Speaker 1: Please be advised this story contains adult content and graphic language.
Speaker 1: As Daniel woznia X defense attorney, you have said you
Speaker 1: feel you didn't receive a fair trial INNIX case. Can
Speaker 1: you give us an example of what you consider an
Speaker 1: unfair ruling that prevented evidence from being introduced? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: one of the examples, certainly is the sam Her evidence
Speaker 1: Samer having killed somebody in his past. Welcome to Sleuth everyone,
Speaker 1: I'm Linda Sawyer. We're here with Scott Sanders Daniel wassnia
Speaker 1: X defense attorney. The trial began in late December of
Speaker 1: and then went into the penalty phase early January, and
Speaker 1: did mid January. Would you say of one of the
Speaker 1: most important timing elements that's going on in this case
Speaker 1: right now is that there is a trial taking place
Speaker 1: of Daniel waznia x X fiance Rachel Buffett. Daniel Wozniak
Speaker 1: was in fact convicted of the crimes he committed and
Speaker 1: confessed to uh the capital case. The penalty was in
Speaker 1: fact death and he is on death row at this point.
Speaker 1: But from what I've learned over the years I've been
Speaker 1: working on this case is that I feel in many
Speaker 1: ways Daniel would have never committed these crimes if he
Speaker 1: had not met Rachel Buffett. So with her trial coming up,
Speaker 1: I really wanted to talk to you about the case
Speaker 1: and the charges and how you feel about the likelihood
Speaker 1: that there might be a conviction here, and so if
Speaker 1: we could go over these uh in more detail, I'd
Speaker 1: appreciate it. So the first felony charge involves Rachel Buffett
Speaker 1: lying to police about a fictitious man in a black hat,
Speaker 1: and the basis for that charge something I know that
Speaker 1: you in court spoke about with Judge Connolly regarding an
Speaker 1: issue where you felt Prosecutor Matt Murphy was in fact
Speaker 1: committing a double argument, if you will, about the same person.
Speaker 1: And you can't move from one court room and say
Speaker 1: one thing and move to another court and would say another.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about that. Well, right, there's there's case law
Speaker 1: out there that talks about the fact that you can't
Speaker 1: make inconsistent arguments in two different cases. And so our
Speaker 1: argument to Judge Connley when we came back after the
Speaker 1: verdict was to say, that's precisely what took place was
Speaker 1: that he made arguments about Rachel Buffett, and the preliminary
Speaker 1: hearing and Miss Buffett's case that were vastly different from
Speaker 1: what he was arguing in um Mr wazni next case.
Speaker 1: So let's just tell listeners the preliminary hearing for Rachel
Speaker 1: Buffett was on December and in essence, that was where
Speaker 1: Matt Murphy was trying to get an indictment on accessory
Speaker 1: after the fact. So you're saying, in that particular hearing,
Speaker 1: that's where Mr Murphy really painted a picture of her guilt, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, he's he's bringing home both in terms of
Speaker 1: how he presents the witnesses at the preliminary hearing and
Speaker 1: then in terms of argument to Judge McKenna, who's the
Speaker 1: judge hearing about her responsibility, and he's not only saying
Speaker 1: that she's responsible as an accessory, but actually continually um
Speaker 1: suggesting that she's responsible for something more. But yeah, he
Speaker 1: very much is trying to convince the judge that she
Speaker 1: should go to trial because she's aware of the crime
Speaker 1: and she's trying to help um Dania wasna but at
Speaker 1: the same time always hinting that there's something more. So
Speaker 1: do you feel like his purpose and his intent was
Speaker 1: to convince the judge that perhaps she was more involved
Speaker 1: than just an accessory. But I think he I think
Speaker 1: he believes that. I don't that's that's part of it.
Speaker 1: It's not so much that he was just playing lawyer there.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think Matt Murphy absolutely believed what he
Speaker 1: was saying in the preliminary hearing, that she was more involved,
Speaker 1: that she had absolute knowledge before the death of MS. Kiboshi.
Speaker 1: I think that's what he believes. I think that's what
Speaker 1: he argued. He argued very passionately about it. He cited
Speaker 1: all sorts of information um that he thought was supportive
Speaker 1: of it. So I don't think it was an act.
Speaker 1: I don't think it was just to get her over
Speaker 1: to a trial. I think that's what he believes. I think, um,
Speaker 1: I think he has for a long long time. And
Speaker 1: Matt Murphy was quite convincing in Rachel Buffett's preliminary hearing
Speaker 1: because the judge said, you have enough to go to trial. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, he's he's pointing to all of these incidents,
Speaker 1: but this one in particular, the one he's looking at,
Speaker 1: is are these contacts that take place shortly after the
Speaker 1: first crime that they're going back. They're looking at the
Speaker 1: self phone. He's making this point again and again to
Speaker 1: the judge that it is unbelievable that Rachel Buffett was
Speaker 1: unaware of this introduction into their household of a new
Speaker 1: cell phone. And he talks about the fact that you know,
Speaker 1: these are folks that are struggling economically, that their their
Speaker 1: paycheck to paycheck, and here he is sitting up sitting
Speaker 1: with her um and he suddenly has a new cell phone.
Speaker 1: And the notion that he would that she'd be unaware
Speaker 1: of that is unreasonable. Even more so, she talks to police.
Speaker 1: It was I think March of when police come to
Speaker 1: issue her a subpoena. She tells police and that in
Speaker 1: that exchange that she admits that she saw Daniel sitting
Speaker 1: next to her on the couch while he was texting
Speaker 1: Julie Kibi she to lure her to Sam's apartment that night.
Speaker 1: That she admits that he was on a totally different phone,
Speaker 1: that he was on a more archaic flip phone versus
Speaker 1: his fancy new phone that he had um that obviously
Speaker 1: was way more advanced technologically. So she admits the police
Speaker 1: she saw him on a different phone, which turns out
Speaker 1: to be Sam's phone, and he argues about it compellingly.
