8. The Defense Rests… in Chaos

Summary

Episode 8 Summary: "The Defense Rests… in Chaos"

In the eighth installment of This Doesn't Happen to People Like Me, titled "The Defense Rests… in Chaos," listeners are plunged deeper into the harrowing trial of Bradley Yawn. This episode captures the turmoil unleashed when Yawn decides to represent himself, leading to unprecedented chaos in the courtroom and placing immense strain on the Loman family’s pursuit of justice.

---

The Prosecution's Solid Ground

The episode opens with prosecutors Josh Jones and Laura Keck concluding their case against Bradley Yawn in July 2023. After enduring two years of delays, the prosecution presents a compelling case backed by witness testimonies, forensic evidence, and video surveillance. They meticulously demonstrate how Yawn assaulted and murdered 77-year-old Tina Loman in her own home. Mike Boudet remarks on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, stating, “The evidence was more than convincing. The prosecution's case was pretty much unbeatable” ([01:33]).

---

Bradley's Decision to Self-Represent

In a pivotal move, Bradley Yawn opts to forgo a court-appointed attorney and represent himself. This decision sets the stage for unprecedented courtroom chaos. Yawn's opening statement is fraught with confusion and unfounded claims of a conspiracy against him. Laura Keck describes his approach as “theatrics” aimed at manipulating the jury ([02:43], [03:25]). Mike Boudet critiques Yawn’s performance, noting, “Bradley Yawn is not dumb and he's also not half as intelligent as he thinks he is” ([05:01]).

Notable Quotes:

• Josh Jones: “There is no expecting anything with Bradley Yon. You just do not know which direction he's going to turn.” ([00:11])
• Laura Keck: “The prosecution intends to prove to you that a 77 year old woman has been brutally beat, battered, sexually assaulted...” ([03:40])

---

Chaotic Cross-Examinations

Yawn’s self-representation quickly devolves into a series of incoherent and inappropriate cross-examinations. His attempt to undermine the credibility of witnesses, including forensic experts and family members, is marked by nonsensical questions and blatant disrespect for courtroom protocols. For instance, Yawn poses absurd analogies to the sexual assault nurse examiner, asking, “If I try to penetrate this cup with this highlighter here, it's not apt to do any damage” ([12:30]). These antics only serve to reinforce the prosecution’s case, as expert witnesses confidently refute his misguided inquiries.

When Yawn begins questioning Tina’s husband, Tim Schmidt, his strategy to portray the Loman family as unreliable backfires. His confrontational and vague questions lead to multiple objections from the prosecution, highlighting his lack of legal expertise ([22:08]-[24:29]).

Notable Quotes:

• Laura Keck: “Persuasion is not logical.” ([04:23])
• Bradley Yawn: “If somebody was violently penetrated by that cup, would that leave excessive marking...” ([12:30])

---

Impact on Tina Loman’s Family

The Loman family bears the brunt of Yawn’s aggressive defense tactics. Officials Josh Jones and Laura Keck express deep empathy for the family members who must endure retraumatization while facing their assailant in the witness stand. Their preparation pales in comparison to the emotional toll of being questioned by the man who violently attacked their loved one. Reporter Josh Jones shares, “I just prayed and hoped for the best that I could do my best for my mom” ([31:45]).

Notable Quotes:

• Rob Revelli: “There's something fundamentally unfair about that to the victim's family.” ([36:15])
• Josh Jones: “You were baby being there...absolute rock stars up there...” ([39:57])

---

Prosecution’s Resilience and Strategy

Despite the disruption, the prosecution remains resolute. They skillfully counter Yawn’s attempts to sow doubt, particularly when he challenges the emotional responses of victims to trauma. In a key moment, Josh Jones underscores the variability in trauma responses, effectively dismantling Yawn’s argument that Tina couldn’t have survived such an ordeal: “There is no normal response for a victim. Everybody is different” ([34:51]).

---

A Shocking Twist: The Alibi Witness

Just as the trial appears to be drawing to a close, an unexpected twist emerges. Yawn successfully persuades the court to allow him to call his father as an alibi witness, suggesting that he was elsewhere during the time of Tina Loman’s attack. This development injects uncertainty into the proceedings, setting up high suspense for future episodes. Laura Keck captures the gravity of this moment: “That's one of the reasons I went pro se, is because I was not getting effective assistance of counsel out of anybody” ([42:17]).

Notable Quotes:

• Bradley Yawn: “I have an alibi of where I was at at this time.” ([42:17])
• Rob Revelli: “Criminal justice system and trials are not what you see on tv.” ([43:31])

---

Conclusion: A Trial in Turmoil

Episode 8 masterfully illustrates the profound disruptions caused by Bradley Yawn’s decision to self-represent. His unorthodox and incoherent legal maneuvers not only jeopardize his defense but also inflict additional trauma on the Loman family. As the trial teeters on the brink of potential upheaval with the introduction of the alibi witness, listeners are left in suspense, anticipating the next chapter in this gripping true crime saga.

