused on Richard Allen and what we know about
[03:54:09.100 --> 03:54:18.380]  him. And, you know, the state's theory of how he's involved. So possible, but we haven't seen
[03:54:18.380 --> 03:54:23.020]  anything like that yet. Catherine Joy with a super sticker. Thank you so much for that.
[03:54:23.960 --> 03:54:30.120]  AKA radar. Andrea, did I mention your sacrifices mean more than words? Sorry, the goal denied
[03:54:30.120 --> 03:54:36.020]  your motion. Can we go to the mothership? After all you're doing for us, we got you back,
[03:54:36.140 --> 03:54:41.660]  dear lady. Thank you so much. Well, you're very welcome. You know, I certainly was not
[03:54:41.660 --> 03:54:47.440]  expecting her to grant it. Let's be real. No, I wasn't expecting her to grant it. I was
[03:54:47.440 --> 03:54:52.460]  expecting her to ignore it. But now she's ruled on it. So she's teed it up for it to
[03:54:52.460 --> 03:54:58.160]  the next level. And that's what I will be evaluating in my very abundant free time
[03:54:58.740 --> 03:55:04.020]  that I will hope to have starting this weekend. Well, you know, basically,
[03:55:04.880 --> 03:55:08.120]  basically the little bit of free time I have this weekend, I'm going to be looking into that.
[03:55:09.480 --> 03:55:14.760]  So Nikki, Bobby, thank you, Andrea, for all you do. You're very welcome. Thank you guys
[03:55:14.760 --> 03:55:22.200]  for being here with me. Debbie W. Indiana, Andrea, not Idaho. If I have been miss speaking,
[03:55:22.940 --> 03:55:30.060]  I do apologize for that. It does happen sometimes. I've noticed as I get older,
[03:55:30.060 --> 03:55:35.680]  I am more prone to the malapropisms where I say the wrong thing in my mind. I know
[03:55:35.680 --> 03:55:40.420]  what I'm saying, but just the wrong word comes out of my mouth. And so sometimes I will
[03:55:40.420 --> 03:55:44.500]  mix things up like that. Obviously, I've been talking about the Idaho case a lot. And so it
[03:55:44.500 --> 03:55:53.040]  does tend to roll off my tongue talking about Idaho. It's definitely not intentional. So, yes,
[03:55:54.040 --> 03:55:58.400]  sometimes when I'm talking about the comparisons, I do mean to say Idaho. But
[03:55:58.400 --> 03:56:02.460]  obviously, when I'm talking about this case, I mean to say Indiana. So
[03:56:02.460 --> 03:56:06.560]  did I say Idaho State Police? I might have said Idaho State Police or something like that.
[03:56:06.600 --> 03:56:13.220]  I meant Indiana ISP. Yeah, ISP in my mind is still probably going to default Idaho State
[03:56:13.220 --> 03:56:18.120]  Police because we've been dealing with ISP in Mr. Coburger's case for so long. So
[03:56:18.120 --> 03:56:25.220]  I do apologize for that if I've gotten that wrong. Couch juror, if one knife was used,
[03:56:25.420 --> 03:56:30.620]  wouldn't the first victim's blood DNA be mixed in second victim's wounds? Thank you
[03:56:30.620 --> 03:56:35.720]  for being there for all of us. Very good chance that it would. Yeah. Yeah, very good
[03:56:35.720 --> 03:56:46.980]  chance that it would. I think the possibility if one knife was used for all of the wounds,
[03:56:46.980 --> 03:56:52.440]  yes, you would probably expect that because at least one of the wounds would have gone
[03:56:52.440 --> 03:56:59.640]  directly from one victim to the other victim. And so there would have been some transfer
[03:56:59.640 --> 03:57:05.540]  there. Are they necessarily going to catch it? You hope. I mean, you hope. You hope they
[03:57:07.740 --> 03:57:15.640]  swabbed it and didn't just wash all that away to inspect the wounds, you know? You would hope
[03:57:15.640 --> 03:57:27.240]  that that was done. Let's go back and look at our list of swabs. See if we've got good swabs
[03:57:27.240 --> 03:57:40.680]  from the wounds. All right. The stuff we have from the scene, the things they took at the scene.
[03:57:44.170 --> 03:57:48.330]  Libby's left wrist, Libby's right wrist, Libby's belly button above the knee of Libby.
[03:57:50.930 --> 03:58:01.200]  Then a bunch of stuff on the ground and the tree below Abby's head.
[03:58:01.200 --> 03:58:07.060]  So, left index finger of Abby, left pinky finger of Abby.
[03:58:09.540 --> 03:58:16.400]  Some additional items from the autopsy. Left thigh of Abby, right thigh of Libby.
[03:58:16.400 --> 03:58:21.280]  I'm sorry, I've been saying Abby for both of those. Swab from left thigh of Libby,
[03:58:21.360 --> 03:58:27.340]  right thigh of Libby, right breast of Libby, left breast of Libby, the kits, trace fiber.
[03:58:29.140 --> 03:58:32.560]  Oof. Guys, I'm not seeing any swabs from the wounds.
[03:58:34.380 --> 03:58:47.190]  Not seeing any swabs from the wounds. Libby's right wrist. Yeah. Uh-uh. They didn't swab them,
[03:58:47.190 --> 03:58:52.910]  guys. So, we're not going to know. We won't know if there was a mix of blood
[03:58:52.910 --> 03:58:59.270]  and whether there was transfer like that from a single weapon. Very unfortunate.
[03:59:00.650 --> 03:59:07.710]  Felicia V. I have read that Kelsey deleted info on Libby's phone prior to law enforcement exam.
[03:59:07.910 --> 03:59:13.270]  Has this been talked about? In my opinion, if potential evidence were deleted, that is a huge
[03:59:13.270 --> 03:59:20.150]  deal. Get an Indiana Tenderloin while here. That would be a huge deal. We have not heard
[03:59:20.150 --> 03:59:31.750]  anything about that. Um, possible that would be excluded. This being Judge Gull,
[03:59:32.550 --> 03:59:37.290]  you know, the view that it would be irrelevant because nobody's arguing that Kelsey's the
[03:59:37.290 --> 03:59:42.790]  murderer or something like that or that Kelsey's complicit. I mean, nobody is, I think, arguing
[03:59:42.790 --> 03:59:51.190]  that Kelsey's complicit, but doesn't mean it's not relevant. We haven't heard anything
[03:59:51.190 --> 03:59:56.450]  about it. So I don't, I don't know if that is, if that is true, if that is going to come up.
[03:59:56.450 --> 04:00:01.190]  But so far, so far that hasn't, there hasn't been any indication of that.
[04:00:01.730 --> 04:00:05.770]  I did mention last night, I am going to miss out on the Indiana Tenderloin,
[04:00:05.770 --> 04:00:11.070]  unfortunately, because I don't eat beef. I have not eaten. I don't eat, I eat fish,
[04:00:11.070 --> 04:00:17.190]  but I don't otherwise eat meat. So I do hear it's quite good. I'm sure that it's
[04:00:17.190 --> 04:00:21.990]  wonderful. But it won't, it won't be for me. But thank you for the suggestion.
[04:00:24.330 --> 04:00:30.470]  Marcelo, I saw Ron Logan's phone put him standing at or near the crime scene at 10 16
[04:00:30.470 --> 04:00:36.290]  p.m. The judge has forbidden to mention him, right? Don't you think this is a huge appeal
[04:00:36.290 --> 04:00:41.970]  issue or is it because that he is dead? They can't show that. No, I don't think it's because
[04:00:41.970 --> 04:00:46.890]  he's dead. Certainly the third party culprit stuff was all excluded just because they
[04:00:46.890 --> 04:00:52.330]  said there's not enough evidence to meet the standard for Indiana. Indiana requires
[04:00:52.330 --> 04:00:57.350]  proof of a direct link between the other suspect and the crime. Well, to me,
[04:00:58.530 --> 04:01:05.090]  being out or near the crime scene is a pretty direct link. 10 16 is when the girls are
[04:01:05.090 --> 04:01:10.470]  missing. We don't actually know when the time of death is. Yeah, I mean, the third party
[04:01:10.470 --> 04:01:16.670]  culprit stuff has been a big issue for me from the appealability standpoint. The whole
[04:01:16.670 --> 04:01:22.670]  other issue here with the phone and the phone data, this is going to be stuff I would think.
