362. The Real Prosecutors on Songbird Road

Summary

The Prosecutors – Episode 362: The Real Prosecutors on Songbird Road

May 12, 2026 | PodcastOne

Episode Overview

Main Theme:
Alice and Brett take listeners inside the Julia Beverly case, a highly scrutinized child murder trial, by interviewing the two real-life prosecutors who tried and won the case: Jennifer Mudge and Philip Butler. The discussion focuses on the realities and nuances of prosecuting voluminous, high-profile cases, the challenges of handling public scrutiny and defense narratives, and a candid breakdown of the evidence, decisions, and aftermath of the case.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introductions & Career Backgrounds

• [02:05] Brett introduces the topic and guests.
• [04:02] Jennifer Mudge’s career: 18+ years in Madison County, then with the Illinois State’s Attorney Appellate Prosecutor's Office. Focus on violent crimes, especially child murders.
  • “Sometimes there’s nobody sitting behind you in the courtroom, but when you walk away at the end of the day, you feel like you’ve done something for a child whose voice was taken away and they needed a voice.” — Jennifer Mudge [06:05]
• [09:13] Philip Butler: started in contracts, then shifted to prosecution, eventually Appellate Prosecutor. Joined the Beverly case as co-counsel with Jennifer.

2. How They Got the Julia Beverly Case

• Both were not local to the county; they stepped in due to a conflict in the local DA’s office.
• [11:12] No one wanted the case due to its volume, complexity, and the gruesome facts: “Not everybody wants to handle those cases... it was very voluminous as well.” — Jennifer Mudge
• Their fresh perspective helped counter misinformation around supposed bias or conflict of interest.

3. Examination of Law Enforcement and Investigation

• [12:52] Philip reviews the investigation: “I see these investigators as doing a very thorough job... there were a couple canine dogs that were sent out... the chief K9 operator for the entire U.S.” — Philip Butler
• Both clarify there was no evidence of a "railroad" or corruption in the case file.

4. The Massive, Complex Evidence File

• [14:44] Surprised by the volume: two boxes of material. They prioritized and organized what would tell a coherent narrative for the jury.
• [15:18] “The blood in the house alone, it was everywhere, almost in every room... and the surveillance footage... all of that put together.” — Jennifer Mudge
• [16:02] Philip: “Blood in the car on top of the house.”

5. Building the Prosecution Narrative

• [21:01] Jennifer: Chronological storytelling was vital; helps jury follow, supports closing argument timeline.
• [21:31] Philip: Focused on the 911 call and poking holes in Julia’s shifting story.
• [22:18] Both felt the evidence was strong, but Jennifer underscores the need for caution and humility: “I don’t like to be confident at all... I always like to go in thinking the worst... but it is one of the best, most solid cases I’ve ever taken to trial.” — Jennifer Mudge

6. The Motive—and Its Absence

• [23:44] Jennifer: “Luckily, we don’t have to prove motive... I can honestly say I still have no idea.”
• [23:58] Philip: “One person knows what the motive was and she’s changing her story...”
• Both stress motive isn’t legally required—and in this case, was never concrete.

7. Handling Public/Media Pressure

• [24:52] Philip coped with stress by picking up smoking again.
• [25:08] Jennifer: “You have to hang your hat on your experience... we were, I would say, prepared is an understatement.”
• Both discuss the toll: living out of hotels, long hours, missing family, and the emotional impact.

8. Logistics and Preparation in a Remote County

• [29:15] Jennifer: “You literally give up your entire life... Even when you try to sleep, you can’t because you wake up and think of a detail you might have missed...”
• [30:09] Philip: “We don’t have an office in Williamson County. To meet with witnesses... at sheriff’s office or Jen’s hotel lobby... different experience.”

9. Decisions About Evidence Presentation

• Forensic Odontology (bite mark evidence):
  • [32:04] Jennifer: “I’ve never been more nervous about putting on a piece of evidence in my entire life...”
  • Carefully limited testimony to Julia’s own admission of the bite mark to avoid appellate issues.
  • “[The odontologist] was incredibly excited... but he was so limited. But I have all this! I know she made that bite mark. No... here’s the only thing we can do.”
• Motive and behavioral evidence:
  • Defense arguments attempted to shift blame or suggest alternative narratives.

10. Julia Beverly’s Evolving Story

• [36:30] Philip: “She had to tell them something. And I think she was scrambling... her story is still evolving.”
• [37:28] Jennifer: Points out Julia’s physical wounds (“absolutely from the stabbing she was doing”) limited her plausible alternative stories.
• [39:40] Jennifer: Angry that the defense’s new narrative tried blaming the victim (Jade) as disturbed or suicidal. “It’s really despicable for her to, for lack of a better word, dirty up an 11 year old girl...”

11. Presenting the Case to the Jury

• [44:54] Jennifer: “The goal is to make them see that... every piece corroborates the other one. And there’s one thing that... made zero sense, and that was her [the defendant’s] statement.”
• Chronology, consistency, and overwhelming forensic/circumstantial evidence drove their narrative.

12. Two Pieces of Evidence Not Introduced

• [46:19] Julia’s diary entries:
  • Didn’t present them because, in full context, the negative bits were diluted by other “ramblings”; risked distracting from the core case and inviting unnecessary sympathy for the defendant.
  • Would have used them only if Julia testified.
• Fingernail scrapings:
  • Not tested because the prosecution already had abundant DNA evidence; defense could have asked for it, but did not.
  • [50:25] “Had they asked us, we would have been so—Oh, yeah, correct. That’s a good point.” — Jennifer Mudge

13. Trial Surprises

• [52:24] Philip: Journalist approaching potential jurors before voir dire—unusual level of media attention.
• [53:19] Jennifer: Never seen so many jurors immediately state an opinion of guilt (“I’ve never heard so many prospective jurors just say... she did it.”)
• [53:52] Defense attorney’s closing essentially gave her client a new alibi for the first time (“I’ve never had counsel stand up and give an alibi on behalf of their client.”)

14. Reactions, Aftermath, and Justice

• [58:18] Being told by Julia at sentencing, “It’s not fair.”
  • [58:29] Jennifer: “...very telling of a personality which is a very self-centered personality. It’s not fair to me. ...That trial was absolutely fair.”
• No regrets:
  • [59:52] Jennifer: “If anything, everything that’s come out afterwards...it’s only made it more clear how guilty she is. I’ve never once had a thought that anything was done wrong... I’ve never wavered on that.”
• Philip agrees: “I think the jury 100% got this right.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “There’s one person who says one thing, and 30 other people who say something else... all come together to tell that one story. And the story she tells is the opposite.” – Jennifer Mudge [44:54]

• “Our job’s not to win. Our job is to seek justice. Sometimes that’s a case like this, sometimes it’s a traffic ticket.” – Philip Butler [27:14]

• On Motive:
  “I can honestly say I still have no idea. It still puzzles me.” — Jennifer Mudge [23:44]

• On Pressure:
  “I started smoking cigarettes again.” — Philip Butler [24:50]

• On Emotional Toll:
  “I didn’t see my family for I think it was 13 days... you literally give up your entire life. Nothing else exists.” – Jennifer Mudge [28:11]

• On Defense Tactics:
  “…to then all of a sudden, the blame shifts to Jade ... that story in particular was really despicable.” – Jennifer Mudge [39:40]

• On Jury Remorse:
  “…I’m actually not surprised that any juror ever has remorse, because we know that jurors have remorse all the time. But when they’re sitting in the seat close to the evidence, having weighed all of the facts when it matters. They voted what they thought was true at the time.” – Alice [62:13]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:05] Episode/theme & guest introductions
• [04:02] Jennifer’s career background
• [09:13] Philip’s career background
• [11:12] Why other prosecutors declined the case
• [12:52] Law enforcement investigation reviewed
• [14:44] Sorting overwhelming evidence
• [21:01] How they structured trial narrative
• [23:44] On motive (or lack thereof)
• [24:52] Pressure and emotional toll
• [29:15 – 31:30] Logistical hurdles of remote prosecution
• [32:04] Bite mark/odontology discussion
• [36:30] Why Julia’s alibi never made sense
• [44:54] Crafting the story for the jury
• [46:19] Not introducing diary entries & fingernail scraping
• [52:24] Voir dire and surprises at trial
• [58:18] Julia’s “it’s not fair” reaction and its significance
• [59:52] Looking back: no doubts, no regrets

---

Tone and Language

Candid, professional, and occasionally wry ("I started smoking again"; “not even offended at all because I am the boring one”). Both prosecutors and hosts maintained empathy for the victim while being analytical regarding the case, and were not shy about calling out defense or public narratives they believed misleading or inaccurate.

