Speaker 1: It's the latest turn in a battle by Montgomery County
Speaker 1: Prosecutor John McCarthy to get Hoggle declared competent to stand trial,
Speaker 1: despite doctor's opinions that she's not. Hogel has been in
Speaker 1: a secure state psychiatric hospital since the children's disappearance in
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen. Their bodies have never been found, and.
Speaker 2: April doctors report at Hogle's competency is unrestorable. The state's
Speaker 2: attorney's office has continuously challenged this conclusion.
Speaker 3: It's November twenty twenty two, and Catherine Hoggle, charged with
Speaker 3: two counts of murder, has been considered incompetent for nearly
Speaker 3: five years.
Speaker 2: The Montgomery County community has wondered what happened to three
Speaker 2: year old Sarah and two year old Jacob. Their mother,
Speaker 2: thirty six year old Katherine Hoggele, was the last person
Speaker 2: seen with them. She was charged with murder after refusing,
Speaker 2: police say to share any information about their whereabouts.
Speaker 3: The media following the case has ebbed and flowed over
Speaker 3: the years since the kids disappeared, but this week they
Speaker 3: are back in full force. In three days, murder charges
Speaker 3: will be dropped against Catherine Hoggele if she is not
Speaker 3: found competent to stand twile this is according to state law.
Speaker 4: Hey really down to the wire here, huh Yeah.
Speaker 5: Three days of.
Speaker 3: Hearings, Sarah and I are catching up with Troy Turner,
Speaker 3: his wife Stephanie, and their friend and lawyer, Matt Alleged.
Speaker 6: It's just really overwhelming. I don't know.
Speaker 7: I mean, I think she's going to be out. I
Speaker 7: just think she's going to be out, and I.
Speaker 5: Think that's the wrong thing.
Speaker 8: I think that society looks at her as a child murderer,
Speaker 8: and so they're like, dude, we'll never let someone like
Speaker 8: her out.
Speaker 9: But that's just not the way the world works.
Speaker 5: My read is that it doesn't look good.
Speaker 3: Over three days, Judge James Bonifront has been hearing testimony
Speaker 3: about whether or not Catherine could capably assist her attorney
Speaker 3: in her own defense. As part of the state's argument,
Speaker 3: prosecutors asked the judge to go back and watch tapes
Speaker 3: of Catherine during this and prior hearings to pay attention
Speaker 3: to her interactions with her attorney, David Felson, her attentiveness
Speaker 3: and body language.
Speaker 5: During the cross examination.
Speaker 1: She's sitting there yelling at the attorney, pulling him over,
Speaker 1: pointing at notes telling him things.
Speaker 10: The last day she came in, she brought in a
Speaker 10: piece of paper to Felson, handed to him where she
Speaker 10: had highlighted things for him.
Speaker 1: I mean that's where I keep going.
Speaker 4: Well, there has to be at least some chance because
Speaker 4: they were literally doing in front of him what they're
Speaker 4: saying they can't do.
Speaker 11: All right, Well, well you really await news and thank
Speaker 11: you for your time again tonight.
Speaker 2: Thanks thanks Bie.
Speaker 3: I'm Beth Carris and this is Unrestorable, an original podcast
Speaker 3: from anonymous content and iHeartRadio.
Speaker 5: So doctor Brown, would you please raise your right hand
Speaker 5: and listen to the courtroom clerk.
Speaker 12: Please THEMSLF swear or firma the bounties a perjurb that
Speaker 12: the response is giving us think it's maybe the whole
Speaker 12: truth or nothing but the truth.
Speaker 5: He thank you.
Speaker 3: This is the hearing Troy has been pushing for for
Speaker 3: more than eight years. He wants Catherine questioned by a judge,
Speaker 3: her competency examined by a court outside of what he
Speaker 3: sees as her protectors at Perkins. He's been trying to
Speaker 3: convince anyone who will listen that Catherine needs to be
Speaker 3: held accountable. This competency hearing is his last chance. If
Speaker 3: she is yet again determined to be not competent to
Speaker 3: stand trial, the murder charges will be dismissed in advance
Speaker 3: of the December first deadline, and Troy's determination to have
Speaker 3: her charged with his children's murders will be defeated. Maybe
Speaker 3: for good.
