WEBVTT - (UPDATE) Au Pair Affair Murder Trial:  Defense Coming Together

0:00:09.920 --> 0:00:14.120
<v Speaker 1>Hey there, folks. It is Thursday evening on the East

0:00:14.200 --> 0:00:16.639
<v Speaker 1>coast here on January twenty second. We're just hopping on

0:00:16.760 --> 0:00:20.160
<v Speaker 1>because we got some significant updates in the so called

0:00:20.280 --> 0:00:25.319
<v Speaker 1>Old Pair affair murders trial, including an update about one

0:00:25.440 --> 0:00:29.120
<v Speaker 1>witness who was on the stand three times in this

0:00:29.240 --> 0:00:32.040
<v Speaker 1>trial already, and another major update having to do with

0:00:32.120 --> 0:00:34.920
<v Speaker 1>the timing of this trial. And with that, welcome to

0:00:35.000 --> 0:00:38.000
<v Speaker 1>this episode of Amy and TJ. Roves. I'll start with

0:00:38.040 --> 0:00:42.720
<v Speaker 1>something you just said to me. You said, it looks

0:00:42.760 --> 0:00:46.040
<v Speaker 1>like the defense's case is coming together, but it looks

0:00:46.080 --> 0:00:47.600
<v Speaker 1>like they might not have much of a case.

0:00:47.800 --> 0:00:52.000
<v Speaker 2>Right we see the blueprint, because I will say, yesterday

0:00:52.080 --> 0:00:55.640
<v Speaker 2>when the defense began and even this morning, we were

0:00:55.760 --> 0:00:59.080
<v Speaker 2>kind of scratching our heads, like where is this going?

0:00:59.240 --> 0:01:00.800
<v Speaker 3>What have they accomplished?

0:01:00.840 --> 0:01:04.320
<v Speaker 2>They've called lots of witnesses up, and yet it's unclear

0:01:04.360 --> 0:01:07.000
<v Speaker 2>to me what the strategy is or what they're trying

0:01:07.040 --> 0:01:11.280
<v Speaker 2>to get out of these witnesses, because it wasn't effective.

0:01:10.880 --> 0:01:13.039
<v Speaker 1>Wasn't it several witnesses as well. It seems like we're

0:01:13.080 --> 0:01:15.600
<v Speaker 1>just getting going. And then he told them no more questions.

0:01:15.680 --> 0:01:17.840
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, it would be like you'd think he was just

0:01:17.959 --> 0:01:21.200
<v Speaker 2>winding up his question and he'd say no further questions,

0:01:21.560 --> 0:01:21.920
<v Speaker 2>say what.

0:01:22.400 --> 0:01:25.240
<v Speaker 1>It was confusing, and every witness today felt like for

0:01:25.319 --> 0:01:27.600
<v Speaker 1>the defense that's now putting on their case, felt like

0:01:27.680 --> 0:01:30.840
<v Speaker 1>there was potential for a Perry Mason moment and we

0:01:31.000 --> 0:01:35.360
<v Speaker 1>never actually got one. However, we did get several significant

0:01:35.480 --> 0:01:38.920
<v Speaker 1>updates and we did. This was maybe, I would argue

0:01:39.000 --> 0:01:42.840
<v Speaker 1>Robes Besides the au pair's testimony, this was one of

0:01:42.880 --> 0:01:46.680
<v Speaker 1>the most significant days of testimony we have seen because

0:01:46.760 --> 0:01:48.680
<v Speaker 1>we see what the defense is trying to lay out.

0:01:48.720 --> 0:01:50.520
<v Speaker 1>Can we start though, with the update about the timing.

0:01:50.840 --> 0:01:53.040
<v Speaker 1>This has everything to do with the weather right now.

0:01:53.280 --> 0:01:55.240
<v Speaker 1>The judge is really trying to move the thing.

0:01:55.320 --> 0:01:58.240
<v Speaker 2>Judge is super concerned and keeps talking about this massive

0:01:58.280 --> 0:02:01.560
<v Speaker 2>snowstorm that is blanketing much of the country but certainly

0:02:01.600 --> 0:02:04.480
<v Speaker 2>going to target the mid Atlantic and the Northeast with

0:02:04.560 --> 0:02:06.840
<v Speaker 2>a bunch of snow, and so yes, this is near

0:02:06.880 --> 0:02:09.320
<v Speaker 2>the Washington, DC area, Fairfax, Virginia.

