WEBVTT - 3. Daniel Wozniak's lawyer Scott Sanders shares his murder trial insights. 0:00:07.040 --> 0:00:11.520 Please be advised this story contains adult content and graphic language. 0:00:14.040 --> 0:00:17.759 As Daniel woznia X defense attorney, you have said you 0:00:18.040 --> 0:00:22.000 feel you didn't receive a fair trial INNIX case. Can 0:00:22.040 --> 0:00:25.599 you give us an example of what you consider an 0:00:25.680 --> 0:00:30.520 unfair ruling that prevented evidence from being introduced? Well, you know, 0:00:30.560 --> 0:00:33.199 one of the examples, certainly is the sam Her evidence 0:00:33.920 --> 0:00:48.760 Samer having killed somebody in his past. Welcome to Sleuth everyone, 0:00:49.200 --> 0:00:53.720 I'm Linda Sawyer. We're here with Scott Sanders Daniel wassnia 0:00:53.880 --> 0:00:58.320 X defense attorney. The trial began in late December of 0:01:00.960 --> 0:01:04.680 and then went into the penalty phase early January, and 0:01:04.760 --> 0:01:08.800 did mid January. Would you say of one of the 0:01:08.840 --> 0:01:12.520 most important timing elements that's going on in this case 0:01:12.640 --> 0:01:15.119 right now is that there is a trial taking place 0:01:15.160 --> 0:01:20.080 of Daniel waznia x X fiance Rachel Buffett. Daniel Wozniak 0:01:20.280 --> 0:01:23.959 was in fact convicted of the crimes he committed and 0:01:24.000 --> 0:01:27.240 confessed to uh the capital case. The penalty was in 0:01:27.280 --> 0:01:30.240 fact death and he is on death row at this point. 0:01:30.360 --> 0:01:33.880 But from what I've learned over the years I've been 0:01:33.880 --> 0:01:37.040 working on this case is that I feel in many 0:01:37.040 --> 0:01:40.120 ways Daniel would have never committed these crimes if he 0:01:40.240 --> 0:01:44.360 had not met Rachel Buffett. So with her trial coming up, 0:01:44.400 --> 0:01:46.360 I really wanted to talk to you about the case 0:01:46.640 --> 0:01:51.280 and the charges and how you feel about the likelihood 0:01:51.400 --> 0:01:54.480 that there might be a conviction here, and so if 0:01:54.480 --> 0:01:57.680 we could go over these uh in more detail, I'd 0:01:57.680 --> 0:02:01.760 appreciate it. So the first felony charge involves Rachel Buffett 0:02:01.880 --> 0:02:05.480 lying to police about a fictitious man in a black hat, 0:02:06.000 --> 0:02:08.440 and the basis for that charge something I know that 0:02:08.520 --> 0:02:13.600 you in court spoke about with Judge Connolly regarding an 0:02:13.600 --> 0:02:17.200 issue where you felt Prosecutor Matt Murphy was in fact 0:02:18.800 --> 0:02:21.920 committing a double argument, if you will, about the same person. 0:02:22.040 --> 0:02:24.560 And you can't move from one court room and say 0:02:24.560 --> 0:02:26.480 one thing and move to another court and would say another. 0:02:26.720 --> 0:02:30.720 Let's talk about that. Well, right, there's there's case law 0:02:30.720 --> 0:02:32.400 out there that talks about the fact that you can't 0:02:32.400 --> 0:02:36.000 make inconsistent arguments in two different cases. And so our 0:02:36.120 --> 0:02:39.679 argument to Judge Connley when we came back after the 0:02:39.800 --> 0:02:42.920 verdict was to say, that's precisely what took place was 0:02:43.000 --> 0:02:46.480 that he made arguments about Rachel Buffett, and the preliminary 0:02:46.560 --> 0:02:50.280 hearing and Miss Buffett's case that were vastly different from 0:02:50.320 --> 0:02:53.600 what he was arguing in um Mr wazni next case. 0:02:53.880 --> 0:02:57.320 So let's just tell listeners the preliminary hearing for Rachel 0:02:57.360 --> 0:03:04.160 Buffett was on December and in essence, that was where 0:03:04.560 --> 0:03:08.480 Matt Murphy was trying to get an indictment on accessory 0:03:08.560 --> 0:03:12.560 after the fact. So you're saying, in that particular hearing, 0:03:13.120 --> 0:03:18.280 that's where Mr Murphy really painted a picture of her guilt, right, 0:03:18.280 --> 0:03:20.920 I mean, he's he's bringing home both in terms of 0:03:20.919 --> 0:03:24.840 how he presents the witnesses at the preliminary hearing and 0:03:24.840 --> 0:03:27.040 