Loading summary
Transcript64 lines
- [00:00]
A
Whatever your thing, it could be anything. Canva helps you make that thing a thing.
- [00:07]
B
Canva is a simple online tool thing. It's a way to design with our
- [00:11]
A
magic AI tool, things you can social media your thing, generate images or videos of your thing, make decks or presentations to show your thing whatever needs to be done for your thing. Canva can make it an even better and bigger thing. Canva, the thing that makes anything a thing.
- [00:35]
B
A Texas murder suspect flees to Italy after allegedly killing his wife and unborn child and removing his home monitoring bracelet.
- [00:44]
A
Fleeing from the prosecution itself is, is introduced oftentimes as consciousness of guilt. And I think we can expect to see that in this trial.
- [00:53]
B
Also now from overseas, he says he's innocent. Before we begin, if you're liking the podcast, please hit the follow button. It ensures that you never miss an episode. Joining me now is reporter at Fox 26, Houston, McKenna Earnhardt. McKenna, thank you for joining me today.
- [01:14]
C
Yeah, thanks for having me.
- [01:17]
B
So, McKenna, kind of lay this out for me. Tell me what's going on with this awful murder case in, in Houston. Talk to me about know, just, just lay it out for me. Tell me what's been going on and where we are right now.
- [01:31]
C
Okay, so what happened? It was October of 2024, October 7th, and Lee Gilly was accused of killing his pregnant wife. And he called, he called 911 that night. He told police that he believed she had committed suicide, that she had overdosed. When they arrived, paramedics, you know, revealed the opposite. They said that her injuries were that of string strangulation. And so then Gilly was arrested on October 11 for capital murder, released on bond days later. And May 25 is his next hearing in Italy. So there's the question, how did he get to Italy? So he was released on bond and had to wear an ankle monitor. And according to court records, on May 1, they got an alert that it had been tampered with. By the time we had figured that out, he was in, in Milan under a different name. Let me, I need to look what the name was again. Leun John Luke Oliver. And he's claiming innocence and saying that he, the only crime he was, he has committed was fleeing to save his own life because he would have faced the death penalty here in Texas.
- [02:55]
B
And so what are the prosecutors in Texas saying about trying to get him back? And I understand, and I'll get into that later in the show about the issues regarding extradition in Italy, but have you heard anything out of the prosecutor's office about how they're going to attempt to get him back and what they, they may do if there's any options.
- [03:16]
C
I, I have not yet. I am, am really, I'm not sure there.
- [03:26]
B
And have they made any statements about his, his extradition or the fact that, you know, he's there? And have they, have they talked about this at all publicly?
- [03:37]
C
I, I don't believe so. So he is scheduled to go to trial in June of 26. He's in custody with Italian authorities and claim claimed asylum. So I'm not, I'm not sure what, what else has been said there.
- [03:55]
B
And there's been family court circumstances happening just I think the other day. Are you familiar with what's going on on the family court side?
- [04:04]
C
I am a little bit. So his family is from North Carolina and, and the children's mother is from South Carolina. They had two young children and, and she was pregnant at the time. And so the two young children have been in South Carolina with the mother's parents, with the victims. With the victim's parents. And so it was ruled that the children need to come back to Texas. So I have a lot of legal questions on that. And you know, the children don't have any family in Texas and so I don't know if that's allowed. That's something that I, I, that's a whole nother story I was going to delve into on is it allowed for these children to be told they need to come back to Texas. They have no family here who will be here for the children. I don't know what happens there.
- [04:54]
B
Well, that's, that is interesting because obviously if there was some family in Texas asking to have them return, that would be a different story. But it seems like the judge really wouldn't have jurisdiction over that issue as to where they live. He would have jurisdiction who they live with. And you know what the, the battles are in court in terms of that. But I agree with you. I think that that's a very strange ruling and I did hear in the news that the family wants to appeal that and they're definitely going to ask the judge to reconsider because I think that's probably not steeped in very good law. But we'll see what happens there. But what an awful thing. The kids have been there with family and now to try to put them in new schools and bring them back to a place that probably doesn't have the greatest memories seem be a very odd decision.