0:02:09.760 --> 0:02:11.480
<v Speaker 3>So she was really pushing.

0:02:11.520 --> 0:02:15.240
<v Speaker 2>When they wrapped today, both sides, the defense saying how

0:02:15.240 --> 0:02:17.760
<v Speaker 2>many more witnesses do you have? And he said three

0:02:18.000 --> 0:02:21.000
<v Speaker 2>at least, and the prosecution said they want to call

0:02:21.120 --> 0:02:23.440
<v Speaker 2>two more back up to the stand and you could

0:02:23.480 --> 0:02:25.720
<v Speaker 2>see the judge or you could hear the judge was frustrated.

0:02:25.760 --> 0:02:29.079
<v Speaker 2>She said, I'd really like to wrap up testimony by

0:02:29.080 --> 0:02:32.160
<v Speaker 2>Friday because we may be out of court for five

0:02:32.320 --> 0:02:35.240
<v Speaker 2>days with this storm, and I'd hate to break up

0:02:35.240 --> 0:02:38.639
<v Speaker 2>the evidence. I'd love to have the evidence done, have

0:02:38.800 --> 0:02:41.359
<v Speaker 2>a potential break based on this storm, and then come

0:02:41.400 --> 0:02:44.560
<v Speaker 2>back and then do closing arguments and give your reinstructions

0:02:44.600 --> 0:02:47.760
<v Speaker 2>and have them start deliberating. So she didn't but basically

0:02:47.760 --> 0:02:51.080
<v Speaker 2>the defense attorney said, I'll do my best, but he

0:02:51.240 --> 0:02:53.799
<v Speaker 2>was like, I can't promise you that I'm going to

0:02:53.840 --> 0:02:54.480
<v Speaker 2>be done tomorrow.

0:02:54.480 --> 0:02:56.880
<v Speaker 1>And you know he would like the extra time, Yes,

0:02:56.960 --> 0:03:00.880
<v Speaker 1>he would like the extra time. He's been a little shaken,

0:03:00.960 --> 0:03:03.560
<v Speaker 1>we should say, by the prosecution with a lot of

0:03:03.600 --> 0:03:07.440
<v Speaker 1>their objections. And you mentioned the judge seems a little frustrated.

0:03:07.800 --> 0:03:09.640
<v Speaker 1>Even in her frustration. I want to give her credit.

0:03:10.080 --> 0:03:12.920
<v Speaker 1>She is like the sweetest lady, even when it's like

0:03:12.960 --> 0:03:14.519
<v Speaker 1>a teacher. Even when she has to get on to

0:03:14.600 --> 0:03:16.359
<v Speaker 1>you about it, She's like, yeah, you know, baby, why

0:03:16.400 --> 0:03:18.320
<v Speaker 1>I have to get on she has I think she's

0:03:18.360 --> 0:03:18.960
<v Speaker 1>been excellent.

0:03:19.040 --> 0:03:22.080
<v Speaker 2>She has She's been very even keeled. She's been very fair,

0:03:22.160 --> 0:03:24.079
<v Speaker 2>and she's had to hear, as you said, a lot

0:03:24.120 --> 0:03:27.560
<v Speaker 2>of objections, and she hasn't just sustained all of them

0:03:27.639 --> 0:03:30.080
<v Speaker 2>or overruled. She is thoughtful about each one and I

0:03:30.120 --> 0:03:31.720
<v Speaker 2>actually think she's done, yes.

0:03:31.560 --> 0:03:32.440
<v Speaker 3>A phenomenal job.

0:03:32.520 --> 0:03:34.400
<v Speaker 1>All right, So let's get to what this day was,

0:03:34.440 --> 0:03:36.920
<v Speaker 1>and yes, the fence is putting on its case. The

0:03:37.000 --> 0:03:39.800
<v Speaker 1>focus of the case today is on what they're at

0:03:39.880 --> 0:03:43.680
<v Speaker 1>least trying to call a botch doory questionable investigation. Again,

0:03:43.760 --> 0:03:46.360
<v Speaker 1>Brendan Miller, this was the one they did allude to

0:03:46.480 --> 0:03:49.600
<v Speaker 1>right in the opening statement, that there was an investigator

0:03:49.600 --> 0:03:52.840
<v Speaker 1>who didn't agree with other and the direction of the

0:03:52.840 --> 0:03:55.480
<v Speaker 1>investigation was going. This was the guy who claims and

0:03:55.640 --> 0:04:00.720
<v Speaker 1>his investigation, his forensic detective work. He felt that maybe

0:04:00.720 --> 0:04:03.480
<v Speaker 1>it was Christine who had that phone in her hand,

0:04:03.480 --> 0:04:06.240
<v Speaker 1>who set up her own fat life account. He's been

0:04:06.240 --> 0:04:09.240
<v Speaker 1>called to the stand three times now, three times. He

0:04:09.240 --> 0:04:10.560
<v Speaker 1>seems like he doesn't want to be there.