Speaker 1: I mean he that probably was a big argument that
Speaker 1: allowed that case to proceed, a key argument that allowed
Speaker 1: it to proceed to trial. About the preliminary the preliminary hearing,
Speaker 1: he's very much focused on the phone and the significance
Speaker 1: and it being absolutely unbelievable that she was unaware of that,
Speaker 1: and that she wouldn't have asked questions and things wouldn't
Speaker 1: have followed from that. Earlier today, I learned a new
Speaker 1: piece of evidence that was shared to me in an interview.
Speaker 1: I will aeron full on a future episode that Rachel
Speaker 1: Buffett had actually told a gentleman by the name of
Speaker 1: Daniel hulk Yard, who was a friend of Dan Wisnia's
Speaker 1: and would visit him often when he was waiting for
Speaker 1: his trial in Men's County Jail. She said to Daniel
Speaker 1: al Yard that she had sent a Facebook message to
Speaker 1: Julie Kabuishi at eleven ten that night, the night that
Speaker 1: she was murdered, basically saying we'll get together after the
Speaker 1: wedding and we'll catch up and we'll share some summer
Speaker 1: sunshine together at the pool. And she told Daniel Hulkyard
Speaker 1: that Daniel Wozniak was standing right behind her when she
Speaker 1: sent that email, and well, that email was part of
Speaker 1: you know, that email was part of the package of evidence.
Speaker 1: And then the question just became and it was an
Speaker 1: important one. You know, where were people located at the time.
Speaker 1: And again, it was a very oddly timed email that
Speaker 1: she was sending. And what Daniel Hulkyard seems to be
Speaker 1: insinuating is because Rachel slipped and told him that Dan
Speaker 1: Wozniak was over her shoulder when she sent this message
Speaker 1: to Julie. So Daniel Hulkyard suggests that Dan and Rachel
Speaker 1: must have been in cahoots together. Yet Rachel never told
Speaker 1: police Dan was by her side. She said she was
Speaker 1: in bed alone on her laptop when she sent that message.
Speaker 1: I thought that was a very interesting, telling piece of
Speaker 1: evidence that I hadn't learned before today. Daniel Hulkyard shares
Speaker 1: with us that moment Rachel told me in no certain terms,
Speaker 1: you know, the night that that lady was killed, I
Speaker 1: was on an email to her and I felt so
Speaker 1: suspicious and scared because Daniel was standing right behind me,
Speaker 1: and I about dropped my job. Linda, I said, you
Speaker 1: what she Yeah, that was so speaking I looked at
Speaker 1: her mom, and her mom just clammed up real quickly,
Speaker 1: and I told her in our little talk, I said,
Speaker 1: you had no idea. It was going why no idea?
Speaker 1: You had no idea? And in three sentences later she
Speaker 1: says what she said, No, only think she knew what
Speaker 1: she said. It was basically an alibi email, is how
Speaker 1: I felt when I read it, both exactly. But then
Speaker 1: when she told me that I haven't told anybody illegal
Speaker 1: world what I just told you about that conversation. I haven't,
Speaker 1: and I will tell you because I know what you
Speaker 1: want to do with this the truth behind us. And
Speaker 1: remember Ray, she was sending this message to Julie on
Speaker 1: her Facebook at eleven ten, Friday night of the murders.
Speaker 1: It makes you wonder was this an alibi message to Julie?
Speaker 1: I mean, it was a really nice message, and could
Speaker 1: one possibly imagine that someone would be diabolical enough to
Speaker 1: send such a sweet message and then fifty minutes later
Speaker 1: be part of a plan to murder Julie. Well, it's interesting,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, without talking to him directly and
Speaker 1: hearing it on, but it certainly makes sense, It certainly
Speaker 1: fits sort of we know that this email went out
Speaker 1: this unusual, unusually timed email. So here adds another element
Speaker 1: that potentially she's acknowledge to someone else. Said Dan's near
Speaker 1: by at the time. So I want to be clear
Speaker 1: with our listeners what you meant when you uh spoke
Speaker 1: in court about this double argument of Matt Murphy's the
Speaker 1: preliminary here r he really framed her as not only
Speaker 1: an accessory, but in fact perhaps an accomplice in these murders.
Speaker 1: And he was very passionate and and and very convincing
Speaker 1: in his argument about her role, which we believe he
Speaker 1: believes as well as the customers of police. But then
Speaker 1: in the actual trial of Daniel Wasniac, he sort of
Speaker 1: shifted quite a bit, right, And so let's talk about
Speaker 1: that shift and and how he presented Rachel to the jurors.
Speaker 1: We can go into more about what happens to the trial,
Speaker 1: but obviously it's kind of a general theme at trial.
Speaker 1: Mr Murphy wants to diminish her responsibility and at every
Speaker 1: turn from the beginning of the trial he is saying
Speaker 1: things in his opening statement like Daniel Wasnac allied to
Speaker 1: Rachel Buffett, and he's putting that in a group of victims.
Speaker 1: He you know, he puts his brother in that list.
Speaker 1: So he wants to separate Rachel Buffett and other people
Speaker 1: from any level of culpability because I think quite obviously
Speaker 1: he thinks the more more culpable um Rachel Buffett is,
Speaker 1: the less likely he is to get a death verdict.
Speaker 1: And I think that's kind of at the core of it.
Speaker 1: He wants the death penalty, and I you know, obviously
Speaker 1: our argument is that he wanted it way too much,
Speaker 1: and he did some things that didn't match with what
Speaker 1: he was doing at the preliminary herring. And you know,
Speaker 1: just for people who don't know how preliminary herring is,
Speaker 1: where it's like a grand jury proceeding, except you're not
Speaker 1: speaking to a group of members of the public. You're
Speaker 1: speaking to a single judge who's making that call. And
Speaker 1: that's what's happening in Rachel Buffett's case. She's she's before
Speaker 1: a judge named Judge mckeeno, um well respected judge in
Speaker 1: the community. And Judge mckeino is asking questions at some
Speaker 1: point about the case. I mean, he's very thoughtful and
Speaker 1: he's asking he's kind of pressing and probing about why
Speaker 1: she had more responsibility. So he comes back to the
Speaker 1: subject of Rachel Buffett and why she's responsible, and he's
Speaker 1: telling Judge mckinna, we have a situation here where these
Speaker 1: people are living together, they're engaged to be married, they're
Speaker 1: both employed, they have the same financial pressures, they're both
Speaker 1: in the process of eviction. They've been described a very
Speaker 1: various friends as being very close there together all the time.