The episode underscores the complexities of the legal system, the resilience required by victims' families, and the unpredictable nature of courtroom dynamics when faced with a defendant who lacks formal legal training.

---

Key Takeaways:

• Yawn’s Self-Representation: Highlights the chaos and unpredictability introduced when a defendant represents himself, especially without legal expertise.
• Impact on Witnesses: Demonstrates the emotional and psychological toll on the Loman family as they face their assailant in court.
• Prosecution's Strategy: Showcases the resilience and strategic acumen of the prosecution team in countering Yawn’s disruptive tactics.
• Unexpected Developments: Sets the stage for continued suspense with Yawn introducing a potential alibi witness, complicating the prosecution’s case.

---

Listeners are left reflecting on the intricacies of the criminal justice system and the extraordinary lengths to which a defendant might go to challenge a seemingly unassailable prosecution. The episode serves as a poignant reminder of the strength and vulnerability intertwined in the pursuit of justice.

Transcript

[Mike Boudet]

Last time on this Doesn't Happen to People Like Me.

[Josh Jones]

There is no expecting anything with Bradley Yon. You just do not know which direction he's going to turn. The defendant was not just satisfied with money or jewelry. The defendant wanted more from his 77 year old great grandmother. Once it started, it was, it was started to get real.

[Laura Keck]

When it comes to Bradley Yon, I learned don't expect anything because you, you truly don't know what he's going to do.

[Mike Boudet]

Welcome to this Doesn't Happen to People like me a new 10 part true crime series by the creators of Sword and Scale. Please take a moment to subscribe and rate our show and if you like it, visit our [e-mail] this show was created by Mike Boudet and Michael Stabile, engineered by Rob Revelli.

[Josh Jones]

Without VA, I would have paid $25,000 for my hospital stay, 42,000 for my education, $74,000 for my home down payment. But because of my Service, I paid zero. Get what you earn. Visit choose.va.gov not all veterans are eligible.

[Mike Boudet]

For the type or amount of benefits mentioned here. In July of 2023, after two years of delays and just two and a half days of trial, Illinois prosecutors Josh Jones and Laura Keck rested their case against Bradley Yawn. With witness testimony, physical and forensic evidence, and video surveillance footage, they explained to a jury how Bradley had robbed, assaulted and raped 77 year old Tina Loman in her own home. The evidence was more than convincing. The prosecution's case was pretty much unbeatable and the prospect of Bradley being able to refute and overcome it seemed impossible. Nonetheless, and just like any other defendant, Bradley was allowed to present a defense. Part of that defense included an opening statement. While acting as his own attorney, Bradley spoke directly to the jury.

[Laura Keck]

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what you just heard were theatrics. Theatrics. Something one puts forth in order to obtain and persuade you to obtain a conviction in a trial. I will concede that some things Ms. Keck here stated do in fact ring true. However, they're not as she stated them. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury today, this is going to be very hard for all of us. We have people here in the stands. It's going to be extremely hard for them. It's going to be extremely hard for you. You. It's extremely hard for myself. I'm the one here on these claims. However, these claims are not quite true and I will show you that today.

[Mike Boudet]

The theme of Bradley's opening statement was that There was a large conspiracy against him. He claimed that the prosecutors were not presenting their evidence in good faith and were trying to manipulate the jury into believing lies.

[Laura Keck]

I once heard that trials are based on persuasion. Who has the best persuasion in their words? Who can be persuaded by the persuadee? Words like persuasion? I believe they're negative myself. They're kind of like manipulation. Very negative. It's negative in my insight to persuade somebody, especially when you want to persuade somebody as to the charges here today and not have the proof needed to to present those theatrics and not have the proof needed to present those theatrics.

[Mike Boudet]

Much like his objections, Bradley's opening statement was unsophisticated and frankly, just embarrassing.

[Laura Keck]

Ladies and gents, I'm more in agreeance with the word logical. To be logical seems to be more so valuable than to persuade some to expect because of what has gone before, what has happened in prior arrangements, prior times. Today I will show you a lot of things that are not logical. Throughout this trial, we'll show you a lot of things that are not logical. Persuasion is not logical. I myself personally, I promise not to attempt to persuade you, nor will I manipulate you. I do not find pleasure in doing.

[Mike Boudet]

Such, despite what you might be thinking by now. Bradley Yawn is not dumb and he's also not half as intelligent as he thinks he is. When someone believes they are much smarter than they actually are, this is what it sounds like.

[Laura Keck]

There's a lot of claims placed forth that do not have an effect that coincides with them. I intend to show and prove you that today and throughout this trial. I also intend to prove you improper procedure coincidences. Throughout this trial you'll see some of the most major coincidences you have ever seen in your lives. And they're established and I'm sure some of the witnesses will attest to them. There are major coincidences in this case.