0:04:10.680 --> 0:04:14.240
<v Speaker 2>He's so monotone and he's doing his best not to

0:04:14.320 --> 0:04:17.680
<v Speaker 2>give the defense anything. And yet they did get him

0:04:17.720 --> 0:04:20.279
<v Speaker 2>to say today that in terms of why he was

0:04:20.320 --> 0:04:25.640
<v Speaker 2>reassigned against his choice, he did eventually say that there

0:04:25.640 --> 0:04:29.160
<v Speaker 2>were disagreements about the way he wrote the report, and

0:04:29.200 --> 0:04:33.880
<v Speaker 2>so he said basically what he put as his conclusion,

0:04:34.480 --> 0:04:39.280
<v Speaker 2>meaning he couldn't say it wasn't Christine who set up

0:04:39.440 --> 0:04:43.840
<v Speaker 2>that that life account, and that he kept having his

0:04:43.920 --> 0:04:48.039
<v Speaker 2>supervisor come back over and not disagree with his process

0:04:48.160 --> 0:04:50.400
<v Speaker 2>or disagree with any of the findings, but it was

0:04:50.440 --> 0:04:55.360
<v Speaker 2>the conclusion that he came to that his superiors disagreed with.

0:04:55.600 --> 0:04:58.120
<v Speaker 1>So that is a big deal. If there is a

0:04:58.520 --> 0:05:00.440
<v Speaker 1>If I'm sitting in the jury and you're telling me

0:05:00.520 --> 0:05:04.080
<v Speaker 1>that there's a guy out there who said that it

0:05:04.160 --> 0:05:08.000
<v Speaker 1>was possibly Christine who set this up and then he

0:05:08.080 --> 0:05:10.080
<v Speaker 1>got moved off the case, I'm gonna say, well why,

0:05:10.200 --> 0:05:13.640
<v Speaker 1>And that's funny and that's fishy. That was at least

0:05:14.000 --> 0:05:16.760
<v Speaker 1>worth bringing up. I think that point was made. I

0:05:16.800 --> 0:05:18.960
<v Speaker 1>don't know how hard it landed, but at least they

0:05:19.000 --> 0:05:20.640
<v Speaker 1>made that point today. And that's a big deal. We

0:05:20.640 --> 0:05:23.360
<v Speaker 1>talked about the very beginning. If they can prove that

0:05:23.760 --> 0:05:27.080
<v Speaker 1>Christine Banfield was the one who set up that life

0:05:27.120 --> 0:05:29.640
<v Speaker 1>fetish account herself, case is over.

0:05:29.760 --> 0:05:32.760
<v Speaker 2>Yes, And maybe they can't do that, but if they

0:05:32.760 --> 0:05:36.560
<v Speaker 2>can plant enough of a seed of doubt in at

0:05:36.640 --> 0:05:39.040
<v Speaker 2>least one juror's head, and that's what they need, right

0:05:39.120 --> 0:05:41.600
<v Speaker 2>one juror to be like, hmm, but how do I

0:05:41.680 --> 0:05:42.960
<v Speaker 2>know it wasn't Christine?

0:05:43.080 --> 0:05:45.840
<v Speaker 1>Okay? And a reminder of why we're here we saying

0:05:45.880 --> 0:05:48.000
<v Speaker 1>these names. I think at this point, if anybody clicked

0:05:48.120 --> 0:05:52.040
<v Speaker 1>on this episode, they're following the O Pair affair double

0:05:52.120 --> 0:05:54.800
<v Speaker 1>murder trial. But Brandon Banfield charged with killing his wife

0:05:54.880 --> 0:05:57.280
<v Speaker 1>Christine and another man by the name of Joseph Ryant. Now,

0:05:57.279 --> 0:06:00.440
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors say Banfield wanted to get rid of his wife's

0:06:00.440 --> 0:06:03.040
<v Speaker 1>so we can continue in a relationship with the families.