Speaker 1: He's building the argument for accessory, but it also sounds
Speaker 1: very much like the argument for murder if he was
Speaker 1: building an argument for accomplice or a partner in the
Speaker 1: planning and the execution. Accomplice is the equivalent of a
Speaker 1: murder charge, right, That's right, So you don't have to
Speaker 1: be the person who strikes the deathblow. If you assist
Speaker 1: in some way to have that crime take place, you're
Speaker 1: treated the same way under the law. So to the
Speaker 1: extent as we argued that Rachel Buffett was reasonably taking
Speaker 1: steps that would have encouraged Dan, pushed Dan to act
Speaker 1: at a time when he didn't want to. You know,
Speaker 1: we argue, obviously in terms of the second crime, that
Speaker 1: he's despondent before that and she doesn't really care and
Speaker 1: she's pushing, and that's what logic says. So when I'm
Speaker 1: making closing argument and I'm actually making this argument that
Speaker 1: prosecution agrees with me, and he's objecting to it and
Speaker 1: stating that I'm misstating his argument, and he was right.
Speaker 1: I was misstating his argument in my case because I
Speaker 1: was stating his argument in Rachel Buffet's case right here.
Speaker 1: And so that's the problem that's not supposed to happen.
Speaker 1: You don't get to flip around because you like to
Speaker 1: have the death penalty on a man. The rules are
Speaker 1: the rules, and the rules are the rules, and it's
Speaker 1: just you know, that rule is based in common sense
Speaker 1: logic about what's right. And let's give our listeners a
Speaker 1: clear sense of just how he shifted in the trial
Speaker 1: of Daniel Waznac, how he was portraying her in that trial. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, it was pretty stunning. I mean, here we
Speaker 1: are in the trial and he is presenting her as
Speaker 1: a victim. One of the most dramatic things that he
Speaker 1: did was to take his argument about what took place
Speaker 1: outside the residents. So let me take the listeners through
Speaker 1: that moment just so they understand the scene when Detective
Speaker 1: Everett shows up in front of Rachel's brother no A
Speaker 1: Buffet's apartment. When he walks in, he doesn't realize it's
Speaker 1: in a partment. He thinks at the storefront. He walks
Speaker 1: in and there's Daniel sitting on the couch and Daniel
Speaker 1: asks can we please move outside to to talk? And
Speaker 1: at that point, Daniel's telling the story about how the
Speaker 1: last person he saw Sam Hair with was this guy
Speaker 1: in a black hat. Later that night, Kasta Masa police
Speaker 1: arrest Dan Wazniak for accessory to murder because they still
Speaker 1: believe Dan is hiding and helping Sam Hair. So let's
Speaker 1: listen now as Daniel is questioned by detectives and hear
Speaker 1: what Daniel has to say about the mysterious man in
Speaker 1: the black hat. I feared that I was the last
Speaker 1: person to see him. So what I had told everyone
Speaker 1: was because the last person even known that I knew
Speaker 1: that I was with Sam to my wife, and the
Speaker 1: last time that she saw and I saw was two
Speaker 1: three o'clock on Friday, Okay, So I went to live
Speaker 1: with that story, and then I made up this mystery
Speaker 1: person just holding that that would you know, take the
Speaker 1: plane off me? So I I mean of this guy
Speaker 1: with a white white guy scuffled on a black baseball cap,
Speaker 1: that he doesn't exist. That's a line, that's a life.
Speaker 1: I apologize for that. He does admit to police that
Speaker 1: he made up that man. He was an imaginary person.
Speaker 1: So go back to that Wednesday, before he's arrested for anything,
Speaker 1: and Rachel pops out of the apartment and walks over
Speaker 1: to the detective ends to Daniel, and she repeats the
Speaker 1: same story that Daniel was telling them at the time.
Speaker 1: And so that's what Matt Murphy is referring to, right right,
Speaker 1: And you have to it's I mean, I laugh, but
Speaker 1: it's none of it's funny because you think about what
Speaker 1: he then turns around and does in our trial. He
Speaker 1: then puts on detective effort and he presents essentially the defense.
Speaker 1: And this is fast forward. Now we're in the trial
Speaker 1: of Daniel wast and here that comes Matt Murphy, and
Speaker 1: he wants this event viewed completely differently. In fact, if
Speaker 1: you look at what he's doing, he's saying, we're being
Speaker 1: unfair to Rachel Buffett to draw the same interpretation that
Speaker 1: he argued to Judge mckeow. Do you remember the line.
Speaker 1: He said. He said, maybe she was leaning in in
Speaker 1: the door and she was overhearing what Daniel said, so
Speaker 1: she just repeated what her fiance was saying to police.
Speaker 1: That is what Matt Murphy said to the jurors, and
Speaker 1: he did, and he set that up through questioning what Everard?
Speaker 1: He asked Everett, he being Murphy, asked Everard, and during
Speaker 1: your interview with her, I believe you testified she echoed
Speaker 1: the same lie for back lack of a better term,
Speaker 1: that there was a third individual with Mr Wozniak and
Speaker 1: Mr Her on the day that Mr Her went missing. Right. Answer, yes,
Speaker 1: this is Everett saying yes. So how far outside the
Speaker 1: door of the residence do you think you were when
Speaker 1: you engaged in that conversation with Daniel Wozniak? Answer again, Everett,
Speaker 1: maybe five or six feet? Question? Okay, so big picture. Now,
Speaker 1: as an investigator and you get a potential suspect, you
Speaker 1: step outside and Daniel Wasnick tells you the story, including
Speaker 1: the lie about the third individual. Yes, and then a
Speaker 1: few minutes later Rachel comes out and tells you the
Speaker 1: same lie. That's the question. Ever says, Yes. Now, as
Speaker 1: a police officer, it could be that Rachel has been
Speaker 1: involved in this conspiracy, maybe even planned the whole thing,
Speaker 1: and maybe this whole murder. That's one possibility, or that's
Speaker 1: one realm of possibility. Answer yes, Or it could be
Speaker 1: that she was listening on the other side of the door, right, Yes,
Speaker 1: it could have been that sort either way, right under
Speaker 1: under that piece of evidence, yes, Murphy says to Everett,
Speaker 1: you're familiar with the term tie goes to the runner.
