A (2:45)

And.

B (2:45)

But I thought he wasn't very believable. Like the prosecutor said in closing, he kept saying, unbelievable. This is unbelievable. He's unbelievable. Which he wasn't. Again, looking at the evidence that doesn't support what he has to say. But it wasn't that dramatic. I didn't think in the testimony, but maybe we've seen too many high profile trials like you've been on. You know,

A (3:07)

that could be. But I felt the same way. It's like when I first heard her. Now, obviously, you know, I'm watching it in sequence. So you have the opportunity to hear her first before, before you get to him. And of course he has the opportunity to hear her as well. So, you know, he can answer to some of the things that she says in a way that she's not able to do. So. So that makes it a little bit different. But as I listened to her, I was very surprised that I was not overly moved by her. I thought this would be this horrific situation. And the way she told the story, it was almost this sort of rote flat way. And I, I just, as I listened to both of them, I did really not find one more compelling than the other. And if I looked at both of them, I would look at this case and I would probably say, ty goes to the defense, but changes. That for me is the testimony of his biological son who is not her child. And when he got up and he testified to dad calling me, dad telling me he tried to kill her, dad telling me to take care of my younger siblings, dad telling me that he was going to kill himself and try to get away from the police. I mean, at that point, I think it's very difficult to say that that's not the testimony that moves the needle dramatically.

B (4:24)

It's a game changer. I mean, that, that was a bombshell of when he's credible. This is his dad, this is his stepmom, and it was on FaceTime. So he could see the demeanor of his dad. He remembered every word, you know, seared in his memory. It was over at that point. In my opinion, as a lawyer and as a juror. I mean, if I were defending this case, I'd be under council table. I'd be like, now what do I do? I mean, how do you, how do you say he's a liar, that's, you know, that's your client's own son, that he's mistaken. How could he be mistaken on something that dramatic? And finally, he's in the courtroom in front of all of these people, and he's brave enough to get up there, point the finger at his dad and say, he's a murderer. Because he told me so. Attempted murderer, we should say.

A (5:08)

Yeah. And I always look at these things, and I think, okay, what would be the motive for him to lie? Right? Because you have to think about every witness's motive for getting up there. And, you know, I'm thinking, okay, maybe the defense is going to try to get up and say that they had a fraught relationship or there was a problem. But then I came back to, well, wait a minute. The one person dad chooses to call is him, so their relationship had to be pretty decent, Right? Because otherwise, if you don't have a good relationship with him, he's probably not the one that you're picking up the phone to call.

B (5:41)

Yeah, exactly. I, you know, I really feel for him, you know, and what a horrible thing he had to go through in this case. I mean, what. Why his dad didn't attempt some kind of a plea bargain or something else, I don't know. Because, you know, he's looking at a very extreme sentence if he's convicted, which I think he probably will be.

A (6:00)

Well, and that's what I. And I agree with you, and that's what I wanted to talk to you about. Like, obviously, the defense knows this testimony is coming. They know his son is getting up there, and they know what his son is going to say. So what do you think it was that. That. That stopped this, the dad, from saying, you know what? I'm going to take a plea? Do you think it's just complete and utter ego? I know some of my colleagues think that he wanted the world to know she was having an affair. And so he was gonna do anything that he had to do to get up on the stand and say, you know, whether it was emotional or not, she's the one that was cheating. And I just don't understand how, like, what has to go through your mind for you to think that that's enough of a. Or that you are gonna garner so much sympathy that a jury's gonna say not guilty.

B (6:51)

Yeah, I think that's such a great point because she hasn't been punished enough in his mind, like, he tried all these different ways to punish her and expose her for, like, this terrible thing she did to this narcissist that how could she have an emotional affair or anything else? And he tried to Expose her in all these different ways, and nothing works. So just do it in a courtroom, all over the international news now. I mean, maybe that's the satisfaction. Does he want empathy? I just think he wants revenge. I think he just wants her to suffer. And that's just my read from him. I don't know him from Adam, but he sure seems to be a narcissist, and he seems to be reveling in some of this.