then in terms of argument to Judge McKenna, who's the 0:03:27.080 --> 0:03:31.440 judge hearing about her responsibility, and he's not only saying 0:03:31.480 --> 0:03:36.520 that she's responsible as an accessory, but actually continually um 0:03:36.640 --> 0:03:40.160 suggesting that she's responsible for something more. But yeah, he 0:03:40.680 --> 0:03:43.240 very much is trying to convince the judge that she 0:03:43.240 --> 0:03:46.880 should go to trial because she's aware of the crime 0:03:46.920 --> 0:03:50.360 and she's trying to help um Dania wasna but at 0:03:50.360 --> 0:03:53.920 the same time always hinting that there's something more. So 0:03:54.000 --> 0:03:57.200 do you feel like his purpose and his intent was 0:03:57.280 --> 0:04:02.240 to convince the judge that perhaps she was more involved 0:04:02.240 --> 0:04:04.560 than just an accessory. But I think he I think 0:04:04.560 --> 0:04:06.960 he believes that. I don't that's that's part of it. 0:04:06.960 --> 0:04:09.000 It's not so much that he was just playing lawyer there. 0:04:09.040 --> 0:04:12.000 I mean, I think Matt Murphy absolutely believed what he 0:04:12.080 --> 0:04:15.280 was saying in the preliminary hearing, that she was more involved, 0:04:15.720 --> 0:04:19.920 that she had absolute knowledge before the death of MS. Kiboshi. 0:04:20.200 --> 0:04:21.919 I think that's what he believes. I think that's what 0:04:22.000 --> 0:04:25.160 he argued. He argued very passionately about it. He cited 0:04:25.200 --> 0:04:28.520 all sorts of information um that he thought was supportive 0:04:28.520 --> 0:04:30.560 of it. So I don't think it was an act. 0:04:30.600 --> 0:04:32.480 I don't think it was just to get her over 0:04:32.560 --> 0:04:36.640 to a trial. I think that's what he believes. I think, um, 0:04:36.800 --> 0:04:38.720 I think he has for a long long time. And 0:04:38.760 --> 0:04:43.480 Matt Murphy was quite convincing in Rachel Buffett's preliminary hearing 0:04:43.920 --> 0:04:47.599 because the judge said, you have enough to go to trial. Yeah, 0:04:47.640 --> 0:04:50.799 I mean, he's he's pointing to all of these incidents, 0:04:50.839 --> 0:04:53.440 but this one in particular, the one he's looking at, 0:04:53.520 --> 0:04:57.080 is are these contacts that take place shortly after the 0:04:57.080 --> 0:04:59.680 first crime that they're going back. They're looking at the 0:04:59.680 --> 0:05:02.400 self phone. He's making this point again and again to 0:05:02.440 --> 0:05:06.240 the judge that it is unbelievable that Rachel Buffett was 0:05:06.320 --> 0:05:09.080 unaware of this introduction into their household of a new 0:05:09.120 --> 0:05:11.359 cell phone. And he talks about the fact that you know, 0:05:11.440 --> 0:05:14.440 these are folks that are struggling economically, that their their 0:05:14.480 --> 0:05:17.440 paycheck to paycheck, and here he is sitting up sitting 0:05:17.480 --> 0:05:21.240 with her um and he suddenly has a new cell phone. 0:05:21.240 --> 0:05:23.640 And the notion that he would that she'd be unaware 0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:28.479 of that is unreasonable. Even more so, she talks to police. 0:05:29.279 --> 0:05:33.479 It was I think March of when police come to 0:05:33.520 --> 0:05:37.440 issue her a subpoena. She tells police and that in 0:05:37.440 --> 0:05:41.159 that exchange that she admits that she saw Daniel sitting 0:05:41.200 --> 0:05:44.640 next to her on the couch while he was texting 0:05:44.760 --> 0:05:48.080 Julie Kibi she to lure her to Sam's apartment that night. 0:05:48.400 --> 0:05:51.200 That she admits that he was on a totally different phone, 0:05:51.240 --> 0:05:54.840 that he was on a more archaic flip phone versus 0:05:54.920 --> 0:05:58.720 his fancy new phone that he had um that obviously 0:05:58.839 --> 0:06:02.279 was way more advanced technologically. So she admits the police 0:06:02.320 --> 0:06:04.839 she saw him on a different phone, which turns out 0:06:04.839 --> 0:06:07.800 to be Sam's phone, and he argues about it compellingly. 