---

Summary Takeaway

This episode offers rare, insightful access to two veteran prosecutors as they candidly walk through every major decision, challenge, and emotional beat in the Julia Beverly case, countering true crime narratives with first-hand details and preserving the voice of the victim, Jade. Their perspectives highlight the unseen costs of prosecuting these cases—and the integrity, preparation, and story-shaping required to “seek justice” amid scrutiny and complexity.

Transcript

[Jennifer Mudge]

Book a Loved by Guest property with VRBO and you get a top rated vacation rental that's loved for all the right reasons like being in a great location or having great amenities.

[Brett]

Ugh. I love my VRBO for the view.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Good reason.

[Brett]

Ooh, and the sauna.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Sweet. Another good reason.

[Brett]

And that it's one of those good saunas with the hot rock thing. Ugh. Love a good hot rock thing. Fancy.

[Philip Butler]

That's also a reason.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Don't worry about surprises. Book a verbo you'll love with the Love by guest filter if you know

[Alice]

you verbo this podcast is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy. Just drop in some details about yourself and see if you're eligible to save

[Jennifer Mudge]

money when you bundle your home and auto policies.

[Alice]

The process only takes minutes and it

[Jennifer Mudge]

could mean hundreds more in your pocket.

[Alice]

Visit progressive.com after this episode to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

[Brett]

Potential savings will vary.

[Philip Butler]

Not available in all states.

[Alice]

Liberty Mutual customizes your car and home insurance and now we're customizing this rush hour ad to keep you calm, which could help your driving. And science says therapy is great for a healthy mindset, so enjoy this 14 second session on us. I think you've done everything right and absolutely nothing wrong.

[Brett]

In fact, anything that hasn't gone your

[Alice]

way could probably be blamed on your father not being emotionally available because his father wasn't emotionally available and so on. And now that you're calm and healing, you're probably driving better too.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Liberty Liberty Liberty Liberty Hi, I'm Juliette

[Brett]

Cowley, a retired FBI profiler and host of the True Crime podcast the Real FBI Profilers. If you're fascinated with true crime and criminal profiling, then join us as we discuss real cases and examine the behavior exhibited before, during and after the commission of the crime. You can listen to the consult wherever you get your podcasts. It's as close as it gets to being in the room with with the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit.

[Alice]

I'm brett. And I'm alice and we are the prosecutors. Today on the Prosecutors, we discussed the Julia Beverly case with the person who took it to trial. Hello everybody and welcome to this episode of the Prosecutors. I'm Brett and I'm joined as always by my boring co host, Alice.

[Brett]

Not even offended at all because I am the boring one in this episode, you guys. We have covered the Julia Beverly case in detail, but today you get to talk and hear from the prosecutors who brought this immense case to trial. This is a case that will stick with you as a prosecutor, as you all know, because you've traveled through the facts with us. There's been so much misinformation in this case. We are so excited to have the person who read through everything, who put this case together, tried the case, and brought to justice for Jade. Thank you, Jennifer Mudge, for being here.

[Jennifer Mudge]

My pleasure.

[Alice]

Yeah. Thank you so much for taking time to do this. I know you're really busy, busy person. You're someone who's an active prosecutor. You got a lot of cases in front of you, but I know this is one that stuck with you as well. So before we dive into this case, I want to learn a little bit more about you. How did you end up in your position?

[Jennifer Mudge]

My whole career has been in prosecution. I started right out of law school. In fact, in law school at the Madison County, Illinois, state's attorney's office. I was an intern there. Started out in traffic, dui, went to domestic violence, went to felony, ultimately became the first assistant state's attorney and the chief of the violent crimes unit in Madison County, Illinois. That, for perspective, is about two hours north of Williamson County. So I spent 18, 19 years in Madison county, and I left there eight years ago to work for the Illinois state's Attorney Appellate prosecutors Association, based out of Springfield, Illinois. And for reference, that is about three hours north of Marion. What the appellate prosecutor's office does in Illinois is we mostly take conflict cases. So to make it simple, let's say a state's attorney has a relative that gets in some sort of trouble, gets a DUI or something, then we go in and handle it because they would have a conflict prosecuting them. We also do what we call assist cases, which is. The bulk of my work is assist cases. If a small county who doesn't have many violent crimes because of their size and population, has a murder, and the state's attorney there has never tried a case like that before, one of us will go in and either take it over or assist them in prosecuting that.

[Alice]

And just to give people an idea, how many cases do you think you've prosecuted in your career?

[Jennifer Mudge]

Oh, to trial or altogether?

[Brett]

Altogether, and then to trial.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Over a thousand. Altogether, I've probably tried well over 50 to jury trial.

[Brett]

That's incredible.

[Jennifer Mudge]

I mean, you know, they always say that any good prosecutor never knows the exact amount.

[Brett]

You know, you've done a lot when you don't know the exact amount. And there are prosecutors, and then there are prosecutors who Focus on violent crimes and, you know, gruesome murders like the one we're about to talk about today. What drew you to this area and what kept you from burnout, which is very common in this area?

[Jennifer Mudge]

I think it's the satisfaction that drew me to the violent crime area. I tried my first murder in 2004, so, yeah, 22 years of that. And it's just the satisfaction you get, you know, especially in child murders. I do a lot of child murders. Sometimes there's nobody sitting behind you in the courtroom, but when you walk away at the end of the day, you feel like you've done something for a child who. Their voice was taken away and they needed a voice. And. And then, like in this particular case, sometimes there's hundreds of people sitting behind you and following you around all day and just the satisfaction of seeing it through, mostly for the better, but sometimes even for the not so good and for satisfaction of them being so grateful. And I don't like the word closure, but having some sort of peace of mind that somebody cared enough as much as they cared for their loved ones to fight for them. And that's why I love it. Burnout. I've got burnout, but the benefits still outweigh the cost.

[Brett]

Well, thank you for putting aside your own burnout in order to make sure that these victims and their families have voices. And this case in particular, when we started to look into it, we really wanted to, because there's a lot of misinformation out there, as I said at the beginning, of people saying that the prosecutors, the law enforcement, they were all kind of in the bag against the defendant here, Julia Beverly. And you have, more than anyone, been steeped in the facts in this case. But before we get there, you are a state's attorney at the time that this case was prosecuted. So you weren't the local D A in Marion county who would have naturally gotten this case, is that right?

[Jennifer Mudge]

That's correct. This was my first case I ever had in Williamson county, so I. I didn't know my way around that courthouse. My office took the appointment after a conflict arose. Someone from the public defender's office had actually worked a little bit on this file, and he moved over to the state's attorney's office. So that's why they flagged it for us. And that's when I took it. Then there were some more changes made, and a conflict was gone after that. The conflict went away, but nobody really wanted to take it back, so I just kept it. And I had done a significant Amount of work on it. So we wound up keeping the case. Anyway, there's my partner.

[Brett]

And this episode just got way better. Philip Butler has entered the chat. Philip, I'm sorry. We got started because we just couldn't keep from asking questions to your co counsel, Jennifer Mudge. But welcome. Philip, thank you so much for joining us. I know you were the co prosecutor on the Julia Beverly case. Welcome.

[Philip Butler]

Thank you. Thank you for having me. And I've got these new ear buds. Can you hear me?

[Brett]

You sound awesome.