Speaker 1: So here you have him suggesting that, in fact, the
Speaker 1: exact same argument that he made at the preliminary hearing
Speaker 1: is faulty. He's he's saying that what we argued to
Speaker 1: Judge mckeeno really wasn't fair because the tie should go
Speaker 1: to the runner and he doesn't end it there. He says, So,
Speaker 1: in other words, when you have two pieces of evidence,
Speaker 1: one that points toward innocence and one that points toward guilt.
Speaker 1: As a police officer, you've got to kind of give
Speaker 1: the benefit of the doubt, right, answer Everett. Yes, So
Speaker 1: you can imagine a sitting in the courtroom knowing what
Speaker 1: happened in the prior hearing and realizing this is how
Speaker 1: far he's going to go. Now they're not in a
Speaker 1: plot together everything that I just talked about in terms
Speaker 1: of um, what they pressed Judge mckeeno to believes earlier
Speaker 1: argument that you have to believe this. This is the
Speaker 1: only logical interpretation that they're in a he says, this
Speaker 1: is our cleanest argument. Obviously they plotted this. He calls
Speaker 1: it a plot. Now, it's not a plot. Now. It
Speaker 1: may have just been a very good listener who's sitting
Speaker 1: at the door who then decided, Okay, I'm going to
Speaker 1: match the stories to help my um my loved one
Speaker 1: get out of harm's way. Um. But nothing in terms
Speaker 1: of an intention to do anything further or that she
Speaker 1: had knowledge before. That's the really bad thing, right. He's saying, Look,
Speaker 1: she really may not have had any knowledge of this
Speaker 1: crime before. You cannot reconcile that. There's no way you
Speaker 1: can reconcile that with what he did at the preliminary hearing. UM.
Speaker 1: In the Buffet case, it's similar to Matt Murphy's statements
Speaker 1: that he's made in the past regarding Rachel Buffett, where
Speaker 1: he said she just might have to be considered collateral damage. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but as horrifying as it is, and it is, it's
Speaker 1: exactly what took place here. He decided, Look, Rachel Buffett
Speaker 1: is looking at a few years in prison on a
Speaker 1: good day for them. Does he want any chance, just
Speaker 1: even the slimmest chance of reducing the possibility that he
Speaker 1: gets a death verdict. So he's sitting here worried that
Speaker 1: if the jury believes that's somehow Rachel Buffett may have
Speaker 1: been involved and is not going to be held responsible
Speaker 1: for the higher crime, which we argue she was involved
Speaker 1: with murder, which is murder. He thinks jury may go
Speaker 1: this isn't quite fair. So what does he do? He
Speaker 1: pushes back on any notion, even a semblance of a
Speaker 1: of a notion that it's fair. We're the ones who
Speaker 1: are being unfair. Now, that's the amazing thing in the trial.
Speaker 1: We're the unfair ones because we're suggesting Rachel Buffint may
Speaker 1: have more involvement, which is exactly what he said at
Speaker 1: the preliminary hearing. Yeah, you're just reiterating what he said
Speaker 1: earlier in at her preliminary hearing. But he doesn't like
Speaker 1: those arguments anymore because those arguments are the type of
Speaker 1: arguments that keeps someone from getting death. If all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, the jury if we both spoke the same way,
Speaker 1: and that closing. What if he had said exactly what
Speaker 1: he had said in that preliminary hearing, how powerful that
Speaker 1: would have been. Mr Sanders is right. All of these
Speaker 1: things that he's saying are absolutely right. She wasn't coincidentally
Speaker 1: sitting next to the door. She did know everything, She
Speaker 1: did have the phone in sight, she knew about the phone,
Speaker 1: and all of this happened an earlier point. He knows
Speaker 1: that verdict may have turned out differently. So it's Rachel's
Speaker 1: own words, it's her lies that are the blueprint to
Speaker 1: the truth. Rachel Buffett tells the Coast of Masa police
Speaker 1: that when Dan came back with the first installment of
Speaker 1: money that they owed Chris Williams for helping them stave
Speaker 1: off the eviction. Rachel tells police that the Friday afternoon
Speaker 1: of the murders, Daniel came back with the four dollars
Speaker 1: and he possibly gave it to Sam or the loan
Speaker 1: Sharks outside their apartment, but she was sitting there at
Speaker 1: the table. Chris Williams tells me in an interview that
Speaker 1: she was right there when Dan gave Chris Williams the money.
Speaker 1: In fact, Chris Williams tells me that he specifically asked
Speaker 1: them if they had any food money, and Dan said,
Speaker 1: that's all we have, pointing to the money that he
Speaker 1: just handed to him, and so Chris decides to give
Speaker 1: them a twenty, passes that twenty across the table so
Speaker 1: that they had some food money. He left that apartment
Speaker 1: so quickly. There was just this weird energy, this this
Speaker 1: darkness that was sort of looming in the apartment. So
Speaker 1: he said he couldn't get out of there fast enough
Speaker 1: and then he that he's on a call with Rachel
Speaker 1: within minutes, and she's trying to lure him back, telling
Speaker 1: him that he dropped a twenty, and at that point,
Speaker 1: he said, is this about the money, because I wanted
Speaker 1: you to have that for food? Is is this about
Speaker 1: the money that you want me to come back to
Speaker 1: talk to you about? And she said, no, it's something
Speaker 1: else I need to talk to you about. And it
Speaker 1: was then that he said every bone in his body
Speaker 1: just shook because he had no idea at that point
Speaker 1: why she wanted him there, but she he just didn't
Speaker 1: have a good feeling about it. So we're Rachel and
Speaker 1: Dan perhaps worried because Chris Williams was the only witness
Speaker 1: who saw Dan leave alone with Sam, because there really
Speaker 1: was no third person in a black hat. One of
Speaker 1: the other statements that Matt Murphy made to jurors during
Speaker 1: Dan Wozniak's trial was his portrayal of Rachel Buffett as
Speaker 1: almost a hero in this case, because if it wasn't
Speaker 1: for her, he says, they wouldn't have had this cornucopia
Speaker 1: of evidence to accuse and convict Daniel for these murders,
Speaker 1: and that just wasn't true. Violet Randolph, who was a
Speaker 1: neighbor and a friend who actually Rachel ended up living
Speaker 1: with for quite some time after the murders, she was
Speaker 1: in that car and when they left the Waznia home,
Speaker 1: after Rachel came and spoke to Darryl Wosnia, Daniel's father,
Speaker 1: she told him that he was arrested and tried to
Speaker 1: take him through what had happened. They left there, and
Speaker 1: Tim Wozniak and Lisa Goldge, his girlfriend at the time,
Speaker 1: showed up and Rachel went over to the car and
Speaker 1: he's sharing with her that he has gone and he
Speaker 1: has all this other evidence, and she's like putting her
Speaker 1: hands up on her ears like I don't want to
Speaker 1: hear this whatever, and when she got back into the car,
Speaker 1: Violet basically said, like, what's going on? He has evidence?