[Mike Boudet]

Perhaps the only thing of substance that could be found in Bradley's rambling was his intention to prove that the prosecution's case couldn't be true. Because Tina Loman was an elderly woman, she never could have lived through such a violent and brutal attack. This was of course not true, but the argument did have the potential to create reasonable doubt.

[Laura Keck]

The prosecution intends to prove to those of you that a 77 year old woman has been brutally beat, battered, sexually assaulted, is the proper pronunciation or the proper usage term usage in trials. They intend to prove to you that a 77 year old woman was home invaded, kidnapped, hijacked, throwing downstairs at 77 years old, throwing down stairs. Some of you are young. If you were throwing down stairs, what would that damage do to you? These are what I spoke of when I said I'd show you. Coincidences. Those coincidences are by far some of the biggest coincidences one will ever see in a lifetime. Most never see such. Never having the chance to. Why? Because there are coincidences that are extremely rare. There are things that just don't happen.

[Mike Boudet]

To finish out his opening statement, Bradley ended with an anecdote about his mom, his brother, his sister and Scooby Doo.

[Laura Keck]

My little brother used to run to mother and say, mom, BB hit me. BB Was my sister. Mom would say, well, my lovely young man, where are the marks to prove such? Mom showed me the marks. He could not show any marks. Mother would say, I can't tell where the marks are. True story. Come to find out, my brother only had the remote taken from him. Scooby Doo was his favorite. He would watch it end on end for hours. During them times when my brother would make them claims, we would all come to find out in the end that he had just simply walked away from the tv. SIS picked up the remote and he wanted the TV back. The tells he was telling you will see that today. Here and throughout this trial, there are major tales told, tales that are tall, simply, very tall tales. In reference to my brother, the lack of marks gave my mother reasonable doubt. Today I intend to prove an extreme amount of reasonable doubt. I will show you, and if you may, prove to you how things are not as they say, not as they seem, how most just are not possible. Also known as impossible. Thank you.

[Mike Boudet]

Bradley's opening statement was horrible, to say the least. It was unorganized, often incoherent, and had very little substance. Though the prosecutors weren't overly concerned with what Bradley might say directly to the jury, they were, however, concerned with what Bradley might ask their witnesses and his own witnesses.

[Josh Jones]

The biggest thing in this case was normally we tell victims, we tell family members of victims that are going to have to testify. We tell witnesses, the defendant will be in the courtroom, but they cannot talk to you. They cannot gesture to you. They cannot do anything. And if they do, they're going to get in trouble. When the defendant is representing himself, he gets to not only talk, but he gets to actually cross examine all of those people, including the victim's family members. And especially in a sexual assault case where the victim has now died, I cannot imagine anything worse as a family member than of Tina Lowman, than have to sit there, answer his questions politely. Calmly and not lose her cool.

[Laura Keck]

There's a lot of anxiousness, particularly when the prosecution is going to rest and the defense is going to take over and they're going to be calling different witnesses that are part of our family. So there's a lot of trepidation about that.

[Mike Boudet]

Throughout the trial, many things were shown and said that were difficult and uncomfortable for the people to see and hear, but nothing compared to what came next. Bradley began calling Tina's family members to the witness stand. They had to sit there, look at the man that brutally attacked, raped, and essentially killed Tina, and politely answer his questions. In July of 2023, the Bradley yawn trial was underway. Bradley decided he would represent himself. Instead of having a court appointed attorney, Bradley could cross examine the state's witnesses and call his own witnesses. This presented some challenges for the prosecutors.

[Rob Revelli]

At least when you're dealing with a defense attorney. We have experience. You know, what a lawyer might ask, what this particular lawyer has asked in other cases. This wasn't just a lawyer we've never worked with. This was a person who had no legal training, who never decided to follow the rules of evidence, would try to run over the judge as far as evidentiary rulings. We just didn't know what to expect. And it's really hard to prepare somebody for the unexpected.

[Josh Jones]

Even I remember talking with the doctor who testified and the sexual assault nurse who testified. Generally those two people, you are pretty sure what a defense attorney is going to ask them, or at least the areas of questioning with both of them. Even we had to say if there was a defense attorney, they may ask you X, Y and Z. But in this case, who knows what he's going to ask you? And prime example is the questions he asked the doctor. No defense attorney would have ever asked those questions of a doctor, but he did.

[Mike Boudet]

During the cross examination and while presenting his defense, Bradley repeatedly attempted to refute the evidence that Tina had been sodomized. When the nurse who examined Tina was on the witness stand, Bradley asked her some of the most ridiculous and disgusting questions imaginable.

[Laura Keck]

I'll give you a simple scenario. If I try to penetrate this cup with this highlighter here, it's not apt to do any damage. Correct. Whereas if I tried to take this small flex pin and try to penetrate this cap, it'd be more apt to do damage because it's smaller, it's a less expandable area, it's tighter. Would that be a correct assumption and based on educational and professional opinions? I mean, the anus is generally tighter than the vagina smaller.

[Josh Jones]

Again, I'm unable to answer that question.