[Alice]

You know, Philip's a real lawyer because he's late because he was in court on vacation. These things happen while on vacation.

[Brett]

Even see even more committed. Philip, we've literally just gotten started. We got a little bit of a background from Jennifer, and we were just starting to talk about the case. But before we dive more into the case, we'd love to hear about your trajectory, how you ended up in the position that you are today. I know our listeners really love hearing kind of your origin story.

[Philip Butler]

Oh, okay. Well, I started out as a 7 11. I didn't think I wanted to be a prosecutor at all. I wanted to sit in a cubicle and do contracts. And then I got an internship in a prosecutor's office in Jefferson County, Illinois, and just fell in love with it, really. I started that in 2007. They hired me after I passed a bar in 08. Worked there for a couple years, went on to be an assistant state's attorney in Franklin county, which is just a neighboring county. It's kind of in between where Williamson county is and Jefferson county, which is the big town there. City is Mount Vernon, Illinois, on I5764 kind of intersection. I left being a prosecutor for about a year and a half, thinking I was going to make some money, and hated it. Came back. I was appointed state's attorney in Franklin county after I lost that election, the next election. Then I got hired on as a special prosecutor with Illinois State's attorney, Appellate prosecutor's office. So that's kind of how I got to the position I am today.

[Alice]

And Jennifer was just explaining to us that you guys are not the prosecutor. You weren't the prosecutors in Marion.

[Philip Butler]

No.

[Alice]

So you weren't the local DAs or whatever y' all were brought in. How did you end up on the Julia Beverly case?

[Philip Butler]

Just kind of got to ask if I wanted to be co counsel with Jen, and I said, sure, absolutely.

[Brett]

That was all you needed.

[Jennifer Mudge]

That's a nice way of saying I made him. I made him do it.

[Brett]

That's okay. Brett. And I would pull Brett into every one of my cases because it's just more fun to work with your friends. But, Jennifer, you said something that I don't want to lose here. So, Philip, just to catch you up, she said that there was this conflict because there was a defender who went over to the prosecutor's office, and so they had worked on the case, kind of a conflict. She stepped in. But then, Jennifer, you said the conflict was resolved, but no one wanted the case, and so you all stayed on. Why did no one want the case? I feel like that's a loaded phrase you just said there.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Well, and I don't. I don't mean that negatively to anyone at the Williamson County State's Attorney's office, but I find it odd that this other podcast likes to say that. That the people of Williamson county or that office was, you know, gunning for Julia Beverly specifically. Right. Like that there was some sort of bias towards her. But to be quite honest with you, you know, nobody wanted the case because it was A, it was very high profile, B, it was a very gruesome murder of a child. And, you know, not everybody wants to handle those cases. And it was very voluminous as well. So it was kind of like when the conflict goes away, we're obligated to notify the state's attorney, hey, this is your case. If you want it back. And they said, no, you can keep it. So I think just the details of the case and how big of a case it was, they said, no, you should keep it.

[Brett]

That completely comports with my experience, especially when it comes to voluminous cases, to get back up to speed, especially when you have countless other cases on your docket. It's a lot of work for the local state's attorney.

[Alice]

So, Philip, bring you in here. You're digging through this voluminous record, and obviously, it's hard to talk about this case and not talk about the innocence movement that grew up afterwards. And typically, whenever you have that, you always have charges of rush to judgment, police corruption, bias against the defendant, that sort of thing. You're coming in with fresh eyes. You're not from there. You don't know these people. When you're looking through the file, are you seeing evidence of that? Are you seeing anything that's concerning you about an attempt to. To railroad a defendant?

[Philip Butler]

I don't see that at all. I see these investigators as doing a very thorough job. I mean, how many officers were there that were out combing businesses, houses for any kind of video? And that was just based off Julia's first statement that she went to Carbondale and they're going all the way. You know, Carbondale's 30 minute drive from their house. You'd have to drive past their own Walmart to go there. So they, they're looking for everything. There were a couple canine dogs that were sent out to search for this random person that she made up that was in the black hoodie. And we're talking about K9. One of the K9 officers that got deployed was with the US Fish and Wildlife Department, and he was the chief K9 operator for the entire United States. So, I mean, in my opinion, they did a very thorough investigation on this case and it wasn't trying to buffalo or railroad Julia Beverly for any reason.

[Brett]

So you get this file, and a lot of people don't know that there are different stages. A prosecutor can get a file. By the time you guys got the file, especially since you were brought in at the, at the time a conflict was identified, what stage was the file? And had the investigation mostly been complete? You know, were you, were you speaking with law enforcement officers to fill holes, if there were holes?

[Jennifer Mudge]

The file was basically just two boxes of all the paperwork for us to sort through after we got through it, we definitely had to fill some holes. I mean, I remember Philip and I had conversations of, you know, you rarely get cases where you have so much evidence, so much there, and you have to parse out. What will we present, what won't you present? There was some additional DNA testing that I think hadn't been done once we got into it. And so Philip and I had to meet with some lab people and request that testing. If I remember correctly, the fingernail scrapings was one of those.

[Brett]

Can I ask you to, to highlight that? So, Jennifer, I know you said you've tried 50 cases, done about a thousand cases. When you say this case, was it stuck out in your mind because there was a lot of evidence. Can you list what you mean by that? Because people who live in this CSI age expect there to be, you know, basically eyewitness, you know, perfect witnesses and perfect evidence in every case that we have now. And that's just not the reality. So you've lived through many of these cases. What do you mean when you say this case had so much evidence that you had to actually sort through and determine what to present to the jury?

[Jennifer Mudge]

I mean. Well, specifically, like the blood in the house alone, it was everywhere, almost in every room. And what was a wipe versus a swipe? What was a transfer? What was a spatter of blood and so much was collected. We could have tested a thousand spots in that house. Right. But we had the blood spatter expert that helped us with that. What would be worth testing what we could get something from? And then the surveillance footage, I mean, there was just so much of it and the neighbors and Hucks and all the places that they looked for her going to the Walmart and they didn't find anything. And just all of that put together along with all of the video interviews and just there was just a lot there that had to blood in the

[Philip Butler]

car on top of the the house.

[Brett]

Yeah. Guys, you know, you're always hearing me talk about running from one event to the next. I have to be in court. I'm recording a podcast, doing an interview, doing a TV spot and trying to be a mom at the same time. I need support wear to make me feel confident, but I also need it to be realistic and feel comfortable. That's why I love Honeylove. I am absolutely in love with their new crossover contour bra. It is best selling for a reason. It's wireless, but it has built in molded light foam pads for extra support. And it's beautifully contoured shape. I wear it with evening wear to wearing to court, to running around in a T shirt with my kids at home. It truly is a crossover in my life. And I love Honey Love as a company because it's an independent female founded brand. All Honey Love products are intelligently designed by women who actually wear them, including founder Betsy, who is highly involved in the development of each product. And the thing about these bras that I've been talking about is they're supportive and wire free thanks to this bonding technology that lifts without underwire because you deserve a bra that's lightweight and comfortable without sacrificing support. And can I talk about their shapewear? I absolutely love it. In fact, I'm wearing the super power shorts right now. The shapewear is designed to move with you. Say goodbye to pesky shapewear that rolls down as soon as you hit the dance floor. Because their shapewear uses targeted compression to enhance your curves instead of skin squeeze them. It's designed to work with your body, not against it. Treat yourself to the most advanced bras and shapewear on the market. Use our exclusive link to save 20% off [e-mail] prosecutors that's honeylove.com prosecutors after you check out, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you experience the new standard in comfort and support with Honey Love. So I didn't realize this at first, but feeling off day to day isn't always just stress. I just thought it was from not enough sleep or stress from podcasting and lawyering full time. But things like low energy mood swings or just feeling run down, a lot of that can actually come from not getting the right nutrients consistently. That's when I realized I didn't really have a system to cover those gaps. And that's what led me to First Day. First Day simplifies everything because their multivitamins is what is filling the gaps in my nutrition to make sure that my body is getting all it needs. They have no added sugars, no artificial dyes, nothing unnecessary. They're super transparent about ingredients and that's why everything is tested for 200 plus toxins. And it has the Clean Label purity award. They actually make different formulas for toddlers, kids, teens and adults. So it's tailored to your stage of life. It just makes me feel better knowing that we're covering our bases and it takes the guesswork out of making sure I'm getting everything I need. I'm not second guessing it every day. It's just two gummies a day so it's easy to stay consistent, which honestly makes a big difference. Over a million families use first day. They also have a 45 day money back guarantee for a limited time only. Our listeners are getting an insane deal. Use Code Prosecutors to get up to 57% [e-mail] that's up to 57% off and a free gift with code [e-mail] after you purchase they will ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them our show sent you. When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Alice]