0:06:07.880 --> 0:06:10.680 I mean he that probably was a big argument that 0:06:10.720 --> 0:06:13.960 allowed that case to proceed, a key argument that allowed 0:06:14.000 --> 0:06:17.200 it to proceed to trial. About the preliminary the preliminary hearing, 0:06:17.240 --> 0:06:19.680 he's very much focused on the phone and the significance 0:06:19.720 --> 0:06:23.080 and it being absolutely unbelievable that she was unaware of that, 0:06:23.160 --> 0:06:25.400 and that she wouldn't have asked questions and things wouldn't 0:06:25.400 --> 0:06:28.719 have followed from that. Earlier today, I learned a new 0:06:28.760 --> 0:06:32.120 piece of evidence that was shared to me in an interview. 0:06:32.400 --> 0:06:36.920 I will aeron full on a future episode that Rachel 0:06:36.960 --> 0:06:40.320 Buffett had actually told a gentleman by the name of 0:06:40.400 --> 0:06:43.360 Daniel hulk Yard, who was a friend of Dan Wisnia's 0:06:43.760 --> 0:06:46.280 and would visit him often when he was waiting for 0:06:46.360 --> 0:06:51.320 his trial in Men's County Jail. She said to Daniel 0:06:51.640 --> 0:06:55.919 al Yard that she had sent a Facebook message to 0:06:56.240 --> 0:07:00.840 Julie Kabuishi at eleven ten that night, the night that 0:07:00.880 --> 0:07:04.919 she was murdered, basically saying we'll get together after the 0:07:04.960 --> 0:07:08.920 wedding and we'll catch up and we'll share some summer 0:07:09.080 --> 0:07:14.120 sunshine together at the pool. And she told Daniel Hulkyard 0:07:14.440 --> 0:07:17.400 that Daniel Wozniak was standing right behind her when she 0:07:17.480 --> 0:07:20.600 sent that email, and well, that email was part of 0:07:20.680 --> 0:07:23.160 you know, that email was part of the package of evidence. 0:07:23.160 --> 0:07:25.520 And then the question just became and it was an 0:07:25.560 --> 0:07:28.720 important one. You know, where were people located at the time. 0:07:28.840 --> 0:07:32.920 And again, it was a very oddly timed email that 0:07:33.000 --> 0:07:36.720 she was sending. And what Daniel Hulkyard seems to be 0:07:36.760 --> 0:07:41.400 insinuating is because Rachel slipped and told him that Dan 0:07:41.520 --> 0:07:45.480 Wozniak was over her shoulder when she sent this message 0:07:45.520 --> 0:07:50.000 to Julie. So Daniel Hulkyard suggests that Dan and Rachel 0:07:50.080 --> 0:07:54.239 must have been in cahoots together. Yet Rachel never told 0:07:54.280 --> 0:07:57.040 police Dan was by her side. She said she was 0:07:57.080 --> 0:08:01.240 in bed alone on her laptop when she sent that message. 0:08:01.640 --> 0:08:04.480 I thought that was a very interesting, telling piece of 0:08:04.480 --> 0:08:07.960 evidence that I hadn't learned before today. Daniel Hulkyard shares 0:08:08.000 --> 0:08:12.280 with us that moment Rachel told me in no certain terms, 0:08:12.720 --> 0:08:16.040 you know, the night that that lady was killed, I 0:08:16.080 --> 0:08:18.920 was on an email to her and I felt so 0:08:19.080 --> 0:08:22.200 suspicious and scared because Daniel was standing right behind me, 0:08:22.840 --> 0:08:25.360 and I about dropped my job. Linda, I said, you 0:08:25.440 --> 0:08:29.320 what she Yeah, that was so speaking I looked at 0:08:29.320 --> 0:08:31.400 her mom, and her mom just clammed up real quickly, 0:08:32.040 --> 0:08:34.440 and I told her in our little talk, I said, 0:08:34.880 --> 0:08:36.559 you had no idea. It was going why no idea? 0:08:36.920 --> 0:08:39.160 You had no idea? And in three sentences later she 0:08:39.200 --> 0:08:40.760 says what she said, No, only think she knew what 0:08:40.800 --> 0:08:43.960 she said. It was basically an alibi email, is how 0:08:44.000 --> 0:08:47.440 I felt when I read it, both exactly. But then 0:08:47.440 --> 0:08:49.480 when she told me that I haven't told anybody illegal 0:08:49.960 --> 0:08:52.880 world what I just told you about that conversation. I haven't, 0:08:53.280 --> 0:08:54.800 and I will tell you because I know what you 0:08:54.840 --> 0:08:58.160 want to do with this the truth behind us. And 0:08:58.280 --> 0:09:03.720 remember Ray, she was sending this message to Julie on 0:09:03.800 --> 0:09:07.680 her Facebook at eleven ten, Friday night of the murders. 