0:06:03.240 --> 0:06:06.680
<v Speaker 1>Then twenty one year old Brazilian Old pair, they say

0:06:06.760 --> 0:06:09.320
<v Speaker 1>Banfil and the Old Pair created a fake profile on

0:06:09.360 --> 0:06:11.919
<v Speaker 1>a fetish website in order to lure a man to

0:06:11.960 --> 0:06:14.520
<v Speaker 1>the house and then frame him for the wife's murder.

0:06:14.800 --> 0:06:17.880
<v Speaker 1>So again, we got one investigator who at least came

0:06:17.960 --> 0:06:21.320
<v Speaker 1>to some forensic conclusion that it might have been Christine

0:06:21.320 --> 0:06:23.440
<v Speaker 1>who set up that account. That was what the back

0:06:23.480 --> 0:06:26.640
<v Speaker 1>and forth was about today, And I get it, there's

0:06:26.640 --> 0:06:28.880
<v Speaker 1>some questions, there's some doubt. Is it enough to overcome

0:06:28.960 --> 0:06:30.159
<v Speaker 1>the old pair's story?

0:06:30.680 --> 0:06:30.760
<v Speaker 2>Now?

0:06:30.920 --> 0:06:33.840
<v Speaker 3>Now, yes, I mean you've got a couple of things.

0:06:33.880 --> 0:06:38.080
<v Speaker 2>Either, So if the jury is questioning the old Pairs story,

0:06:38.200 --> 0:06:41.520
<v Speaker 2>because she did have some credibility issues that the defense

0:06:41.640 --> 0:06:44.400
<v Speaker 2>was able to highlight in terms of her sweetheart deal

0:06:44.839 --> 0:06:48.479
<v Speaker 2>and the fact that she was complaining about trying to

0:06:48.480 --> 0:06:51.920
<v Speaker 2>get more money from Netflix for rights to her story,

0:06:52.560 --> 0:06:55.719
<v Speaker 2>and just the fact that she completely changed what she

0:06:55.760 --> 0:07:00.280
<v Speaker 2>told investigators after almost being in prison for a full year.

0:07:00.480 --> 0:07:02.920
<v Speaker 2>So they just questioned all of that, and those are

0:07:03.000 --> 0:07:05.880
<v Speaker 2>fair questions and it just depends on how the jury

0:07:06.920 --> 0:07:11.320
<v Speaker 2>interprets that and certainly her demeanor during cross examination.

0:07:11.400 --> 0:07:14.320
<v Speaker 1>Okay, So a key point today was about had to

0:07:14.320 --> 0:07:17.760
<v Speaker 1>do with her story. Rogues this idea of catfishing, right,

0:07:17.840 --> 0:07:23.800
<v Speaker 1>this idea of catfishing, that Joseph Ryan was catfished, it

0:07:23.840 --> 0:07:27.000
<v Speaker 1>means he was fooled into coming over. So this theory

0:07:27.040 --> 0:07:30.600
<v Speaker 1>of catfishing and when it came up in the investigation

0:07:31.360 --> 0:07:36.760
<v Speaker 1>was maybe ropes the number one argument in court today

0:07:37.920 --> 0:07:43.240
<v Speaker 1>because the defense is trying to prove that the investigation

0:07:43.560 --> 0:07:46.360
<v Speaker 1>followed a theory and not the evidence.

0:07:45.960 --> 0:07:50.160
<v Speaker 2>Correct and detective work one oh one is you follow

0:07:50.240 --> 0:07:53.200
<v Speaker 2>the evidence, not a theory. If you follow a theory first,

0:07:53.200 --> 0:07:56.440
<v Speaker 2>that you've come up with now the people would say,

0:07:56.440 --> 0:07:56.920
<v Speaker 2>then you've.

0:07:56.760 --> 0:07:57.560
<v Speaker 3>Got blinders on.

0:07:57.720 --> 0:08:02.560
<v Speaker 2>You're now not considerings of other suspects, lots of other possibilities,

0:08:02.720 --> 0:08:05.960
<v Speaker 2>because you've already developed the theory and you start looking

0:08:06.000 --> 0:08:09.960
<v Speaker 2>for evidence to match your theory versus looking at the

0:08:10.000 --> 0:08:13.240
<v Speaker 2>evidence and letting that be the theory.