Speaker 5: Doctor Stationer, informing Adam Brown, thank you.
Speaker 3: Doctor Adam Brown, a psychiatrist at Clipton T. Perkins Psychiatric Hospital,
Speaker 3: is the doctor who most recently evaluated Catherine and concluded
Speaker 3: she was incompetent.
Speaker 5: When you conducted your evaluation of miss Hovell.
Speaker 3: What diagnosis did you confirm, doctor Brown, is being questioned
Speaker 3: by David Felson, Catherine's attorney.
Speaker 12: I confirm the diagnosis of schizophrenia any other diagnosis. She
Speaker 12: also has diagnoses of a major depressive disorder and generalized
Speaker 12: anxiety disorder.
Speaker 11: And are the psychotic related manifestations concerning that diagnosis, Yes,
Speaker 11: there are.
Speaker 5: Can you explain to the court what is psychosis?
Speaker 12: So in a general sin psychosis is the main product
Speaker 12: of schizophrenia's kind of the syndroom that schizophrenia produces, so
Speaker 12: generally that in a nutshell is disconnection from reality and
Speaker 12: one or more ways you know, they're commonly understood disconnects
Speaker 12: are auditory hallucinations or visual hallucination.
Speaker 11: Someone with psychosis, as you've described, says it manifests itself
Speaker 11: with miss Hoggle. Can they answer questions like who's the judge?
Speaker 11: What the charges are against you? In other words, what
Speaker 11: we've been calling sort of the prong one question.
Speaker 12: Yes, they can, As in my report, in some of
Speaker 12: the examples of miss Hoggle answering those questions, she might
Speaker 12: initially answer the question correctly, albeit maybe superficially. It is
Speaker 12: just kind of a generalization for most of her responses
Speaker 12: during my assessment, But then she would derail, as a
Speaker 12: term used for it. She would move on to another
Speaker 12: topic that was either loosely related or.
Speaker 5: Not related at all to the prior question.
Speaker 12: So, even when she answered the question appropriately, if allowed
Speaker 12: to continue to remove very far our way from the response.
Speaker 5: That was needed.
Speaker 3: This question of derailing is key to the insistence that
Speaker 3: Catherine is not competent to assist counsel. That while she might,
Speaker 3: upon superficial examination appear capable and aware, that appearance masks
Speaker 3: a highly disoriented core that prevents her from grappling with
Speaker 3: anything beyond the most basic question. From what doctor Brown describes,
Speaker 3: she just isn't capable of providing the kind of complex
Speaker 3: information required to defend herself against murder charges, information like
Speaker 3: alibi witnesses and exculpatory evidence. But for the prosecution, the
Speaker 3: question isn't one of Catherine's capacities. It's what she's willing
Speaker 3: and unwilling to do. And this is the tag Assistant
Speaker 3: State's Attorney Ryan Wexler takes as she cross examines doctor Brown.
Speaker 8: It's certainly possible that Miss Hoggle is making a choice
Speaker 8: to derail because she doesn't want to answer questions about
Speaker 8: her case.
Speaker 3: That's possible, isn't it.
Speaker 5: It's possible, but I don't think that's what's going on.
Speaker 8: You heard mister Turner testify last week, right, and that
Speaker 8: he testified that Miss Hoggle told him that she was
Speaker 8: advised to stay incompetent.
Speaker 7: I call that.
Speaker 3: Yes, Troy Turner isn't the only person who has noted
Speaker 3: that Catherine has expressed interest in remaining incompetent. Another psychiatrist
Speaker 3: at Perkins, doctor Christian Tullibson, also examined Catherine.
Speaker 8: And were you also aware that in doctor Tollisson's report
Speaker 8: when doctor Tollison talked to Miss Hoggle. Miss Hoggel told
Speaker 8: her she did not want to become competent. Were you
Speaker 8: aware of that?