A (7:28)

And do you think in any way the fact that she was having this emotional affair, which was pretty well documented. I mean, there was the emails and the conversation, and he was, you know, basically stalking her. Communications, he had mirrored the iPad, and so there's all this evidence, digital evidence, to show. So, I mean, that was pretty clear. But do you think that that really moves the jury in any way away from her story? Like, do you think it negatively impacts her at all that she was having this. This affair?

B (7:55)

I don't. And especially if it's just emotional and, you know, the fact. So creepy that he was stalking her, like, on. Through the iPad. I mean, this is why I'm still single. I just have to say I'll probably end up with someone like that, you know, according to my mother. But, you know, you look at this guy and you're like, what?

A (8:10)

What?

B (8:10)

I mean, what are you doing? And so who cares? The more he makes it extreme, the more it looks to be something that's really minor. Right. I mean, how big is that? She. And she admits it. She goes, I did have. You know, I did. So. So what is the big so what?

A (8:24)

Well, that's what. That's kind of the way I look at it. I mean, I think that was, like, such a small issue that he really seemed to cling on to, that it was going to move the needle. And I just. I think it was very miscalculated. And he either has lawyers who didn't really communicate that well to him or let him fly the plane or. Or they told him so many times, and he. And he wouldn't listen. Because we both know sometimes you can have clients that won't take your advice and you just have to go in and defend them.

B (8:52)

Right? Yeah. No. And you're a fantastic trial lawyer. Like I said, it's an honor and a pleasure to be on with you. I've watched you for a long time, and you're fantastic. So I know. Yeah. You know, being there. And what do you do? You know, you, like, tell your blue in the face, this is not a good idea. You're not going to be sympathetic. By the way, that defense that she had an emotional affair compared to all the evidence, eyewitnesses, your son, you know that the forensic evidence, the DNA, it's all against you. So this, you know, emotional affair is like, weighs insignificantly against the bulk and weight of all of this avalanche of evidence against you.

A (9:28)

Yeah. I don't know if there was a plea agreement that was offered that he rejected or there just wasn't one. But you would think that, you know, this man's a doctor, right. He's an educated man. He, he should be able logically look at pieces of evidence and realize the way a jury may view him. And it just doesn't seem like either A, there was no plea option for him or B, it was just something that he wouldn't entertain at all.

B (9:52)

Yeah, maybe there wasn't. I mean, maybe I, I haven't seen anything that I, in my research that would indicate that there was some kind of a plea deal that fell through or there was a specific plea deal given offered to him. I don't know. We just saw that. That serial killer in New York, of course, pled guilty this morning and it wasn't quite a plea deal because there's no death penalty in New York. So you don't, you know, you don't look at death versus a life sentence. But that being said, I don't know, but I went to Hawaii. I actually have given some lectures in Hawaii, you know, as a lawyer. And it's pretty hang loose, you know, in a lot of ways too. At least the bar that I've seen. When I came in, one of the people that was supposed to be in my audience was asleep in the law library. They had to come get him, you know, so I thought it must be not that compelling if he's asleep in the law library. But, you know, it's a little bit more hang loose there in, on the island of Maui and. Yeah, right. I mean, it's, that should factor in.

A (10:44)

I think it's interesting that, you know, obviously he's been in custody during the pendency of this. Right. I mean, so he's, you know, he's, he's been there, he has a taste of what this is like. And I would think that if there was some plea offer made to him that was rejected, I mean, this whole thing's been televised. We, we would have heard because he would have been offered something less than what he could get going to trial. I mean, what's his exposure?

B (11:10)

I think he's looking at life I mean, he potentially. He doesn't have on his lessers, which I thought was weird in the argument, you know, he's got attempted murder, too, but then you go down to some assaults, right? I don't know how a jury gets down to that. But on attempted murder, too, I'd have to look again, Donna, in terms of the max. But seemed to be. It was, it was extreme, and it may be a potential of life in Hawaii, but it's going to be decades. And he's his lawyer. And arguing the only thing he had, I think, that was compelling was first aggressor. Like the first aggressor instruction, you know, trying to say that he wasn't the first aggressor that she was. And basically, as, you know, Rittenhouse case, you know, the question is, if you're the first aggressor, can you use self defense? And the answer is no. So he's basically saying she was the one, she's the one that did this, even though she has more injuries than I do. You know that. But she was the one that started it. And so therefore, you know, I, you know, she. I was acting in self defense. And by the way, the state has to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Really hard as, you know, to prove a negative. Can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self defense when nobody witnessed this, only the witnesses that came at the end of what was happening. So they can't say how it started and who the first aggressor was?

