← Murder Sheet
Loading summary
Transcript87 lines
- [00:01]
A
You're listening to this podcast, so I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you might not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressive save over $900 on average. Pop over to progressive.com, answer some questions and you'll get a quick quote with discounts that are easy to come by. In fact, 99% of their auto customers earn at least one discount. Visit progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $946 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary.
- [00:40]
B
As a small business owner, sometimes it feels like no matter how much planning you do, there's always surprises like an urgent, expensive repair. But here's a surprise you will like with Progressive. Small business owners save 13% on their commercial auto insurance when they pay in full. So enjoy a surprise for once. Get a quote in as little as 8 minutes@progressive commercial.com progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates discounts not available in all states or situations.
- [01:10]
A
Support for this podcast comes from Progressive, America's number one motorcycle insurer. Did you know Writers who switch and save with Progressive save nearly $200 per year. That's a whole new pair of riding gloves and more quote today Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $197 by new customers surveyed who save with Progressive between October 2024 and September 2025. Potential savings will vary.
- [01:41]
B
I'm Anya and today we're going to be talking about some pretty shocking legal developments in the case of a murdered little girl. Content Warning this episode contains discussion of murder, including the murder of a child. I want to warn everybody. It also contains incredibly graphic descriptions of child abuse. So be warned.
- [02:03]
C
So as we record, there was just earlier a very surprising decision out of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The murder conviction of Adam Montgomery for the death of his child Harmony was overturned. A lot of people are very upset about it. They have questions. Why did this happen? How did it happen? So we're going to go through this decision with you and try to answer those questions.
- [02:30]
B
Yes, my name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist and I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney and this is the Murder Sheet.
- [02:38]
C
We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We we're the Murder Sheet and this
- [02:46]
B
is Extra Extra Court Overturns Conviction in Murder of Harmony Montgomery.
- [03:39]
C
Well, let's get right into it. I think the thing to do is to take a close look at this decision, a multi page decision, and it opens up with a description of the offenses with which Mr. Montgomery was charged. I think that's a good place to begin because it really outlines the horror of what happened and what we are dealing with. Ana, would you mind reading?
- [04:07]
B
Sure. You want me to read this bolded part right here in paragraph two?
- [04:10]
C
Yes.
- [04:12]
B
The defendant was the biological father of the victim, harmony Montgomery. In February 2019, the victim went to live with the defendant and his wife, Kayla Montgomery at the defendant's grandmother's home in Manchester. In July 2019, when the first charged offense occurred, the victim was five years old. The other occupants of the home at that time included the defendant's uncle and the two biological children of the defendant and Kayla. Both of those children were younger than the victim. The defendant's uncle returned home in July from a three week trip and saw the victim in the kitchen with a black eye. The uncle asked the victim what she had done and the defendant answered, she didn't do anything. I bashed her around the house. The uncle testified that the defendant said he put the victim in charge to watch her five month old brother while the defendant used the bathroom. And when the defendant returned, he found the victim with her hands over the baby's mouth and his lips were supposedly blue.
- [05:12]
C
Okay, that is pretty brutal stuff. It gets worse. Anya, would you read the next bold section?
- [05:19]
B
On November 27, 2019, the defendant's family was evicted from the home in Manchester. The defendant, Kayla and the three children began living in their car, which they parked at a friend's apartment complex in Manchester. Although the victim was toilet trained before she was three years old, she started to have accidents once the family began living in the car. When the victim had an accident, the defendant became angry and would hit her in the face or on her leg or hand. The defendant became angrier the more accident the victims had and would then hit her repeatedly. On December 7, 2019, the victim had an accident early in the morning and the defendant repeatedly punched her in the head. Later that morning, the family drove to a methadone clinic where Kayla and the defendant took turns going inside with the other, stayed in the car with the children. When the defendant returned to the car, he realized the victim had another accident and started yelling at her and hitting her in the head repeatedly. From the methadone clinic, the defendant drove the family to Burger King. While they were driving, the victim was in the backseat crying and making Strange moaning like noises. The defendant told the victim to shut up. And at each red light at which they stopped, the defendant reached back and repeatedly punched the victim in the head. The defendant stopped hitting the victim when they got to Burger King. With the final punch, he said in a scared voice that he felt something and thought he really hurt her this time.