Speaker 5: No, I've not read doctor Tullison's report.
Speaker 8: That if miss Hoggle stays incompetent, her case will be
Speaker 8: dismissed by the court.
Speaker 3: Right sure, Doctor Brown was a witness for Catherine's side.
Speaker 3: Doctor Tullison was called by the state.
Speaker 10: You know, competency is in the moment, it's in the
Speaker 10: here and now, But it's also a question of their
Speaker 10: capacity to be competent. So we're looking at somebody's underlying
Speaker 10: abilities to sort of rise to the occasion. You know,
Speaker 10: can they you know, can they pull themselves together if
Speaker 10: they have to? So I'm looking I'm looking at the
Speaker 10: how you know, like, what what have they been doing
Speaker 10: in the past. How does that affect their ability to,
Speaker 10: you know, be able to pull themselves together at certain
Speaker 10: times for their court proceedings.
Speaker 6: Is there a difference between capacity and willingness to become confident?
Speaker 10: In your opinions, plenty of defendants are fully capable of
Speaker 10: being competent, But will you know, exhibit all sorts of
Speaker 10: symptoms in order to.
Speaker 5: Not be competent?
Speaker 3: Doctor Tellibson was also questioned about whether doctor Brown's assessment
Speaker 3: was sufficient. He spent ninety minutes with Catherine, and that
Speaker 3: was seven months prior to this hearing.
Speaker 6: In the course of a normal evaluation for competency, would
Speaker 6: you feel comfortable announcing an opinion relative to competency if
Speaker 6: you had not seen the patient for seven months.
Speaker 10: I could talk about what I thought the defendant was
Speaker 10: like seven months ago. But you know, sometimes it depends
Speaker 10: on the defendant. Because I've certainly had patients or defendants
Speaker 10: at Clifton T. Perkins who were exactly the same from
Speaker 10: year to year to year, and so you know, seven months.
Speaker 5: Is not going to make that much of a difference.
Speaker 5: But when you have a defendant or a patient who
Speaker 5: is doing.
Speaker 10: Education trials, or situations changing, or things are revolving in
Speaker 10: their case, then you would want to revisit them right
Speaker 10: before their court appearments.
Speaker 6: If there was evidence in the records that you were
Speaker 6: examining that suggested that the defendant that you were evaluating
Speaker 6: refused to answer questions that were asked of them because
Speaker 6: they were following the advice of their counsel not to
Speaker 6: answer the question.
Speaker 5: Would you consider that in terms of competency.
Speaker 10: I think that would be evidence of their ability to
Speaker 10: work with their.
Speaker 3: Attorney up to this point. After new where is hearings,
Speaker 3: dozens of reports, years in a psychiatric hospital. What we
Speaker 3: know about Catherine we know through others. This hearing would
Speaker 3: bring something different to the table.
Speaker 5: What are your name?
Speaker 7: Happened Ashley Hackel?
Speaker 3: This hearing would have a judge ask Catherine questions directly.
Speaker 5: Thank you? How old are you? Thirty six? What's your birthday?
Speaker 5: Eleven thirteen eighty six? Do you know what evidence is?
Speaker 13: Yes, sir, mat don't want you tell me anything about
Speaker 13: circumstances in this case, but generally, what is evidence?
Speaker 7: Something that makes things, something that's used for a case,
Speaker 7: good or bad.
Speaker 13: When someone is charged with crime, should they talk to
Speaker 13: an attorney?
Speaker 5: I'm not sure.
Speaker 3: When prosecutors pushed the judge to question Catherine, they submitted
Speaker 3: more than a hundred questions they suggested he use to
Speaker 3: assess her competency.
Speaker 5: Do you know what attorneys do?
Speaker 4: Yes, sir?
Speaker 5: Tell me what attorneys.
Speaker 7: Do they prosecute or defend station? I mean a client?
Speaker 5: What should an attorney know what happened at the alleged crime?