[04:01:23.390 --> 04:01:29.030]  I mean, maybe I don't know if they extracted Ron Logan's phone or if this was part of the
[04:01:29.030 --> 04:01:34.270]  part of the geofence data, since I didn't get to attend those those hearings was evidentiary
[04:01:34.270 --> 04:01:39.390]  hearings that they held back in July and August. I really don't know a lot of the
[04:01:39.390 --> 04:01:43.730]  details of some of what got litigated in there. They took a lot of evidence and it's
[04:01:43.730 --> 04:01:47.010]  again, it's unfortunate we don't have transcripts. We don't have recordings.
[04:01:47.430 --> 04:01:53.630]  There's no way to really go back back in and revisit that. So I don't know if that's part
[04:01:53.630 --> 04:01:59.650]  of the metadata that are the the geofence data that also got excluded or if this is
[04:01:59.650 --> 04:02:07.730]  something separate, his own phone that they that they that they examined. Either way, you
[04:02:07.730 --> 04:02:15.330]  know, third party culprit is gonna is gonna keep him out. So I'm trying to now I am trying
[04:02:15.330 --> 04:02:21.150]  to think back. I feel like I do feel like they examined his phone. I got to go back
[04:02:21.150 --> 04:02:24.850]  in and look at look at some of that detail because I just I just don't remember off the
[04:02:24.850 --> 04:02:30.130]  top of my head. I'm gonna have to check out the all eyes on Delphi is like such
[04:02:30.130 --> 04:02:35.450]  there's lots of good sources for for information sleuthy goosey is always like one of my top
[04:02:35.450 --> 04:02:40.530]  She's got great stuff on this. What I like about the all eyes on Delphi is they have a timeline.
[04:02:40.710 --> 04:02:46.030]  They've like organized things in the timeline and then sourced it back to the the document
[04:02:46.030 --> 04:02:51.890]  that that that information came from. So it's easy to go check the timeline and see like,
[04:02:51.930 --> 04:02:56.050]  you know, there's if there's an entry where Ron Logan's phone was was extracted. I just
[04:02:56.050 --> 04:03:00.010]  don't remember off the top of my head, but I am kind of feeling like maybe it was
[04:03:00.810 --> 04:03:04.710]  Two blue crayons with a super sticker. Thanks so much for that. Kathleen
[04:03:04.710 --> 04:03:11.010]  Koselke. Sweet pea with a super sticker. Thank you so much, sweet pea. That's that's
[04:03:11.010 --> 04:03:17.110]  wonderful. Theory neutral. Goal's judgment on your motion was lame. Two, lots of substance
[04:03:17.110 --> 04:03:23.570]  today. Thank you. Three, did any witness say bridge guy looked like RA? Four, was the cause
[04:03:23.570 --> 04:03:30.410]  of death bleeding? Five, did the girls walk that path often? I agree. The judgment was
[04:03:30.410 --> 04:03:36.090]  kind of lame. I sort of knew what was going to happen with that argument about the audios
[04:03:36.090 --> 04:03:41.090]  because I had been I had already been alerted that there is an interpretation
[04:03:41.090 --> 04:03:47.690]  of of this of this rule that says that because basically because the criminal defense
[04:03:48.290 --> 04:03:54.010]  the criminal attorneys are allowed to request copies of the audio that it means the rest of
[04:03:54.010 --> 04:03:59.470]  us can't. So I was sort of predicting that that's where she was going to go.
[04:04:01.290 --> 04:04:05.290]  It's the rest of it that's lame. Oh, she's just complaining about the trial process. Well,
[04:04:05.290 --> 04:04:10.870]  let's be clear. I certainly am complaining about the trial process, but that's not just what
[04:04:10.870 --> 04:04:14.930]  I'm complaining about. I'm complaining about the important constitutional issue of public
[04:04:14.930 --> 04:04:23.210]  access and the fact that there is now a group of the elect in the courtroom that have been
[04:04:23.210 --> 04:04:29.910]  granted this extraordinary access while the rest of us are being denied. And that's it's
[04:04:29.910 --> 04:04:35.390]  not appropriate. It's not legally substantiated. Once the door has been opened and the process
[04:04:35.390 --> 04:04:39.810]  has been established for those exhibits to be shared publicly, we should all get the
[04:04:39.810 --> 04:04:45.150]  opportunity to share in that. So yes, it's a very lame response and we will be dealing
[04:04:45.150 --> 04:04:51.410]  with it accordingly. I agree. Lots of substance today. None of the witnesses has said bridge
[04:04:51.410 --> 04:04:56.630]  guy looked like Richard Allen. There's been no comparison whatsoever. Nothing. Not. I mean,
[04:04:56.630 --> 04:05:01.290]  even if we came up short of an in court ID, not even a, you know, yeah, he might have
[04:05:01.290 --> 04:05:08.210]  looked sort of like this guy. Nothing at all. We did not actually get a cause of death. They
[04:05:08.210 --> 04:05:13.870]  didn't elicit the cause of death from the forensic pathologist, which I thought was
[04:05:13.870 --> 04:05:21.010]  maybe a little bit odd, but it did seem to also kind of be self explanatory because
[04:05:21.010 --> 04:05:28.090]  these were the only wounds that they had. You know, the exact was it exsanguination?
[04:05:28.230 --> 04:05:33.470]  I assume it was. But I don't know, you know, that maybe there were contributing
[04:05:34.210 --> 04:05:39.330]  factors or something like that. Just given the given the conditions or something
[04:05:39.870 --> 04:05:43.390]  they didn't say we're in a murder trial. We didn't get the cause of death.
[04:05:45.470 --> 04:05:53.170]  The girls, I believe. Yes, the evidence was that Libby particularly would be down
[04:05:53.170 --> 04:05:58.690]  there at the bridge. She liked to be down there at the bridge in part because Kelsey
[04:05:58.690 --> 04:06:03.450]  liked to be down there at the bridge because Kelsey likes to likes photography. She likes to
[04:06:03.450 --> 04:06:09.530]  take pictures. It is an extremely scenic area. Very nice place to be out taking
[04:06:09.530 --> 04:06:18.550]  beautiful like landscape type photographs. So Libby for sure would be down there at the trail.
[04:06:24.270 --> 04:06:28.810]  Abby, we have less information about. We know that she had been across the bridge,
[04:06:28.810 --> 04:06:36.950]  I believe, before. But I don't think to the extent that Libby had been down there.
[04:06:40.070 --> 04:06:45.490]  Dr. Von Decay is a new channel member. Thank you for joining us. Welcome.
[04:06:46.330 --> 04:06:51.530]  Sweet and salty with a contribution for pens. I am going to have to go and get more pens.
[04:06:51.710 --> 04:06:56.630]  My pen box is running dry. I'm going to take a whole handful of them tomorrow because
[04:06:56.630 --> 04:07:04.330]  now I'm paranoid. I have five pens left in my box. So I'm going to take three pens. I have
[04:07:04.330 --> 04:07:09.850]  to give one to lawyer Lee. I still have her pen from yesterday. I'm going to take two with
[04:07:09.850 --> 04:07:15.730]  me. I'm going to leave one here at home in my little office space here. And then that
[04:07:15.730 --> 04:07:20.970]  leaves me with two extra pens that I'm going to leave in my car so that if worst case
[04:07:20.970 --> 04:07:25.870]  scenario I can run out at lunch or break or whatever and grab a pen. And then I will go
[04:07:25.870 --> 04:07:35.370]  buy another box. So I am a little paranoid now about losing the pens. Rusty with an I. Once
[04:07:35.370 --> 04:07:39.670]  again, your coverage is so detailed and thorough. Thank you for your time and sacrifice to
[04:07:39.670 --> 04:07:46.570]  provide us with the happenings of the trial. You are very, very welcome. Kathleen Koselski,
[04:07:46.810 --> 04:07:52.210]  sweet pea with a, oh my goodness, enormous contribution to the pen fund. Thank you so
[04:07:52.210 --> 04:08:01.710]  much. Love kitty questions. Yeah. That's going to buy a lot of pens. I really appreciate that.