0:08:13.320 --> 0:08:16.080
<v Speaker 1>Did you think they ever came or answer the question

0:08:16.160 --> 0:08:21.640
<v Speaker 1>of when catfishing became the theory? When catfishing was mentioned

0:08:21.720 --> 0:08:22.680
<v Speaker 1>or came up after her.

0:08:22.560 --> 0:08:25.000
<v Speaker 2>Death, they called several detectives to the stand who were

0:08:25.000 --> 0:08:27.520
<v Speaker 2>all trying not to answer that, and they were all saying, no,

0:08:27.600 --> 0:08:30.440
<v Speaker 2>it wasn't my theory, you know, and what me and

0:08:30.680 --> 0:08:33.720
<v Speaker 2>you know it was within a few days of the murderers.

0:08:33.840 --> 0:08:36.400
<v Speaker 2>We kind of got that ambiguous detailed. The thing that

0:08:36.440 --> 0:08:39.480
<v Speaker 2>stood out to me was when one of the detectives

0:08:39.520 --> 0:08:44.680
<v Speaker 2>said they believed the catfishing theory began when one of

0:08:44.720 --> 0:08:49.559
<v Speaker 2>the detectives overheard Brendan Banfield's young daughter, her name is

0:08:49.640 --> 0:08:53.680
<v Speaker 2>Victoria correct four years old at the time, ask the

0:08:53.800 --> 0:08:59.839
<v Speaker 2>au pair, Juliana, can I call you mommy? And that

0:09:00.760 --> 0:09:02.920
<v Speaker 2>is the point in which this detective said, a light

0:09:02.960 --> 0:09:05.600
<v Speaker 2>bulb went off, And I think maybe that's when they

0:09:05.640 --> 0:09:08.920
<v Speaker 2>started to think, Wait a minute, are the O Pair

0:09:09.120 --> 0:09:12.720
<v Speaker 2>and Brendan Banfield in a relationship? Could something be going

0:09:12.760 --> 0:09:16.760
<v Speaker 2>on here? Could they have conspired to create this whole theory?

0:09:16.800 --> 0:09:22.079
<v Speaker 2>And so that was the best indication that I heard

0:09:22.240 --> 0:09:27.200
<v Speaker 2>in court today or explanation as to when and how

0:09:27.600 --> 0:09:29.559
<v Speaker 2>someone first came up with this catfishing theory.

0:09:29.720 --> 0:09:32.600
<v Speaker 1>Okay, we hear when and how they came up with

0:09:32.640 --> 0:09:37.319
<v Speaker 1>this theory, but it was a little I guess, peculiar

0:09:37.440 --> 0:09:42.320
<v Speaker 1>robes the witness who actually revealed the whole story about

0:09:42.400 --> 0:09:45.160
<v Speaker 1>can I call you mommy? Stay here? We'll explain that

0:09:45.240 --> 0:09:49.880
<v Speaker 1>when we come back. Also, why we're so many investigators

0:09:50.400 --> 0:09:55.480
<v Speaker 1>moved off this case without explanation, Well, the prosecutors had

0:09:55.480 --> 0:10:08.400
<v Speaker 1>an explanation. Stare we continue here this update on the

0:10:08.520 --> 0:10:11.839
<v Speaker 1>so called oh Pair, A fair double murder trial going

0:10:11.840 --> 0:10:15.920
<v Speaker 1>on in Fairfax County, Virginia. Brandon Banfield on trial. Ropes

0:10:15.960 --> 0:10:18.760
<v Speaker 1>to his defense is putting on its case, doing the

0:10:18.760 --> 0:10:21.960
<v Speaker 1>best it can. But this case could be wrapped. Their

0:10:22.000 --> 0:10:24.920
<v Speaker 1>case could be wrapped by tomorrow. Testimony could rap tomorrow.

0:10:24.920 --> 0:10:26.760
<v Speaker 1>We don't know, depending on what happens with this storm.

0:10:26.800 --> 0:10:29.680
<v Speaker 1>You were talking about Ropes, how they this catfish theory

0:10:29.720 --> 0:10:33.880
<v Speaker 1>and when it came about, and they thought maybe it

0:10:34.000 --> 0:10:39.040
<v Speaker 1>came up when the child Victoria was overheard saying to

0:10:39.040 --> 0:10:42.000
<v Speaker 1>the old pair after the bomb was killed, can I

0:10:42.040 --> 0:10:44.400
<v Speaker 1>call you mommy now? And or it was are you

0:10:44.480 --> 0:10:45.040
<v Speaker 1>going to.