Yeah, so you got all this blood evidence. One thing that's interesting about this case is I think a lot of times when you have a murder, the blood can tell the story of this is where it started, this is where it went. This case though, I mean, as you said, just a horrific scene. Blood everywhere. To the extent that you you can't even really figure that out just because there's so much blood. How do you start? You want to tell a story, obviously, you know, you want to tell a story that the jury can understand when you're sitting down with all that evidence, and it's confusing in some ways and straightforward in others. How do you decide? This is the approach we're going to take. This is the story we're going to tell. This is where we're going to start, this is where we're going to end.

[Jennifer Mudge]

I think in most cases, it always makes sense to go chronologically, if you can, and with the goal in mind being your closing argument has to have a timeline. Right. So I think start at the beginning. You know, what was going on in the house that day, her getting to the police department, her giving a statement where she said she was, and then go straight to the investigation of where they found out she really was. So in this case, chronological was the only thing that really made sense to us.

[Philip Butler]

I agree. It starts with that 911 call, in my opinion. You know, that she makes, and then you plug in the details of her holes in her story from there. How long did it take her to call 911 after getting back home? Putting together that timeline was crucial.

[Brett]

We always say the timeline really tells the story, and it certainly does, especially when you have essentially two timelines. Her timeline, which is impossible based on the facts, and then the actual timeline based on multiple sources, timestamps, security footage, which is immense in this case. As you're sorting through all this, I know you've already said there's a lot of evidence going into trial. Of course, we as prosecutors should never bring a case at all if we don't think it's beyond a reasonable doubt. What was your confidence in the strength of the evidence as you were heading into trial?

[Philip Butler]

I was fairly confident in the evidence. You know, I thought we had great evidence. I thought we had a great investigation. At the same time, you never know what a jury is going to just hold on to and look at differently than what you've ever thought, no matter how many hours you've spent with that file. But I thought we had a solid, solid case against Julia.

[Jennifer Mudge]

I agree with that. I don't like to be confident at all. I always like to go in thinking the worst. I'm a doomsday prepper. I always think doom and gloom when I'm going in. But when you take an overview look of it, I mean, it is one of the best, most solid cases, I think I've ever taken to trial.

[Alice]

So one area that I'm going to say it's missing, but you may even disagree with me on that. But it's the thing that the common person out there, the typical true crime listener, frankly, even me as somebody who's seen these, always ask, and that's how could someone like Julia do something like this to an 11 year old girl who's grown up in her home? Like, what could possibly be the motive for something like that? And I know motive wasn't a big focus in the case because frankly, you had the evidence. You don't have to prove motive, as we tell people all the time, but it is a question people always have. So going in, what were your thoughts about motive and how did you approach that with the jury?

[Jennifer Mudge]

Well, luckily we don't have to prove motive and I think that's something that we made clear to the jury early on. As far as what we think of the motive, I can honestly say I still have no idea. It still puzzles me.

[Philip Butler]

I agree with that. At this point, one person knows what the motive was and she's changing her story, even adding more detail to what she's telling the other podcasts.

[Brett]

Apparently, you know, this motive question is certainly what gets the headlines. And you'd also mentioned this, this was a high profile case even at the time. You know, we see a lot of coverage now, but at the time there was a lot of scrutiny. People had eyes on this. When you have an 11 year old girl essentially stabbed more than 100 times, it's going to rivet people. How do you deal with that type of pressure? Not just from the families, not just from the people actually involved in the case, but essentially national attention on you going into this case. Especially when everyone's asking the same question, which you don't have to prove. Why would she do this? Are we sure we have the right person? Can you talk a little bit about that type of pressure as a prosecutor going into a case like this?

[Philip Butler]

Well, I started smoking cigarettes.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Well, did you really?

[Alice]

Yeah,

[Philip Butler]

since then. But I started during this case, I started smoking again. You know, I'd kicked the habit for about a year and a half. And pressure on this case, I just started all over again. So that's how I dealt with the pressure was with bad habit.

[Jennifer Mudge]

I mean, there was a tremendous amount of pressure on us. But you know, you, you have to think, I mean, between Philip and I together, we had decades of experience trying cases as prosecutors. And you just have to go in thinking, you know, nobody else is Going to have this kind of experience that can handle this case. And he and I have handled, you know, filled a lot of curveballs in the courtroom. You know, we've both been there a lot. We've done it a lot. And you just have to hang your hat on your experience and, you know what you're doing. And we got this, and it was a long two weeks. We did a TV interview, I believe, after the trial, and somebody had called my husband right after and said, I saw your wife on tv and boy, she looks really tired. Thanks. I was.

[Brett]

There is no tired like trial tired.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Oh, there isn't. You're out of your mind. But, you know, we had to go in knowing that we both had the experience put together, and, you know, we worked really well together, and we divvied up the witnesses appropriately. And he would take one and run with it. I would take something and run with it. And we were, I would say, prepared is an understatement. We're both over preparers. And we knew walking in that day that nobody knew the case like we did. And if you've got that going for you, it's hard to lose.

[Alice]

There's this notion out there sometimes in the public that prosecutors, all they care about is winning. It's all about winning. They just want to beat the person sitting across from them. Would you have put yourself through all of that stress, strain, and heartache just because you wanted to win this case?

[Jennifer Mudge]

Absolutely not. And, you know, I think seasoned prosecutors, I mean, sure, when you start off, you really want to get a guilty verdict or beat that other attorney on the traffic case or, you know, misdemeanor case that you're trying, and it is about winning. But I think once you get to a certain level, I mean, you know, we all took an oath, and any prayer I say during a trial is I just pray that the right thing happens. I don't pray that I win. It's not about winning. This is a little girl's life, and it's an adult woman's life, too, that's at stake. I mean, there's a lot at stake. So I don't think of it as win or loss. I think of it as we just want justice done.

[Philip Butler]

Perfectly said there, Jen. I agree. I a mentor when I first started as a young prosecutor that told me, our job's not to win. Our job is to seek justice. Sometimes case like this, sometimes that's a traffic ticket, but your job is to seek justice. However that is for that specific case.

[Brett]

You know, seeking justice comes at cost to you guys. You said that kind of lightheartedly, Philip, that you started smoking cigarettes again. But prosecutors are real people with real families. And before we started recording, Jennifer, you said that this isn't even your home. So you're living out of a hotel this entire time. So most people, if they've had a hard day at work, they get to go home, sleep in their own bed, eat their own food, you know, put on their own clothes that are in their closet these two plus weeks. Because of course you're there for longer than just the trial. You're having to live out of a suitcase with no real support around you except for the case file and your co prosecutor. Can you talk a little bit about the logistics, quite literally of prosecuting a case that's far from home?

[Jennifer Mudge]

Yes, it's, it's tough. I mean, I had to pack up suits, two weeks worth of suits. I didn't see my family for I think it was 13 days total. I remember that. I believe the super bowl was on and Philip is quite a football fan and he and I were sitting there and the football game was on in the background while, you know, the rest of the world is doing what they do. And he and I are have a file spread out in front of us. And you literally, I mean, at least I do. You literally give up your entire life. Nothing else exists. I don't speak to anyone that I normally would speak with. I don't reply to emails. I don't do anything for enjoyment at all. And even when you try to sleep, you can't because you wake up an hour later and you think of a detail you might have missed or oh gosh, did I do this? Or you know, the small things. Did I prove this one at trial? And so I get up and write something down for the next day and it's just, it's non stop the whole time. So you literally have to set the rest of your life aside and to do that for two weeks, it's not easy, but like I said, it's rewarding.