[04:08:01.790 --> 04:08:07.470]  I will never run out of pens. Uncivil law. Welcome, Kurt. Good to see you with a lamey
[04:08:07.470 --> 04:08:18.850]  fountain pen, noodler, bulletproof ink. I like my pen. I like these pens. My Uni Ball Vision
[04:08:18.850 --> 04:08:29.210]  Elite pen. It is a ballpoint pen, but it's just a nice, it's a very nice ink. It just flows,
[04:08:29.230 --> 04:08:35.090]  it writes so well. I love this pen. I've been telling people about how my husband and I,
[04:08:35.090 --> 04:08:41.490]  when we had our law office together, we were both kind of pen snobs, but we had different
[04:08:41.490 --> 04:08:47.090]  choices of pen that we were snobby about. So for me, it was always the Uni Ball Vision
[04:08:47.090 --> 04:08:57.430]  Elite. For him, it was, I think it was a gel. I forget who made his gel pen. But anyway,
[04:08:57.450 --> 04:09:02.430]  so it would cause controversy in the office if one of my pens ever showed up in Jeff's office,
[04:09:02.510 --> 04:09:07.250]  or if Jeff's pens ever showed up in mine. You don't even like my pen.
[04:09:10.730 --> 04:09:15.090]  ShredderSO7 at Andrea Burkhart. Raid from Potentially Criminal. Been watching your
[04:09:15.090 --> 04:09:19.510]  coverage anyway. Great work and thanks for showing up in person. Well, thank you for coming
[04:09:19.510 --> 04:09:26.410]  by. Welcome to everybody from Potentially Criminal. That is awesome. It is a whole thing,
[04:09:26.510 --> 04:09:33.790]  seeing this unfold in person. It's a very, very different experience and especially just
[04:09:33.790 --> 04:09:40.350]  given how this is all we got. This is all we got. This is all we have to know about
[04:09:40.350 --> 04:09:49.690]  the trial. It's really emphasizing to me, I'm realizing how much I wish I had been able to
[04:09:49.690 --> 04:09:55.130]  do this for the pre-trial stuff. Just because I'm at that point, even just now I'm talking
[04:09:55.130 --> 04:10:01.010]  about the evidentiary hearing from back in July and August. So much information came out.
[04:10:01.230 --> 04:10:07.170]  No idea what it was. No idea what it was because we weren't able to be there.
[04:10:07.890 --> 04:10:14.390]  I've seen some news stuff, but I've already seen from this context how difficult it is
[04:10:14.390 --> 04:10:21.150]  to rely on what the news media is reporting. They're often getting details wrong and it's
[04:10:21.150 --> 04:10:27.010]  just not particularly detailed. They pick the high point of the day and that's really what
[04:10:27.010 --> 04:10:32.590]  they report. They don't report all of these details and the details are what are so
[04:10:32.590 --> 04:10:40.690]  significant in this particular case. I had other key things going on and so it wasn't
[04:10:40.690 --> 04:10:45.150]  going to be possible, but it is unfortunate. I wish I had been able to do that before.
[04:10:47.730 --> 04:10:53.930]  Pixelate me. What a great username. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate your support.
[04:10:54.510 --> 04:11:00.670]  Tina with the contribution. Thank you so much, Tina. Emmy, thanks Andrea and thanks to the
[04:11:01.390 --> 04:11:11.450]  real MVPs. Thank you so much. Blake's Lee Kay with a super sticker. Really appreciate that.
[04:11:11.670 --> 04:11:17.930]  Roger V. Kent, an extra cup of joe. I'm going to need more than a couple as the weeks go on.
[04:11:18.930 --> 04:11:25.210]  But you know, hey, we're almost... Lawyer Lee pointed out to me we can't technically
[04:11:25.210 --> 04:11:29.910]  call today hump day because we've got that half day on Saturday. So we're not...
[04:11:29.910 --> 04:11:34.450]  Although it is only half day, so by getting through the full day today, we are technically
[04:11:34.450 --> 04:11:41.490]  over the hump. So we're practically already almost one whole week down and then there's only
[04:11:42.990 --> 04:11:49.170]  like four more to go, three more to go, four more to go. We'll get through it. It'll be fine.
[04:11:52.250 --> 04:11:56.850]  Indie Cindy with a super sticker. Appreciate that. Thank you so much. Lisa Thomas with a
[04:11:57.690 --> 04:12:01.990]  thank you so much for your support. Heather Brown, Andrea, thank you for all you're doing.
[04:12:02.170 --> 04:12:08.110]  You are so welcome. Really appreciate all of your support, guys. Poe Honesty,
[04:12:08.350 --> 04:12:13.350]  I don't trust Gull. I predict a mistrial if she smells an acquittal coming or a directed
[04:12:13.350 --> 04:12:17.930]  verdict after the confessions. Thanks for your work. I don't think so. And I'll tell
[04:12:17.930 --> 04:12:25.730]  you why. So first off, she cannot give a directed verdict for the state. That is not
[04:12:25.730 --> 04:12:31.230]  in criminal court to do that. The defense can ask for a directed verdict because they're
[04:12:31.230 --> 04:12:35.190]  basically saying as a matter of law, the state has not met its burden of proof,
[04:12:35.590 --> 04:12:40.290]  but she cannot find as a matter of law that they have. That is exclusively a question for
[04:12:40.290 --> 04:12:45.350]  the jury. So there will not be a directed verdict. I do not think she will give a
[04:12:45.350 --> 04:12:51.750]  mistrial because mistrials are extremely risky. The reason why is because Jeopardy has now
[04:12:51.750 --> 04:12:57.390]  attached to this case because a jury has been sworn in. And that means there's pretty
[04:12:57.390 --> 04:13:06.190]  limited circumstances when they can get a do-over. A mistrial requires a finding of
[04:13:06.190 --> 04:13:13.130]  manifest necessity. So it has to be essentially the only thing that is possible in the
[04:13:13.130 --> 04:13:19.370]  circumstances. It requires something pretty egregious. She's not going to be able to just
[04:13:19.370 --> 04:13:23.990]  some little thing and say, I don't like how this is being done, so we're going to do it over.
[04:13:25.250 --> 04:13:29.450]  You don't get a second jury when this one is sworn. If there is no manifest necessity,
[04:13:29.450 --> 04:13:33.330]  he is entitled to a verdict from this jury. This is the one that he picked.
[04:13:34.410 --> 04:13:39.890]  So that would be opening up a double Jeopardy problem. They would not potentially be able to
[04:13:39.890 --> 04:13:45.350]  retry him. It's very, very risky to do that without very good cause to declare a mistrial.
[04:13:46.110 --> 04:13:51.070]  So I do have faith that Judge Gold understands at least that much.
[04:13:51.310 --> 04:13:56.170]  Laura, could the defense be talking about interaction between the girls and RA phones?