0:10:46.600 --> 0:10:49.200
<v Speaker 2>Are you going to marry my daddy? And then the

0:10:49.200 --> 0:10:52.480
<v Speaker 2>old pair responded, I wish.

0:10:51.840 --> 0:10:56.160
<v Speaker 1>So someone an employee overheard all this. Now, Why was

0:10:56.200 --> 0:10:59.640
<v Speaker 1>it that the person telling this on the stand was

0:10:59.679 --> 0:11:04.040
<v Speaker 1>the Victim Services witness. She worked with Victim Services. She

0:11:04.200 --> 0:11:06.079
<v Speaker 1>was there not as an investigator, but as someone to

0:11:06.200 --> 0:11:10.040
<v Speaker 1>help the child because of the traumatic situation. Yes, so

0:11:10.280 --> 0:11:14.920
<v Speaker 1>none of the investigators mentioned that no one could tell

0:11:14.960 --> 0:11:18.080
<v Speaker 1>where the theory of catfishing came from. So even the

0:11:18.200 --> 0:11:22.160
<v Speaker 1>victim Services person was up there trying to well, maybe

0:11:22.160 --> 0:11:24.320
<v Speaker 1>it was this, Maybe it was that. I think it

0:11:24.360 --> 0:11:25.960
<v Speaker 1>was talked about after it.

0:11:26.720 --> 0:11:27.600
<v Speaker 3>I was bizarre.

0:11:27.760 --> 0:11:30.240
<v Speaker 1>I thought they had so many people up there and said, hey,

0:11:30.440 --> 0:11:31.560
<v Speaker 1>I don't know where it came from.

0:11:32.280 --> 0:11:36.720
<v Speaker 2>It is interesting because there and then there was a

0:11:36.760 --> 0:11:39.760
<v Speaker 2>discussion about did you celebrate when when the nanny when

0:11:39.760 --> 0:11:44.160
<v Speaker 2>the OA pair finally did say this version of events

0:11:44.160 --> 0:11:46.200
<v Speaker 2>where you all like high fiving each other. There were

0:11:46.240 --> 0:11:49.800
<v Speaker 2>some texts apparently among the detectives kind of saying.

0:11:49.679 --> 0:11:51.040
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I knew it, I got it.

0:11:51.280 --> 0:11:53.400
<v Speaker 2>But the whole point was, and the defense is trying

0:11:53.440 --> 0:11:58.080
<v Speaker 2>to point out that the detectives fairly early on created

0:11:58.320 --> 0:12:01.640
<v Speaker 2>or came up with this version of events, this narrative,

0:12:01.679 --> 0:12:05.040
<v Speaker 2>this theory, and then try to make the evidence fit

0:12:05.200 --> 0:12:08.160
<v Speaker 2>this theory. And so that is why the defense is

0:12:08.160 --> 0:12:12.839
<v Speaker 2>saying they moved that detective ought because he wasn't fitting

0:12:12.880 --> 0:12:15.839
<v Speaker 2>in their theory. The lead investigator was also moved off

0:12:15.880 --> 0:12:16.840
<v Speaker 2>because he.

0:12:17.120 --> 0:12:19.360
<v Speaker 3>Wasn't agreeing with their theory.

0:12:19.440 --> 0:12:23.280
<v Speaker 2>So that is a disturbing bit of evidence that the

0:12:23.320 --> 0:12:28.319
<v Speaker 2>defense is now starting to establish that is making some headway.

0:12:29.400 --> 0:12:32.240
<v Speaker 1>I I'm listening, they got my attention with that, at

0:12:32.320 --> 0:12:34.120
<v Speaker 1>least if it's going to overcome the other stuff, I

0:12:34.120 --> 0:12:37.359
<v Speaker 1>don't know, But roads it was a lot of investigators.

0:12:37.360 --> 0:12:39.440
<v Speaker 1>Now the prosecution got up and say, yes, this is

0:12:39.480 --> 0:12:42.040
<v Speaker 1>a case that goes on for a year, two years.

0:12:42.280 --> 0:12:45.440
<v Speaker 1>Investigators come and go, they get transferred, they get promoted,

0:12:45.480 --> 0:12:50.320
<v Speaker 1>they get demoted. Okay, but the ones who got off

0:12:50.360 --> 0:12:52.480
<v Speaker 1>this case sure didn't seem to be in line with

0:12:52.520 --> 0:12:54.520
<v Speaker 1>the theory, and that's floating problem.