Speaker 3: Catherine isn't under oath, and this isn't a criminal trial,
Speaker 3: but the consequences our major. If the court upholds the
Speaker 3: repeated conclusions of incompetency by the doctors at Perkins, then
Speaker 3: the charges will be dismissed.
Speaker 5: Is there anything else that they should know?
Speaker 7: I can't think of anything right now. I'm not very
Speaker 7: good at public speaking.
Speaker 5: Have you ever heard of the phrase attorney client privilege? Yes, sir,
Speaker 5: what do you think that means?
Speaker 7: It's private conversation with you and your attorney?
Speaker 5: Okay, thank you very much, man, thank you.
Speaker 3: And then it was over. The interaction you just heard
Speaker 3: isn't a small clip of the exchange between Catherine and
Speaker 3: the judge. It's the sum of his questions for her,
Speaker 3: eleven questions in total. Even More, each of his questions
Speaker 3: appeared related to the first prong of competency, that she
Speaker 3: understands the sys and charges and proceedings, something her lawyer
Speaker 3: has already conceded. It was impossible to guess what Judge
Speaker 3: Bonifront would do with this information. What he saw when
Speaker 3: he looked at Catherine Hoggle slightly slumped in her seat,
Speaker 3: what he heard when she answered his questions capably, Though,
Speaker 3: not without some hesitance and with a certain childlike simplicity.
Speaker 3: Were these the answers of a woman who couldn't see
Speaker 3: through a fog of mental illness? Were they the words
Speaker 3: of a woman who has been scheming, manipulating, lingering, and
Speaker 3: ultimately prevailing over any number of medical professionals for the
Speaker 3: last eight years. Everyone in the courtroom listened intently, but
Speaker 3: maybe most of all was Troy. He was sitting just
Speaker 3: feet away, closely watching every move, clocking every statement. Catherine
Speaker 3: made a slow reel of eight years of surreal history
Speaker 3: flashing through his mind. But all Troy could do was
Speaker 3: wait for the afternoon of November thirtieth, twenty twenty two,
Speaker 3: when Judge Bonavent delivered his decision.
Speaker 5: All right, thank you, everyone, Please have a scene. All right, everyone.
Speaker 13: The first issue before the court is whether the defendant,
Speaker 13: Catherine Hoggele, is presently component to stand trial.
Speaker 3: If the judge decides that Catherine is competent, contradicting the
Speaker 3: repeated findings of several doctors at Perkins, then she will
Speaker 3: be arraigned on murder charges in the deaths of Jacob
Speaker 3: and Sarah, setting up a rare no body double homicide prosecution.
Speaker 13: Pursuant to an indictment handed down September fourteen, twenty seventeen.
Speaker 13: Defendant faces two counts of murder. The defendant is charged
Speaker 13: with first two murder of her two children, Sarah and Jacob.
Speaker 13: The court does not find the state has met its
Speaker 13: burdened beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the fact
Speaker 13: that has now been five years since the first finding
Speaker 13: of dependence and competency. Count one and two of the
Speaker 13: indictment are dismissed.
Speaker 3: And with that the murder charges against Catherine Hoggele are gone.
Speaker 13: The court finds the defendant meets their criteria for involuntary confinement.
Speaker 13: Prestuan to Section three one O sixty one.
Speaker 3: Catherine will not be released. She will be remanded to
Speaker 3: Perkins until she's deemed no longer a threat to herself
Speaker 3: or others, but she will be outside of the purview
Speaker 3: of the criminal justice system. Now she's just another patient.
Speaker 13: She has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, and
Speaker 13: general anxiety disorder. She suffers from chronics symptoms of impaired judgment,
Speaker 13: poor insight, paranoia, and disorganized thinking. Without the structure and
Speaker 13: stability of a hospital setting, she would be a danger
Speaker 13: to herself for others. Given the limited insight into illness
Speaker 13: and her desire to discontinue her medications, she is unwilling
Speaker 13: and unable to sign a voluntary treatment agreement. There is
Speaker 13: no less restrictive environment that is consistent with her welfare
Speaker 13: and safety.