[04:13:56.470 --> 04:14:02.610]  And I thought in opening they mentioned his phone leaving. Also, RA gave them phone ID
[04:14:02.610 --> 04:14:08.770]  number. Okay, that's... I didn't know that. That I just assumed they subpoenaed it from
[04:14:08.770 --> 04:14:14.030]  his carrier or something like that. But if he gave it to him, like, wow, that's... he's
[04:14:14.030 --> 04:14:18.750]  being very... like, how did he even know? I don't think I would even know. I would have to go
[04:14:18.750 --> 04:14:22.370]  hunt for it and then give it to him. Like, that's being really super cooperative with the
[04:14:22.370 --> 04:14:32.270]  investigation. You know, they didn't ask the witness to clarify that. When he was talking
[04:14:32.990 --> 04:14:38.250]  about no contact, he did use the word communications. He was talking about they
[04:14:38.250 --> 04:14:46.190]  not communicate with each other. I suppose it's possible he meant, like, the phones didn't
[04:14:46.190 --> 04:14:50.010]  commute. But it's not an issue of phone communication. It's really about the phones
[04:14:50.010 --> 04:14:54.850]  being in the same place at the same time. I didn't see... I don't think that can be
[04:14:54.850 --> 04:15:02.570]  interpreted that way. And, you know, the defense didn't follow up, like, if that was
[04:15:02.570 --> 04:15:08.790]  the case, they didn't follow up to clarify that. So I just... I don't think that's
[04:15:08.790 --> 04:15:18.870]  probably what it is. I think that's a good thought. But, yeah, I don't think that's
[04:15:18.870 --> 04:15:24.470]  what he was talking about. I don't remember them mentioning his phone leaving and opening
[04:15:24.470 --> 04:15:29.230]  because I don't think they're allowed to do that. What I remember them mentioning
[04:15:29.230 --> 04:15:36.450]  was his car. They're talking about his car leaving. And I'm not quite sure yet how
[04:15:36.450 --> 04:15:40.710]  they're going to establish this. We had the little piece that we already know about
[04:15:40.710 --> 04:15:46.330]  with Betsy Blair that he definitely told us about in opening because they're trying
[04:15:46.330 --> 04:15:52.210]  to say that Richard Allen parked at the CPS lot, went and rocked the trails, committed
[04:15:52.210 --> 04:15:58.830]  the murders, walked back down where Sarah Carabaugh saw him on the road, got in his
[04:15:58.830 --> 04:16:06.470]  car and left. Betsy Blair was there during the time frame when Richard Allen would
[04:16:06.470 --> 04:16:11.410]  have had his car parked at that lot. And she identifies a car parked there, but
[04:16:11.410 --> 04:16:16.030]  it's a car that is nothing like Mr. Allen's car. It's the one that looks just like
[04:16:16.030 --> 04:16:24.730]  her dad's old car, the Mercury Comet. So that I think is maybe what you're remembering
[04:16:24.730 --> 04:16:29.510]  from the defense opening. I don't know if they have other evidence of his car's
[04:16:29.510 --> 04:16:33.230]  location. It would be great if they had a security camera somewhere. Like if they
[04:16:33.230 --> 04:16:40.790]  had that, that's pretty exculpatory. Put his car somewhere else. It's not definitive
[04:16:40.790 --> 04:16:45.510]  unless they got his face in it behind the wheel. Maybe he ran a red light and
[04:16:45.510 --> 04:16:49.770]  got a stoplight camera. Those things happen. But at the same time, you would
[04:16:49.770 --> 04:16:56.170]  expect the state would have found something like that. And that would have become
[04:16:56.170 --> 04:17:01.510]  an issue at some point in the investigation, or some point in the case, either with
[04:17:01.510 --> 04:17:06.330]  Franks or with Brady, a Brady motion or something like that. That's pretty
[04:17:06.330 --> 04:17:13.950]  significant. That would be pretty significant evidence. So I think it's the car that we
[04:17:13.950 --> 04:17:20.110]  are focused on with that. Karazola X. Sucks that people are distracted by the funny
[04:17:20.110 --> 04:17:24.450]  suitcase lady and not paying attention to this case. It's so much more important
[04:17:24.450 --> 04:17:30.550]  worrying. I mean, the suitcase lady is on TV, so it's easy. You know, it's an
[04:17:30.550 --> 04:17:35.170]  easy one to watch and focus on. I totally understand that. It is not easy being
[04:17:35.170 --> 04:17:41.790]  here and getting this information. And I know just speaking from personal experience
[04:17:41.790 --> 04:17:47.570]  is so difficult to cover the trials that aren't televised because it's so hard to
[04:17:47.570 --> 04:17:53.590]  get the good information. That's literally why I'm here. Because I knew I knew when it
[04:17:53.590 --> 04:17:57.570]  wasn't being televised and how important it is, there wasn't going to be any other
[04:17:57.570 --> 04:18:01.150]  way to be able to talk about this case. So I had to be here because there's not
[04:18:01.150 --> 04:18:05.890]  going to be another source if we're not not getting the audios and so forth. So I
[04:18:05.890 --> 04:18:12.930]  really do understand. But I agree from my standpoint, the suitcase lady was not
[04:18:12.930 --> 04:18:17.070]  particularly interesting. Although I will say from what I've seen, I've just seen
[04:18:17.070 --> 04:18:20.510]  little bits and pieces about how it seems to be going. It does seem to be
[04:18:20.510 --> 04:18:24.990]  going differently than I had expected. I had expected it to be Daryl Brooks
[04:18:24.990 --> 04:18:31.070]  in a dress. That's what I expected. Doesn't seem like it's gone that way.
[04:18:31.070 --> 04:18:37.130]  Her having a lawyer, you know, probably changes that scenario quite a bit. But
[04:18:37.130 --> 04:18:43.790]  I've also heard at least some folks seem to say, you know, she testified and
[04:18:43.790 --> 04:18:49.130]  thought she did pretty well. Not a universal sentiment, of course, by any means. But
[04:18:49.830 --> 04:18:56.830]  I would say prior to her taking the stand, I think pretty much everybody would
[04:18:56.830 --> 04:19:00.530]  have predicted it would be a train wreck. It would just be a disaster. And it doesn't
[04:19:00.530 --> 04:19:04.250]  sound like it was. So in that sense, you know, that's that's kind of
[04:19:04.250 --> 04:19:06.730]  interesting. That is that is a different development.
[04:19:09.430 --> 04:19:13.430]  Harry Leachman, appreciate how nuanced your coverage is. Don't always agree
[04:19:13.430 --> 04:19:16.930]  with your conclusions, but I respect the hell out of your ethics. Keep doing
[04:19:16.930 --> 04:19:20.790]  what you're doing. Well, thank you. I definitely don't expect everybody to
[04:19:20.790 --> 04:19:28.210]  agree with my conclusions. And they're just my my thought process. That's part of why
[04:19:28.210 --> 04:19:34.010]  I love having the chat, having the comments, having just other people's
[04:19:34.010 --> 04:19:39.710]  thoughts. People have great ideas in here that some things that I've never thought of,
[04:19:40.050 --> 04:19:45.130]  you know, some things that I've never thought of. Boy, I'm trying to remember now.
[04:19:45.710 --> 04:19:52.110]  Oh, yeah, like, I mean, the suggestion today about the connecting the lines on
[04:19:53.230 --> 04:19:59.350]  on Abby on her chin. Maybe that has something to do with this handkerchief and realizing,
[04:19:59.410 --> 04:20:03.530]  you know, this handkerchief that was recovered. We don't know where it came from. We don't
[04:20:03.530 --> 04:20:09.550]  have we don't have a provenance for it. It's a mystery hanky. Could those things be
[04:20:09.550 --> 04:20:14.890]  connected? This was like sort of a group, a group brainstorm, you know, a bunch of us
[04:20:15.490 --> 04:20:20.270]  while while while the the cases in recess. So
[04:20:21.970 --> 04:20:27.730]  I'm just one person with with my own ideas. But I think everybody having their own ideas
[04:20:27.730 --> 04:20:33.970]  and sharing them in a respectful way. That's what helps us get closer to the truth.
[04:20:34.390 --> 04:20:40.390]  Because, yeah, people have all kinds of good, good theories and good ideas about how things
[04:20:40.390 --> 04:20:47.470]  work. And yes, makes me shift my perspective, you know, quite quite a bit of the time. So
[04:20:47.470 --> 04:20:52.290]  don't by any means feel like you need to agree, agree with me. And if you disagree,
[04:20:52.310 --> 04:20:56.630]  I would love to hear why. That's, that's some of my favorite conversation. I'm a lawyer,
[04:20:56.830 --> 04:21:00.910]  you know, disagreement is second nature to me. So I don't take it personally at all.
[04:21:01.350 --> 04:21:07.030]  I just all I all I my rule is like, don't attack people don't make stuff personal
[04:21:07.030 --> 04:21:12.170]  disagreements about stuff like this shouldn't be personal. It's about ideas. It's about
[04:21:12.170 --> 04:21:18.810]  information. It's about getting to the truth. So it's it's a constructive process when we do it
[04:21:19.570 --> 04:21:25.570]  right. Catherine Joy, we so appreciate all you do. Well, I appreciate all of you being here and
[04:21:25.570 --> 04:21:30.650]  all of your support. It really has been it really has been overwhelming. Truth seeker,
[04:21:30.670 --> 04:21:35.710]  what time are you getting there? I came up with an idea and you meet me with Julie Friday.
[04:21:35.710 --> 04:21:40.990]  Thank you for everything, Andrea. I have an idea about drinks, snacks. Tomorrow I'm going to
[04:21:40.990 --> 04:21:45.850]  I'm supposed to get there at seven. That's when the the line sitters will be done. So I will
[04:21:45.850 --> 04:21:53.050]  be there at seven tomorrow morning. Everything else kind of up in the air. So I'm playing a
[04:21:53.050 --> 04:21:59.430]  little bit a little bit of wait and see. It will depend. But I would I would love to see you
[04:21:59.430 --> 04:22:06.590]  there show up. That would be fantastic. Serita Banana, if the prosecution is hoping the jury
[04:22:06.590 --> 04:22:11.990]  finds are a guilty based on post arrest confessions, then what do you think the
[04:22:11.990 --> 04:22:17.670]  jury will consider to be factual as the basis for the arrest? The jury isn't going to
[04:22:17.670 --> 04:22:23.670]  be asked to consider the factual basis for the arrest. It's not it's not within their purview.