[Mike Boudet]

Bradley used this absurd and incoherent cup pen anus comparison several times during his questioning. Thankfully, some of the doctors who treated Tina did not entertain these asinine questions.

[Laura Keck]

Once again, I take this cup here. If somebody was violently penetrated by that cup, would that leave excessive marking and probably most likely not be almost healed a week later?

[Josh Jones]

She wasn't penetrated with a cup. She was penetrated with a penis. Your penis.

[Laura Keck]

But do you know that for sure?

[Josh Jones]

Yes, she told me.

[Laura Keck]

She told you. So that's 100% positive. You almost as if you were there.

[Josh Jones]

As her physician, I believed what she told me. That's my job.

[Mike Boudet]

Bradley also tried to refute some of the state's physical and forensic evidence, which included the shoe print he left on Tina's door when he kicked it open. To do this, Bradley Cross examined the forensic experts that the state put on the witness stand.

[Laura Keck]

If I may, what are the standard sized rulers y'all have use in your profession, as I believe they're. They're black rulers, but they do not show. They do. They do show an inch range. Judge, I have to object at this point. Is there a question? John, if you would ask the witness questions, please. Through your analyzations, you analyze a shoe, and you talked about class characteristics, and if a person wore them shoes naturally every day, and they caused wear to be contributed to them shoes, and at a later time someone else wore them shoes, would you be able to tell the difference?

[Josh Jones]

I don't understand the question. I'm sorry.

[Laura Keck]

Could weight or any other characteristic of a person wearing these shoes that was not the original person, could you tell differences in that?

[Josh Jones]

I guess I still don't truly understand that. The impression. I don't care who wears the shoes in the case. I just receive a pair of shoes and I compare them to an impression found at the scene. And based on the shoes that I received, the right shoe made an impression.

[Mike Boudet]

None of these attempts went well for Bradley when his questions were coherent enough to actually answer the doctors and experts only further bolstered the state's case. Bradley also attempted to impeach the testimony made by the gas station attendant who saw him with a big bag of Tina's money. Again, this didn't go well for Bradley.

[Laura Keck]

And you did not see a plastic bag or a Ziploc bag full of money in either of them? Uh, not immediately. And, uh, I'm not gonna go into your criminal history. It's not extensive.

[Josh Jones]

Objection. Mr. Joseph does not have any criminal history.

[Laura Keck]

I will be sustaining the objection. Beg to differ. Mr. Yan, if you have evidence of such, then you'll need to attempt to impeach this witness with such. Your honor, I'm not going to take the time to waste the jurors, the juror's time. At this moment, I did receive such objection, your honor. And again, Mr. Yan, if you have the evidence to impeach the witness. I do not wish to. I do not wish to impeach him, your honor.

[Mike Boudet]

Bradley then went on to challenge the police investigators and their processes for gathering and examining evidence.

[Laura Keck]

Officer Lohmeyer, your report here I hold in my hand. Obviously you know what it is. It's pretty minimal what you've stated here on the record today. What would you say if I made the statement that some of the things you relayed here today are contrary to maybe with the person.

[Josh Jones]

Objection. Improper impeachment.

[Laura Keck]

Mr. John, you all sustain the objection. You may rephrase the question. Ask it in a different way. If I stated that the declarant, or victim, as some call her, her claims were.

[Josh Jones]

Objection. Improper impeachment.

[Laura Keck]

Sustain the objection. Mr. Yarn, you may ask the question in a different way.

[Mike Boudet]

This is one of the reasons why it's rarely a good idea to represent yourself in court. There is more to questioning witnesses than just asking questions. It's not as easy as Matlock makes it seem. You have to phrase those questions correctly. And if you don't, you'll never get an answer. And the point you're trying to make will never be heard. Given that Bradley had no legal training, it's not surprising that he struggled to make any coherent arguments while questioning the witnesses.

[Laura Keck]

You're aware of the claims CL made, such as home invasion, hijacking, kidnapping, among others, correct?

[Rob Revelli]

Correct.

[Laura Keck]

And sexually assaulted, number of times thrown downstairs. Would I be correct in assuming throwing downstairs?

[Josh Jones]

I didn't talk to her myself very much. I know Sergeant Lohmeyer did and that's why in my report I know I had to refer to his.

[Laura Keck]

Though you don't know, I would like to ask, did she appear. Steele was a 77 year old woman. Did she appear to be throwing downstairs?

[Josh Jones]

I don't know.

[Laura Keck]

Deputy, these are some very serious planes. They're extremely serious. You yourself, did you urge CL to go to the hospital?

[Josh Jones]

Did I urge her?

[Rob Revelli]

No, we.

[Josh Jones]

So we, when we get on scene, we're concerned obviously about her safety with the allegations and also we're trying to look for get information about a suspect.

[Laura Keck]

Deputy, it interests me that approximately 10 people were in this scene this very Serious and heinous scene. Objection, your honor.