0:09:08.360 --> 0:09:14.360 It makes you wonder was this an alibi message to Julie? 0:09:14.559 --> 0:09:17.840 I mean, it was a really nice message, and could 0:09:17.880 --> 0:09:21.600 one possibly imagine that someone would be diabolical enough to 0:09:21.679 --> 0:09:25.000 send such a sweet message and then fifty minutes later 0:09:25.480 --> 0:09:28.640 be part of a plan to murder Julie. Well, it's interesting, 0:09:28.679 --> 0:09:31.120 I mean, you know, without talking to him directly and 0:09:31.160 --> 0:09:34.680 hearing it on, but it certainly makes sense, It certainly 0:09:34.720 --> 0:09:37.560 fits sort of we know that this email went out 0:09:37.559 --> 0:09:42.040 this unusual, unusually timed email. So here adds another element 0:09:42.080 --> 0:09:46.679 that potentially she's acknowledge to someone else. Said Dan's near 0:09:46.800 --> 0:09:48.920 by at the time. So I want to be clear 0:09:48.960 --> 0:09:54.160 with our listeners what you meant when you uh spoke 0:09:54.240 --> 0:09:59.000 in court about this double argument of Matt Murphy's the 0:09:59.160 --> 0:10:03.400 preliminary here r he really framed her as not only 0:10:03.440 --> 0:10:06.439 an accessory, but in fact perhaps an accomplice in these murders. 0:10:06.440 --> 0:10:10.240 And he was very passionate and and and very convincing 0:10:10.280 --> 0:10:13.800 in his argument about her role, which we believe he 0:10:13.840 --> 0:10:16.800 believes as well as the customers of police. But then 0:10:16.880 --> 0:10:20.280 in the actual trial of Daniel Wasniac, he sort of 0:10:20.280 --> 0:10:22.880 shifted quite a bit, right, And so let's talk about 0:10:22.880 --> 0:10:26.640 that shift and and how he presented Rachel to the jurors. 0:10:26.720 --> 0:10:28.720 We can go into more about what happens to the trial, 0:10:28.960 --> 0:10:32.520 but obviously it's kind of a general theme at trial. 0:10:33.440 --> 0:10:37.199 Mr Murphy wants to diminish her responsibility and at every 0:10:37.280 --> 0:10:40.720 turn from the beginning of the trial he is saying 0:10:40.760 --> 0:10:44.840 things in his opening statement like Daniel Wasnac allied to 0:10:45.400 --> 0:10:49.120 Rachel Buffett, and he's putting that in a group of victims. 0:10:49.559 --> 0:10:52.120 He you know, he puts his brother in that list. 0:10:52.240 --> 0:10:56.160 So he wants to separate Rachel Buffett and other people 0:10:56.240 --> 0:10:58.920 from any level of culpability because I think quite obviously 0:10:58.960 --> 0:11:02.720 he thinks the more more culpable um Rachel Buffett is, 0:11:03.440 --> 0:11:05.560 the less likely he is to get a death verdict. 0:11:05.720 --> 0:11:07.360 And I think that's kind of at the core of it. 0:11:07.559 --> 0:11:10.000 He wants the death penalty, and I you know, obviously 0:11:10.040 --> 0:11:11.920 our argument is that he wanted it way too much, 0:11:11.920 --> 0:11:14.320 and he did some things that didn't match with what 0:11:14.360 --> 0:11:16.040 he was doing at the preliminary herring. And you know, 0:11:16.160 --> 0:11:18.800 just for people who don't know how preliminary herring is, 0:11:19.000 --> 0:11:23.440 where it's like a grand jury proceeding, except you're not 0:11:23.480 --> 0:11:25.719 speaking to a group of members of the public. You're 0:11:25.720 --> 0:11:27.840 speaking to a single judge who's making that call. And 0:11:27.880 --> 0:11:31.760 that's what's happening in Rachel Buffett's case. She's she's before 0:11:31.760 --> 0:11:35.599 a judge named Judge mckeeno, um well respected judge in 0:11:35.640 --> 0:11:39.120 the community. And Judge mckeino is asking questions at some 0:11:39.160 --> 0:11:41.400 point about the case. I mean, he's very thoughtful and 0:11:41.440 --> 0:11:45.319 he's asking he's kind of pressing and probing about why 0:11:45.520 --> 0:11:49.319 she had more responsibility. So he comes back to the 0:11:49.640 --> 0:11:53.800 subject of Rachel Buffett and why she's responsible, and he's 0:11:53.800 --> 0:11:56.400 telling Judge mckinna, we have a situation here where these 0:11:56.400 --> 0:11:59.640 people are living together, they're