A (12:27)

Well, that's why I thought the testimony was. Was fairly even in the sense that, you know, is it possible that she's so sick of him and she's so aggravated and she lost control and she got upset and she was the first aggressor? I do think that that's possible. I think they had a fraught relationship. It was obviously, you know, difficult for a period of time. Everybody that knew them kind of testified to that. They all also said that it seemed to have gotten better. I know. I think it was her mother and her stepfather that were on. And so, you know, looking at that, you could say, okay, maybe. But again, it's like, even if you want to try to reconcile that, and as a defense attorney, I'm going, oh, first aggressor is a good instruction. Right? That's a good instruction, if you believe that. But then what negates that is the testimony from his son. And I don't think what he testified to and in the manner in which he Tried to explain that away. I don't think that was very compelling or believable at all.

B (13:24)

Right. Like the prosecutor kept saying, unbelievable. It's just unbelievable. He kept saying it like a mantra, you know, it's unbelievable. And then the defense got up and said, oh, he used all these unwords. You know, I thought, well, that's not a great defense. So he used the unwords. Right. I'm like, right.

A (13:38)

But yeah, it really, it really wasn't

B (13:42)

all that. It wasn't all that.

A (13:43)

They're not going to be using either one of those closing arguments and, you know, classes about how to give a good one.

B (13:50)

Yeah, touche. So, yeah, I, I, some of it, I don't know, you kind of scratch your head. But they, they were trying their best. And we'll see what the jury does with the juries had not that much time with this case, but I really thought it might even come back yesterday. I mean, like a five minute verdict or a ten minute verdict. I'm exaggerating, but I, I think, I

A (14:13)

don't know, I think it's going to take a little longer. We'll see.

B (14:15)

Yeah. No, you're right. I mean it. I always think in high profile trials, jurors want to take a little longer. For obvious reasons. They don't want to come back and be questioned like an OJ Case by coming back too soon. I mean, when we covered Michael Jackson, that was days to acquit him. I think a number of days. Yeah.

A (14:30)

Weinstein was days.

B (14:31)

Yeah, yeah.

A (14:33)

Both Weinstein trials were days.

B (14:34)

Were you like pacing and biting your fingernails, waiting for a jury? Like one of the worst things they have to do as a lawyer.

A (14:39)

It is. And especially because the judge in New York had us sitting in the courtroom on all day, every day, we could not leave.

B (14:47)

You're kidding.

A (14:48)

Normally judges will. Yeah, judges will say, leave your cell phones. Don't be more than 20 minutes away. Oh, yeah, no. We sat in the courtroom the entire time.

B (14:59)

Ouch. Torture.

A (15:01)

It was a long five and a half days. It was torture. So let's, let's think about, okay, so the jury goes back there and obviously, you know, I find for the most part that juries really do want to get it right. They go back there, they really do communicate. They really do talk it through. They take it seriously. They look at the charging documents. I think very few jurors, I think for people like you and I, we probably go back there and if we were the four people, we'd say, let's take an initial vote and see where we. You know, where we fall. But I don't think most juries do that. I think jurors go in the back. I think they look at the law, and I think they kind of go through it step by step, and I. I think they truly work it through to the best of their ability. I. I really do think once they're back there, they realize the severity of it and they. They truly want to get it right. Is that your experience?

B (15:51)

Oh, yeah. I love juries. And remember Abraham Lincoln's quote, I always think of it, the highest calling of citizenship is jury duty. And I know jurors, they take that to heart. They come that. It's an amazing thing to see 12 people come together as one every single time. I've been trying cases for 42 years now. I've seen it. I've seen it every time. Big case, small case, it doesn't matter. They rise to that occasion. It's an amazing part of our citizenship and culture in our country that we have the jury system, we have those kind of jurors. I think every single time.