[Rob Revelli]

Is there a question?

[Laura Keck]

I'm asking a question. Is that proper?

[Josh Jones]

I'm not sure. Like I said, I just. I follow what my sergeant tells me to do.

[Mike Boudet]

Again, Bradley tried to argue that Tina was an elderly woman and it would have been impossible for her to live through this extremely brutal assault. In theory, this isn't a bad argument, but when Bradley tried to make it work for him, it fell completely flat.

[Laura Keck]

This is a very heinous crime also. Would you agree to that?

[Josh Jones]

Yes, I would.

[Laura Keck]

And these are all brutal and violent acts, would you say?

[Josh Jones]

Yes.

[Laura Keck]

Being thrown downstairs, one doesn't do that for a sport. It doesn't happen easy. Would that be safe to assume?

[Josh Jones]

I'm not going to make an assumption.

[Laura Keck]

Being thrown downstairs, is that something people do every day?

[Josh Jones]

I don't.

[Laura Keck]

Is that something that happens to people every day?

[Josh Jones]

Maybe to some, not to me.

[Laura Keck]

But it. In your professional opinion, it wouldn't be a sport or for play?

[Josh Jones]

Being thrown down the stairs would not be a sport? No.

[Laura Keck]

So it would be very violent.

[Josh Jones]

It could be.

[Laura Keck]

And for, based on your professional opinion, your daily observance of life for a 77 year old who already has hip replacements and mobility problems to be violently thrown down the stairs, would you expect one to get right back up and be walking around?

[Josh Jones]

I don't. I don't know how to answer that question. I'm not sure what you're asking.

[Laura Keck]

I'll move on.

[Mike Boudet]

Bradley's questioning of the police doctors and forensic experts was one thing. Yes, it was embarrassing and difficult to watch. But when Bradley began questioning members of Tina's family, his cross examination and his defense became horrifying. In an effort to prepare Tina's family for this portion of the trial, the prosecutors met with them beforehand.

[Josh Jones]

We tried. We met with them and told them what we could. But unfortunately, preparing somebody for this type of questioning from a pro se defendant, there wasn't a lot we could tell them because we had no idea what he was going to ask. We objected when his questioning was absolutely ridiculous. But to some extent, you have to allow that questioning to happen. And we could only tell them so much because we didn't know.

[Mike Boudet]

Before calling Tina's daughters to the witness stand, Bradley cross examined and questioned Tina's husband, Tim Schmidt.

[Laura Keck]

Mr. Schmidt, I apologize for having to be here today. However, that is not under my control. I understand this is a difficult time for you and your family. I'm sure you prefer not to be here. Objection, your honor, he needs to ask a question. All right. Mr. If you could ask your question of this witness. You walked inside, your wife CL Was sitting on the floor, correct? Yes. And as stated, that was in front of the chair? Yes. And she was sitting on the quilt as you said? Yes. Do you remember what your wife was wearing, by any chance? No, I don't. She was wearing some type of. She had some clothing on, but I don't remember exactly what she had on, though. Pants, shirt, bra? I I, I, I'm not sure exactly what she had on. You don't remember her having bottom one? Objection, your honor.

[Rob Revelli]

Aston answered. The witnesses said he doesn't remember.

[Laura Keck]

Well, we've gone at it three different ways, Mr. Yan, so I'm going to sustain the objection. The witnesses testifies he does not recall what she had on.

[Mike Boudet]

In questioning tim Schmidt. Bradley tried to imply that Tim had lied on the witness stand and that Tim. Tina had lied to Tim about being assaulted and raped. Naturally, the prosecution objected whenever they could.

[Laura Keck]

Would it be safe to say that.

[Rob Revelli]

Objection, your honor.

[Laura Keck]

Vague. Sustained. Are you completely organized in the placement of items in your home?

[Rob Revelli]

Objection, your honor. Vague.

[Laura Keck]

Sustained. Would that be a normal representation of daily life?

[Rob Revelli]

Objection, Your Honor. Vague.

[Laura Keck]

Mr. Smith, would this be a correct. Would I be correct in assuming that that is natural there on that ottoman table?

[Rob Revelli]

Objection. Leading.

[Laura Keck]

Is that natural?

[Rob Revelli]

Objection. Leading.

[Laura Keck]

You could rephrase the question. I'll sustain the objection. And in reference to number 10, Mr. Smith, is it normal for your home to appear like this daily?

[Rob Revelli]

Objection, your honor. Vague and relevant.

[Laura Keck]

Irrelevant. The objection. We keep asking the same questioning it as vague.

[Mike Boudet]

In a remarkable display of strength and self control, Tim schmidt maintained his composure as the man who raped his wife asked him to recount the events of that horrible night.