[04:22:28.000 --> 04:22:37.240]  If I'm the state and I'm addressing this issue, I'm saying, OK, maybe you don't think the evidence
[04:22:37.240 --> 04:22:41.600]  was strong. Maybe you think it was a guess. Well, the confessions show they guessed right.
[04:22:44.770 --> 04:22:51.070]  That's going to be my response to it. I definitely don't think that, you know,
[04:22:51.150 --> 04:22:56.090]  the PC is strong. Not a lot with the PC. If they didn't have those confessions,
[04:22:56.890 --> 04:23:04.410]  this case is so much harder. This case is a lot harder without those confessions, if only because
[04:23:07.230 --> 04:23:11.650]  well, we do still have his original statement to the police where he put himself on the bridge
[04:23:12.190 --> 04:23:17.830]  and he put himself meeting the girls. That's really where things that's where things went
[04:23:17.830 --> 04:23:25.090]  south for him. That initial, that very initial cooperation. So if he is innocent,
[04:23:25.090 --> 04:23:29.670]  it's really a cautionary. It's unfortunate that it has to be a cautionary tale about
[04:23:29.670 --> 04:23:39.500]  being a good Samaritan if he didn't do it. If he did do it, that wasn't a good call.
[04:23:40.240 --> 04:23:48.630]  You know, bottom line. Truth seeker, I'm willing to bring snacks and drinks at lunchtime
[04:23:48.630 --> 04:23:53.570]  and coffee and donuts early morning for a selected few. That is sorry, trolls, lol.
[04:23:54.210 --> 04:24:01.910]  There are a few trolls around. Not going to lie about that. Thank you. Very, very generous.
[04:24:03.510 --> 04:24:08.850]  I don't know if you heard, we have now been allowed to bring food into the courthouse.
[04:24:08.850 --> 04:24:13.150]  Food and drink, we can bring it into the courthouse. We simply can't eat it in the
[04:24:13.150 --> 04:24:19.450]  courtroom. So what that's looking like now is I'm able to bring a little lunch. We're able
[04:24:19.450 --> 04:24:25.250]  to bring little snacks. And during the breaks, we can go out into the hall and we can eat them
[04:24:25.250 --> 04:24:31.130]  and we can have our drinks. So we are no longer starving. We're not on the Delphi
[04:24:31.130 --> 04:24:38.150]  starvation diet anymore. I did, guys, I will tell you, I noticed, I noticed this having an
[04:24:38.150 --> 04:24:46.410]  effect. I noticed today, I said something to Julie about it because I was going down the
[04:24:47.050 --> 04:24:56.250]  my pants are falling down. This has been very extreme, very fast. But we are on a correction
[04:24:56.250 --> 04:25:04.230]  route now. So I will not continue to starve. I will be able to get food. But I would still
[04:25:04.230 --> 04:25:12.070]  love to meet you if you want to come by. Maybe, yeah, just connect. And at some point,
[04:25:12.210 --> 04:25:15.710]  all these people here in town, I would love a chance for us to get together, especially
[04:25:15.710 --> 04:25:20.590]  the line sitters, you know, certainly, I would just I would love for us to be able to get coffee,
[04:25:20.930 --> 04:25:27.270]  get a beer, I mean, anything, you know, I just I'm so grateful for everybody's support. And it's
[04:25:27.270 --> 04:25:32.570]  really been awesome to meet everybody that is a fan of what I'm doing here. It never ceases
[04:25:32.570 --> 04:25:37.210]  to amaze me that so many people are interested in what I have to say, you know, to me,
[04:25:37.210 --> 04:25:45.690]  I'm just a person with some thoughts that I say into a mic. And it does it just kind of
[04:25:45.690 --> 04:25:53.610]  so many of you are interested in following it. Theory neutral, would you please post an image of
[04:25:53.610 --> 04:26:00.430]  stick patterns? Yes, I did my little I did my little sketch of their sketch.
[04:26:02.490 --> 04:26:08.710]  The things that have been controversial about the stick patterns have been the sticks over
[04:26:08.710 --> 04:26:15.490]  the puddle of blood and exactly what that looked like. And then also whether there were
[04:26:15.490 --> 04:26:21.610]  sticks, people are asking about sticks over Abby's head, because that relates back to
[04:26:21.610 --> 04:26:27.010]  the statement that Elvis Fields had made about putting the horns on the girl. There are no
[04:26:27.010 --> 04:26:32.930]  sticks over her head, I can I can tell you that from from the from the sketch, or just
[04:26:32.930 --> 04:26:39.970]  from memory. My sketch, I, you know, I was getting the general gist, I would not want to
[04:26:40.510 --> 04:26:45.030]  like represent it as being a super accurate diagram.
[04:26:47.670 --> 04:26:55.430]  I am a terrible artist, guys, like I honestly I can barely draw a stick figure and it shows.
[04:26:56.810 --> 04:27:02.150]  So I did do my best, but like it's not do not rely on it for detail or anything like
[04:27:02.150 --> 04:27:11.390]  I will share it for the general gist. But I say that with some hesitation for for those very
[04:27:11.390 --> 04:27:18.950]  reasons. Now if I could see the exhibits and draw it again, you know, make sure like double
[04:27:18.950 --> 04:27:25.770]  check my drawing, I do that. But apparently I'm just complaining about the trial process.
[04:27:25.770 --> 04:27:33.830]  Amanda Colbert. Anybody know the name of Kelsey's 2017 boyfriend? I don't. She didn't say at trial.
[04:27:35.230 --> 04:27:42.310]  So I don't know who that is. Catastrophe. We bought the transcripts for thousands.
[04:27:42.610 --> 04:27:47.730]  Videos to listen to us all reading as the players including Goosey and all eyes on
[04:27:47.730 --> 04:27:53.450]  criminality 187. T has helped crush the transcripts game. Beyond grateful for you.
[04:27:53.450 --> 04:28:01.970]  Are you talking about the evidentiary hearings? If you are, I would love to hunt those down. And
[04:28:01.970 --> 04:28:06.510]  oh man, maybe I would have time this weekend to get caught up on that. I might have to wait,
[04:28:06.570 --> 04:28:11.630]  you know, kick it to the kick it to the following weekend. But yes, I'm very interested
[04:28:11.630 --> 04:28:16.910]  in seeing the transcripts of those hearings. That is that is music to my ears.
[04:28:18.010 --> 04:28:24.090]  I will I will look out for that. Procosent. Pen snobs. My kind of people. Pilot
[04:28:24.090 --> 04:28:32.850]  one millimeter. I prefer like not a super bold, not a super bold point, but close to bold.
[04:28:33.130 --> 04:28:38.390]  I'm not really a fine point. Not really a fine point, girl. I like my ink to stand out.
[04:28:38.890 --> 04:28:45.550]  I like to be liberal with my ink. Not have challenges reading it. We all have our own
[04:28:45.550 --> 04:28:51.610]  matter of taste. That's that's something that we can we can disagree about respectfully.
[04:28:52.370 --> 04:28:56.990]  I think the was it a pilot gel might have been might have been Jeff's pen.
[04:28:57.750 --> 04:29:01.050]  It might have been a pilot pen. I just can't remember off the top of my head.
[04:29:01.970 --> 04:29:08.270]  Kate, you rock civil procedural procedure rule cited in Judge Cole's ruling on your motion.
[04:29:08.270 --> 04:29:13.730]  Wow. Yeah, right. I mean, I did notice it's the trial trial procedure rules. It's not
[04:29:13.730 --> 04:29:21.950]  necessarily applicable to the criminal rules. So yeah, it just it does become a little bit
[04:29:21.950 --> 04:29:28.630]  of a question of what exactly applies in this situation. And if if there is a conflict
[04:29:28.630 --> 04:29:34.170]  between the rules, which one is is going to prevail. But yes, I agree with you. The
[04:29:34.170 --> 04:29:39.290]  criminal rule does not say only the attorneys get the audio. And so then I would think we
[04:29:39.290 --> 04:29:45.990]  fall to the the rules on the public access, where it just flat out public records, anything
[04:29:45.990 --> 04:29:51.630]  is a court record. You know, this qualifies as a court record. And if it's a court record,
[04:29:51.650 --> 04:29:58.470]  public access means I have the right to inspect and copy it. And copy it. I get both,
[04:29:58.710 --> 04:30:08.670]  not just one. I get them both. So maybe we will need to just explore ways to see what
[04:30:08.670 --> 04:30:15.830]  higher court would think of that that decision. Felicia V at at Andrea Burkhart to clarify,
[04:30:16.030 --> 04:30:22.090]  I don't think Kelsey complicit. Understood. If she deleted, it would be embarrassing stuff.