Speaker 1: She said yes, he said he has a gone and
Speaker 1: she said, you're going to bring that to police, right
Speaker 1: and Rachel said no, and Violet said, if you don't,
Speaker 1: I'm going to because that gun is going to disappear.
Speaker 1: And she picked up her cell phone as she tells me,
Speaker 1: and she calls her mother to get Jose Morales's number,
Speaker 1: at which point that's the very moment that Dan calls
Speaker 1: in from the holding cell and I just talked to him,
Speaker 1: and I need to make a phone called the detective.
Speaker 1: Now what Cautin's involved, because I need to call the
Speaker 1: detective first because I need to call him and by
Speaker 1: him now before they catch me on its recording device,
Speaker 1: because it looks like I'm not trying to tell him
Speaker 1: right away. Tim says he has evidence with them, or
Speaker 1: or he knew where it was or something. Then I'm doomed.
Speaker 1: What yeah, do you know that Tim had some evidence? Scott,
Speaker 1: what did you think about the jailhouse calls between Dan
Speaker 1: and Rachel when you heard them for the first time?
Speaker 1: She's not expecting this call, right and as the call goes,
Speaker 1: here comes Dan and he's worried. Oh god, oh god,
Speaker 1: oh god. Okay, well this is this is ridiculous and
Speaker 1: I have to go tell the detective the truth. Um, come,
Speaker 1: come do kick up only to me so far, and
Speaker 1: it was in casting. I said, I'm going to police
Speaker 1: station right now. Danny's in arrested. He starts for being
Speaker 1: out and it's really frantic and he said something and
Speaker 1: something slips that he had evidence. So I have to
Speaker 1: I don't, don't, don't, don't, no, Rabe, I'm going to
Speaker 1: do it. I needed to pull over to the art
Speaker 1: second get the phone number for the infective out what
Speaker 1: you realize they recording the song conversation. Anyways, if you
Speaker 1: look at what she's doing, she's not planning. When she's
Speaker 1: driving down the street. She is not planning to call
Speaker 1: the police. There's no chance in the world. And then
Speaker 1: she realizes Dan is unraveling and we're on a recorded
Speaker 1: conversation and she has this interesting moment where she says,
Speaker 1: I need to call the detective right now. What do
Speaker 1: you mean didn't you need to call the detective the
Speaker 1: moment you took this evidence so that that's one of
Speaker 1: the tells. There's about five or six tells in there.
Speaker 1: If you look at it closely, you can see she
Speaker 1: was hoping just to do whatever she was gonna do. Well,
Speaker 1: it's a performance for Violet too. I mean, the girl
Speaker 1: was sitting in the passenger seat saying to Rachel, if
Speaker 1: you don't call detective Morales, I will, that's right. And
Speaker 1: so she's driving. All of a sudden, Dan is doing
Speaker 1: what he's doing, and she needs to perform for Violet.
Speaker 1: She needs to perform for what she knows. Are the
Speaker 1: police listening and she points that out. Dan, You're an idiot.
Speaker 1: The police are listening to this conversation, and I've got
Speaker 1: to make sure I assist the police. Well, I don't
Speaker 1: know what that is. I thought it was a murder weapon.
Speaker 1: I don't know what you're talking about other evidence. I
Speaker 1: don't know what him how decides that Dame said he
Speaker 1: had a murder weapon? You realize the recording the song conversation. Anyways,
Speaker 1: I need to call the detective first, because I need
Speaker 1: to call him and by him no before they catch
Speaker 1: me on its recording device, because it looks like I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to tell him right away, and her mind
Speaker 1: is twirling, going, if I don't say this soon, I'm
Speaker 1: going to be in big trouble. So that's exactly what
Speaker 1: Tim told me. So I'm going to go tell the
Speaker 1: detective now. So so she's doing this in steps because
Speaker 1: her brain is flying. She's saying to herself, they're going
Speaker 1: to know in a millisecond. And I'm deeply involved in this.
Speaker 1: So I'm so I better say something. Okay, what do
Speaker 1: you want me to do? I don't want you to
Speaker 1: tell the detective of anything, and I don't want them
Speaker 1: involved up. I mean now I'm no, I'm dead. Now
Speaker 1: I'm really dead. Maybe you are already dead when you
Speaker 1: deconstructed and kind of look at it closely, you can
Speaker 1: see what she's doing. And she does this kind of throughout.
Speaker 1: You know, she's trying to reel Dan back even after
Speaker 1: he says I did it. There's no way back. They're
Speaker 1: thinking that you pre meditated a murder of both of
Speaker 1: your friends because you were telling me beforehand that you
Speaker 1: had a class that you knew you didn't have. You're
Speaker 1: already making an excuse in an alibi. Do you see
Speaker 1: what I'm saying? Like I'm done I'm done. I'm really done.