[Laura Keck]

In your earlier testimony, you stated that your wife related to you that the metal in the car before arriving to the home, reached over was touching or fondling her, and then proceeded to put his penis in her mouth, right? Yes. And that male suspect stated, if your husband's there, I'm gonna kill you both, Correct? Yes. She said that. If you would. Would you relay once more the turn of events as you entered the home, what procedure you took, how you went about the situation? I walked into the house, I saw my wife sitting on the floor in tears, and she told me they raped me. CL your wife said that she had been robbed, sexually assaulted and hijacked. She told me she had been raped. Mr. Smith, is it possible that be false information?

[Rob Revelli]

Objection, your honor.

[Laura Keck]

Your honor, There is a 911 call that shows. Objection, your honor, the objection's been sustained.

[Mike Boudet]

Again, Bradley's shameless questions were meant to suggest that Tim and his now deceased wife were liars. These questions were absurd, grotesque and pointless. All they did was re victimize both Tim and Tina.

[Laura Keck]

This occurs, if I may allege, criminal acts, something you'll never forget. No, I will never forget it. And you're not sure about your testimony?

[Rob Revelli]

Objection, your honor.

[Laura Keck]

Sustained. You've also stated previously early on in your testimony that your wife related to you that she was throwing downstairs. Yes. Moments ago you just said she was only raped. I will strike the comment by Mr. Young.

[Mike Boudet]

Eventually, after asking a series of nauseating and shameless questions, Bradley finished with Tim Schmidt. This allowed the prosecution to follow up.

[Rob Revelli]

Mr. Schmidt, on November 9, 2021, around 6:00pm you came home from work.

[Josh Jones]

Yes.

[Rob Revelli]

When you came home, you entered in through your garage and you noticed a broken door that had been kicked in?

[Laura Keck]

Yes.

[Rob Revelli]

And you came into your living room?

[Laura Keck]

Yes.

[Josh Jones]

Yes.

[Rob Revelli]

And you saw your 77 year old wife on. On the floor?

[Josh Jones]

Yes.

[Rob Revelli]

The person you had been with for 38 years on the floor?

[Laura Keck]

Yes. Bleeding? Yes.

[Rob Revelli]

From her body. And she told you they just raped me?

[Laura Keck]

Yes.

[Rob Revelli]

That point. You were really concerned about looking for bruising on her body, were you?

[Laura Keck]

I was not concerned about bruising or clothing or anything. I was concerned about my wife.

[Rob Revelli]

You wanted to get her help?

[Josh Jones]

I wanted to get her help.

[Rob Revelli]

And you called 91 1? I called 91 1.

[Mike Boudet]

Bradley didn't get anywhere with questioning Tim again. His questions were pointless and unlikely to convince anyone on the jury that Bradley was innocent. But Bradley didn't stop there. He continued his re victimization of Tina's family. And he called both Tina's daughters to the witness stand. And the questions he asked them were just as disgusting. On the third day of Bradley yawn's trial, Bradley began calling witnesses to the witness stand. He questioned the police officers, detectives and forensic experts who investigated his case, as well as the doctors who treated Tina Loman. None of this went well for Bradley. His questions mostly just bolstered the state's case against him. Bradley also called Tina's husband to the witness stand. And in a disgusting display, Bradley had Tim Schmidt recount the night that he found Tina after she'd been raped. Then Bradley went on to call Tim and Tina liars. But Bradley didn't stop there. Also on his witness list were Tina's two daughters, Ilsa and Heidi.

[Laura Keck]

And one of the things that both of the sisters talked about was how unnerved they were. And their number one concern was, I don't want to say anything that's going to caused him, Josh Jones, and Laura Keck to lose this trial. They were so worried about what they were going to say.

[Josh Jones]

Yeah, that's understandable.

[Laura Keck]

You know, that was because it just.

[Josh Jones]

Takes one little thing to create any doubt. Any.

[Mike Boudet]

Yeah, any doubt. Ilsa and Heidi knew this day was coming, and they knew that being questioned by Bradley Yawn wasn't going to be easy. Just imagine what would be going through your mind if you knew that you were about to be questioned in court by the man that raped and essentially murdered your mom. And while that happens, you have to maintain civility and composure. Just think about how hard that would be.

[Rob Revelli]

Well, I think one of the things that we told them was that the only way we were worried about losing this trial, it's not necessarily true, but the only way we. We would tell them that we were worried about losing the trial was if they lost it on Bradley Yon, if they said or did something that made the jury feel sorry for Bradley, on if they yelled at him, if they jumped over the witness table to get to him or anything like that, that was the only way we thought we would lose this trial. So we told them that and we said, look, you know, it's going to be hard. You're going to have to sit there. But the only person who's allowed to be mad in the courtroom is. It's not Ms. Keck, it's me. And that's something we tell witnesses all the time, that the only person who's allowed to pretend to get angry or to yell is Josh. Everybody else has to stay calm and low key, and you just have to answer the questions, even if it's killing.

[Mike Boudet]

You inside before facing Bradley's questions. Josh, Tina's daughter Ilsa didn't know what to expect or how to prepare for any of this.