A (16:23)

That's truly amazing. Let's talk about the one piece of evidence here that I thought was interesting and I thought cut against her testimony a little bit, was the fact that they never found the syringe. So she testified that there was a certain. That he tried to inject something into her and that he wasn't able to do it, and they never found a syringe. Now, do you think that they just couldn't find it because of the terrain, because of the topography, the, you know, how. How high they were like? Well, what do you. What do you think that's about? Because I do think that that's a pretty specific allegation and a pretty specific thing to say. Do you think anything about the fact that they didn't find it? And how do you think the jury will. Will look at that? Will they disregard it and say that this wasn't really a premeditate? Because obviously, if you bring a syringe, it's premeditated, right?

B (17:20)

I. I think that it cuts against the premeditation, of course, but, you know, given the length of time, you know, before it's fully investigated, you know, when they weren't searching the scene and the fact that it's not found in that kind of terrain is not surprising. And also I think to myself, why would she make that up? I mean, that's a kind of a crazy thing to say. Like, my doctor husband showed up with the syringe and said, hold still, after he tried to throw me off a cliff and then he decided to kill me with the rock, I mean, why would she interject something that strange? So, yeah, it's a piece of the puzzle that's not there that could put a question mark above a juror's head.

A (17:58)

And do you think that that argument about the fact that without the syringe it's sort of, you know, maybe this was just something that got out of hand, that neither one of them intended to go this bad versus he took her up there to kill her? Because I think the syringe definitely cuts against his story because obviously if he had a syringe, he wasn't defending himself against anything.

B (18:27)

Yeah, I, I do think though that when you talk about the substantial step piece of like an attempted murder, then he made the substantial step regardless. And so you're not dealing with a lying and weight kind of premeditation jury instruction. I think that that's where they need to go is, you know, for the prosecution is he, he had a number of substantial steps that he took trying to kill her. So it's obvious he wanted to kill her. And then the book end of that, of course, is the conversation with his son afterward, which is, I did intend to kill her, so that all works. It doesn't matter about this kind of syringe lying in wait. I brought something with me to do it.

A (19:04)

Yeah, I think that you're right about that. And again, I think sometimes those things become more red herrings. Red herring that, you know, you might want the jury to focus on, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really. Just like the affair. Right. You may want the jury to focus on it thinking you're gonn, you know, dirty her up or whatever, but I, I just don't think in today's world that makes as much of a difference. And if the jury's looking at this guy thinking he's a narcissistic jerk, they're. They probably are supporting her need to have an emotional affair or something. I don't know.

B (19:36)

Right. Yeah, I, I agree.

A (19:38)

Yeah, yeah.

B (19:39)

No, no wonder. And she's got a three year old and a five year old with him. You got to think about the future. She's got to deal with this guy. You know, she's tied to him for life in a lot of ways. You know, she was tied to him for life before this and he was trying to take her out of that life and kill her. I mean, push her off a cliff. It's just extreme on her Birthday on a beautiful hike in beautiful Hawaii. Crazy.

A (20:00)

And if. And if you're the defense attorney here, how do you deal with that FaceTime call with the son in your closing argument? I mean, I know he dealt with it in his testimony by saying. I was saying that, you know, she was trying to kill me, not that I was trying to kill her. That's not what I said. But how do you. How do you deal with that in the closing argument? Because as we're both saying here, that's really the biggest piece of evidence to move the needle.

B (20:30)

So.

A (20:30)

So what do you do with it?