- [05:43]
C
Yeah. And I don't know what happens if they don't have family here. But they had, you know, their mother's, their mother's parents taking care of them in South Carolina. They don't have family here. What does that mean for them? You know, that's the question. Where, where do they go here in Texas? Who takes care of them here if they have family willing to take care of them so well, I think it's
- [06:05]
B
going to be interesting to see how that happens. McKenna, thank you so much for joining me today. I really appre. And now let's turn to Houston based criminal Defense attorney Nicole DeBoer. How are you?
- [06:20]
A
I'm well. How are you?
- [06:22]
B
I'm doing great.
- [06:23]
A
Very interesting and sad case.
- [06:26]
B
Yeah. Nicole, I really want to talk to you about this. I mean, there's so many facets here that I find really interesting. And normally, you know, we wouldn't have all these jurisdictional and extradition issues to talk about. But not only do we have that to talk about, but I just want to talk about the evidence in the case itself because it seems, and you'll know better than I am. And so I want to, I want to get into that a little bit. But first, let's talk about the fact that, you know, he was charged with capital murder and released. And that seems very, I mean, I know that we live in times right now where there's definitely more progressive policies in terms of how defendants are treated pre trial. And, you know, a lot of states that don't have bond bail anymore, no cash bail, are resorting to these home monitors. But in a capital case in Texas, I mean, how did he get released? Talk to me about that first.
- [07:22]
A
Well, I'm really glad that you asked this question. And there, one of the issues that is pretty skewed in this matter is that the local judge, the judge who's actually now in charge of the case, is getting quite a lot of heat for this issue. And the reality is, is that the judge who's sitting on the bench now, an outstanding jurist, did not say set that bond. It was set by another judge. And for this judge to then go back and unravel that, he would have needed to have certain legal preconditions for doing so in order to make it an accurate record. And he just really didn't have a position to do that. Instead, he was stuck with what somebody else before him had done. It is not the judge who is in charge of this case that made this decision initially. I want to make that very clear. So, so that's for starters.
- [08:12]
B
Let me ask you about that. So it wasn't the Judge. But when the first judge made the decision, the prosecution's office can file motions to reconsider. And that's an appealable issue in most states. Couldn't the government have appealed that decision to a higher court at the time that the home monitoring was granted?
- [08:32]
A
Well, there's not really anything to appeal. It's within the discretion of the judge that set the bond. Now, if the prosecution became aware during the pendency of case that there was some kind of problem that this individual was not following the terms and conditions of the bond order that was already given, then they could have appealed. Right. Then they could have gone back to the court and said, this bond is insufficient. But it may be in this circumstance, and I've sifted through the records in this case, and it does not appear that the prosecution had cause to believe that there was any problem until we all learned really pretty simultaneously that the. That the ankle monitor had been cut off. And as soon as that happened, the court, who is now the judge, the judge now in place, took immediate action pursuant to a motion by the prosecutors to terminate that bond, to revoke it and make sure that the court could do everything in its power to try to get him back to court.
- [09:35]
B
Yeah, see, like, where I practice law, mostly, I mean, I'm all over, but mostly in Illinois, the prosecution's office can appeal a decision on bail merely because they think it's not the right decision. And even though it is discretionary, always, they can say, look, you know, this was just not the right. Because even in a discretionary order, there are certain things that you have to look at. Right? Like likelihood of flight, the danger to community. You know, those are the types of things that you have to look at and obvious danger to community when somebody commits a potential strangulation. Obviously, I think the argument is there, so I. I'm just surprised. I think even if they know they're going to lose, I think in cases like this, just to preserve your own office, if I'm the government, I'm filing an appeal on that. Whether or not you think that a judge would overrule or overturn what happened at the state level. So I just. I think that's interesting. That's been a big topic in Chicago lately, because we had somebody out on electronic home monitoring that then shot and killed and shot injured Chicago police officer. So two Chicago police officers, one killed, one injured. And so now this is the big topic of conversation that, yes, the judge made this decision, but the state's attorney's office didn't do anything. To push back on it. So I think that's just kind of an interesting conversation about whether or not they may look at that differently in the future and say we can't take this risk. Again, given the fact that this guy cut off a monitor and high tailed it to Italy.