[Josh Jones]

I don't believe that you could prepare for him. I mean, that's how you never knew which direction he was going. So I just prayed and hoped for the best that I could do my best for my mom. I just kept thinking of my mom's strength when she hadn't survived their horrible attack and that she was going to move on. And I just kept thinking of her strength, and I had to do it for my mom.

[Mike Boudet]

With her mom's strength in mind, Elsa took the witness stand and began answering Bradley's questions.

[Laura Keck]

Ms. Terrill, apologize for you being called today.

[Rob Revelli]

Your Honor, if we can get to the questions. He's apologized to every witness so far today about calling them it's his choice to call them. Let's just get to the questions.

[Laura Keck]

It definitely is. Start with the questions. Whitman. Ms. Terrell, you were present on 11, 9 and 21, correct?

[Josh Jones]

Yes.

[Laura Keck]

And when you entered the home, where was your mother?

[Josh Jones]

On the couch.

[Laura Keck]

And how was she seated on that couch? To the best of recollections?

[Josh Jones]

I don't remember.

[Laura Keck]

Are you aware of an interview being done the next day?

[Josh Jones]

Yes.

[Laura Keck]

And that interview was done with your mother, correct?

[Josh Jones]

Yes.

[Laura Keck]

Mr. Rill, I want to ask you, how did your mother appear that day during that interview?

[Josh Jones]

In shock and wanted the nightmare to be over.

[Laura Keck]

Was she laughing and giggling during this interview?

[Josh Jones]

At times over things that had to do with family and things. Because that's how she dealt with her trauma.

[Laura Keck]

So you, you state that she was laughing in reference to thinking of her.

[Josh Jones]

Children and happy times with her children.

[Laura Keck]

And happy times, and you're positive she wasn't laughing about scenarios claimed and placed forth in this occurrence of hijacking, home invasion, kidnapping?

[Rob Revelli]

Got to object her on her vague. I don't know that anybody understands that question.

[Laura Keck]

In reference to her testimony in that interview.

[Rob Revelli]

Objection, your honor. It wasn't testimony in the interview.

[Laura Keck]

Sustained.

[Mike Boudet]

During this questioning, Bradley tried to make the point that Tina's behavior after the attack wasn't consistent with the attack itself. The argument was that nobody, much less a 77 year old great grandmother, could endure such brutality and then be laughing and giggling the next day. To their credit, prosecutors did an excellent job of countering this argument.

[Rob Revelli]

In your course of being investigator, have you had the opportunity to talk to multiple victims of sexual assault, sexual trauma?

[Josh Jones]

I have. I've investigated a lot of sex crimes.

[Rob Revelli]

In speaking with those multiple individuals, would it be fair to say that each individual has a different response to the trauma that they suffer as a victim to a crime?

[Josh Jones]

Yes. There is no normal response for a victim. Everybody is different.

[Rob Revelli]

Have you seen victims shut down and refuse to talk?

[Josh Jones]

Yes.

[Rob Revelli]

Have you seen victims of sexual trauma and sexual violence cry uncontrollable?

[Josh Jones]

Yes.

[Rob Revelli]

Uncontrollably?

[Josh Jones]

Yes.

[Rob Revelli]

Have you seen victims of sexual trauma and violence laugh about the situation or other incidents during the course of the interview?

[Josh Jones]

Yes.

[Rob Revelli]

Everybody's response to trauma is different?

[Josh Jones]

That's correct. There is a lot of different factors that go into that. A lot of shame, guilt and shock.

[Mike Boudet]

Bradley's questioning of Ilsa continued. And just like he'd done before with Tim Schmidt, Bradley claimed that Ilsa and her mom were liars.

[Laura Keck]

Do you believe your mother? Based on your opinion, do you believe your mother was Telling the full truth? I withdraw my objection. You may.

[Josh Jones]

Was my mother telling the full truth?

[Laura Keck]

Was your mother telling the truth? Yes, your honor, I'd like to introduce the witness statement.

[Rob Revelli]

Objection, your honor. Foundation.

[Laura Keck]

Lay a foundation. Your honor, the witness clearly has given falsified information.

[Rob Revelli]

Objection, your honor.

[Laura Keck]

Mr. Young, you need to lay the foundation for the state to do that. Introduce it as an exhibit.

[Rob Revelli]

You know, the family had already been traumatized by Bradley yon, and now the system was allowing him to traumatize them again. And, and I get that that's how the system works and that's how it has to be. But I think as a human being, we have to recognize the. The difficulty and really the unfairness of that. To have to sit there and look at a man who raped your 77 year old mother and have them ask you questions and basically call you a liar on the stand, which is what he did. There's something fundamentally unfair about that to the victim's family. It may be fair to the defendant. I won't argue that point, but it's absolutely unfair to the victim's family.

[Mike Boudet]

As a further insult to injury. After Bradley finished questioning Ilse, he refused to release her from her subpoena. This prevented her from attending the rest of the trial for me.