- [06:40]
C
This is absolutely horrible stuff, but let's just get through this. There's a couple more paragraphs in bold. Why don't you read those? I think it's really important. As hard as this is to listen to, it really gives us the context we need.
- [06:55]
B
I don't know how anyone could treat their baby like this. She's a baby. She's five.
- [06:59]
C
Quote.
- [06:59]
B
Later that day, the family's car broke down at a traffic light and they had to abandon it at as the defendant and Kayla were getting the children out of the car, the victim did not respond, and they realized she had died. The defendant got a duffel bag from the trunk and put the victim's body in it and brought it back to the friend's apartment complex, where the defendant put it in a snow bank. Following the loss of their car, the family stayed in a friend's car, then with Kayla's mother, and then from December 30 through February 20, at the families in Transition shelter in Manchester, which is also known as fit, the defendant brought the duffel bag containing the victim's body to each place where they stayed. At fit, the defendant put the duffel bag in the ceiling vent in their room. When the victim's body began to smell and leak fluid, the defendant put the body into garbage bags, which he then stuffed into a diaper bag. The defendant worked at a restaurant at that time and would store the bag in the restaurant's freezer. While he was there, the family moved from FIT to an apartment in Manchester. There, the defendant kept the victim's body in the apartment's freezer. The defendant began discussing getting rid of the victim's body and devised a plan to dismember her and use Lyme, which he believed would hasten decomposition of the body. On February 26, the defendant withdrew cash from an ATM and purchased Lime, an angle grinder, a blade, and a battery. At some point thereafter, the defendant thawed the victim's body in the bathtub at the apartment and had Kayla help remove the victim's clothing. The defendant had a large bag of Lyme and spent several hours in the bathroom with the victim's body. When the defendant was finished, he put the victim's body back into the diaper bag and put the bag back in the freezer.
- [08:38]
C
Keep going.
- [08:39]
B
On March 3rd, the defendant and Kayla stayed at an Econo Lodge with a friend of the defendant and the friend's girlfriend. The defendant had asked the friend to rent a U haul for him because he needed to move stuff. That evening, the friend arranged the rental. Back at the hotel, the friend and the defendant went outside to smoke a cigarette. And the defendant began pacing back and forth, repeating, I fucked up. The defendant left the hotel in the U haul in the middle of the night. He took the diaper bag containing the victim's body with him and returned without it, telling Kayla he got rid of her.
- [09:11]
C
Okay, that's. That's basically the elements of this offense. It's horrifying. It's incredibly disturbing. I almost say it's especially disturbing if you're a parent, but I imagine this is disturbing to anyone, whether you're a parent or not, to think about the terrible abuse this child suffered and even about the callous way her body was treated after she was deceased.
- [09:40]
B
Yeah. How parents could do that to their own child, I mean, how you could do that to any child. But certainly it's. It's very disturbing and sort of counter to what we think is the natural way of loving and protecting your children.
- [09:52]
C
So let's talk about. Well, he was charged with one count of each of the following offenses. Second degree murder, second degree assault, for having struck the victim in July of 2019, falsifying physical evidence and witness tampering. Also charged by criminal complaint with abuse of a corpse. So let's go back to our tried and true example of Anya stealing boxes of cereal. And let's also keep in mind that one thing that often happens in criminal matters is if a person is charged with one or more offenses and they are kind of related, then it makes sense for a variety of reasons. Let's just try them both at the same time. So if Anya goes down to the local grocery store and steals two boxes of cereal, I think we would all agree it wouldn't make a lot of sense for us to have a trial for her stealing one box and then a month later have a separate trial for whether or not she stole the second box. These are related. Let's just have one trial for all the charges. Does that make sense?