engaged to be married, they're 0:11:59.640 --> 0:12:02.760 both employed, they have the same financial pressures, they're both 0:12:02.800 --> 0:12:05.960 in the process of eviction. They've been described a very 0:12:06.320 --> 0:12:08.920 various friends as being very close there together all the time. 0:12:09.120 --> 0:12:13.440 He's building the argument for accessory, but it also sounds 0:12:13.520 --> 0:12:16.560 very much like the argument for murder if he was 0:12:16.600 --> 0:12:20.200 building an argument for accomplice or a partner in the 0:12:20.280 --> 0:12:23.280 planning and the execution. Accomplice is the equivalent of a 0:12:23.360 --> 0:12:25.920 murder charge, right, That's right, So you don't have to 0:12:25.920 --> 0:12:28.160 be the person who strikes the deathblow. If you assist 0:12:28.240 --> 0:12:31.880 in some way to have that crime take place, you're 0:12:32.160 --> 0:12:34.720 treated the same way under the law. So to the 0:12:34.760 --> 0:12:39.000 extent as we argued that Rachel Buffett was reasonably taking 0:12:39.040 --> 0:12:44.040 steps that would have encouraged Dan, pushed Dan to act 0:12:44.120 --> 0:12:45.960 at a time when he didn't want to. You know, 0:12:46.000 --> 0:12:48.640 we argue, obviously in terms of the second crime, that 0:12:48.720 --> 0:12:52.880 he's despondent before that and she doesn't really care and 0:12:53.080 --> 0:12:56.199 she's pushing, and that's what logic says. So when I'm 0:12:56.200 --> 0:12:59.840 making closing argument and I'm actually making this argument that 0:13:00.080 --> 0:13:03.440 prosecution agrees with me, and he's objecting to it and 0:13:03.480 --> 0:13:06.200 stating that I'm misstating his argument, and he was right. 0:13:06.440 --> 0:13:09.400 I was misstating his argument in my case because I 0:13:09.440 --> 0:13:13.040 was stating his argument in Rachel Buffet's case right here. 0:13:13.040 --> 0:13:15.040 And so that's the problem that's not supposed to happen. 0:13:15.120 --> 0:13:16.760 You don't get to flip around because you like to 0:13:16.800 --> 0:13:19.960 have the death penalty on a man. The rules are 0:13:19.960 --> 0:13:21.720 the rules, and the rules are the rules, and it's 0:13:21.760 --> 0:13:24.600 just you know, that rule is based in common sense 0:13:24.880 --> 0:13:28.360 logic about what's right. And let's give our listeners a 0:13:28.400 --> 0:13:31.920 clear sense of just how he shifted in the trial 0:13:31.920 --> 0:13:36.240 of Daniel Waznac, how he was portraying her in that trial. Well, 0:13:36.520 --> 0:13:38.760 you know, it was pretty stunning. I mean, here we 0:13:38.800 --> 0:13:41.880 are in the trial and he is presenting her as 0:13:41.960 --> 0:13:44.720 a victim. One of the most dramatic things that he 0:13:44.760 --> 0:13:48.559 did was to take his argument about what took place 0:13:48.600 --> 0:13:51.679 outside the residents. So let me take the listeners through 0:13:51.720 --> 0:13:54.640 that moment just so they understand the scene when Detective 0:13:54.679 --> 0:13:57.280 Everett shows up in front of Rachel's brother no A 0:13:57.320 --> 0:13:59.800 Buffet's apartment. When he walks in, he doesn't realize it's 0:13:59.840 --> 0:14:01.960 in a partment. He thinks at the storefront. He walks 0:14:02.000 --> 0:14:04.760 in and there's Daniel sitting on the couch and Daniel 0:14:04.840 --> 0:14:07.960 asks can we please move outside to to talk? And 0:14:08.040 --> 0:14:11.640 at that point, Daniel's telling the story about how the 0:14:11.760 --> 0:14:15.520 last person he saw Sam Hair with was this guy 0:14:15.640 --> 0:14:20.440 in a black hat. Later that night, Kasta Masa police 0:14:20.560 --> 0:14:24.440 arrest Dan Wazniak for accessory to murder because they still 0:14:24.440 --> 0:14:28.440 believe Dan is hiding and helping Sam Hair. So let's 0:14:28.480 --> 0:14:32.080 listen now as Daniel is questioned by detectives and hear 0:14:32.080 --> 0:14:35.160 what Daniel has to say about the mysterious man in 0:14:35.200 --> 0:14:39.240 the black hat. I feared that I was the last 0:14:39.280 --> 0:14:42.880 person to see him. So what I had told everyone 