Speaker 1: Um what I was trying to cover it up and
Speaker 1: now I'm going away for life. It necessarily means that
Speaker 1: when that call took place on the she knew he
Speaker 1: was involved, She was plotting with him. It means the
Speaker 1: whole call is a lie. It's well done. It's a
Speaker 1: kind of an amateurish level, right, you know, kind of
Speaker 1: low level theater. Why on earth would you try and
Speaker 1: cover for him? We needed the money? No, we never
Speaker 1: need money. You need to be good people and just
Speaker 1: have each other. O. Sorry, it's well done for a minute,
Speaker 1: unless you look at it pretty closely. And Murphy knows
Speaker 1: that that phone call had to be completely fabricated. Maybe
Speaker 1: when did when did we fall asleep last night? And
Speaker 1: where were you? When did you leave lust or not?
Speaker 1: Last night? That Friday night? Friday night? We got home
Speaker 1: probably around I don't know, midnight? Yeah, remember that. What
Speaker 1: did we do? Did anyone come over? I don't remember?
Speaker 1: Or did we just crash? Did eye craft? We crapwer together? Uh? Huh?
Speaker 1: Family guy? And then in black wait wait where I
Speaker 1: can't we're walking then black and I can hardly hear
Speaker 1: you on this Funday spak a little bit louder. What
Speaker 1: about Black and Family guy? Okay? That night? Okay, so
Speaker 1: when did you go over and meet Sam? And when
Speaker 1: did you help Sam? Saturday morning? Saturday morning? She is
Speaker 1: pretending as she's going as if she knows nothing, And
Speaker 1: then when Dan Wozniak switches and says, I've got to
Speaker 1: tell you the truth about what happened. You can hear
Speaker 1: it and you can kind of hear what she's doing.
Speaker 1: And at the very end of that tape, she tries
Speaker 1: to pull him back one last time. Are you sure
Speaker 1: you're not taking the blame for someone else? She tries
Speaker 1: to recover him from himself. Are you trying to cover
Speaker 1: for somebody? Me? Um, listen to me. I'm gonna go
Speaker 1: do something right now, and you're not gonna see me
Speaker 1: for the rest of your life. Do you understand that? No? No,
Speaker 1: I have to tell the truth on what I did.
Speaker 1: And I think you now know what it is and
Speaker 1: it's bad. Imagine the word and that's what I did.
Speaker 1: H Do you want to tell me first or are
Speaker 1: you gonna go tell them? If you tell them, can
Speaker 1: you tell me back and tell me? To my faith?
Speaker 1: Can you can? You can probably tell them first? To
Speaker 1: come down to position right now. Yes, yes, I'm coming
Speaker 1: down to the station right now. You should buy them first.
Speaker 1: But I want to hear it from you. It's her though.
Speaker 1: I mean, you talk about who's worse. There. He's going,
Speaker 1: I'm done. I'm you know, I'm not. There's no coming
Speaker 1: back from this. And she's thinking to herself, if you
Speaker 1: don't come back from this, you may take us both down.
Speaker 1: That's what she's doing very clearly. And I'm not saying
Speaker 1: anything other than what Matt Murphy would have said in
Speaker 1: two thousand and twelve in the preliminary hearing. We would
Speaker 1: have sounded almost identical. We just don't now because in
Speaker 1: two thousand and sixteen he wanted a death verdict very badly,
Speaker 1: so he decided it was okay to switch his theories.
Speaker 1: That's what he did. It was surprising how Matt Murphy
Speaker 1: characterized Rachel Buffett during Dan Was the next trial. Yes,
Speaker 1: but only because you knew more. If you don't know more,
Speaker 1: and I'm making arguments that are being stopped and and
Speaker 1: you're right right, you don't you don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: blame the jury for not getting what he was doing
Speaker 1: to them and the rest of the media didn't have
Speaker 1: a word to say about it because I just didn't
Speaker 1: know that. And this is, you know, this is the
Speaker 1: difficulty sometimes in a trial. It's you've got to have
Speaker 1: so much information to really get it. And really what
Speaker 1: he was starting to do there was kind of beyond
Speaker 1: the pale. It wasn't something that even anybody would envision
Speaker 1: and think back at the time, what else, what was
Speaker 1: he's saying before? But you know, after the trial, we
Speaker 1: get a chance to go to the judge and we
Speaker 1: did our motion and and tell us about his ruling
Speaker 1: and how you felt about it. Well, you know, the
Speaker 1: ruling is only memorable to the extent we lost. I
Speaker 1: don't remember what he said specifically, and I don't think
Speaker 1: he committed a lot of writing to it, other than
Speaker 1: to say, um, we lose. And so I'm not going
Speaker 1: to tell you that it's surprising that we lost. And
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that because I think we should have lost.
Speaker 1: We shouldn't have. I just we didn't have a lot
Speaker 1: of success and litigation in that courtroom. We weren't successful here.
Speaker 1: And you know, I've second guessed all sorts of things.
Speaker 1: That's just the nature of the beast but I'm also
Speaker 1: still angry because there wasn't complete truth in that courtroom.
Speaker 1: I don't sit here trusting that we've gotten everything. There's
Speaker 1: no reason to. They don't have a history of disclosure,
Speaker 1: and it's not going to surprise me if ten years,
Speaker 1: twenty years down the road something gets found out in
Speaker 1: addition to all the things you've found out, And that's
Speaker 1: that's a big problem. That's had a big problem with
Speaker 1: this process here. It's just I have no faith whatsoever
Speaker 1: the tricks that were pulled here. The notion like I
Speaker 1: found all of the tricks, I don't think so I
Speaker 1: don't have I don't know that kind of faith in myself.
Speaker 1: You know. The notion that Rachel Buffett was protecting him
Speaker 1: is insanity, and that this was her goal. I can't
Speaker 1: even believe someone's going to say that in the courtroom
Speaker 1: just because it's going to help them get a win.
Speaker 1: None of this has to do with protecting Dan Wasnext.
Speaker 1: She's done with Dan Wasney. She thinks Dan Wasny next time.