- [11:10]
B
Yeah. And that's typically how things play out.
- [11:12]
C
But I think it would also be easy for us to imagine situations. Well, oh, this person is charged with multiple offenses, but they are so different. They're so separated in Time. It doesn't make sense to do it all at once. Or you could also argue it isn't even fair to the defendant to do them all at once. Maybe you stole a box of cereal at the local store last week. Maybe 20 years ago, you stole a box of cereal from New York. Let's not do both of those at once, even without considering any statute of limitation issues. And with all of that in mind, let's also talk about something we've talked about quite a lot on this show, which is that when a person is on trial for a particular offense, you want to do everything you can to make sure that the jury is judging their innocence or guilt for that one particular offense. You don't want to be in a situation where a prosecutor can stand up there and say, oh, this is a bad person. Here's a lot of bad stuff this person did that's not even related to the crime, but it's going to make you think he's bad. And if you think he's bad, you're more likely to convict him. You know what I'm saying?
- [12:42]
B
I do know what you're saying.
- [12:44]
C
So we don't want that. We only want stuff admitted that is going to deal with the one particular offense.
- [12:52]
B
So can I ask you something?
- [12:53]
C
Please do.
- [12:54]
B
So, like when we were talking about the Alec Murdoch case that we've covered recently, now, that one got overturned for different reasons, but not because of this. Because when it came to his many, many financial crimes, that was a whole separate matter. And then they did the murders separately. So is that like a case where it's like they don't. And even the higher court even kind of said, hey, probably too much of the financial stuff came in to the murder trial. But. But at least they were trying in principle to separate those things.
- [13:25]
A
Yes.
- [13:27]
C
So with all of that, said the defendant, Mr. Montgomery, when he came to court, basically his argument was the person who delivered the fatal blow that killed the child wasn't me, it was Kayla. And as it happens, at the time of the final blow, the only adults in the car were him and Kayla. We have her testimony about what happened. But it's basically his argument is they're two words against each other. Now, when we look at these other charges, when we look at whether or not he assaulted her on this other occasion, there's lots of evidence for that. There's lots of witnesses saying he did this. We know he assaulted her. So his argument was these two offenses shouldn't have been charged together. Because I am concerned that the jury looked at these offenses and said, oh, this guy is clearly guilty of this assault, where we have witnesses, as we've just heard, who've seen evidence of that assault. And so since he did that assault, therefore, I think he's more likely to be guilty of the crime that ended with her death. That's. That's the argument. I'm curious what your thoughts are about that.
- [15:08]
B
Okay. I mean, listen, I. I always feel like I'm kind of the. I'm the hot headed reporter on the show or whatever. And like, I tried to understand, like the legal, the cold legal kind of principles behind this. I think I understand the principles personally. I don't know, I'm like, like, as somebody, I don't know, I guess my interaction is like, what? So we're supposed to like, give scumbags like a billion different trials just in case? Like, I mean, like, it's like, how much public resources have to be wasted on these people? Like, like, yeah, you know, you're like a scumbag child abuser. Can't take care of your family. Can't even, can't even like, protect your family from yourself. But, you know, the taxpayers have got to foot the bill for like, you know, multiple different trials for each of this. Just, just to be fair. It's just, I don't know, it gets to a point, Kevin, where I just think it's. It's kind of ridiculous. I guess it's kind of ridiculous, but I get it. I get at the same time, I mean, I want trials to be fair, blah, blah, blah, whatever. I just, I. I just at some point, it just feels like it's getting neurotic.
- [16:27]
C
This message is sponsored by Greenlight.
- [16:29]
B
Scammers are no joke. We've all gotten those sketchy emails and texts and calls. Sometimes it feels like we're all being bombarded by scammers. If you're like us, you've even had scammers try to get access to your relative's confidential information.