[04:30:22.170 --> 04:30:28.410]  Maybe Libby sent compromising photos while catfished delete to protect LG before new relevant.
[04:30:28.830 --> 04:30:33.010]  Yeah, you know, I mean, I can see something like this too, with the whole Anthony shots
[04:30:33.010 --> 04:30:38.370]  angle, like we know, I'm pretty sure we know that there was communication between them
[04:30:38.370 --> 04:30:42.210]  that he was a catfishing guy. And that was his whole thing. And he's gone down for child
[04:30:42.210 --> 04:30:50.550]  exploitation. So yeah, I mean, I can definitely, I can definitely, I could definitely see something
[04:30:50.550 --> 04:30:57.810]  like that. And in that case, that would also be why I could see it potentially being
[04:30:57.810 --> 04:31:04.270]  irrelevant. You know, if it's not a situation like, Oh, Kelsey is complicit. Which, like
[04:31:04.270 --> 04:31:09.930]  I said, you're not saying I'm not saying I don't think anybody's saying then it isn't necessarily
[04:31:09.930 --> 04:31:16.180]  relevant to the to the murder trial. You know, it may be relevant just for purposes of
[04:31:18.990 --> 04:31:24.110]  establishing why certain information maybe isn't available if some of the deleted stuff is
[04:31:24.110 --> 04:31:29.290]  relevant. So like if she deleted that photo, I don't know why she would delete that one
[04:31:29.290 --> 04:31:37.210]  because it's not incriminating. Maybe it's just by accident or something. I don't know.
[04:31:37.850 --> 04:31:42.490]  But I could see that being a reason why, you know, it wouldn't be allowed to be mentioned
[04:31:42.490 --> 04:31:47.790]  because it just it's embarrassing. And it doesn't have it doesn't have anything to do
[04:31:47.790 --> 04:31:53.110]  with the reason the reason for the murder or anything like that. So yes, very good point.
[04:31:53.150 --> 04:31:57.050]  Thank you for clarifying that. I agree. Nobody is saying that Kelsey is complicit.
[04:31:58.370 --> 04:32:02.730]  Tammy Martin. Have you read the first Frank's memo? Judge Gull hasn't even read it. It's
[04:32:02.730 --> 04:32:06.490]  very telling. It will blow your mind. Oh, yeah, I read the first Frank's memo. I've read all
[04:32:06.490 --> 04:32:12.210]  the Frank's memos. The Frank's memos are what dragged me back like into the case with with
[04:32:12.210 --> 04:32:18.310]  greater attention. I've kind of said before, it's it was on my radar. I remember when
[04:32:18.310 --> 04:32:25.790]  when the girls I remember when they were killed. I remember that completely fell off my radar,
[04:32:25.790 --> 04:32:31.350]  paid no attention to it. I remember when Richard Allen was arrested because of the ceiling. I
[04:32:31.350 --> 04:32:35.850]  remember the ceiling, you know, the probable cause affidavit not being public. I remember
[04:32:35.850 --> 04:32:40.570]  that happening. I remember thinking, huh, that's weird. I guess Indiana has some weird rules
[04:32:40.570 --> 04:32:46.770]  about about what's public and what isn't didn't really think anything further about that.
[04:32:47.610 --> 04:32:53.270]  Frank's memo came out read that. Wow. You do not read that memo every day.
[04:32:53.270 --> 04:32:59.350]  You do not read that memo every day. And I understand the people that
[04:33:00.930 --> 04:33:10.290]  I understand why they argue that this is it's like a PR sort of move. It's like
[04:33:10.290 --> 04:33:18.110]  for attention or just something by by the defense. Because it does very much get your
[04:33:18.110 --> 04:33:22.570]  attention. Yeah, it's a real attention grabber. I think the problem with that analysis,
[04:33:22.570 --> 04:33:28.150]  of course, is that the defense didn't make it up. They got it from the law enforcement.
[04:33:29.090 --> 04:33:34.370]  It was because law enforcement was investigating all of this stuff that that defense, you know,
[04:33:34.630 --> 04:33:40.150]  ultimately got it in discovery and, you know, had had figured out some of it independently
[04:33:40.150 --> 04:33:45.610]  themselves in their own investigation. I think just by looking at looking at the connections
[04:33:45.610 --> 04:33:52.990]  and stuff. But looking at the tips, I mean, some of this some of this information had come
[04:33:52.990 --> 04:33:58.270]  into the police through the tips and not necessarily what got them to look at it.
[04:33:58.270 --> 04:34:02.930]  But certainly, it's like another source. The stuff that was posted on Facebook that got,
[04:34:02.930 --> 04:34:06.670]  you know, that got tipped to them. Yeah, if I'm the defense, and I see that and I see
[04:34:06.670 --> 04:34:11.710]  that photo that got posted that Brad Holder posted the one of the the fake crime scene.
[04:34:11.710 --> 04:34:16.310]  Yeah, I'm following up on that. It's uncanny and it's creepy and it's weird.
[04:34:18.210 --> 04:34:23.370]  But yeah, bottom line, they got most of it from from the law enforcement. So this isn't
[04:34:23.370 --> 04:34:27.890]  this isn't something that they just that they just blew up, you know, for purposes of
[04:34:29.050 --> 04:34:35.650]  creating a big public ruckus and and and a PR a PR machine. It was it was handed to them
[04:34:35.650 --> 04:34:43.790]  the course of discovery. So it is definitely quite a piece of reading. If anybody hasn't read that
[04:34:45.930 --> 04:34:52.350]  it consider it. We're not hearing anything about that in this trial because all of it
[04:34:52.350 --> 04:35:00.090]  has been excluded. The crypto tax lawyer one do the OA. What is the OA? Is that the oral
[04:35:00.810 --> 04:35:09.330]  argument? Do the OA. Two, will you and Jeff get to see each other on weekends? No, just just,
[04:35:09.330 --> 04:35:13.610]  you know, remotely like this. I am I am here for the long haul at this point. I went back
[04:35:13.610 --> 04:35:21.350]  last weekend for the fight. I'm very glad that I did. It was a great weekend. But it also just
[04:35:21.350 --> 04:35:28.470]  I lost a lot of time. It really set me back like starting the week on short sleep because
[04:35:28.470 --> 04:35:35.170]  I didn't get into Indy until midnight. And then I got back. I had to come back here. I had to I
[04:35:35.170 --> 04:35:38.930]  mean, I was working on that motion, had to get it finished, had to figure out how to file it,
[04:35:38.950 --> 04:35:44.070]  do all that and then still make it over to the courthouse. So that's why I was so I was
[04:35:44.070 --> 04:35:51.550]  36 hours without sleep when I did my stream on Monday. I can't do that consistently. So
[04:35:51.550 --> 04:35:56.600]  I don't I don't expect to to be going back to see Jeff on the weekends. But we
[04:35:56.600 --> 04:36:01.460]  chat we will we will communicate we have a great relationship like that. So
[04:36:01.460 --> 04:36:06.160]  you know distance when you have a real connection distance doesn't matter.
[04:36:07.040 --> 04:36:11.940]  Three, my husband is also an attorney. We could never work together. I've had so many
[04:36:11.940 --> 04:36:15.560]  people say that like, Oh my god, I can never I can never work with my spouse. We did we
[04:36:15.560 --> 04:36:21.920]  work together for just about 10 years. The thing about being a lawyer, you know, with
[04:36:21.920 --> 04:36:27.340]  us being lawyers working in an office together, we did work in pretty distinct practice areas
[04:36:27.340 --> 04:36:32.400]  for most of the time. And so even though you work together, you still almost never see each
[04:36:32.400 --> 04:36:39.900]  other. Because he's in a meeting, I'm going to court. He's, you know, going to a lunch,
[04:36:40.000 --> 04:36:44.840]  I am going to the jail. Like it's just you're not your paths, your paths don't cross,
[04:36:44.840 --> 04:36:50.000]  you're both running your your independent your independent cases. There were a few cases that
[04:36:50.000 --> 04:36:54.860]  we collaborated on and worked on as a team. But for the most part, we did work independently.