B (20:32)

I want to ask you first, because you're much better lawyer than I am as a defense attorney. You know, I think, you know, you got to minimize. You got to stay suicidal. That's really what he's referring to. And, you know, he was emotional, and. And it's not preserved, you know, as a conversation. So it's really hard to remember, you know, conversations, you know, as they happen, and that there's a lot of pressure on the son, you know, to testify. And his affinity for the stepmom, obviously, is close to her, and maybe the relationship with dad wasn't as strong at that time. But I try and minimize it. I try and explain it in a lot of ways, because the key piece is whether he said he tried to kill her, you know, over his exact words. I mean, he was. He was emoting and. And that was a lot of verbiage that's hard to keep track of for a boy or a young man in that circumstance. I. I don't know how else you do. I mean, what do you think? I mean, I don't know how else you. You deal with that other than you can't call him a liar. You know, I wouldn't call him a liar. I miss your own flesh and blood,

A (21:30)

so, no, I wouldn't call him a liar. Yeah, I wouldn't call him a liar. I think what I would do, though, is I would say, like you said, you can't. Nothing was memorialized. So this is. This is from memory and from memory an entire time, where he really has access to stepmom and who has access to him at a regular bait on a regular basis is the state. Right. The state's attorney's office talked to him. How many times did police talk to him? How many times did they talk to him? How many times did they explain. Explain how important his testimony is? Because as we're both saying here, that's what really moves the needle. So how many times did they kind of drill into his mind that, you know, what mom's left, even if it's your stepmom, she's going to take care of the kids. You're not going to have to, you know, sort of all of these things to make him heightenly, you know, super hyperly aware of how important his testimony is. So I do think that you can make the argument and that there's an ability to sway somebody to get up on the witness stand and say those things. Now, again, is that going to be enough of an argument to change the jury's mind? Probably not, but I think that that's probably the way that I would deal with it.

B (22:47)

Brilliant. I agree. And I think one thing to add to that is the suggestibility of the questions and the comments by the state, their investigators and the prosecutors, because, you know, along the way, they've said certain things that have definitely planted seed as they go along. And to ferret those things out, if you've got tape recorded interviews or you have depositions or anything else, you bring out that language that was suggestive to. To the witness, a key witness. And, and again, the number of times the people that were there and, and even time they spend away from an interview, like, did they. Did they take you to lunch? Did they, you know, did they spend time with you away from these proceedings? All of that factors in because people can be persuaded in ways that don't even seem obvious to them at the time. Witnesses, especially a witness like this, that's so key to the prosecution.

A (23:35)

Yeah. I think one of the other pieces of evidence here that the jury heard that I think was. Was pretty compelling was, you know, the 911 call saying someone's getting attacked. And there were people there, you know, that kind of interjected themselves and, and came to help and try to, you know, assist. So I think obviously that's a. An important piece. And if you're the defense, you know, what. What do you do with that? I mean, I guess. I guess you say they came upon it in the middle and, you know, they don't really know what was going on. I mean, I don't really know how else you deal with that, because that's just an independent person that's seeing a snapshot of what's going on.

B (24:16)

Right. And we always had a stock brief. I know you were a prosecutor, too, but when I was in the prosecutor's office, it was on excited utterances. I mean, like that you. They're admissible because they're reliable. What you say in an excited State is usually valid. And so they're excited. It's stressful, and they're saying, someone, you know, what happened? And so that's compelling testimony. I don't know. The only thing is, you say that's the end. It wasn't the beginning. That's the end of the encounter between these two. You didn't see the beginning. So the beginning is all that counts. When we're looking at self defense and the instigation of the interaction, I mean, that's all you do. These people obviously came upon something that was really upsetting, you know.

A (24:55)

Right. And, you know, you also can say, look, Nobody from that 911 call says anything about a syringe or seeing a syringe. And, you know, they're right there. So I think that that's the problem for the defenses.

B (25:08)

You.

A (25:08)

You kind of. You either have to hope that they saw it all and they didn't see the syringe, if you want to go with that argument, or you have to say they came into it at a point when they didn't know it was going on. So you kind of can't have it both ways. You have to make a strategic argument in terms of the way you want to respond to that call.

B (25:25)

And I think that the key is what stood behind a murder and life were these people, you know, and I think that's the prosecution's point, which is she, you know, she'd be dead right now if it weren't for a couple of people that just stumbled upon this scene. That. That's pretty compelling to a jury when you look at his intent. Because you want to kill her.