- [16:43]
C
Families lost $12.5 billion to fraud last year. With Greenlight Family Shield, you can keep your family from becoming a statistic.
- [16:52]
B
This app protects your whole family from fraud and scams. I'm talking about your kids, your grandparents, your elderly parents. Greenlight Family Shield takes care of everything.
- [17:03]
C
Greenlight gives you up to a million dollars of identity theft coverage, financial account monitoring, and credit locking. They give you real time alerts when fraud is detected.
- [17:15]
B
When it comes to scams, crime is up. It's rampant. We're living in a golden age of fraudsters. So fight back. Don't let these creeps steal your money, time and peace of mind. Don't let them Target your family. 6.5 million family members trust Greenlight to protect them.
- [17:32]
C
Greenlight Family Shield gives us complete peace of mind. We're able to use their Dark web monitoring systems to ensure that our sensitive information does not end up on the web. We really appreciate getting their real time alerts. It keeps us safe and it puts the power back in our hands. We use Greenlight and you should too.
- [17:54]
B
Scammers aren't waiting. Neither should you. Go to greenlight.com msheet right now to get started. That's greenlight.com msheet greenlight.com msheet everything's expensive. Prices are high, so we like to look for affordability and high value when we're shopping for clothes. That's why we adore our sponsor, Quint's.
- [18:16]
C
Quint is perfect for your summertime wardrobe refresh.
- [18:20]
B
Seriously, all their pieces are 50 to 80% less expensive than what you'd find at their competitors. They keep costs low by cutting out middlemen.
- [18:30]
C
Breathable European linen shorts and shirts starting at only $34. Soft T shirts that you'll love. Wearing lightweight cotton sweaters for the bonfire. Quince has got what you need.
- [18:42]
B
Here's what I just ordered for the summer. I bought their 100% European linen fit and flare midi dress in deep navy. It came in super fast and I love it. Honestly, most of the time I'm not daring enough for dresses without big sleeves to cover my arms, but this one I made an exception for. I absolutely love the way I look in this dress. I love the fit. It makes me feel super confident. Depending on how I style it, I feel like I could wear it on a fancy date night with Kevin or even just to a friend's summer barbecue. I adore the dark blue color and the A line silhouette and the lightweight linen. It feels great, it fits great and it's the perfect dress for summer. I have a feeling I'll be wearing it constantly.
- [19:23]
C
Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quince.com msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com msheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com msheet I started Ornod in 2013
- [19:47]
B
and we make bike apparel. The best part of Shopify for me is our ability to run the business as essentially Non technical people. We're able to admin everything on the back end, front end, and sell things online easily.
- [20:01]
A
If Shopify were a bike accessory, I think it would actually be the bicycle.
- [20:07]
B
It's the thing that you do the thing on. We run the business on Shopify.
- [20:11]
C
Start your free trial on shopify.com.
- [20:14]
B
you know, like, and personally, I think knowing what we know now about child abuse, about violent parents, about any kind of, you know, domestic violence, why shouldn't the people hear that? That seems highly relevant. You know, acting like, I mean, listen, I get, I get, listen. If you have an instance of a guy being accused of murdering his wife and then they bring out, well, he was a drug dealer, I don't really think that's necessarily fair. You can be a drug dealer, not murder your wife. And if the, if the state theory the crime has nothing to do with the drug dealing, it was like a fight between them, I don't think they should get to bring that in. I agree with that. But like it this from a common sense perspective, I just feel like this just feels like, yeah, this is highly relevant that he's been abusing her and targeting her and like, like abusing her in such a heinous way and going after her and, and, and almost treating her just like so poorly. I don't know. It's like I, I kind of am often torn, as they say on the show, between my, like, I, I understand our rule of law. I want defendants rights to be protected. But sometimes in cases I feel like it gets to the point where it's like, I mean, I don't know. I don't know what to tell you. It's kind of, it's pretty obvious what happened here.