[04:36:55.160 --> 04:37:00.520]  So honestly, we really didn't see each other at work any more than, you know, I think couples
[04:37:00.520 --> 04:37:04.500]  that don't work together would tend to see each other during the day. We did get to go out
[04:37:04.500 --> 04:37:08.180]  to lunch a lot together. That that was nice, though. I mean, that's fun. That's that's a
[04:37:08.180 --> 04:37:15.380]  good part of the that's a good part of the day. So oh, a original action. Yes, original
[04:37:15.380 --> 04:37:21.740]  action. That's what I'm going to be evaluating. I mean, it seems like the obvious pathway I know
[04:37:21.740 --> 04:37:27.920]  I know the standard is difficult, potentially difficult to meet. But yeah, I'm going to be
[04:37:27.920 --> 04:37:32.140]  looking at that process, looking at that rabbit hole. And that's what I will be exploring for
[04:37:32.140 --> 04:37:37.980]  sure. So yes, thank you. The original action for you and lawyer Lee need to do a collab.
[04:37:38.260 --> 04:37:43.080]  I agree. I would love to do a collab with her. I think I think that would be fantastic.
[04:37:43.740 --> 04:37:50.100]  Maybe I'll suggest it. I know she did recap over the weekend. I haven't really planned on doing
[04:37:50.100 --> 04:37:56.900]  a recap over the weekend on my own channel. I'm going to be going on Sunday, Sunday afternoon,
[04:37:56.900 --> 04:38:01.580]  I'm going to go on Grizzly Gisela Grizzly True Crime. I'm going to go on with her
[04:38:02.880 --> 04:38:08.680]  to give like the weekly recap. So I already have that that kind of lined up.
[04:38:08.680 --> 04:38:15.980]  Um, but she does her weekly, she does a weekly recap on her channel, at least she did last
[04:38:15.980 --> 04:38:22.020]  week. So maybe I'll suggest if she wants, if she wants, I'm happy to go on. I would love
[04:38:22.020 --> 04:38:29.600]  to do a collab. She has been great to have at this trial, just, you know, not just another
[04:38:29.600 --> 04:38:35.920]  person there in the trenches. You know, the trenches really do build that brotherhood,
[04:38:35.920 --> 04:38:43.840]  sisterhood as as as it may be. But just, you know, having another person having another lawyer's
[04:38:43.840 --> 04:38:48.660]  mind, the ideas to bounce off each other, all of that stuff is really been I've really
[04:38:48.660 --> 04:38:56.180]  enjoyed it. I've appreciated having her here. BLT became a YouTube member. Thank you for
[04:38:56.180 --> 04:39:03.000]  joining us and welcome. PDF photography. Did anyone ask if the ringtone volume was on?
[04:39:03.000 --> 04:39:08.120]  Wouldn't someone have heard the phone ringing when family looking for them? That is see,
[04:39:08.480 --> 04:39:13.780]  this is why I love the group mind. I didn't even think of that. I didn't even think of
[04:39:13.780 --> 04:39:19.860]  that. No, nobody asked. Nobody asked about the ringtone volume. Nobody asked about that.
[04:39:20.020 --> 04:39:25.820]  That's such a great observation. It must, you know, yeah, did it get put on silent?
[04:39:25.820 --> 04:39:33.980]  You would hear it so far in that woods, the way the sound carries, you would hear that for like,
[04:39:34.820 --> 04:39:41.660]  I mean, at least quarter mile, maybe half mile, I mean, you are going to hear you hear
[04:39:41.660 --> 04:39:48.480]  everything in there. I don't know if it's part of like, just because the creek is in
[04:39:48.480 --> 04:40:00.400]  depression and how that works with the sound or something. But yeah, you would hear the ringer
[04:40:00.400 --> 04:40:06.740]  if it was on. Such a good observation. Tilly T with a super sticker. Thank you so much
[04:40:06.740 --> 04:40:13.580]  for that Tilly. Really appreciate your support. BLT, my goodness. Thanks for what you are
[04:40:13.580 --> 04:40:18.100]  doing. It's incredibly important for us to be able to get multiple viewpoints from different
[04:40:18.100 --> 04:40:24.680]  media that have different motives and obligations. I could not agree more. I think it's so important
[04:40:24.680 --> 04:40:31.900]  to hear the different perspectives. Mine is just mine. I am not the authority. I am not
[04:40:31.900 --> 04:40:37.880]  definitive. Take it for what it's worth. I like hearing from other people, too. I think
[04:40:37.880 --> 04:40:43.840]  we just we all we all get more intelligent that way, you know, the more we can test our
[04:40:43.840 --> 04:40:50.660]  ideas off of each other. Here's two Starbucks coffees after YouTube and taxes. You're a hero,
[04:40:50.840 --> 04:40:57.740]  dude. Well, thank you. Boy, that's that's blackpilled, isn't it? And yet not entirely
[04:40:57.740 --> 04:41:11.910]  wrong. Thank you. I really I really do appreciate that. Asly. Asly. Apple has Wi-Fi
[04:41:11.910 --> 04:41:17.310]  calling. iMessage can be with Wi-Fi only. No tower connection would be no SMS, though.
[04:41:17.330 --> 04:41:23.670]  Airplane mode possible if on Wi-Fi somehow. That's interesting. I did not know about
[04:41:23.670 --> 04:41:31.090]  about Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi only calling. So yeah, if she had if she had if she had Wi-Fi enabled,
[04:41:31.250 --> 04:41:41.400]  I suppose I suppose that could be possible. Suppose it could be. She was connected to
[04:41:41.400 --> 04:41:47.700]  Wi-Fi network down in there. I don't I don't recall. I mean, I didn't check when I was
[04:41:47.700 --> 04:41:52.180]  down there. I had my I had 5G, you know, I was getting 5G service. I didn't check to see if
[04:41:52.180 --> 04:41:58.000]  there was any any Wi-Fi connections, any, you know, open connections or anything like that
[04:41:59.340 --> 04:42:06.480]  could be possible. Akira. I would expect bridge guy's pants to be wet going through
[04:42:06.480 --> 04:42:10.360]  the water. No witness has stated this or did I miss this? No, it's true. She did not
[04:42:10.360 --> 04:42:15.300]  say that his pants were wet. And, you know, the other the other thing this is, again,
[04:42:15.300 --> 04:42:21.640]  a good point. You've given me an idea because Sarah Carbaugh is the one who saw him after
[04:42:25.240 --> 04:42:32.180]  the fact described, excuse me, described the pants as bloody, basically from the knee down.
[04:42:32.180 --> 04:42:36.660]  And she was describing it as blood droplets, like it looked like a like a spray.
[04:42:39.540 --> 04:42:45.080]  I suppose, I mean, either way, if the pants were wet first, and then got blood drop blood
[04:42:45.080 --> 04:42:50.440]  droplets on them, or if it had gotten the blood on it and then gotten in the water, those blood,
[04:42:50.600 --> 04:42:59.640]  it's going to run, right? The it's getting late, guys. One of those properties of water,
[04:42:59.760 --> 04:43:04.360]  you know, I don't think it's the surface tension that would do that.
[04:43:04.360 --> 04:43:13.160]  Um, but it would the the the the blood if it's especially if it's still, you know,
[04:43:13.340 --> 04:43:19.420]  fresh, still still wet, it would seep, it would seep into that wet area. So it would not be
[04:43:19.740 --> 04:43:24.380]  like a distinct droplet. You would think it would look more it would look more like
[04:43:24.380 --> 04:43:31.380]  smears or something like that. So she's the only one that has has claimed to see him
[04:43:31.380 --> 04:43:36.700]  after the fact she did not say anything about the pants being wet. Her description of the
[04:43:36.700 --> 04:43:43.000]  pants, especially because she's describing him as so covered in mud, so covered in mud,
[04:43:43.020 --> 04:43:51.830]  that's not consistent with being wet. Could he have gotten wet? And then, I don't know,
[04:43:53.440 --> 04:44:02.300]  scooted down one of the creek banks or something, like rolled down, I don't know,
[04:44:02.300 --> 04:44:07.560]  it's just that doesn't it doesn't explain the pattern that she's described. You know, if she's
[04:44:07.560 --> 04:44:13.160]  accurate in her description that it was it was blood on his pants up to about the knees and
[04:44:13.160 --> 04:44:18.760]  above that it was it was muddy. It's a strange pattern anyway, to kind of be describing.