[Josh Jones]

After I had him ask me questions, I, of course thought I would be released. But then he asked me, he said he had more questions for me. So I again had to go back to the witness room. So I was irritated with that.

[Mike Boudet]

Next on the witness stand was Tina's other and oldest daughter, Heidi.

[Laura Keck]

Was it related to you that jewelry was violently ripped off of your mother? Again, I don't recall. It's been over a year and a half ago. And upon leaving, do you remember what a defendant allegedly did to your mother as related to you?

[Rob Revelli]

Objection, your honor. If it was as relayed to her.

[Laura Keck]

It would be hearsay. Do you remember. Do you remember what a defendant did?

[Rob Revelli]

What the defendant did? She wasn't there, your honor.

[Laura Keck]

Thanks. Sustained. Was it related to you that someone threw a diaper?

[Rob Revelli]

Objection, you, honor. Hearsay.

[Mike Boudet]

Your honor, just like with the police, experts and doctors, none of Bradley's questions elicited any response that helped his case. Again, there was no point to calling Tina's children to the witness stand. In fact, there was no point to any of this. It appeared that Bradley's only goal was to re. Victimize everyone.

[Laura Keck]

Do you recall going to the hospital? Yes. And you. You took your mother to the.

[Josh Jones]

Correct.

[Laura Keck]

Your mother, did she bleed a lot? Yes. And how much Was that? I couldn't guess, but it was a lot. Would you say it was a lot and it so much that it went through her clothing. True. Yes. And you stated in your statement that your mother went back to work the very next day. True, true. And that was after being violently and brutally assaulted in a sexual manner and physical manner. Correct. She was a survivor.

[Mike Boudet]

Unbelievably, both Ilsa and Heidi maintained their composure on the witness stand. They were absolute rock stars up there, and they never allowed Bradley to get the better of them. Tina's granddaughter Carly watched all of this play out.

[Josh Jones]

Oh, watching my aunt, my mom get questioned by them was so I can cuss you, right? Badass, man. They were so good on the sand. And I think. I think that's kind of what they did too. They channeled my grandma like she was so strong. And they also knew that we didn't want to mess this trial up. Right. We waited so long to get here, you know, and when all eyes are on you and you have to really watch what you say, I mean, they were focused. It's so cool to be surrounded by such strong women like my grandma and my aunt and my mom.

[Rob Revelli]

And I can't imagine what Tina's family had to go through. Not just the delays and the motions and delays and the motions, but then having to take the witness stand and answer questions from the person who violently, sexually assaulted their mother. The bravery that they showed in taking the witness stand and answering his questions, despite the manner in which he did it.

[Mike Boudet]

Taking the witness stand and facing off with Bradley was a battle, and it was a battle that Tina's husband and two daughters had seemingly won.

[Rob Revelli]

I can't appreciate really just how frustrating it must have been for them. It's frustrating for us, but. But here they are, having to come to court every time and. And listen to the lies and listen to the off the wall theories and to hear themselves called liars and. And to have, you know, conspiracy theories thrown out about them in open court by this man. And not just, you know, for one month. Not just for two months, but for almost two years. And they've been waiting for justice for those entire two years. It was incredibly frustrating for them, and understandably so. But again, what we kept telling them was, you know, we want to get this done fast, but more importantly than getting it done fast is getting it done right.

[Mike Boudet]

Up to this point, it appeared that prosecutors and Tina's family had done everything right. The case against Bradley was strong, and his defense was weak. The trial was winding down and justice for Tina Loman and her family seemed within grasp. But then something happened that nobody expected.

[Laura Keck]

As to my father, I will go ahead and put this on the record, you, Honor. My father and my sister tried to come up here for months to let them place forth their alibi, their story, their whatever. However, they'd been denied. That's one of the reasons I went pro se, is because I was not getting effective assistance of counsel out of anybody. And I have an alibi of where I was at at this time.

[Mike Boudet]

Bradley argued to the court that he should be allowed to call his father to the witness stand, and the court granted that request. Bradley was about to call an alibi witness who would testify that Bradley was somewhere else when Tina Loman was attacked. Next time on this doesn't happen to people like me.

[Rob Revelli]

The criminal justice system and trials are not what you see on tv. There's a reason why lawyers go to school for three years and pass the bar. And there's a reason why not everybody can be a trial attorney. People were fascinated.

[Laura Keck]

I can't believe he keeps getting away with all these things that he's saying.

[Rob Revelli]

At no point in his irrational closing argument did he come anywhere close to coherent thought. We were all dumber for having heard it.

[Laura Keck]

Are you aware that there was no objection, you, Honor? No, I will sustain the objection, Mr.

[Mike Boudet]

Objection. Your Honor, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. If you've gotten this far, you probably like the show by now, so go ahead and subscribe. Tell a friend, do anything you can to help us get the word out. We really appreciate that. And if you feel so inclined, you can find an ad free version of the show@sword and scale.com. thank you. And thanks to the family of Tina Loman. We'll see you next week.