0:14:43.160 --> 0:14:45.480 was because the last person even known that I knew 0:14:45.760 --> 0:14:47.560 that I was with Sam to my wife, and the 0:14:47.600 --> 0:14:49.520 last time that she saw and I saw was two 0:14:49.600 --> 0:14:52.400 three o'clock on Friday, Okay, So I went to live 0:14:52.480 --> 0:14:55.200 with that story, and then I made up this mystery 0:14:55.280 --> 0:14:57.800 person just holding that that would you know, take the 0:14:57.840 --> 0:15:00.880 plane off me? So I I mean of this guy 0:15:00.960 --> 0:15:03.840 with a white white guy scuffled on a black baseball cap, 0:15:03.920 --> 0:15:07.400 that he doesn't exist. That's a line, that's a life. 0:15:07.680 --> 0:15:10.920 I apologize for that. He does admit to police that 0:15:11.000 --> 0:15:13.640 he made up that man. He was an imaginary person. 0:15:14.040 --> 0:15:17.720 So go back to that Wednesday, before he's arrested for anything, 0:15:18.280 --> 0:15:22.360 and Rachel pops out of the apartment and walks over 0:15:22.560 --> 0:15:25.560 to the detective ends to Daniel, and she repeats the 0:15:25.680 --> 0:15:28.840 same story that Daniel was telling them at the time. 0:15:29.200 --> 0:15:32.200 And so that's what Matt Murphy is referring to, right right, 0:15:32.280 --> 0:15:35.360 And you have to it's I mean, I laugh, but 0:15:35.600 --> 0:15:39.120 it's none of it's funny because you think about what 0:15:39.160 --> 0:15:42.000 he then turns around and does in our trial. He 0:15:42.080 --> 0:15:48.000 then puts on detective effort and he presents essentially the defense. 0:15:48.200 --> 0:15:51.640 And this is fast forward. Now we're in the trial 0:15:52.080 --> 0:15:54.200 of Daniel wast and here that comes Matt Murphy, and 0:15:54.240 --> 0:15:57.560 he wants this event viewed completely differently. In fact, if 0:15:57.560 --> 0:15:59.600 you look at what he's doing, he's saying, we're being 0:15:59.680 --> 0:16:03.200 unfair to Rachel Buffett to draw the same interpretation that 0:16:03.280 --> 0:16:05.600 he argued to Judge mckeow. Do you remember the line. 0:16:05.640 --> 0:16:08.240 He said. He said, maybe she was leaning in in 0:16:08.320 --> 0:16:11.800 the door and she was overhearing what Daniel said, so 0:16:11.880 --> 0:16:15.640 she just repeated what her fiance was saying to police. 0:16:16.200 --> 0:16:19.160 That is what Matt Murphy said to the jurors, and 0:16:19.240 --> 0:16:21.840 he did, and he set that up through questioning what Everard? 0:16:21.840 --> 0:16:24.960 He asked Everett, he being Murphy, asked Everard, and during 0:16:24.960 --> 0:16:27.480 your interview with her, I believe you testified she echoed 0:16:27.480 --> 0:16:29.760 the same lie for back lack of a better term, 0:16:30.320 --> 0:16:33.440 that there was a third individual with Mr Wozniak and 0:16:33.560 --> 0:16:37.200 Mr Her on the day that Mr Her went missing. Right. Answer, yes, 0:16:37.280 --> 0:16:40.040 this is Everett saying yes. So how far outside the 0:16:40.080 --> 0:16:42.040 door of the residence do you think you were when 0:16:42.080 --> 0:16:47.080 you engaged in that conversation with Daniel Wozniak? Answer again, Everett, 0:16:47.360 --> 0:16:51.520 maybe five or six feet? Question? Okay, so big picture. Now, 0:16:52.000 --> 0:16:55.080 as an investigator and you get a potential suspect, you 0:16:55.120 --> 0:16:58.040 step outside and Daniel Wasnick tells you the story, including 0:16:58.040 --> 0:17:01.480 the lie about the third individual. Yes, and then a 0:17:01.480 --> 0:17:03.640 few minutes later Rachel comes out and tells you the 0:17:03.720 --> 0:17:07.520 same lie. That's the question. Ever says, Yes. Now, as 0:17:07.560 --> 0:17:11.160 a police officer, it could be that Rachel has been 0:17:11.200 --> 0:17:14.160 involved in this conspiracy, maybe even planned the whole thing, 0:17:14.600 --> 0:17:18.120 and maybe this whole murder. That's one possibility, or that's 0:17:18.160 --> 0:17:21.040 one realm of possibility. Answer yes, Or it could be 0:17:21.480 --> 0:17:24.680 that she was listening on the other side of the door, right, Yes, 0:17:25.359 --> 0:17:28.600 it could have been that sort either way, right under 0:17:28.760 --> 0:17:33.040 under that piece of evidence, yes, Murphy says to Everett, 0:17:33.760 --> 0:17:36.520 you're familiar with the term tie goes to the runner. 