- [11:05]
A
I mean, unfortunately, it really didn't have a lot of legal choice in this circumstance. The judge in this jurisdiction, even the previous judge, while certainly it was a discretionary choice that probably you or I might not make. Set the bond at 1 million. I can tell you a bond of that amount in this jurisdiction is exceptionally high. That would be an unusually high bond. And so considering that all of the things that you just mentioned, which are incredibly important and valid concerns, we all want to be safe in the community and in the public, the prosecution still has to have a legal reason to go and appeal it to a higher court. Otherwise it's potentially frivolous. They have nothing more to add. If they're asked by a reviewing court, what law did this judge not follow in setting this extraordinarily high bond and they don't have a response, that's a problem. The appeal goes nowhere and they get, they get nothing besides potentially a slap on the wrist for doing something frivolous. And in addition, if they don't have new facts to raise to the court who might review it, or the original court who has the person on bond in their court saying, look, at some point this bond was set at 1 million. We now believe that's insufficient. Even though this issue has already been vetted. They're just not going to get anywhere without some new information. Unfortunately, as we all know, the new information in this case came too late. It was all at once that he had cut his ankle monitor off.
- [12:28]
B
Well, and I'm just wondering how, you know, you cut your ankle monitor off and then you have to get to Canada, you have to get on a plane, you have to. There's a lot of time that, you know, goes. Is in between that. Right. Even if it's a day, even if it's half a day, the fact that they couldn't find him is, is pretty extraordinary. And he gets himself to Italy before anybody knows where he is.
- [12:50]
A
Well, right. And kudos to the Italian authorities for identifying the fraudulent, fraudulent documents. Right. So he changed his name, he somehow got himself, you know, out of the country so that he could flee and, and then arrives there at this port of entry where he's hoping to seek asylum. And what a strange place to seek asylum, by the way, for all kinds of legal reasons. It's just not necessarily a place where you would think that the Italians are going to cooperate with the United States government. They just are. So it's a strange place to go. Fleeing in the first place is not a smart move. No matter how fearful you are about the justice system, you address it with the excellent lawyers that you have. And this individual had excellent lawyers. Has excellent lawyers. Yeah. So that's the proper way to handle it.
- [13:38]
B
Let me talk to you about what he was facing. So this was charged, is charged as a capital murder case in Texas, and it's capital not only because of the murder of the wife, but because she was nine weeks pregnant at the time. Is that correct?
- [13:54]
A
That is correct. Well, and. And also, yes, that is correct. That is capital murder. And he could face the death penalty in Texas for that.
- [14:02]
B
And the fact that it's a death case, I mean, that. That is. Is it. Is it potential life in prison without parole and. Or the death penalty, or is it an automatic death penalty circumstance if he's convicted?
- [14:17]
A
It's not automatic. They have to prove certain things in order to have death sentence. And so that wouldn't. It certainly would not be automatic. And, you know, death cases are very, very time consuming and very, very, very costly for the county and for the prosecutor prosecuting these cases. But a capital in and of itself, you know, if you're convicted of a capital murder in Texas, the best case scenario is life without parole. You will spend the rest of your life in prison.
- [14:46]
B
Well, and we saw, obviously Texas did a wonderful job on the death penalty phase of that horrible case with the FedEx driver that killed that beautiful little girl. And that was such a horrible thing. And we saw what that process like, and that was only the death phase of the case. So, you know, we know that that's a very long legal process. And the amount of money, not only up to that juncture, but all the appeals that are afforded to you after the fact are obviously always, always quite vast. Let me talk to you about Italy and most of the countries in the European Union and the way they handle these extradition issues. And even though it seems like it would be an odd place for someone to go, let's legally would have gone there. Why. Why did he. Why do you think he chose Italy?
- [15:36]
A
You know, the best we can do is kind of guess from what's been already put out in the public. And he claims to Italian authorities that this place was one of his wife's favorite places to go. It's possible that he thought maybe he could blend in there. It's really. I don't know what he was thinking, because really, any of these European Union countries are going to cooperate with the United States on an extradition proceeding. The big question, really, for each of these countries and for Italy is going to be whether or not the death penalty is on the table. The death penalty has been abolished for decades in Italy, and they are not likely to send someone back to the United States thinking that this person could be sent to their death because it is against their own country's policy. But the prosecution's office can fix the problem by simply saying, we're not going to seek death in this case.