[Philip Butler]

And I will say I didn't have to live out of a hotel for those two weeks. I live about 30 minutes from where the trial occurred, so I was able to travel there. Yeah, the sleep schedule is. There is no schedule really. I'm sure you guys have the same experience when you're in trial. You sleep when you can. If you can't, you're making notes, you're thinking of things all night long. The wheels don't stop.

[Brett]

And you're right, even when you get to go home, I mean, 30 minutes is no small thing. I remember one of the trials Brett and I did. My house was relatively close to the courthouse, and so we had all our FBI agents come over after each one. So I would put my kids to bed, and then we would spread out our case files on the dining room table, eating like, cold pizza, because we ordered it three hours ago. We're just now getting around to eating, and late into the night we're still working. Sure, it was at my house, but, you know, might as well have been Timbuktu, because there was certainly no enjoyment of being at home.

[Philip Butler]

Well, here's another aspect to it. You know, we don't have an office in Williamson County. So to meet with witnesses and prepare witnesses, we're doing that at sheriff's office when we can. We're doing that at the hotel room that Jen's staying in. In the lobby of the hotel room. It's different than when you are the state's attorney or an assistant state's attorney, and you've got your office and you've got your key to that, and you can go in there and meet with a witness at any time. You know, witnesses have schedules, too. Maybe they've got to work during the day and can't meet with you during the day, so you've got to meet with them at night. And it's a different experience when you have an office there in that county versus when you don't. And that's not saying that the Williamson County State's Attorney's office wouldn't have let us use their office to meet with people. You know, we'd have to arrange for someone from them to come at night. And I think we met with the dentist or the odontologist at the hotel room at night because he worked through the day, and that's when he could meet us before his testimony. And it is a different experience.

[Jennifer Mudge]

And he was from way up north, so that the odontologist left his office at noon one day and didn't get to the Holiday Inn Express that I was at until 8:30pm so, you know, we're waiting for him and we're meeting him in the lobby and he's going on the stand the next morning. So it's a lot.

[Alice]

So you mentioned the odontologist. That was a question I wanted to ask you. Because every trial involves making decisions about how you want to present evidence, if you want to present evidence. Evidence. Forensic odontology is one of those areas of evidence that's kind of under attack. In this case, you had a strange situation where the defendant is saying, yeah, this mark that looks like a bite mark is in fact a bite mark, but it's mine. Walk us through sort of the decision to put that evidence on. And were you nervous about potential, you know, appellate bombs in your case later on, given the controversy about that stuff?

[Jennifer Mudge]

I've never been more nervous about putting on a piece of evidence in my entire life than that. And Philip and I had many discussions about it. You know, you're very limited, and you know that it's going to be the one thing that's scrutinized. But at the same time, in this case, you're not allowed to have somebody come in and say, that's a bite mark. That person made a bite mark. But in this case, Julia Beverly said, that's a bite mark on my arm. I did it myself. So we had to limit his testimony to strictly observations of what she had already identified as a bite mark. And Philip and I talked a lot, and I said, we have this piece of evidence, and it's a big one. It's a real big one. If we don't put that on and we get a not guilty, I will never forgive myself if we do put that on. And the appellate court says, shame on you. You shouldn't have put that on. I'd rather try it again. I'd rather put myself through that again than have to live with the fact that I left a key piece of evidence sitting on my desk and didn't even try to bring it in. So that's kind of where I landed on that. The odontologist was incredibly excited to put this evidence on, and he was incredibly frustrated that he was so limited. He's. But I have all this. But I know she made that bite mark. No, here's the only thing we can do. And it was very frustrating for him, I know, but he did a nice

[Brett]

job reading that expert testimony was immense. It was a great education for me because you could tell that you, too, as the prosecutors were limiting him. And it was brilliantly done. The way you were able to extract the testimony without saying the things that the appellate court is going to slap down by saying essentially that she was missing the certain teeth, that there were the holes and the bite mark that you would expect to see those types of teeth were not. The marks were not there. I mean, it was brilliantly done. And I agree with you, it was a calculated risk. But when you have the defendant herself saying, it is a bite mark, that's like 90% of the game. We said this in our coverage. She should have said like, I don't know, I bumped into the, in a corner of the table. I have bumps all over me. She could have said that. But we all know that when you come to lying and you start getting interrogated, you say part of the truth. And it was the truth. It was a bite mark. Just wasn't her bite mark. And so I thought that was brilliant the way you did it. And I would have been, I would have been terrified along with you.

[Jennifer Mudge]

I was, I was very terrified. And thank you for saying that. And also, I think it's important that you know, they took the photos of her arms when she, right after or before she was interviewed at the station. And I think it was four days later, they went back and she had scratched over all of that. She had scratches up and down her arms. And so she had tried to, I, I won't go as far as, say, try to destroy evidence, but she did something to herself to cover that up. Wow.

[Brett]

I'll go, I'll go that far.

[Alice]

Well, cuz you can tell like there's one place on her arm where there was like a light scratch on her arm. And when the police take the initial photograph and she said the man in black is wearing gloves, so how did she get that scratch on her arm? And then sure enough, they take those later photos and it's all scrat. You can't see that light scratch anymore.

[Brett]

So, so I really want to ask you about this. And you know, the case is over, so you, you, you can opine or you don't have to opine, but Brett and I spent a lot of time on this. The best thing for her, I think, would have been to go to Carbondale, Walmart, actually go shopping and wait until after Jade's mother would have come to pick her up. And Jade's mother finds her, then she's completely out of it. She's been gone. There's no way she's even there. Her cell phone will show it, say that you shopped for Christmas, showed up at the checkout, oh my gosh. Hour of shopping later, my credit cards aren't here. That would have gotten her so far. But I think the reason she couldn't go with that story is because she had visible marks on her. Because I think Jade fought for her life and she left behind everything that you could not deny. There were scratches on her face, there were scratches on her arms, there were bite marks on her arms that she had to explain it at some point. And I think that's why she ended up talking to the police right away. Concocts the story about the man in the black hoodie. But you two have much more experience interviewing potential perpetrators, and you talk with lots of people who lie to you all the time. Why this story, especially when there are so many holes? And I think her words ultimately, very quickly made investigators suspect of her. Why did she tell the story?

[Philip Butler]

She had to tell him something. And I think she was scrambling. She told him half truth at certain points. So she had to come up with something. And look at the time. She had to come up with something. You know, even if you just go back to when she gets home from her trip to Hux, she's got 31 minutes before she calls 91 1. So she's got time to come up with something, and she's got to come up with something. And I haven't listened to all the other podcasts. I've listened to the Viper Pits coverage of it and snippets that they have as well as yours. But to me, her story is still evolving. It's because people poke holes in her story. So it changes more. It changes more. And it's just her changing her story to try to convince people that she's telling the truth. She's clearly convinced her mom. It doesn't line up with what the facts show, in my opinion.

[Jennifer Mudge]

I think those wounds on her hands were absolutely from the stabbing that she was doing. And there were so many stabs that the knife had clearly slipped. Her hand went down on that knife, and that's how she got those cuts on her. I think that is one reason why she couldn't say what Alice just said. Just leave your phone at home and drive to the Carbondale Walmart and stay there until, you know, Mike's coming home. I also think she had the clothes or wherever the clothes that she was wearing and the shoes or whatever had to have been soaked in blood. So there had to be some sort of form of getting rid of evidence and explaining those injuries on her hands away. She would have come home and everyone would have found that and she wasn't there. They would then look at her and say, wait, what happened to you? So I. I think that might have gone through that in her head, but I think there was too much evidence on her, both clothes and on her body for her to do anything else than to try to say it was another guy.