- [21:32]
C
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. Obviously they're contending that by having the trial on both charges simultaneously, it was a way to sneak in some character witness under some character evidence under a different pretext. The state, I want to stress, strongly disagreed with the idea that the evidence for the murder itself was weak, even though the testimony for that came only from Kayla. I want to read some more from this quote. The state disputes, however, that the evidence on the murder charge was weak, arguing that so much of what Kayla said was corroborated by physical evidence that it was easy to credit the parts of her testimony that lacked such corroboration. Specifically, the state contends one, Kayla's testimony that the defendant stored the victim's body in the ceiling of their room at FIT was corroborated by DNA and fingerprint Evidence taken from. From that ceiling. Two, Kayla's testimony the defendant stored the bag containing the victim's body in the freezer at work was corroborated by two of the defendant's co workers who testified that they saw the defendant entering or leaving the restaurant's walk in cooler with a bag. Three, Kayla's testimony that the defendant planned to dismember the victim's body and accelerate its decay with Lyme was corroborated by evidence that a $500 cash withdrawal was made from Kayla's joint bank account 22 minutes before a nearly $400 cash purchase of items including a bag of lime and an angle grinder was made at a nearby Home Depot. And for Kayla's testimony that on the night she, the defendant, and the defendant's friend and the friend's girlfriend stayed in an Econo Lodge, the defendant used a U Haul to dispose of the victim's body was corroborated by testimony of the friend, his girlfriend, and. And the person who rented the U Haul. This evidence, notes the court, however, supports only Kayla's testimony by the defendant's actions after the victim's death. It does not corroborate her testimony that the victim killed the. The defendant killed the victim on December 7th by repeatingly punching her in the head. End quote. So while the state is saying everything, she's saying that we can check out from other sources checks out. We think she's a really good witness. And the court is saying, well, we only care about what she says that can't be checked out by any other witness. And we are concerned that the. The jury's decision was influenced by the strength of the evidence against the other charges. Does that make sense?
- [24:20]
B
I mean, I understand what you're saying. Yes.
- [24:23]
C
Obviously you strongly disagree.
- [24:26]
B
I just.
- [24:26]
C
I don't know.
- [24:26]
B
It's like. It's like we bend over backwards. It's. I don't know. It. It seems pretty stupid to me, but I'm. I get the principle behind it, and I support the principle behind it. I just think. I feel like at some point it's just splitting hairs, you know what I mean? And like, I just. I don't. It just seems like a tremendous waste of time and resources for everybody. Yeah, it certainly can make sure this absolute scumbag, you know, gets his fair day. It's like I. I get that. I want the absolute scumbags to get their, you know, day in trial and have fairness be the case for them along with everyone else. We need that. Right. You can't Just say, well, this guy's a bad guy, so throw out the Constitution. That's. That throws out the Constitution for everybody. I understand that. I just feel like at some point this is just getting. I mean, this just seems like. I mean, like, why not let the jury decide? Like, which they did. I mean, it's like, oh, yeah, they're influenced by that. But, you know, I don't know. Doesn't it seem. Is it not relevant that he's consistently abusing her and then is the one who's taking such pains to cover up the murder? I don't know. I feel like. I mean, what do you think?
- [25:44]
C
I don't agree with this decision. I don't necessarily think it's a crazy or an insane decision. I understand where they were coming from. I also understand and to some extent share the visceral anger and disgust. When you look at this person and you think of the harm and the violence he perpetrated against this child who deserved to have him as her protector, and to think that he did this and he's going to put us all through another trial. There's something about that that's disgusting and infuriating. I certainly feel that, yeah, it's disgusting.