- [16:27]
B
Well, and that's what I was thinking. I was thinking in order to get them back, you would just say, you know what? We're taking that off the table. But then I was reading that that may may not be enough for Italy. And I'm thinking, what do you mean that may not be enough? As you said, they should cooperate with the government here. Why would they want to keep this guy? I mean, it would be one thing if he was roaming the streets of Italy and nobody had any idea who he was, and they didn't figure out the fact that he had a fake passport and a fake name and, you know, he's kind of blending in. But the fact that he was actually arrested, it would make no sense to me why they would want to hold on to him.
- [17:02]
A
I agree. I mean, it's expensive for both governments, right? Like, so now they have their own prosecution to consider whether or not they want to prosecute him for using fraudulent documents to enter the country. So they may want to complete that prosecution before they release him back to the United States. And all of the countries, you know, really in the European Union and the United States are typically in a treaty about how to handle exactly this situation. And so what has to happen now is the government entity that is seeking to have the person sent back. So in this case, the DA's office here in Houston in Harris county has to follow the rules according to the treaty about what they have to demonstrate to the Italian government in order to force that extradition. And that's a whole court proceeding in and of itself. They have to learn how strong is the case, what is the evidence in the case likely to be, what is the likely sentence that could be had in this case. And because this is all dictated by treaty, which creates a whole book of laws on its own, it's not going to be a short process.
- [18:07]
B
What about charges he could face in the United States, obviously, the escape, obviously, whatever paperwork he used to go through Canada and get out of the US or whatever he did. So what other charges? And with those, those would be federal charges, obviously, when it comes to the document cases, correct?
- [18:27]
A
That is correct. He could also face additional state court cases. And I, you know, it's. None of this is funny. It's tragic. I chuckled at that a little bit because, you know, a bond forfeiture, jumping bond is its own felony. So he could be prosecuted in a state, state court for jumping bond, which is what he's done. If, you know, all of this is true and we, it appears that it is. You know, of course, this would have to be determined in a court of law. The second thing that you've already mentioned is that he can now also be prosecuted federally for the same type of conduct. So exiting the country in order to avoid prosecution is a crime, a felony, for which he could also be prosecuted in federal court. And they too may be interested in seeking extradition. And so this could be yet another channel to try to bring him back to the country for prosecution.
- [19:21]
B
And let's talk about just the case itself. So the, the case itself. And if, you know, we have all these other things to talk about because he created this circumstance. But if we're just looking at the evidence, I mean, all I've really been able to see is that he's charged with the, the murder of Krista and the unborn baby and that she was murdered by way of strangulation. What other evidence do they have other than the fact that he was having an affair? The fact that they had had an argument that day. I mean, I know she had bruising and things like that. So there's physical evidence on her, but what is the evidence that actually ties it to him?
- [19:57]
A
You know, that's an interesting question, and that's one of the things that we all want to see. When he has a trial, which will be a public trial, we all get to watch. If they can get him back to the United States to have that day in court. Right now, we're just going on what public documents we can all see. There's been a gag order put in place in the case, which means the attorneys who are actually involved and the witnesses who are involved can't speak publicly about the case. And one of the reasons for that is that the judge in this case wants to assure that once this person is brought back, after all of this extensive legal battling that has to take place, take place in an extradition case involving an international Treaty that that day in court will stick. In other words, you know, that whatever happens, for whatever appellate process that may follow, there's not going to be any mistake. So that's a very long answer to your question. We don't know specifically yet what other evidence there is, but it certainly doesn't look good from what public information we've had so far. Again, it's not information from a court of law, but you know, the, the suspect having an affair, the method of death, it seems like a very up close and personal scenario that doesn't appear to be an alternate suspect. And something else in Texas law, and I'm sure in many other places, fleeing from the prosecution itself is, is introduced oftentimes as consciousness of guilt. And I think we can expect to see that in this trial also.
- [21:25]
B
Well, that's what I was thinking because we have that here and you're right, that's in almost all the jurisdictions where you can use that argument. And I'm looking at saying, okay, even as somebody who doesn't know much about this, reading about it, looking at it through a, you know, usually more of a defense minded set of lenses, because that's what I do, even though I'm a former prosecutor, I'm looking at it thinking, okay, you know, he's claiming he didn't do this. He's claiming that he's worried that the system is after him, which first of all, the system was pretty fair to him by letting him out to begin with. And then I'm looking at the evidence thinking, what, what actual evidence do they have tying him to this? Obviously not good dead wife, obviously not good affair, obviously not good manner of death. But if that's all they have, his chances at trial were a lot better before the state could argue consciousness of guilt. Now the consciousness of guilt almost, it's like the other.