0:17:39.520 --> 0:17:47.840 So here you have him suggesting that, in fact, the 0:17:47.840 --> 0:17:53.480 exact same argument that he made at the preliminary hearing 0:17:53.800 --> 0:17:58.080 is faulty. He's he's saying that what we argued to 0:17:58.160 --> 0:18:00.879 Judge mckeeno really wasn't fair because the tie should go 0:18:00.960 --> 0:18:04.719 to the runner and he doesn't end it there. He says, So, 0:18:04.760 --> 0:18:06.640 in other words, when you have two pieces of evidence, 0:18:06.680 --> 0:18:09.720 one that points toward innocence and one that points toward guilt. 0:18:09.800 --> 0:18:12.440 As a police officer, you've got to kind of give 0:18:12.480 --> 0:18:17.800 the benefit of the doubt, right, answer Everett. Yes, So 0:18:18.000 --> 0:18:21.119 you can imagine a sitting in the courtroom knowing what 0:18:21.240 --> 0:18:24.560 happened in the prior hearing and realizing this is how 0:18:24.600 --> 0:18:27.320 far he's going to go. Now they're not in a 0:18:27.320 --> 0:18:30.040 plot together everything that I just talked about in terms 0:18:30.040 --> 0:18:35.159 of um, what they pressed Judge mckeeno to believes earlier 0:18:35.240 --> 0:18:37.000 argument that you have to believe this. This is the 0:18:37.040 --> 0:18:40.719 only logical interpretation that they're in a he says, this 0:18:40.800 --> 0:18:44.560 is our cleanest argument. Obviously they plotted this. He calls 0:18:44.600 --> 0:18:47.240 it a plot. Now, it's not a plot. Now. It 0:18:47.359 --> 0:18:50.119 may have just been a very good listener who's sitting 0:18:50.119 --> 0:18:52.680 at the door who then decided, Okay, I'm going to 0:18:52.760 --> 0:18:55.960 match the stories to help my um my loved one 0:18:56.440 --> 0:18:59.720 get out of harm's way. Um. But nothing in terms 0:18:59.760 --> 0:19:03.199 of an intention to do anything further or that she 0:19:03.280 --> 0:19:07.280 had knowledge before. That's the really bad thing, right. He's saying, Look, 0:19:07.560 --> 0:19:09.439 she really may not have had any knowledge of this 0:19:09.560 --> 0:19:12.639 crime before. You cannot reconcile that. There's no way you 0:19:12.680 --> 0:19:15.920 can reconcile that with what he did at the preliminary hearing. UM. 0:19:15.960 --> 0:19:19.040 In the Buffet case, it's similar to Matt Murphy's statements 0:19:19.640 --> 0:19:22.800 that he's made in the past regarding Rachel Buffett, where 0:19:22.800 --> 0:19:26.640 he said she just might have to be considered collateral damage. Yeah, 0:19:26.760 --> 0:19:29.400 but as horrifying as it is, and it is, it's 0:19:29.440 --> 0:19:34.080 exactly what took place here. He decided, Look, Rachel Buffett 0:19:34.200 --> 0:19:37.679 is looking at a few years in prison on a 0:19:37.720 --> 0:19:43.760 good day for them. Does he want any chance, just 0:19:43.960 --> 0:19:47.040 even the slimmest chance of reducing the possibility that he 0:19:47.080 --> 0:19:50.359 gets a death verdict. So he's sitting here worried that 0:19:50.440 --> 0:19:54.399 if the jury believes that's somehow Rachel Buffett may have 0:19:54.440 --> 0:19:57.320 been involved and is not going to be held responsible 0:19:57.560 --> 0:20:00.640 for the higher crime, which we argue she was involved 0:20:00.640 --> 0:20:05.639 with murder, which is murder. He thinks jury may go 0:20:06.080 --> 0:20:09.000 this isn't quite fair. So what does he do? He 0:20:09.080 --> 0:20:11.760 pushes back on any notion, even a semblance of a 0:20:12.040 --> 0:20:14.760 of a notion that it's fair. We're the ones who 0:20:14.760 --> 0:20:17.760 are being unfair. Now, that's the amazing thing in the trial. 