- [26:31]
B
Just a waste of space. It would have been better if this guy had died before killing his daughter, because then she would have lived in. She was an innocent child and deserved to live. And he, frankly, based on his character, didn't like. It's just. And now he's gotta, you know, drag the people of New Hampshire through this again. Drag all the people who are in this case through this again. You know, waste a bunch of money. It just. It's like at some point, I feel like they're just. It's like there's finite resources in the world and the fact that we're having to. And it's not all about money. It's just what more of what it means. You know what I mean? Like, that it is just a waste. I'm not. I mean, on some level, I do think it's a crazy decision. On another level, I don't think it's a crazy decision. I do understand what they're talking about. I understand it. And maybe if the facts were a little bit different, I would be more amenable to being like, yeah, I totally get that. Maybe I'm just reacting emotionally because it's a little girl and because of what he did to her. I. I definitely concede that. I just feel like it's when people say all the criminals have all the Rights. I'm always like, guys, that's for a good reason, because we have a Constitution, and that means we all have rights. Right? But. And like. But sometimes. Sometimes you gotta hand it to those people when you see a case like this go down because you're just like,
- [27:51]
C
oh, my God, Let me read another.
- [27:53]
B
Be kidding.
- [27:54]
C
Let me read another excerpt here. Quote, here is the case was presented at trial. The jury was asked to determine which of the two adults who were with the victim on December 6 and 7, 2019. The defendant or Kayla killed her. While the jury heard no evidence that Kayla had ever physically assaulted the victim, it heard evidence from multiple witnesses that the defendant physically assaulted the victim in July 2019. Thus, there was a significant risk that the jury would draw the impermissible inference that because the defendant assaulted the victim before by striking her in the head, he must be the one who fatally assaulted her in December by again striking her in the head. End quote. So what they're saying there is just because we can prove and know that a person did something in July, that shouldn't be proof that he did something in December. I do think it's relevant. We. No common sense that she was basically killed by either Kayla or Mr. Montgomery. And we know certainly that one of those people has a documented history of abuse. So common sense does come into play.
- [29:08]
B
Well, apparently it doesn't in New Hampshire. I have a question. You hear about other cases where people bring in, like, oh, this. This boyfriend has a history of abusing this woman who was murdered then in a way that looked like, you know, he beat her up. Like, you hear about that in some cases, and in some cases, it seems like the prosecution is able to get that in where it's like, the circumstances outweigh. Personally, I also just want to say, like, I feel like, you know, I understand this principle. I think it's an important principle, but I also think, like, when you apply it so stringently in this case, it sort of misunderstands, like, the reality of abuse, physical abuse, and the reality of child abuse. It seems like it is highly relevant for the jury to know, hey, if we're deciding between who did it, Kayla or this guy, you know, we should probably know about who was documented as having, you know, been beating her up constantly. It just, like, what, What? Like, where's the line of, like, something that is relevant? And you can bring it in, or you can say, hey, this serial killer has a history of raping women, and that's what happened here. Like, where does. Where's the line?
- [30:16]
C
It's difficult to say. It's also important to note that evidence which is impermissible in one context can be brought in in another context. So it's possible you could bring in some of this evidence through other routes. They're just saying this one particular route of bringing it in, by doing the two charges together was impermissible. And they said the jury did not get good instructions. The court notes, quote, the instructions said only that the jury must consider each indictment separately and that its verdict on one indictment could not influence its verdict on another. Nothing in the instruction, however, told the jurors that they were prohibited from considering the evidence admitted on one charge when reaching their verdict on another. The instruction then left the jury free to consider evidence of the defendant's assault on the victim in July when deliberating on the second degree murder charge. End quote.
- [31:16]
B
Okay, so if there. So what. What I'm hearing you say there is that if they had brought some of this abuse in through other means, if the prosecution had managed to do that, then perhaps. Then perhaps it would have been okay. But the combination is where they're drawing more of a line. I understand that.
- [31:33]
C
And again, let's say you are on trial for charges of stealing a box of cereal in June of last year and July of last year. And in June, we have you on videotape stealing the cereal and making a sign on videotape saying, I did it. I'm guilty. Ha, ha, ha.
- [31:56]
B
That is my mo.
- [31:57]
C
And then in July, there's no evidence whatsoever other than an eyewitness who thinks they may have seen you. You wouldn't want to be convicted of the second offense just because people thought, well, look at what she did in June. That. That's. That's the argument.