[Alice]

And the changing story, we spent a lot of time on that and have directed people to watch her initial interview with the police, which was a very casual interview. You know, this was not an interrogation under lights. And it's very interesting to see, like you were saying, how that story's evolved. It starts off she sees Jade in the morning and then Jade's asleep. The rest of the time doesn't see her anymore, goes to Walmart, this horrible thing happens. Now she's got a heart to heart conversation that lasted 45 minutes that she never mentioned before. Now she's got no. Jade was actually awake on her Facebook or whatever when she left and she had a conversation with her. Just the way she continuously changes her story to address any inconsistency people point out is just the classical mark of someone who's making it up. And it's sort of striking to me. I understand you're her mom, that's your daughter. Whatever you want to believe or you can, but it's remarkable to me that anyone who's not related to her could watch that changing story and not come away thinking this person is obviously lying.

[Philip Butler]

I agree with you.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Yeah. And I think one of the things that changes in her story too, that really, really angers me is it went from trying to form an alibi to then all of a sudden the blame shifts to Jade, that there was this conversation about how Jade was disturbed by something or I think it was insinuated that Jade was talking about having suicidal thoughts. And it's almost, you know, it's really despicable for her to, for lack of a better word, dirty up an 11 year old girl, in this case, that all of a sudden now Jade was having some thoughts or was depressed or upset about something and then she doesn't think far enough ahead to even think, okay, so this 11 year old girl told you something serious is going on in her life and you went to Walmart, then by yourself to Christmas shop. And also that she was like a daughter to you, but you left a girl who, according to you, extremely disturbed home alone in that house while you went Christmas shopping. And I just think that story in particular was really despicable. Almost as bad as saying, well, I couldn't have done this because she was bigger than me. You know, she's 11 and you had

[Philip Butler]

a knife, but yet she fought an attacker who had a knife. Who's bigger than what Jade would have been is what she wants you to believe. I couldn't have done this to Jade, but I can do this to this other guy that we don't know.

[Jennifer Mudge]

And this, it's not a fight. When somebody comes at you with a knife, you know, I can be bigger than a person, but if they are bringing a knife up to stab me, that wasn't a fight. She attacked a little girl in her home. And for anyone to talk about the size discrepancy is just, that's just ridiculous.

[Brett]

So, guys, after a long hard day, whether it's being in court all day or podcasting for many hours, all I want to do is wind down on my couch with a huge comfy blanket and a cup of tea. And that's why I'm obsessed with our sponsor Lola Blanket. I've never had a blanket this luxurious, this amazing. It feels like the most amazing cloud of a blanket you'll ever wrap yourself in. And you'll see what I'm talking about as, as soon, soon as you touch it. There are just no other blankets that match what Lola is like. It is now the favorite at my house. It's my favorite. It's my husband's favorite. My kids, they always take it from me because they love it. Lola is the world's number one blanket. Crafted with ultra soft luxury faux fur and a signature four way stretch that sets it apart. And it's machine washable, double hemmed for durability and stays flawless. No pilling, no shedding, even after repeated washes. And one Lola instantly elevates your space. It's unbelievably soft, beautifully designed and makes your home feel cozy and curated. Lola is now my go to gift. It's personal, it's beautiful, and it's something that everyone uses every day. Lola has over 20,000 5 star reviews and once you feel it, you'll know why. There's a reason it's called the world's number one blanket. This thing is next level. For a limited time, our listeners can get 40% off select Lola blanket products with code Prosecutors at checkout. Just head to lolablankets.com and use code prosecutors to get 40% off your order. After you purchase, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and let them know we sent you. Wrap yourself in luxury with Lola Blankets. This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy. Just drop in some details about yourself and see if you're eligible to save money when you bundle your home and auto policies. The process only takes minutes and it could mean hundreds more in your pocket. Visit progressive.com after this episode to see if you could save Progressive Casualty insurance company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.

[Alice]

In a world where business owners everywhere are burning out.

[Jennifer Mudge]

I just can't do it anymore.

[Alice]

And are losing their identities to AI.

[Brett]

Who even am I?

[Alice]

Only one website builder can save humanity from generic websites.

[Jennifer Mudge]

It's here. It's really here.

[Alice]

WIX Harmony where AI meets hands on control.

[Brett]

So you can build the the website

[Jennifer Mudge]

you want exactly the way you want.

[Alice]

Try it for [e-mail] Harmony.

[Brett]

So you have this case file. You've prepped sleepless nights going into trial. And you have to present this to jurors who you can't talk to throughout trial, who can't talk back to you. And they are supposed to look at you emotionless, but you speak directly to them in opening and closing. And then they hear all of these witnesses walking into that courtroom. You know, you're having to talk to 12 jurors and the alternates. What was key to you in conveying both in the opening and closing? Because you have this incredibly voluminous record. Compelling story, no motive. But it. You don't need to. As you're organizing your thoughts, what is your goal in conveying to the jury?

[Jennifer Mudge]

The goal is to make them see that every single piece of evidence they saw from that witness stand, every piece of evidence that was submitted, it all makes sense. Every piece corroborates the other one. And there's one thing that they saw that made zero sense, and that was her statement. Every single thing. The cell phone records, the video surveillance, the DNA, the blood, the timeline, all of that put together makes for a pretty perfect timeline. And every single thing that they heard in her statement, none of it's true. There's one person who says one thing and 30 other people who say something else. And those 30 other people all corroborate one another. You know, they all come together to tell that one story. And the story she tells is the opposite.

[Alice]

Let me ask you about two pieces of evidence that did not come in at trial and I'm curious about. The first is Julia's diary entries, which paint a picture of a strained relationship with Jade. And the second that's been pointed out by her defenders are the fingernail scrapings under Julia's fingernails were never tested. That's been something that's been criticized. Curious about your thoughts on both of those. Why not introduce the diary entries and why not test the fingernail scrapings as

[Jennifer Mudge]

to the diary entries? So I read those diaries and I know that the notes from them indicate that there was a strained relationship with Jade or that Julia at times was angry at her. When you read those journals and there's a lot of writings in those, I mean, we're talking hundreds of pages, probably single spaced stuff written in the corner, as, you know, you would do in a journal. There was so much of it and it was so enmeshed in all these other things that taken out of context, line by line, you could see that. But I personally, when I read through them, when you put it in with the rest of the stuff, it didn't come across that way. Sure, we could have highlighted those. You know, I think there was 13 things from them that indicated that she had a strained relationship with Jade. But at the same time, then the defense would be allowed to get into everything else on that page. And in my opinion, doing that, number one, would waste a lot of the jury's time. And number two, it would very much convolute it. Right, it, because taken in context of the other ramblings in that journal, it didn't seem as bad as what it would had we just highlighted those 10 or 12 or 13 things out of there. So I think it would have muddied up a lot of water. And I think it would have given the defense an opportunity to. You know, there was a lot of things in that journal that was about her personal life too. I think it would have given them an opportunity to personalize her, gain sympathy for her without her having to take the stand. Now, that being said, I fully intended to use those had she testified. But as to our case in chief, I think it would have been very convoluted and difficult for everybody to understand. That's my take on it, on that point.

[Brett]

That's a great point. Right. People always say, why didn't you put in the kitchen sink? And part of the prosecutor's job is to tell a story that makes sense. And I think, you know, makes complete sense to cross examine her if she took the stand with the diary entries. But if you put it in your case in chief, the defense, if effective, would make this trial about a relationship between a stepmother and a daughter. Which family relationships are the most complex of any relationships that could possibly exist, instead of the evidence. So the evidence is against her. So I as the defense attorney would be like, deflect, deflect. Don't look at the blood, don't look at the inside of her car, don't look at her lies, don't look at the footage of her throwing away a bag at the station. Instead, let's talk about the love of a mother and she has other children, and that completely derails. And we've seen this in certain prosecutions where they respond too much to the defense rather than focusing on the case in chief. So when you put it that way, it makes complete sense. It's not keeping information out, but rather knowing what elements you have to prove as the prosecutor. And then the second one was the fingernail scraping, testing underneath Julia's fingernails.