A (25:45)

I know we've talked a lot about the fact that he did testify. Let's talk about that now. You know, you're. You're representing him. What's your feeling on his decision to testify? Now? I know anytime you're claiming self defense, it's very difficult to not get up there and claim you were in fear you had to defend yourself. I mean, I almost feel like once he chose to go to trial, even though normally we would tell people not to testify, I'm not so sure he had any other choice here.

B (26:16)

Yeah, right. I mean, I brought up Rittenhouse before. I mean, he had to testify, and he was acquitted on self defense, which is amazing. But there are three videos that show that there was an argument for self defense, and the state has to disprove it. So, yeah, you generally have to testify, but in the Arbor case, too, in Georgia. But the fact is, he didn't Have a good story. But then again, if like you said, if you're gonna go to trial on a self defense case, inevitably you have to testify because how else would he present this defense without himself? What other evidence is there of self defense except for what he would testify to? And so he had to be well prepared, he had to be compelling to the jury. I, I don't know if he was, but if you call the he said, she said, which the defense did that then, then maybe he feels like he tips the needle a little bit. And again the state has to disprove the lack. They have to say there was no evidence of self defense or we proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a very high standard that there was not self defense. And that's really hard to prove a negative. So I think he banked on that. But if you're going to put your client on and they're going to testify falsely, as you know, you have to withdraw. So if he told his lawyer a different story somewhere along the line and he was going to get up and lie, then his lawyer would probably have to sit down. We didn't see that.

A (27:33)

Yeah, I also think too, you know, the first day because his testimony was broken up over a course of two days and, and there was a break in between. And so the first day that he testified I thought went a little bit better for him. I thought that his answers were clear. He was speed, he was looking at the jury, he was speaking to the jury. He was fairly engaged. I thought came across as fairly authentic in, in that first day. And then I think the second day the wheels kind of fell off. He wasn't able to give as clear answers, they weren't as concise and that was, you know, direct. And the cross examination, I just felt like it wasn't as clear. I, I just don't think he was great. And I think that that's tough too because you want your last day to be better than your first day, especially when there's a break in between. I mean the closer you get to closing arguments, you want to have the strongest showing that you can have. And I just, I don't think that that happened here.

B (28:38)

I don't either. But he'd only keep it up for so long. I mean, I think that's a problem too. You have privacy and recency like you said. I mean if at the end of his testimony ends on a whimper or in a way that's not compelling, that's bad. And he couldn't keep it up, which I find amazing because this is his moment in the sun. This is his moment to fly close to the sun, you know, and maybe get, maybe walk out that door. But he didn't perform, I think, to the extent that he needed to get the brass ring and walk out.

A (29:08)

Yeah, I agree. I mean, obviously, I think his best chance would be a hung jury. I don't see a not guilty in any way here. But, you know, you never know. Juries, juries sometimes hang on to something that we don't see. But I do think that this will be a thoughtful jury. I think that they will, you know, come up with some, some, some correct answers here Given, given what took place. If you're back there in the jury room, what are you focusing on most when you're just determining whether or not you're going to convict them?

B (29:39)

I think on the credibility of both of them. But then the next thing I would do is go through the evidence. You know, you've seen it with jurors. I've seen it where they map out things on the wall, on a, you know, on a greater board or a whiteboard to go through what the evidence is. You know, the old saying, witnesses can and do lie, they could be mistaken, but the evidence never lies. You know, what, what's the evidence that supports the prosecution and go through the, you know, the, the wounds to her head. The rock. They actually have the rock. You know, the, the testimony of the folks that came on belong, you know, to the witnesses, the son. You put it all out there, you know, and then put on the other side, you know, what do we have to support the other side? And that's, that's, I always say they take a straw vote. I hope they do. Or they write down little things on a piece of paper secretly. But you know what? I think that's what's going on. That's what I would see in a jury room if I were a jury. Let's, let's, let's look at all the evidence, the evidence, aside from the testimony.