0:12:54.559 --> 0:12:57.360
<v Speaker 2>And then so this also falls right in line with

0:12:57.440 --> 0:13:00.600
<v Speaker 2>what the defense was trying to do across examining with

0:13:00.679 --> 0:13:04.040
<v Speaker 2>Juliana the O pair, because he was saying to her,

0:13:04.760 --> 0:13:08.320
<v Speaker 2>read this that you wrote before your sweetheart deal, and

0:13:08.360 --> 0:13:12.439
<v Speaker 2>it was a very different tone. Now read this after

0:13:12.520 --> 0:13:16.240
<v Speaker 2>you get your sweetheart deal. And when you testified what

0:13:16.280 --> 0:13:19.880
<v Speaker 2>you claim happened. Did you read what the prosecution told

0:13:19.920 --> 0:13:22.280
<v Speaker 2>you to say first? Did they fill in the details

0:13:22.320 --> 0:13:25.760
<v Speaker 2>and say here's what happened. Read this, So if they'd

0:13:25.800 --> 0:13:29.800
<v Speaker 2>already created this theory, the presentation to the jury by

0:13:29.800 --> 0:13:32.920
<v Speaker 2>the defense is yeah, that's exactly what happened. And then

0:13:32.960 --> 0:13:36.839
<v Speaker 2>they finally broke the O pair after imprisoning her and

0:13:37.120 --> 0:13:39.360
<v Speaker 2>throwing the book at her and you know, murder charges,

0:13:39.400 --> 0:13:41.679
<v Speaker 2>and then dangled this, Hey, you want to get out

0:13:41.679 --> 0:13:44.079
<v Speaker 2>of jail free card, even though you admitted that you

0:13:44.120 --> 0:13:48.720
<v Speaker 2>pulled a trigger and killed someone. Just read this version

0:13:48.720 --> 0:13:51.440
<v Speaker 2>of events in court and you'll get your get out

0:13:51.480 --> 0:13:52.320
<v Speaker 2>of jail free card.

0:13:52.440 --> 0:13:54.400
<v Speaker 1>You should forward that to the defense. That's not a

0:13:54.400 --> 0:14:00.400
<v Speaker 1>bad closing. It was sarcastic, it was demonstrative, but that is.

0:14:00.120 --> 0:14:03.160
<v Speaker 2>What they're establishing now, and they're starting now. It's starting

0:14:03.200 --> 0:14:07.120
<v Speaker 2>to make sense. Finally, the third time, they've called this detective.

0:14:07.400 --> 0:14:08.360
<v Speaker 1>Ye, what they're going on?

0:14:08.440 --> 0:14:10.600
<v Speaker 3>I feel like you're getting to the point now.

0:14:10.840 --> 0:14:14.640
<v Speaker 1>No, with that another effective part of Brendon Miller, this detective,

0:14:17.080 --> 0:14:21.440
<v Speaker 1>he said, he admitted, if I'm not sitting there with

0:14:21.520 --> 0:14:23.440
<v Speaker 1>the phone, then I can't tell you who was on

0:14:23.520 --> 0:14:27.160
<v Speaker 1>the phone. Fine, he said, but I followed digital evidence,

0:14:27.640 --> 0:14:30.360
<v Speaker 1>and all we had was digital evidence, and that digital

0:14:30.400 --> 0:14:34.800
<v Speaker 1>evidence led me to this conclusion. Okay, cool, So another

0:14:34.840 --> 0:14:37.200
<v Speaker 1>detective was up there and they're trying to get them

0:14:37.240 --> 0:14:43.760
<v Speaker 1>to admit when did you all stop following digital evidence?

0:14:45.640 --> 0:14:48.640
<v Speaker 1>And the best story is well, when the old pair

0:14:48.960 --> 0:14:52.360
<v Speaker 1>changed her story. So the argument of the theory there rose.

0:14:52.440 --> 0:14:56.520
<v Speaker 1>Then why does the word of a woman who has

0:14:56.520 --> 0:15:02.680
<v Speaker 1>an incentive to lie count more than digital evidence counts?

0:15:02.800 --> 0:15:06.560
<v Speaker 3>You should tell that to him? Closes as well.