Speaker 1: This is about protecting her, and it makes sense. I
Speaker 1: remember that you revealed in court a conversation that Rachel
Speaker 1: had with police during those early morning hours after police
Speaker 1: arrested Dan. They had brought her in for questioning. It
Speaker 1: was there she mentions how he really wasn't a great lover,
Speaker 1: and she wasn't over the moon about him, and she
Speaker 1: even said he wasn't well endowed down below. She's saying
Speaker 1: all these things, and she's supposed to marry this guy
Speaker 1: that next day. It just seemed like she was done
Speaker 1: with him. Then. I mean that there's a level of
Speaker 1: cruelty in that. I mean, it's not the cruelty obviously,
Speaker 1: you know. I I want to make it clear. I
Speaker 1: mean I represented Dan and then believe very deeply that
Speaker 1: he should not have gotten a death penalty. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't think it was fair. I don't think the
Speaker 1: trial was fair. I don't think anything about this process
Speaker 1: was fair whatsoever. And I don't think we have all
Speaker 1: the evidence in the case. Why do you feel Daniel
Speaker 1: Woznia didn't deserve the death penalty? Well, look at the
Speaker 1: first place, any pursuit of death should start with his fairness.
Speaker 1: Just should be a fair process. You shouldn't have a
Speaker 1: prosecutor arguing two different theories to get death all. I mean,
Speaker 1: I have a lot of adentury issues, things that I
Speaker 1: think should have come in his evidence. But there are
Speaker 1: a lot of things that I thought, UM made this
Speaker 1: whole process unfair. Are you referring to Sam's past? Um,
Speaker 1: that's that's one of them. UM, for our listeners, Sam
Speaker 1: Hair at one point in his life was charged with
Speaker 1: murder and he was acquitted. I think his defense lawyer
Speaker 1: did a great job and they were able to keep
Speaker 1: out all of the key evidence and kind of a
Speaker 1: unique theory and should be commended for that. But in
Speaker 1: the standard that's used in most cases, and then when
Speaker 1: I think is a legal standard, once the prosecutor took
Speaker 1: certain steps in our litigation, we should have had the
Speaker 1: right to introduce that evidence. And the way they the
Speaker 1: prosecution chose to kind of present Mr her which they
Speaker 1: didn't have to do. They went further and kind of
Speaker 1: presenting him as a solid citizen. We had the right
Speaker 1: to answer that. But there's all sorts of other places,
Speaker 1: including you know, more what we've been focusing on today.
Speaker 1: You know, if I look at all of that, I
Speaker 1: keep coming back to the same spot too often. In
Speaker 1: this county, evidence hasn't been turned over, and UM, I
Speaker 1: look at this and wondering what else wasn't turned over,
Speaker 1: and don't I think it's reasonable. If you have a
Speaker 1: prosecutor that's making the type of arguments he's making, why
Speaker 1: on earth would I believe he It's it's beyond him
Speaker 1: to just keep some evidence that he thinks Um might
Speaker 1: be beneficial to us. And what I know, you talked
Speaker 1: about how you felt for the Daniel Wozniak trial. You
Speaker 1: felt that in many cases it wasn't a fair trial.
Speaker 1: What was the most egregious example of where you thought
Speaker 1: you did not get a fair break? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: one of the examples, certainly is the sam Her evidence.
Speaker 1: I mean we thought that we The interesting thing was
Speaker 1: we didn't anticipate getting into that because we thought the
Speaker 1: prosecutor was going to actually limit himself. And you can
Speaker 1: do that because basically what the prosecutor's option is just
Speaker 1: to put on evidence about his impact on human lives.
Speaker 1: So you could put on people and talk about how
Speaker 1: sad it was, and that wouldn't have allowed us, arguably
Speaker 1: to get into this next spot, which is Um Samer
Speaker 1: having killed somebody in his past charged with it. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean he's charged with that crime. I mean he was,
Speaker 1: he was charged. He was acquitted and I and I
Speaker 1: appreciate the process, but I don't. Yes, I hope so yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, I appreciate the process, but I don't. I
Speaker 1: don't agree that he didn't kill you know, I'm just
Speaker 1: the evidence doesn't point to that. It's just the evidence
Speaker 1: all got kept back. I mean, he confessed in statements,
Speaker 1: the statements just didn't get introduced. I know that this
Speaker 1: was an important point for Scott that he did not win.
Speaker 1: The argument of introducing Sam's passed in the Dan Wozniak trial,
Speaker 1: and although the jurors didn't have a chance to hear
Speaker 1: the facts, I thought my listeners deserved to know what
Speaker 1: happened in Sam's past when he was in fact charged
Speaker 1: with murder, and so I spoke at length with retired
Speaker 1: Sergeant Gilbert Anderson, who was the lead detective on Sam's
Speaker 1: murder case, and suffice to say that there were eighteen
Speaker 1: defendants that were charged with the murder of Byron Benito,
Speaker 1: who was an MMS gang member, and he was in
Speaker 1: fact the victim that was lord. As Sergeant Anderson says,
Speaker 1: he was lured by his best friend at the time,
Speaker 1: Sam Hair, and Sam brought him to undisclosed location where
Speaker 1: rival gang members from the Brown Familiar Family were waiting
Speaker 1: to attack Byron, and Sam at that time was growing
Speaker 1: increasingly frustrated with his and Byron. Byron was acting like
Speaker 1: a bully in many instances, beating up members of the
Speaker 1: Brown Familiar gang for no apparent reason, and so Sam
Speaker 1: was starting to distance himself. We may never know with
Speaker 1: absolute certainty if Sam believed that the Brown Familial gang
Speaker 1: intended to murder Byron or simply wanted to rough him
Speaker 1: up give him a scare, and everyone that knew Sam
Speaker 1: would tell me he would never run away from a fight,
Speaker 1: which is why Sam himself was injured from the attack. Eventually,
Speaker 1: Byron Benito did pass away from his injuries, and eighteen
Speaker 1: people stood charged with that murder. Six of them, including Sam,
Speaker 1: were acquitted. And the reason that Sam Hare was acquitted
Speaker 1: of these charges were because there was a technicality that
Speaker 1: the judge at the time felt there was a illegal,
Speaker 1: as he called it, arrest after a traffic stop. The
Speaker 1: police had stopped Sam because they saw some scooters in
Speaker 1: his car, and at the time a lot of scooters
Speaker 1: were being stolen, and so the actual traffic stop, the
Speaker 1: judge said, was was fine it was the it was
Speaker 1: the arrest afterwards that the judge felt was far reaching.