[Philip Butler]

I don't know if we've really got a great answer as to why we did not have tested. I mean, I know when we got the file, there had already been a lot of testing. We did have to ask them to test Jade's fingernail scrapings. You know, we had the swabs of the bite marks. You know, with coming back as Jade's DNA, we. We felt we had enough already, DNA wise, to convict her. Why go on and get more evidence? Why go on and have the state police take up time? Because it takes up time for them to go back. You know, they could. They've got hundreds, thousands of other DNA cases that they're working on. There's a backlog at the crime lab. When we've got enough to get a conviction at that point, why continue to test things other than just hearing? Well, they didn't test this. Well, there's always something the defense attorney can point out that we didn't do. I mean, that's their job. But rightfully so. That's. But we don't have to test everything.

[Alice]

That's not required procedurally in Illinois. If the defense had requested that to be tested, could they have done that? Yeah. Or ask for it to be tested?

[Jennifer Mudge]

Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.

[Alice]

And they didn't.

[Jennifer Mudge]

And had they asked us, we would have been so. Oh, yeah, correct. That's a good point. It is, yeah.

[Brett]

Sometimes people don't want to ask questions they don't want the answers to. Right. But it's easier to just say you didn't test it.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Yeah. After Philip was saying that. I do remember. So we showed the picture of her hands at trial. And I don't know if you've seen that picture, her hands and underneath her fingernails. Not just underneath, but on the sides of her fingernails. It looked like she had been digging around in her garden all day, and there was clearly blood in there. Nobody has. If you've washed your hands at all. Nobody has fingernails that dirty. And I thought at least my perspective was, well, clearly she'd been in a struggle, and I thought the pictures of her hands were very compelling. So you know, maybe that was it. But, yeah, they could have tested it themselves. They could have hired an expert, taken the time to do that. Or like I said, if they would have asked us, we would have done it. We would have ordered it.

[Philip Butler]

And they had a decent amount of money. They had Carl Reich, you know, and his lab hired. They didn't give him the whole file. They didn't even let him see Julia's statement where she calls the a bite mark. So I. I mean, they gave him the parts of the file that they wanted him to look at, and that was basically it. But he could have asked to test anything that he wanted, and he found nothing was procedurally done wrong with the state crime lab.

[Alice]

I liked when you asked him. I think it was you, Philip, when you asked him. So if she says it's a bite mark, is she lying? And he was like, well, I guess that's why we're here.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Well, it's a good question. That was great.

[Brett]

So you present this case and we always say, no matter how much you prep for a trial, it's not even like theater. There's no script. You go in, you never know exactly what's going to happen. You don't know how the judge is going to rule. You don't know what witnesses will say even if you've prepped them. Were there any surprises in this trial, you know, good or bad, as you were going through the two weeks?

[Philip Butler]

Yeah, there were voir dire. We had an issue with a reporter approaching prospective jurors before they're even being questioned by us to ask them questions about the case. So, I mean, starting the case off, we started off with an issue right there that we weren't expecting to happen.

[Brett]

Pesky journalist.

[Jennifer Mudge]

There were issues all throughout that case with people potentially maybe talking to jurors. I think one of the biggest, first surprises was during Vordire, I've never seen so many people, and again, it was a high profile case, but I've never seen so many prospective jurors when asked, have you heard about this? Yes, I've heard about it. Have you formed an opinion as to her innocence or guilt? Oh, I absolutely have. She's guilty. I've never heard so many prospective jurors just say, I can't do this because I've read enough. And she did it. I mean, it was kind of like, ah, you know, I mean, that was

[Brett]

more what you heard, that she did it rather than she was innocent.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Oh, 100%. Nobody said, I don't think she did it. Every juror who formed an opinion, had said, I think she did it. So I think we went through 57 jurors to get 14.

[Brett]

Wow. And just for the record, for people listening, if they said that they formed an opinion and that she did it, and they can't be unbiased, they can't be on the jury. So it's not that somehow Philip and Jennifer found all these jurors who thought she was already guilty to begin with. The whole point was it was hard to see the jury.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Yeah.

[Brett]

Because so many people thought, oh, that's fascinating.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Right. As soon as they said that, they walked out of the courthouse. Yeah. They were not on the jury. I think the last surprise, which it was a big surprise, was that, you know, I know that looking back on this, everybody says, well, she just forgot to say she went to the Hawk Center. But at the time and in closing arguments when we got there, we had not. Neither of us had heard her say or anyone else say, I forgot to tell the police. I went to Hux. We did not know about that. Okay. So at the time we're giving the closing arguments, we know she was at hucks, but we don't know that she said she forgot to say she was at Hucks. Okay. So I give my closing argument, and defense counsel, who, by the way, was very competent and very good to work with, very professional, stood up and basically gave a statement on the defendant's behalf. She forgot to tell the police this, and then I think further to say she needed gas or she didn't realize she'd left her cards at home until she got to the house. Those stories were things we didn't hear. Julia certainly never said them to the police. And that was stunning to me. I've never had counsel stand up and give an alibi on behalf of their client.

[Brett]

Yeah, you can't testify. The lawyer can't testify.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Yeah, exactly. So that kind of got me a little anxious.

[Alice]

When the police asked her if she had to get gas, she would have said, yeah, if that was the story. But I guess. I guess not.

[Jennifer Mudge]

They.

[Brett]

In fact, they did ask her, because we listened to her. They asked if she went to the gas station. She said no.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Yeah. That was a great interview.

[Alice]

Oh, it really was. I mean, it was. They should put that in the academy on how to do.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Those two were so good with her. There was not a scintilla of aggression, not a scintilla of blame. And for him to say, you didn't even stop and get gas or anything when he had no idea.

[Brett]

He just.

[Jennifer Mudge]

That he Just came up with that. You didn't even stop to get gas. Oh, that was beautiful. I'm so glad he asked that question.

[Brett]

Yeah, we pointed that out. This interview happened just hours after they found Jade, and so they didn't know the Huxley security footage existed at all. I mean, he. That was brilliant, because what are things you think of when you're going out, maybe getting gas anywhere you would have stopped to have, you know, ability to verify your alibi. That was so good. That was some seasoned cop.

[Jennifer Mudge]

And another thing, they put on, I think, three or four defense witnesses. And this was really, really interesting because you'll notice in her interview that she's very calm, almost, you know, too calm, but, you know, whatever. She's calm in her interview, she doesn't get upset until he says to her, how did you do it? Then she knows that's it. They think I did it. She bursts into tears. It's also the first time you hear her say, she was like a daughter to me. Now they've been talking about their relationship, who lives where, what was going on. She never once said, I don't think of her as my stepdaughter. I think of her like a daughter until they blame her. And then that's when she cries. That's the first time she cries. All of the defense witnesses testified, you know, this isn't like her. I've known her for this many years. She doesn't ever even get mad, but every time she gets mad, she cries. All the witnesses, you know, they were obviously prepped to say that. What does she do when she gets angry? You know, well, she doesn't stab me. She just cries. And then we played the interview during closing arguments for the jury of she got mad when they blamed her and started crying. So that was on point. You know, they were right. She cries when she gets mad because, you know, she did it on video. She got mad.

[Brett]

And this is going to behavioral psychology, but, like, that entire interview, the most traumatic thing for anybody, typically, if your child, stepchild or not, is brutally murdered in your own home, no emotion, like. Like truly no emotion until the question is directed at her for her fault within it. Never. How could I leave her? Where is she? How could she not be here anymore? She's only 11. Nothing. Nothing all.

[Alice]

So you guys are obviously very busy, are traveling all over the state to prosecute things. Really glad you guys gave us so much time. Phillips on vacation. Jennifer's probably got to go put a few bad guys away, so don't want to keep you Forever. But I did want to ask one last question for me and Alice may have another one. So Julia's convicted, she's sentenced. And her reaction, at least as it was reported in the press, was to say it's not fair.