0:15:06.880 --> 0:15:10.360
<v Speaker 1>I thought that was a good point. It is because

0:15:10.400 --> 0:15:14.720
<v Speaker 1>the detectives didn't necessarily answer that question for me. You

0:15:14.760 --> 0:15:17.520
<v Speaker 1>can't prove Christine was on the phone because of the

0:15:17.560 --> 0:15:20.160
<v Speaker 1>digital evidence. You can't prove she was off the phone

0:15:20.200 --> 0:15:22.600
<v Speaker 1>because of the digital evidence. So why should we give

0:15:22.720 --> 0:15:25.960
<v Speaker 1>more weight to the old pair story. She's the one

0:15:26.000 --> 0:15:27.560
<v Speaker 1>telling us it's in Christine's hand.

0:15:27.680 --> 0:15:31.680
<v Speaker 2>This entire the prosecution's entire case is resting on that

0:15:31.880 --> 0:15:34.640
<v Speaker 2>pair and whether or not the jurors believe her.

0:15:34.680 --> 0:15:40.400
<v Speaker 1>Okay, she's probably believable, believable enough, Alison Treesel said.

0:15:40.640 --> 0:15:42.840
<v Speaker 2>I like what Alison Treesel said. So she's a criminal

0:15:42.880 --> 0:15:45.280
<v Speaker 2>defense attorney. We've been talking to her a lot on

0:15:45.320 --> 0:15:48.280
<v Speaker 2>our other feet, Amy and TJ Presents in case anybody

0:15:48.360 --> 0:15:49.640
<v Speaker 2>wants to jump over.

0:15:49.560 --> 0:15:53.320
<v Speaker 3>To that, uh, that podcast.

0:15:53.600 --> 0:15:56.640
<v Speaker 2>But she recently told us that I like the way

0:15:56.680 --> 0:16:02.120
<v Speaker 2>she put it. The old pair isn't likable, but she's believable.

0:16:02.480 --> 0:16:04.640
<v Speaker 3>That's and she said.

0:16:04.680 --> 0:16:08.880
<v Speaker 2>Maybe not everything she's saying, but I generally believe her,

0:16:08.920 --> 0:16:11.239
<v Speaker 2>even though I don't like her because of her attitude

0:16:11.280 --> 0:16:13.760
<v Speaker 2>and some of the stuff she's done and said, and

0:16:13.880 --> 0:16:16.280
<v Speaker 2>certainly the fact that she did a full abad face.

0:16:17.320 --> 0:16:19.040
<v Speaker 3>But I thought that was a good way to put it.

0:16:20.120 --> 0:16:24.160
<v Speaker 1>I think that's that's probably it. Man. This is a

0:16:24.200 --> 0:16:25.880
<v Speaker 1>fascinating one. Just wanted to hop on and give the

0:16:25.960 --> 0:16:30.560
<v Speaker 1>update because they wrapped. They rapped a little later tonight.

0:16:30.640 --> 0:16:33.680
<v Speaker 1>They wrapped up at five thirty. They usually they weren't

0:16:33.680 --> 0:16:36.280
<v Speaker 1>supposed to be having trial on Fridays, but the judge

0:16:36.320 --> 0:16:38.480
<v Speaker 1>again got him in on Friday, trying to get it in.

0:16:38.520 --> 0:16:40.920
<v Speaker 1>She said, they'll stay late tomorrow. She really wants to

0:16:41.040 --> 0:16:44.240
<v Speaker 1>end testimony tomorrow. The defense attorney, I don't put a

0:16:44.280 --> 0:16:44.680
<v Speaker 1>lot of faith.

0:16:44.800 --> 0:16:45.480
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, he didn't.

0:16:45.520 --> 0:16:48.640
<v Speaker 2>He was not giving her a lot of comfort there.

0:16:48.680 --> 0:16:51.520
<v Speaker 2>He was like, i'll try, is what he said.

0:16:52.000 --> 0:16:52.840
<v Speaker 3>She didn't really like that.

0:16:52.920 --> 0:16:55.040
<v Speaker 1>It was as uncertain as some of his questions.

0:16:55.240 --> 0:16:56.680
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, yes, that's a good way to put it.

0:16:56.720 --> 0:16:58.800
<v Speaker 1>Folks, will keep you updated. We always appreciate you hoving

0:16:58.880 --> 0:17:00.800
<v Speaker 1>on here with us. For now. I am T. J.

0:17:00.920 --> 0:17:03.400
<v Speaker 1>Holmes On behalf of my dear Emmy Robot will talk

0:17:03.400 --> 0:17:05.919
<v Speaker 1>to you also.

0:17:16.640 --> 0:17:16.680
<v Speaker 3>M