[04:44:20.360 --> 04:44:25.400]  But if you're sliding around sliding around in the mud climbing out of a hole or something
[04:44:25.400 --> 04:44:29.300]  like that, you think you're going to have mud all over the bottom of your pants way more
[04:44:29.300 --> 04:44:34.420]  you're going to have on the top of your pants. So it's just a little bit of an odd
[04:44:34.420 --> 04:44:39.280]  description altogether. But yeah, I agree. Nobody said his pants were wet.
[04:44:40.900 --> 04:44:46.200]  Katherine Joy with a super sticker. Really appreciate that. Appreciate all your guys's
[04:44:46.200 --> 04:44:53.520]  support. Boy, this has been this has been a bit of a long one. So maybe a little bit
[04:44:53.520 --> 04:44:57.420]  longer than that than I thought we were going to go. But I really do appreciate all
[04:44:57.420 --> 04:45:02.540]  your comments, all of your support, all of your all of your stickers, all of your questions,
[04:45:02.920 --> 04:45:08.960]  everything has been. It's just been a great, great group experience already. We still have
[04:45:08.960 --> 04:45:16.340]  a lot of trial to go a lot of information to get. You've given me so many good ideas
[04:45:16.340 --> 04:45:21.980]  and just things to think about. And now, you know, at least the next at least the next
[04:45:21.980 --> 04:45:27.380]  couple nights, I'm going to be able to get some sleep. Hopefully that's going to help the
[04:45:27.380 --> 04:45:33.360]  synapses fire back up at their at their normal speeds again, be able to retain a
[04:45:33.360 --> 04:45:40.200]  little bit more and process a little bit better. I know that sleep losing sleep is very
[04:45:40.200 --> 04:45:44.540]  unhealthy. I've talked about how, you know, it doesn't really bother me like I'm not feeling
[04:45:44.540 --> 04:45:48.960]  bad or anything like that. And it's true. I mean, I feel like I have a pretty good
[04:45:48.960 --> 04:45:54.140]  perspective towards discomfort and boxing has taught me a lot about that. But I do
[04:45:54.140 --> 04:46:00.920]  recognize that my subjective feelings about it aside, losing sleep is extremely unhealthy.
[04:46:02.240 --> 04:46:06.900]  Was it theory neutral? Was it you that asked for my my book, my book recommendations
[04:46:06.900 --> 04:46:11.020]  at some point? Maybe it was maybe it was Jeffrey Thornton. Somebody did. I remember
[04:46:11.020 --> 04:46:14.540]  a comment. Somebody asked me for my book recommendations because the very first one I
[04:46:14.540 --> 04:46:21.100]  was was Cadillac Desert. Just sort of randomly. It was on my mind. But another interesting book
[04:46:21.100 --> 04:46:26.580]  recommendation that I really enjoyed. I like nonfiction. I can give you some fiction
[04:46:26.580 --> 04:46:31.960]  ones sometimes, too. I like fiction, too. But I really do enjoy nonfiction. Why we sleep?
[04:46:32.820 --> 04:46:39.540]  Why we sleep? Fascinating, absolutely fascinating read. Like we don't know that
[04:46:39.540 --> 04:46:44.440]  much about sleep. Like it doesn't make sense in so many ways. Like how we have this whole
[04:46:44.440 --> 04:46:49.460]  shut off. It's so much like a computer, right? Like we need to shut off and load our updates
[04:46:49.460 --> 04:46:57.520]  and things like that. Yet we're, you know, a biological creature. Really, really fascinating.
[04:46:57.660 --> 04:47:02.120]  A lot of just information about what we know. And yes, the effects of sleep
[04:47:02.120 --> 04:47:06.160]  deprivation and stuff like that does not take much at all before you start, you know,
[04:47:06.180 --> 04:47:11.940]  losing your cognitive abilities. So I am very aware of that. And hopefully that hasn't
[04:47:12.670 --> 04:47:18.900]  been too much of an issue, notwithstanding the Judge Beves and the Idaho-Indianas.
[04:47:20.200 --> 04:47:27.600]  Blame that on the sleep, but I do tend to the malapropisms. So anyway, if you're
[04:47:27.600 --> 04:47:35.040]  interested in that, it really is a fascinating book. One of the things I just thought was
[04:47:35.040 --> 04:47:40.600]  really interesting, too, was I just talked about how all kinds of different... like
[04:47:40.600 --> 04:47:48.740]  everybody sleeps, right? All animals sleep, even like little microbes. They seem to sleep,
[04:47:48.860 --> 04:47:52.840]  like I'm sure their experience of sleep is not like ours because we don't, you know,
[04:47:52.880 --> 04:47:57.880]  we don't have the same nervous type of like nervous system. But all animals sleep. We
[04:47:57.880 --> 04:48:04.160]  sleep for different lengths. We have like different sleep patterns. I just find all that
[04:48:04.160 --> 04:48:09.520]  kind of stuff really interesting. So great book if you're interested in it. Ms. Torian,
[04:48:09.520 --> 04:48:14.340]  gifted in Andrea Burkhart membership. Thank you so much. And thank you on behalf of the
[04:48:14.340 --> 04:48:20.520]  person who got that membership. I'm sure they will be very appreciative. I'm gonna go catch
[04:48:20.520 --> 04:48:25.760]  up on my sleep, guys. Chug the rest of my water, get dehydrated, and look forward to
[04:48:25.760 --> 04:48:33.660]  waking up at the glorious, glorious late hour of like 530. It feels so luxurious.
[04:48:34.560 --> 04:48:41.640]  I'm really gonna get to sleep in it's gonna be fantastic. So just once again, big old shout
[04:48:41.640 --> 04:48:47.200]  out to the lane sitters, absolute, absolute guardian angels. I was I was so overwhelmed
[04:48:47.200 --> 04:48:53.080]  to get there and just see that this this wonderful person and taking it upon herself
[04:48:53.080 --> 04:48:57.380]  to volunteer to do that and just took the initiative to show up and do it and is,
[04:48:57.380 --> 04:49:01.280]  you know, helping to organize it for for future days. I'm so grateful,
[04:49:02.520 --> 04:49:07.460]  really is is going to help a lot take a take a big take a big load off. So
[04:49:08.240 --> 04:49:15.980]  so grateful. Shout out to you guys. Shout out to Lee lawyerly. Thank you for saving me
[04:49:15.980 --> 04:49:22.380]  with this pen, so that I could get those jury questions without too much while I was
[04:49:22.380 --> 04:49:26.580]  running even shaking my pen to get those last little bits of ink out. I don't think
[04:49:26.580 --> 04:49:32.720]  I was going to make it especially given how many they had about that forensic extraction.
[04:49:33.780 --> 04:49:37.920]  Thank you as well to all of you guys. Shout out to all of you. Shout out to all of you
[04:49:37.920 --> 04:49:45.020]  that care about this case, that care about justice, that care about truth, seeing that
[04:49:45.020 --> 04:49:50.900]  the right thing is done, that care about transparency, and recognize that these are
[04:49:50.900 --> 04:49:59.200]  our courts. These courts operate for us. They operate in our name. We are responsible for them
[04:49:59.200 --> 04:50:07.800]  and we we we we bear some responsibility for for what what goes on in them. So that's why
[04:50:07.800 --> 04:50:14.020]  it is so important for us to monitor them to be aware of the processes and keep track of
[04:50:14.020 --> 04:50:19.500]  of what is happening so that when it's wrong we know and we can do something about it.
[04:50:19.500 --> 04:50:24.920]  So thank you all so much for joining me on that mission. It means a lot to me. It's great to have
[04:50:24.920 --> 04:50:32.060]  an army for things that matter. So looking forward to day nine tomorrow guys. Looking forward
[04:50:32.060 --> 04:50:37.000]  to seeing it with a little bit more sleep and looking forward to seeing you all again
[04:50:37.000 --> 04:50:42.480]  tomorrow night for the recap once we wrap up day nine. Very interested to see what we have
[04:50:42.480 --> 04:50:47.800]  So thanks again for joining me. I will look forward to seeing you soon.