- [32:14]
B
I think sometimes lawyers just disappear into, like, I respect the law. I respect what judges and lawyers are doing. I get it. I just think a lot of it's a hard. It's. I think it's a hard thing to sell this to the public. I think the public sees this and they say, well, where's the common sense? And it's hard. It's hard for me to accept it, frankly. And. And I feel like I, you know, am more immersed in this than most people. But it's like, you know, at some point sometimes with these rulings, even when I think there's an understandable legal reason for it, it can just be something that's so frustrating to look at because you're just like, okay, I guess we should just all, like, you know, check out of reality here and, like, you know, leave our common sense at the door. You know, I think I. It's hard to shake that. I think that's a real valid reaction to it. I don't. I don't think that means we should, like, be hating on judges or saying, oh, well, you know, it's all a disaster. There's. There could be good reasons for this. And certainly, I think, you know, there's a principle of it's better for one guilty person to go. It's what? It's better for one guilty person to go, no, sorry, 10 guilty people to go free than one innocent person be wrongfully convicted. And. And I understand that. And. And all of that is fine. It's just more of, like, when it gets implemented sometimes in these cases, I think people, including myself, are just like, what?
- [33:45]
C
It's. It's. It's infuriating. I. I think the evidence clearly shows that this man, and I use that term loosely, that this individual, this creature, that he is guilty of this offense. It's important to remember this is not the end of the process. This doesn't mean there won't ultimately be justice in this case, but it is awful to think of everybody having to go through and do all of this again.
- [34:16]
B
I mean, there may be justice in this case, but there may not be. I mean, let's not. Let's let sugar goat it.
- [34:23]
C
I'm confident there'd be justice in this case.
- [34:26]
B
I don't know. All you need is one weird jury. Is there anything else in this that we should read?
- [34:35]
C
I think we got through the gist of it, and we just wanted to give people this quick update.
- [34:40]
B
I do have a question for you. Is this something where. Was there a dissent, or was this unanimous?
- [34:47]
C
I'm not clear on that. I just. I was just looking at the primary opinion.
- [34:50]
B
Okay. Primary opinion. Well, you know, I mean, I think this is horrible, and I do feel terrible. I mean, like, this is. This poor kid. I mean, this is how. How people stood by and frankly and allowed this to happen. I do not understand. If a kid is getting beaten up in a house, that should be an emergency situation. And, you know, I don't. I don't understand any sort of culture where that's considered normal or.
- [35:20]
C
Or.
- [35:21]
B
Okay, this kid deserved so much better. And to be used as a punching bag by your own father at the age of five. I mean, the terror she must have experienced on a daily basis living with her abuser in such close quarters is really. It's really hard to think about.
- [35:37]
C
And I yeah, the opinion was delivered by Gould. And it says at the end here that McDonald, Donovan and Countway concurred.
- [35:49]
B
All right. So, I mean, they seem to feel like this is. This is a pretty solid malady. Vlon. Listen, I get it. I mean, I get. I get annoyed with this stuff, but I get it. And ultimately, I think it's. There's a. Like, there's instances in the law, Kevin, where I get mad and I'm like, this shouldn't be this way. And then other times it's like, wow, this is a really terrible outcome and this stinks. And I disagree with it, but also I understand it. And that's where this falls for me. How about you?
- [36:18]
C
Yeah, it's frustrating. As I say, it's not. It's not a crazy or insane opinion. It's an infuriating opinion, but it's not crazy or insane.
- [36:26]
B
Well, one can only hope that justice is ultimately delivered for Harmony. And it just. Yeah, my heart breaks for that kid. That's horrible. But thank you for doing this research. I really appreciate you. Kevin,
- [36:39]
C
thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us@murdersheetmail.com. if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.
- [37:00]
B
If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www. Buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.
- [37:23]
C
Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the web@kevintg.com if you're looking to talk with
- [37:35]
B
other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.