- [22:18]
A
Right.
- [22:19]
B
Like the other pieces of evidence that you look at that you think maybe could have been great to argue, sort of go out the window because people say, I don't even care about that because you fled and I think you're guilty.
- [22:31]
A
That's 100. Right. And the law says they can because it, the law says that if you flee, that is an inference that the jurors can make. You know, that they can decide that you're fleeing because you didn't want to take responsibility, that or you're conscious that you are guilty of this terrible crime. And so that's going to be a big problem for him when he makes it back.
- [22:53]
B
Yeah, I think so too. Talk to me about his attorney. So I know one of his attorneys is famous for another true crime case. So I want you to tell me about that. And then I want to talk to me about the fact that I saw today or yesterday that some of his lawyers are withdrawing. So tell me what you know about. About the attorneys and the legal team here.
- [23:13]
A
So the legal team is stellar. These are all individuals who are very well regarded in our community. They're very thorough, they're very ethical. They're just outstanding lawyers who do everything they can within the bounds of the rules to come out with excellent results over and over and over again. Top notch folks who just don't miss a thing. And, and so this defendant had every opportunity to have the very best possible defense at his disposal and made the decision to flee. We're understanding that one of his attorneys, who is, you know, one of the very well regarded individuals, Dick DeGuerin, him to come back according to at least media reports and, you know, or to waive the extradition. You can do that. In other words, you can say, I understand that all this is governed by a treaty and I'm entitled to these hearings, but you never mind all that. I'm going to waive the right to have that hearing and you just can bring me back and I'll go to court. But so far it doesn't appear that Gilly has taken that advice. That advice was given us. We've been told it was.
- [24:23]
B
Well, yeah, the fact that he fled in the first place shows that he's not listening to his lawyers. Because not only would. There's not a lawyer on earth that would tell a client to do that, but especially lawyers that have the pedigree, the background, and the, you know, just good reputation that, that these lawyers have. So that just would. Would never happen. And I'm sure the lawyers are thinking, my goodness, maybe we had a chance. And now you're standing in our way. Standing in your own way, really.
- [24:48]
A
Right. And you asked another question, which, you know, I think is such a great question, which is, you know, what do we know about the withdrawals? And I think a lot of are wondering about this, but these attorneys are also going to continue their long history of ethical behavior and not violate the court's orders. The motion to withdraw was placed under seal. So we can't see what it is and they can't talk about what it is. So we don't really know the details of why they decided that they should not continue on the case. The matter is before the court for consideration and the judge Will review probably in camera, which of course, means, as you and I both know, that the judge does it in the back and not in the front in an open court, you know, considers what it is they're concerned about, and may or may not let these attorneys withdraw. And we'll hear soon enough.
- [25:37]
B
It'll be interesting to see what happens. There's another layer here, Nicole, that I think is interesting. And in a lot of these cases where a parent kills another parent, there's always going to be family court drama and family court rulings that affect what happens to children when there are children, and here there's two young children, there are family court cases. But this, I think, has taken a really interesting turn. And normally the family court litigation doesn't really make the news because it just is where the kids are staying. And everybody understands that the kids have a right to privacy. And. But this is such a different scenario now that we have a judge in South Carolina or, I don't know, actually, maybe it's a Texas judge. I don't know where the case was filed, but we have mom's parents living in South Carolina, dad's parents living in North Carolina. There's an argument about who has the kids, who sees the kids. And now we have a judge saying that the kids who have been in South Carolina with the grandparents now have to come back to Texas. Talk to me about this.
- [26:37]
A
It does seem unusual, and I believe it was a Texas court. And as I understand it, that the. Yeah, the reasoning for that, which may not stand was, you know, that this particular court would have more ability to oversee the safety of these kids and the protection of these kids and the rules about who could visit these kids if they were in Texas, because that's where the judge is, and that's where the court has jurisdiction. I'm not sure that the intended idea of maybe protecting them that way is working out as. As planned. I mean, certainly publicly, the lawyers for the children's family, for the children essentially, as they are being cared for now by the grandparents, indicated publicly that this was a terrible gut punch, that these kids have already established a life there in South Carolina. And to be ripped away from that on the heels of an enormous tragedy is going to just compound that tragedy. So I think we can expect an appeal. I think that this is a very sad situation.