[Philip Butler]

Like that.

[Alice]

That was striking to me that that's what she said. And I hate to get all pop psychology, but what did you think about that as her reaction to being convicted of this crime?

[Jennifer Mudge]

I think it's very telling of a personality which is a very self centered personality. It's not fair to me. It's not fair to me. This isn't fair. And this is one of the fairest trials, quite frankly, I've ever witnessed. Everything was fair. I mean, everything was limited. Both parties had an opportunity to do everything. That trial was absolutely fair. But I think her statement of it's not fair is very indicative of everything centering on her trying to make herself, you know, based on all the jail. Well, yes, always, always made herself the victim. And even on those journal entries, I believe there was one that where she said it was my grandma's birthday or some one of her relative's birthday, but Jade made it all about her. And Jade was like 10 at the time, so everything was about her. And I think that statement is indicative of her self centered behavior.

[Philip Butler]

I agree.

[Brett]

And my last question is this trial is now behind you. Many years have passed. Jade has spoken. People who were involved in the case have spoken. There was a conviction, it's been appealed. All the things, how do you feel about the conviction sitting here today, knowing what you know now, hearing what people who've spoken up about this case have said. Do you have any doubts about the conviction or anything you would have done differently about how you prosecuted the case?

[Philip Butler]

I don't have any doubts, not one thing.

[Jennifer Mudge]

I think if anything, everything that's come out afterwards and the original podcast that was done about it and all the changing stories and how, why are things changing now as the stories have changed? It's only made it more clear of how guilty she is. I've never once had a thought that anything was done wrong or anything was inappropriate in this trial. I thought she was given a fair trial. I thought we were given a fair trial. And I think this is why we have the most perfect justice system, is because I believe everybody had a fair opportunity to put everything in front of that jury. That jury was attentive, they were deliberate, they took their time and this was a very clean trial. Not once have I even thought should have done something different, could have done this should have done this. It was very clear. And I've never wavered on that.

[Philip Butler]

I agree totally. I think the jury 100% got this right. And along that lines, some of the snippets of the other podcasts I've heard, they interview one of the jurors who now has doubts. And the fact that that juror has doubts now based off of the exaggerations and just sometimes just outright lies from that. That other podcast, not necessarily from the podcasters, but things that they relay that Julia said has caused someone on the jury to have doubts. Now, I think that's a shame. And I hope that juror at least listens to other podcasts like yourself or the Viper Pit, where it's pointed out the times of they're exaggerating, like the size of Julia fitting in your pocket and things like that. It's just ridiculous sayings. Just to try to drive home their point, you know, that they're telling now, five and a half years later, I feel bad for that juror if they still have doubts, because I can't imagine sitting on a jury, finding someone guilty and then hearing things like that and making you change your mind. I can't imagine what that feels like to sit with that. But I don't have any doubts. And I think they 100% made the right decision.

[Jennifer Mudge]

I'll go a step further on the juror that they spoke to, and I'd like to submit that that was not a juror. And if it was, it might have been an alternate.

[Brett]

And whatever it is, it is incredibly well documented that jurors suffer immense trauma, especially after such a gruesome case as this. There are many, many studies. And in fact, the judge that I clerked for after every trial would actually say this directly to the jurors to say, if you want to speak to someone, please do. This is very common. You're not the only one sitting there with this. It changes you forever, especially when you prosecute a case like this and certainly when you're a juror who doesn't sit with these types of horrific facts day in and day out. And they've documented that juror remorse is very real. Not either way that you vote, because you are given an immense duty of having a role in multiple people's lives, the victims as well as the defendant. And so I'm actually not surprised that any juror ever has remorse, because we know that jurors have remorse all the time. But when they're sitting in the seat close to the evidence, having weighed all of the facts when it matters. They voted what they thought was true at the time. And we have all lived in situations where we second guess any decision we make, Right? But when the time comes and you make the decision with the best facts before you, that is what is operative. Not to say I don't have empathy for people who feel that remorse, except to say that we know very well that this is something that all jurors face, especially in an incredibly horrific case like the way Jade was murdered. But I want to agree with you. I want to say thank you. You said at the beginning, what you try to do is seek justice. I think you found justice for Jade and all those who love her and all who have followed this case, because there is not a doubt in my mind that this case was immense. You sifted through immense records to put together a strong case that uncovered the truth, and the right person is being held accountable for that. And you guys don't get to sit on some gold pedestal getting accolades. You are continually going into the courtroom to fight for justice for the people who come before you. So thank you for doing this day in and day out. I also love our justice system, and it only works because of people like you. So thank you so much.

[Alice]

Yes. Amen. Alice. I agree completely. Thank you guys for everything you do for victims, for the people of Illinois, and I know you'll keep doing it. If you guys ever want to join us about this case, any other case, just want to talk about being prosecutors. Whatever you want to do, please reach out. All right, guys, I hope you've enjoyed this. We'll be back next week with a new case. But until then, I'm Brett.

[Brett]

And I'm Alice.

[Alice]

And we are the prosecutors. So, yeah, we had a good weekend. It was good.

[Brett]

What did y' all do?

[Philip Butler]

Nothing.

[Brett]

Those are the best, actually.

[Alice]

Just hung out.

[Brett]

We went. Let me think. Oh, we excited. Explored. I don't even know if it's.

[Alice]

I don't.

[Brett]

You know how, like, when you look up a park. This is a park around here, but it doesn't really. It's like. It's like one of the lakes, but there's no, like, clear entry points. I don't know that I went to

[Jennifer Mudge]

where you're supposed to go, because it

[Brett]

was like, kind of a cliff. And at one point, I saw this guy hiking, and he had on, like, the. He had, like, the hiking boots, and he had, like, a backpack on, and he had the hiking sticks,

[Jennifer Mudge]

And he

[Brett]

was, like, trudging along. I didn't know this was going to be such an intense hike. It was like cliffs dropping down because it's down to the. And I'm hiking down this with essentially flip flops and a baby on each hip.

[Alice]

Wow.

[Brett]

And I was like, I'm not trying

[Jennifer Mudge]

to make a point here.

[Brett]

I just was very poorly prepared. Very Sam.

[Alice]

At first I didn't think it was real. I woke up to this blinding light and I was transported to another place.

[Brett]

Pluto tv.

[Alice]

Then I heard a voice.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Come with me if you want to live.

[Alice]

There were thousands of movies and shows,

[Jennifer Mudge]

and they were all free.

[Brett]

The truth isn't.

[Alice]

It's just so Beautiful on Pluto TV.

[Brett]

Free streaming of Terminator 2, Fringe Arrow, the 100 and the X Files may

[Alice]

cause excitement, loss of sleep, and sudden belief in extraterrestrials. No credit cards or alien encounters necessary.

[Brett]

Pluto TV stream now. Pay Never. Okay, can I be honest? When you're pregnant, everyone, and I mean everyone, has an opinion on what you should buy. The thing. Experienced parents agree on a Nanit Smart baby video monitor. You don't need separate products for video breathing, motion monitoring and figuring out sleep cycles at 3am Nanit has that all covered. One camera, one app, more peace of mind. Nanit tells you when baby's crying, standing or finally asleep. And video history catches all the cute moments you'll want to send to the group chat. You can check in on the app from anywhere, like book club or your own bed, which you'll be spending a lot of time in. Here's the best thanks to personalized sleep insights and guidance, NANIT parents get 36 more nights of sleep per year, starting from night one, add it to your registry or [e-mail].

[Alice]

if you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place. From H Vac and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Jennifer Mudge]

Ugh.

[Brett]

I barely got any sleep last night. What? Why? I spent hours fighting with AI. All because I was trying to make a website. It started out okay, but then I got stuck just trying to change one button. Okay, okay, relax. Just try Wix Harmony. What's that? It's wix's new website builder. Lets you switch back and forth between AI tools and hands on editing anytime. So I'M not just prompting and praying. Nope, just try it for [e-mail] harmony

[Alice]

if you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place, from H Vac and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock so your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.