0:20:17.960 --> 0:20:21.239 We're the unfair ones because we're suggesting Rachel Buffint may 0:20:21.280 --> 0:20:23.439 have more involvement, which is exactly what he said at 0:20:23.440 --> 0:20:25.920 the preliminary hearing. Yeah, you're just reiterating what he said 0:20:26.000 --> 0:20:29.399 earlier in at her preliminary hearing. But he doesn't like 0:20:29.440 --> 0:20:32.399 those arguments anymore because those arguments are the type of 0:20:32.480 --> 0:20:35.000 arguments that keeps someone from getting death. If all of 0:20:35.040 --> 0:20:38.040 a sudden, the jury if we both spoke the same way, 0:20:38.040 --> 0:20:40.159 and that closing. What if he had said exactly what 0:20:40.200 --> 0:20:42.960 he had said in that preliminary hearing, how powerful that 0:20:42.960 --> 0:20:45.840 would have been. Mr Sanders is right. All of these 0:20:45.840 --> 0:20:49.359 things that he's saying are absolutely right. She wasn't coincidentally 0:20:49.359 --> 0:20:52.000 sitting next to the door. She did know everything, She 0:20:52.160 --> 0:20:54.640 did have the phone in sight, she knew about the phone, 0:20:54.640 --> 0:20:57.040 and all of this happened an earlier point. He knows 0:20:57.280 --> 0:21:02.800 that verdict may have turned out differently. So it's Rachel's 0:21:02.840 --> 0:21:06.080 own words, it's her lies that are the blueprint to 0:21:06.119 --> 0:21:09.880 the truth. Rachel Buffett tells the Coast of Masa police 0:21:10.359 --> 0:21:12.919 that when Dan came back with the first installment of 0:21:13.040 --> 0:21:16.760 money that they owed Chris Williams for helping them stave 0:21:16.800 --> 0:21:20.880 off the eviction. Rachel tells police that the Friday afternoon 0:21:20.880 --> 0:21:25.960 of the murders, Daniel came back with the four dollars 0:21:26.320 --> 0:21:28.560 and he possibly gave it to Sam or the loan 0:21:28.640 --> 0:21:32.600 Sharks outside their apartment, but she was sitting there at 0:21:32.600 --> 0:21:35.280 the table. Chris Williams tells me in an interview that 0:21:35.720 --> 0:21:40.440 she was right there when Dan gave Chris Williams the money. 0:21:41.000 --> 0:21:46.080 In fact, Chris Williams tells me that he specifically asked 0:21:46.119 --> 0:21:48.840 them if they had any food money, and Dan said, 0:21:49.080 --> 0:21:51.520 that's all we have, pointing to the money that he 0:21:51.600 --> 0:21:55.440 just handed to him, and so Chris decides to give 0:21:55.480 --> 0:21:59.560 them a twenty, passes that twenty across the table so 0:21:59.640 --> 0:22:02.880 that they had some food money. He left that apartment 0:22:02.960 --> 0:22:06.840 so quickly. There was just this weird energy, this this 0:22:07.160 --> 0:22:10.719 darkness that was sort of looming in the apartment. So 0:22:10.760 --> 0:22:13.080 he said he couldn't get out of there fast enough 0:22:13.480 --> 0:22:15.479 and then he that he's on a call with Rachel 0:22:15.600 --> 0:22:20.080 within minutes, and she's trying to lure him back, telling 0:22:20.119 --> 0:22:23.800 him that he dropped a twenty, and at that point, 0:22:24.680 --> 0:22:28.440 he said, is this about the money, because I wanted 0:22:28.440 --> 0:22:30.520 you to have that for food? Is is this about 0:22:30.560 --> 0:22:32.399 the money that you want me to come back to 0:22:32.440 --> 0:22:34.200 talk to you about? And she said, no, it's something 0:22:34.240 --> 0:22:37.200 else I need to talk to you about. And it 0:22:37.280 --> 0:22:39.560 was then that he said every bone in his body 0:22:39.680 --> 0:22:44.600 just shook because he had no idea at that point 0:22:45.160 --> 0:22:47.639 why she wanted him there, but she he just didn't 0:22:47.640 --> 0:22:51.800 have a good feeling about it. So we're Rachel and 0:22:51.920 --> 0:22:57.040 Dan perhaps worried because Chris Williams was the only witness 0:22:57.119 --> 0:23:00.320 who saw Dan leave alone with Sam, because there really 0:23:00.440 --> 0:23:05.760 was no third person in a black hat. One of 0:23:05.800 --> 0:23:09.240 the other statements that Matt Murphy made to jurors during 0:23:09.320 --> 0:23:14.520 Dan Wozniak's trial was his portrayal of Rachel Buffett as 0:23:14.640 --> 0:23:18.480 almost a hero in this case, because if it wasn't 0:23:18.520 --> 0:23:22.520 for her, he says, they wouldn't have had this cornucopia 0:23:22.640 --> 0:23:27.040 of evidence to accuse and convict Daniel for these murders, 0:23:27.840 --> 0:23:31.159