- [27:46]
B
Yeah, it's very sad. And I guess I'm wondering. I didn't look into it, but are the parties. Is it the state of Texas? Is this like DCFS taking over? What's happening to These kids or, or is Child Family Services, or is this dad's family and mom's family fighting about it?
- [28:07]
A
I think it's dad's. I think it's dad's family and mom's family fighting about it. And I think that it is. The plan, as I understand it very loosely from the court, was to ultimately have the caregivers who are the grandparents uproot themselves along with the children and move to Texas. But that's a whole other problem because they're not from here and they don't live here. And so they'll have to have temporary accommodations and, and get these kids in school and, you know, just basically essentially start over while this goes on. So I do anticipate, like we have all discussed an appeal of these conditions. I think they may be just too onerous.
- [28:46]
B
Yeah, I think you're right. And I'm actually wondering, I think if dad's family brought the action or the motions against mom's family. You'd almost think the most humane thing at this point would be to say, you know what, we're gonna withdraw them and we're gonna leave things as is, because the last thing we want to do is uproot the kids, regardless of whether, you know, we're going to fight about who can see them. But my goodness, just to preserve at least for them, you know, they have a father who's in Italy and a mother who's gone, and that's just absolutely heart wrenching actually for them. So it would be interesting to see if we see any humanity.
- [29:23]
A
Yeah, totally. And to your point, one potential, you know, ray of hope in that mess is that in Texas, and I'm sure elsewhere, what happens is that the children get their own lawyer. It's called an ad litem.
- [29:34]
B
Yes.
- [29:34]
A
And so this person will speak sort of neutrally on behalf as opposed to whoever the parties are that are fighting about the custody of the child. And they can step in and apprise the court of their own concerns about the children's well being and their lives and, you know, how they can be the most successful and not burdened with additional grief. So that will be important, I think, moving forward.
- [29:58]
B
Well, and I think too, what brought the case back to court was the fact that dad did flee and mom's family said if dad's family was involved in any way, shape or form and helping him leave the country, we're concerned that if they see our grandchildren, they may take them too. And so I think that's a very legitimate concern. And the court actually ruled that Lee's brother could not see the kids. Do we, do we know if there's any potential evidence there that Lee's brother was somehow involved with helping him flee to Italy?
- [30:33]
A
You know, I haven't actually seen any evidence, but that is most certainly the implication. And what the court went on to say, it appears, is that you can see the kids once he gets back to the United States for trial.
- [30:45]
B
Right. Which is, which is so interesting. So do we think that this June trial date is realistic, given the fact that his body is in Italy right now?
- [30:55]
A
I think that's a tough, a tough sell. There are deadlines in an extradition proceeding that are, say, for example, 30 days out for things to happen and for evidence to be submitted and for hearings to be had. Here we are in May, already middle of May. So 30 days from now is June. Obviously, getting to trial in a capital murder when the person isn't even in the country and extradition proceedings are just beginning is highly unlikely, likely. Now, that could change if he waives extradition and they proceed to trial, which if you've got lawyers, like the lawyers this man has right now, you probably ought to move forward with these most excellent lawyers in your corner.
- [31:34]
B
Yeah, I, I agree. And let me, let me ask you this. If he doesn't wave extradition, do we have any idea how long this whole process could go on between the Italian and the United States government and potentially getting him back here and what that timeline looks like?
- [31:51]
A
It could be months, months before we have an answer.
- [31:55]
B
Yeah, I agree. So this is going to be a very interesting one to watch. You know, I, I know you said that we haven't heard anything about any alternative suspects, which I think is, is interesting and true, given the fact that, you know, a strangulation is usually some type of passionate or, you know, something that happens in the, the heat of a circumstance. And so we're going to see what happens here. We'll see what type of evidence they do have, and we'll hope that this case goes to trial in Texas much sooner than later. Nicole, thank you so much for joining me. This was extremely enlightening and very helpful. Thank you. Thank you for joining me for another episode of Crime and Justice. Remember, we want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts, questions or theories, and we will answer them on air.