Speaker 1: So therefore anything after the arrest was thrown out, and
Speaker 1: that included Sam's confession. He was haunted by this, it
Speaker 1: was his friend. I think he felt bad. I think
Speaker 1: in many ways he was self medicating because he felt
Speaker 1: so bad. But he did, I guess after many hours
Speaker 1: with the sergeant, he did finally confess to his role.
Speaker 1: And Steve Hair told me that while he and Sam's
Speaker 1: attorney that Steve hired, we're waiting outside the interrogation room.
Speaker 1: For whatever reason, police did not allow the attorney access
Speaker 1: to Sam. I don't know if it was because Sam
Speaker 1: didn't ask for an attorney, but that is what Steve
Speaker 1: Hair had mentioned to me. And ultimately, because that confession
Speaker 1: was thrown out, Sam was acquitted of all charges. And
Speaker 1: I just think it's important to mention that that same officer,
Speaker 1: the same sergeant that I spoke to, he said that
Speaker 1: he wanted it to be clear that Sam never went
Speaker 1: back to a life of crime. Sam, you know, from there,
Speaker 1: really turned his life around, joined the army, and he
Speaker 1: he never he never looked back and tried to continue
Speaker 1: on that path. That was going to only lead him
Speaker 1: to prison at some point. Sam's past was something that
Speaker 1: he used as a litmus test often because he he
Speaker 1: would share this past with with people that he barely
Speaker 1: knew at times. In fact, Sam's fiance at the time
Speaker 1: had told me in a later interview that that he
Speaker 1: had this paperwork that he would show people and they
Speaker 1: would read it and and they would see what his
Speaker 1: past was about and what he had been through. And
Speaker 1: if they reacted in a way that they said, well,
Speaker 1: you know what, you're our guy, you're our friend, and
Speaker 1: we're not holding that against you, then he would become
Speaker 1: friends with that person. Or if they were turned off
Speaker 1: by what they read, then he knew that they would
Speaker 1: never be real friends. So he did the same thing
Speaker 1: with Daniel and Rachel, and this happened a weekend before
Speaker 1: the murders. Daniel had been arrested by the Coast of
Speaker 1: Masa police ironically for an outstanding do you I warrant
Speaker 1: and he was the lead in a musical called nine
Speaker 1: at the time, and so Rachel was scrambling to get
Speaker 1: his bail money raised because he was the lead and
Speaker 1: they weren't going to be able to perform the next night.
Speaker 1: If she couldn't get him out of jail. So Dave
Speaker 1: Barnhart and John Randolph, friends of theirs, a neighbors at
Speaker 1: the camp to Martinique, called around to try to raise
Speaker 1: the bail money, and one of those people that they
Speaker 1: called was Sam Hair, but he refused to give money.
Speaker 1: I don't know them very well and I have no
Speaker 1: interest in participating in this dude's bail money. Sam's friend
Speaker 1: Ruben Manacho recalls the story. Sam received a phone call
Speaker 1: from Dave Dave and Dave was obviously I wasn't listening
Speaker 1: to the conversation, but after they were dawn talking and
Speaker 1: Sam told me about what the conversation was about. Essentially,
Speaker 1: Dave was asking for money to bail Dan out of
Speaker 1: out of jail. And I said, no, why would you.
Speaker 1: Why are they even calling you to ask, you know,
Speaker 1: to ask you for money. Doesn't seem fair. Do you
Speaker 1: even know this guy that well? And he said like, yeah,
Speaker 1: he's a friend. And I know that because if it
Speaker 1: would have been a friend friend and he would have
Speaker 1: hung out with us a lot more often. And that's
Speaker 1: the reason why I say that. So and I advise
Speaker 1: Sam to not to give him the money. I don't
Speaker 1: actually remember if he did or not. Hopefully he didn't,
Speaker 1: so that's yeah, um, but yeah, that was it. So
Speaker 1: that upset them because in fact, Dave Barnhard said to Rachel,
Speaker 1: and he's the he's the one guy that has more
Speaker 1: money than all of us. I guess Rachel told Dan
Speaker 1: that Sam did not contribute and when they saw Sam,
Speaker 1: because eventually Rachel was able to raise the money and
Speaker 1: Dan got out of jail the next morning and that
Speaker 1: afternoon they went to the hot tub and that's where
Speaker 1: Sam was, and Sam, you know, responded to a complaint
Speaker 1: that Dan was making, saying, I never want to go
Speaker 1: to jail again. That was a horrible experience. It was awful.
Speaker 1: I can't even believe I made it through the night.
Speaker 1: And basically Sam was like, you know, you gotta be
Speaker 1: kidding me, dude, Like I was. I was sitting in
Speaker 1: the Los Angeles County Men's jail for two years waiting
Speaker 1: for my trial when I was charged with murder. At
Speaker 1: that moment, Dan and Rachel found out this past of
Speaker 1: where Sam was in fact himself once a defendant being
Speaker 1: charged with murder. So that's what ultimately put the target
Speaker 1: on his back. That's why they had used that pass.
Speaker 1: They kept referring to that past when when Dan was
Speaker 1: first arrested by Costa Masa police, So that in essence
Speaker 1: is the story of sam has past and why it
Speaker 1: plays a relevant role in this case. In the end,
Speaker 1: I've always felt that Prosecutor Matt Murphy had a far
Speaker 1: better case for accomplice or murder charges rather than the
Speaker 1: accessory charges that Rachel now faces. I want to thank
Speaker 1: you Scott Sanders for your time today and we look
Speaker 1: forward to having you back next week for all your
Speaker 1: legal observations on Rachel Buffett's trial proceedings. Thanks very much
Speaker 1: for the opportunity. Yeah, On the next episode of Sleuth,
Speaker 1: we go straight to Santa Anna Superior Court for our
Speaker 1: gavel to gavel coverage of the trial we've been waiting for.
Speaker 1: It's the State of California versus Rachel Buffett, So tune
Speaker 1: into Sleuth and you won't miss a moment of the
Speaker 1: witness testimony. If you enjoyed this episode of Sleuth, share
Speaker 1: it with a friend and be sure to leave a
Speaker 1: rating or review. Follow Sleuth on I Heart Radio, or
Speaker 1: subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts so that you never
Speaker 1: miss an episode