A (30:33)

I mean, the injuries. Right. I mean, there was significant injuries to her and fairly, you know, he had some injury, but it was much less dramatic than hers. Also, I think looking at the size of those rocks, right, Those were not like little, little rocks. These were like fairly large size rocks. And you know, that, that, that itself I think is compelling. Just to see what the, that actually looked like and how that would feel if that was hitting your face.

B (31:02)

Right. And then they show a picture of him with a small mark on his face. You know, just compare and contrast. But yeah, Having the rock, I think, was huge. And to see it in closing argument, you know, they show that. Huge.

A (31:13)

Yeah. And. And he's a doctor. Right. If anybody would know what kind of damage a concrete piece of. Of, you know, or rock, like structure, what it would do to face or body. I mean. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

B (31:29)

To your head. And the thing is, too, is like he tries to get her over the cliff, you know, she hangs on it. She doesn't go. And then you try the syringe, you know, and that's not going to work because that's kind of hard to, you know, inject somebody if they're moving target, even if you're a doctor. And then the rock, I mean, that's just like so extreme to keep, you know, and the amount of damage she had, it's amazing that she's alive. But. Right. He's a doctor. He knows head injuries. You know, you can die from a fall, then people have head injuries where they have lifelong, you know, deficits, you know, with severe head injuries. And he didn't name other places, really. It was just her head to kill her.

A (32:10)

Yeah, it was. It was kind of. Kind of interesting. And I. And also looking at it, I think to myself, okay, so if he had a syringe and the syringe could kill her, why not just use the syringe another time? I mean, if you're going to take her up there, I mean, that was. That's pretty calculated thinking. If you're thinking, okay, how can I use this syringe? And in another way that maybe the syringe isn't traced back and. And maybe she falls, but maybe, maybe whatever was potentially in that syringe was something that would make her not feel any pain of being pushed off. You know, who knows, right? Like, I mean, there's a. If there really, truly was a syringe, there was a lot of thought process that went into taking that with you on a hike. And you knew what you were going to do up there if that syringe was really. Was really part of it.

B (32:58)

Yeah. Bingo. I mean, I. I think he didn't think through that she would be as resistive and successful. Right. And a lot. She wouldn't be exactly. She. He didn't bank on the fact she'd still be alive. Then he had to resort to what was available.

A (33:13)

I mean, in these cases. I mean, we're seeing them. I mean, now we're just talking. Today, there's a. The new one in the news about the couple that was off the Bahamas and the boat and the wife falls in the water and now they're wondering if she was pushed. And the stepdaughter's come. Actually, her daughter is. His stepdaughter is coming out and saying that, you know, there was domestic violence. I mean, again, I just don't understand why people just don't go into a divorce court and, and solve it that way. But nonetheless, we all have jobs. Because they don't.

B (33:42)

That's right.

A (33:43)

So we will continue.

B (33:45)

That's right. We'll still be.

A (33:46)

We will, yeah.

B (33:47)

For the long haul.

A (33:48)

We'll still be here and we'll still be talking about these cases and we'll see, still be discussing, you know, why people make these choices. My prediction is that this is going to be a guilty verdict, but I'm not so sure. We're. Well, it's a lot earlier in Hawaii today, so maybe by the end of the day today in Hawaii, what do you think?

B (34:08)

I agree. I mean, it is a little bit earlier there. I'm in Seattle, so we're three hours ahead of them here in Seattle. And they started at like 9:45. I'm with you. I can't imagine any other verdict. And, you know, you look at these cases. I had the Susan Cox Powell case, you know, with Josh Powell. She's been missing for how long? And then, of course, he killed the kids.

A (34:27)

Yes.

B (34:27)

He could have just got. He could have just gotten a divorce. But we'll see what happens on the boat. But my first instinct was foul play. Yeah, right.

A (34:37)

Yeah, you're absolutely right. You're absolutely right. So we shall see what happens. And I thank you so much for joining me. This was a great conversation. I'd love to have you back sometimes.

B (34:47)

It was my pleasure. I'd love to. Thanks.

A (34:49)

Thank you for joining me on another episode of Crime and Justice. Don't forget to send us your questions, thoughts, or theories, and we'd love to talk about them on air. Don't forget to subscribe on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for joining me.