Speaker 3: After the judge is finished delivering his decision, he invites
Speaker 3: Troy to speak to the court.
Speaker 5: Mister Turnham, Yes, sir, thank you.
Speaker 3: After taking a moment to collect himself, Troy stands. He's
Speaker 3: wearing a t shirt with Sarah and Jacob's pictures on it.
Speaker 3: Sarah and Jacob are smiling sweetly at the camera, maybe
Speaker 3: at their dad.
Speaker 4: This is a travesty, and my kids are gone. She's gone,
Speaker 4: going with her lafe. My kids don't have one. They
Speaker 4: were two and three when they were taken, and everything
Speaker 4: that they were ever going to be or accomplished.
Speaker 5: Is taken from them by her.
Speaker 4: And now I have to sit here and listen to
Speaker 4: charges to get dropped, and her rights.
Speaker 5: Are being talented. Where are my kids rights?
Speaker 4: Where are the children advice to be safe? Where's anyone's rights?
Speaker 4: And this whole system other than a criminal like her
Speaker 4: and I'm telling you right now, I'm not disregarding that
Speaker 4: she is mentally ill. I know that I personally have
Speaker 4: had her committed. But what I can tell you is
Speaker 4: there was a lot of lies told in this court,
Speaker 4: none of them by me, but.
Speaker 5: That has all now prevailed. I do appreciate you. I
Speaker 5: don't mean any disrespect to you or your sport. But
Speaker 5: the system's broken and it's got to change. Thank you.
Speaker 3: A little while later, the state's attorney held a press
Speaker 3: conference in front of the courthouse.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 6: My name is John McCarthy. I'm a states attorney from
Speaker 6: Montgomery County. The charges were dismissed against her today by
Speaker 6: Judge Bonifitt in court about five minutes ago, but there
Speaker 6: still remains several important points for the community to know
Speaker 6: about this matter. Missago will not be free in the community,
Speaker 6: as we just witnessed a few minutes ago. She will
Speaker 6: be involuntarily committed by an order assigned by this judge
Speaker 6: because she remains a danger to herself for others.
Speaker 9: She is committed by court order today today we have
Speaker 9: the right to recharge. There is no double jeopardy that
Speaker 9: applies here.
Speaker 6: This is not a double jeopardy situation, the state has
Speaker 6: the right to recharge. I will tell you, as long
Speaker 6: as I'm state's attorney, it would be my intent, if
Speaker 6: she is a judge, to be safe to we turned
Speaker 6: to the community, the circumstances would be such that we
Speaker 6: would recharge her, even if we have to revisit the
Speaker 6: issue of competency again. My personal hope is that we
Speaker 6: will not have justice ultimately denied but merely delayed.
Speaker 3: The next day, Sarah and I jumped on a plane
Speaker 3: and headed to Maryland. Next time Unrestorable, we dive into
Speaker 3: the biggest remaining question what happened to Sarah and Jacob,
Speaker 3: as far.
Speaker 4: As where their bodies are as a mystery, as far
Speaker 4: as what happened, who took them, who did it? There's
Speaker 4: no mystery there.
Speaker 5: When we first got as she had dirt under her fingernails,
Speaker 5: like it.
Speaker 2: Looks like she was in the bloods.
Speaker 11: So there's still a part of me that thinks, hey,
Speaker 11: they're still out there and maybe.
Speaker 5: We just passed on.
Speaker 3: Unrestorable is executive produced and hosted by me Beth Carris
Speaker 3: and Sarah Trelevin. Our story editor is Kathleen Goldhar. Mixing
Speaker 3: and sound designed by Mitchell Stewart for Anonymous content. Jessica
Speaker 3: Grimshaw is our executive producer, Jennifer Sears is our executive
Speaker 3: in charge of production, and Nick Yaniez is our legal council.
Speaker 3: For iHeart executive producer Christina Everett and supervising producer Abu
Speaker 3: Zapfhar